No One Needs Religion to Live a Moral Life

[DaleCutler]

@Jordan

[Would you] be willing to adjust your moral sense to something outside of yourself?

This speaks to the the question, I think:

The Gay Anglo-Saxon Warrior

[Jordan (Jordan Mantha)]

I’m writing in between teaching classes so sorry that things are a bit scattered. These are good, tough questions.

@John_Dalton

TL;DR I know a quite a few nice atheists and lots of jerky Christians, but that doesn’t mean that Christians aren’t called to more Christ-like, and therefore moral, lives.

Moral according to the definitions of your religion, or moral in the general sense? I saw that you noted that atheists (and presumably theists of other stripes) can’t be included in your religious definition of morality, which I fully understand. But I’m a little confused where that dividing line begins and ends for you.

I guess I’m thinking of significant overlap between the two. Let’s take the 10 Commandments. Murder, adultery, theft, and false witness seem to be generally agreed upon throughout many times and cultures to be “immoral” (i.e. not good behavior or detrimental to society). But “no other gods before me”, keeping the Sabbath, and not making graven images would be very odd to an atheist/non-JudeoChristian. Not coveting and honoring your father and mother seem to be in somewhat of a grey area here where I’m not sure that they are have a universal “this is right” but they aren’t strictly religious either.

I guess what I’m saying is that when Christian morals (not even sure if that’s the right word) line up with our general human understanding of right and wrong, great! And that’s why I think atheists can live moral lives, in that sense. As a Christian though, I feel like we’re called to more, and sometimes a bit different, moral standards.

Hopefully that helps

@T_aquaticus

That would mean people who belong to other religions are immoral. In turn, they would think you were immoral for not belonging to their religion. It doesn’t make sense to me that morality depends on which religion you belong to. More to the point, it more than demonstrates the subjective nature of morality since morality is being determined by one’s subjective choice of religion.

In the sense of not living up to everything the Christian is called to be, yes. I’m not sure that means they are just completely immoral. Again, I know some non-Christians that act more like Christ than some Christians.

I don’t think I’d agree that morality is subjective, exactly. I think a whole lot of what we call “moral behavior” is pretty