Does belief in God require belief in morality?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Does belief in God require belief in morality? » Does belief in God require belief in morality?

Does belief in God require belief in morality?

Page: 1 2

Does belief in God require belief in morality?

kNoctis
Threading

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2005
Total Topics: 61
Total Posts: 500

Posted 01/09/05 - 10:13 PM:	#1
I've been wondering about this lately. Is it necessary to belief in the existence of objective morality if one were to believe in the christian creator-God? What about any creator-God at all? Furthermore, if belief in a creator-God does not require a belief in objective morality, can this still be classified as a religous belief? By objective morality I mean objective moral guidelines, irregardless of culture, perspective, etc... It seems to me that a belief in a Christian creator-God requires belief in objective morality. The parameters of this objective morality can either be determine by God's fiat, or independant of it. The Christian God commands us to accept good and evil on the basis of the sacrifice of Christ. My problem is that it is easier for me to accept the existence of a creator-God than it is to accept the existence of absolute objective morality. But, it seems worldviews require two necessary beliefs in order for them to be classified as religous - the supernatural, or divine, or sacred and morality. Belief in a creator-God without a belief in any objective morality seems superflous. For if there was no moral obligation to do what that God says, why should we? We may accept that God exists simply on the basis that it is a true statement, but that's about it. In the case where morality and God exists, it seems like one would believe in God because it is true AND because it is moral. But without morality, belief is only necessary because it is true. On another topic with similar implications, is there a moral obligation to believe in what we regard as the truth? Is there only some sort of ethical requirement? If neither, what obligation would there be to believe in God at all, even if he does exist? Anyone have any thoughts on this?

Scubado
SKeptiC

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 17, 2004
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 79

Posted 01/09/05 - 11:32 PM:	#2
Dru DP wrote: Is it necessary to belief in the existence of objective morality if one were to believe in the christian creator-God? For if there was no moral obligation to do what that God says, why should we? We may accept that God exists simply on the basis that it is a true statement, but that's about it. In the case where morality and God exists, it seems like one would believe in God because it is true AND because it is moral. But without morality, belief is only necessary because it is true. I think it is quite possible that God could exist merely as a truth. It is not necessary for truth to have a code of ethics, for it to have moral value. A true statment is merely that, true; it does not desire anything or need anything. A belief in the Christian God, I believe, is a belief that there is truth and that it is possible and good for you to attain it. So, how does on attain truth? Objective morality. But this is merely the Christian God (most gods perhaps). I think the mere fact that one could say "I believe in a God with no moral code" is grounds to admit that it is possible for such a thing to exist. If God is truth yet unconceivable then how can we assert that this is not possible? A creator-God by definition certainly does not have a moral code. It must simply be that which created the world, truth. Actually, is that what a creator-God is? Just that which created the world. Must a creator-God be perfect? What is perfection outside of our reality?

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 5417

Posted 01/10/05 - 09:53 AM:	#3
The implication of a creator-god is that he knows enough to plan for the times when his creation will begin to self-destruct, whether that be due to entropy or the ignorance of his creation. If the survival of the creation is important to him, he will institute a program to prevent self-destruction. Part of this program might be to teach his faithful a moral code that would protect them.
Leave no assumption unquestioned.

Scubado
SKeptiC

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 17, 2004
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 79

Posted 01/10/05 - 10:14 AM:	#4
rabeldin wrote: The implication of a creator-god is that he knows enough to plan for the times when his creation will begin to self-destruct, whether that be due to entropy or the ignorance of his creation. If the survival of the creation is important to him, he will institute a program to prevent self-destruction. Part of this program might be to teach his faithful a moral code that would protect them. Is this necessary for a creator-God? (that he plans for the survival of his creation by knowing its outcome)

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 34
Total Posts: 4325

Posted 01/10/05 - 10:23 AM:	#5
Dru DP wrote: Anyone have any thoughts on this? Not all religions have based their morality on divine commands... Buddhism, for example, pays no attention to what the Gods say. Nevertheless, all cultures have some sort of morality, and that morality is authoritative within each culture. In another example, Nordic myth is characterized by the fact that the Gods lose; that the giants triumph in Ragnarök (the end of the world). The world ends in the victory of evil. And yet, goodness remains good; the heroes align with the Gods, not with the giants, because the Gods are good, even if defeat is guaranteed, and goodness is worth more than triumph. In other words, to believe that goodness both exists and is good (watch out for the apparent circularity here ) is intrinsic to all cultures, regardless of their religion, of whether good is rewarded, and of whether goodness is tied to Gods. The sense of the numinous is not necessarily linked to the sense of the moral. But both senses are present in all cultures, and many (perhaps most) link the two. As for the question about truth, "is it moral to deny truth?", it is important to note that the moral sense is very much linked to personal honesty. Lies are frowned upon, particularly in cultures which advance in the establishment of laws. Personal honesty towards others apparently entails personal honesty towards oneself. When Hinduism (for example) condemns the world of senses as "Maya" (Illusion), he is in fact saying that it is "false". No moral code favors falsehood because it is false. At best, it favors falsehood because it is pleasurable (cf. Epicureanism), and it assumes that it is true that pleasure is more important than truth. That is, at the root of any moral code is a proposition (or a series of propositions) which is deemed to be true. Morality is inextricably linked to truth, therefore.
"In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

rabeldin
Probabalistic Philosopher

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 06, 2003
Location: Puerto Rico
Total Topics: 29
Total Posts: 5417

Posted 01/10/05 - 01:51 PM:	#6
Mariner wrote: ... No moral code favors falsehood because it is false. At best, it favors falsehood because it is pleasurable (cf. Epicureanism), and it assumes that it is true that pleasure is more important than truth. That is, at the root of any moral code is a proposition (or a series of propositions) which is deemed to be true. Morality is inextricably linked to truth, therefore. A moral code could favor falsehood because the truth is too complex for human minds. Perhaps comprehensability is more important than truth.
Leave no assumption unquestioned.

Mariner
Longing

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Jan 12, 2004
Location: Brazil
Total Topics: 34
Total Posts: 4325

Posted 01/10/05 - 02:50 PM:	#7
It would still have to hold that "the truth is too complex for human minds" is a true proposition. A moral code can't disregard truth without undermining itself. (Though it can give higher values to other things than truth... perhaps. I'm not sure. It seems that any attempt would always have to hold that the basic proposition is true, and that any value stemming from it would flow from the truth -- and not from any other trait -- of that proposition).
"In faith there is enough light for those who want to believe and enough shadows to blind those who don't." -- Blaise Pascal "The more I am by myself and alone, the more I have come to love myths" -- Aristotle in his later years

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 1951

Posted 01/21/05 - 06:17 PM:	#8
Many of the most amoral people in history have held very strong religious beliefs. While religion may hold some morality, it seems morality is not beholden to religion. Religion allowed the slaughter and enslavement of millions in the name of salvation. Those doing the enslaving and killing receiving the blessings of the church. If anything, religion relieves one from morality with the church taking on the question of ones morality and justifying whatever one does as long as one is loyal and repentant. Religion is the great encourager of amoral behavior.

kNoctis
Threading

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2005
Total Topics: 61
Total Posts: 500

Posted 01/22/05 - 12:12 AM:	#9
unrealist42 wrote: Many of the most amoral people in history have held very strong religious beliefs. While religion may hold some morality, it seems morality is not beholden to religion. Religion allowed the slaughter and enslavement of millions in the name of salvation. Those doing the enslaving and killing receiving the blessings of the church. If anything, religion relieves one from morality with the church taking on the question of ones morality and justifying whatever one does as long as one is loyal and repentant. Religion is the great encourager of amoral behavior. I don't think this really addresses my question though. There is no doubt that religion has influenced people to commit behavior which is considered immoral. But the people commiting the acts believed they were morally right, hence they still believed in some sort of morality. My question is, can a religion be a religion without advocating the existence of objective morality? Is some kind of objective morality a necessary feature of a religious belief? My original post at the beginning of this thread didn't express my question as I wanted it to.

nosos
skeptical

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Jul 24, 2004
Location: Coventry, UK
Total Topics: 145
Total Posts: 2290

Posted 01/22/05 - 08:07 AM:	#10
If you believe in God, with all that entails, how could that not be the source of morality?
"The men of the future will yet fight their way to many a liberty that we do not even miss? - Max Stirner "The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - JS Mill "I'd rather be a crying little pussy than a faggy Goth kid." - Butters

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.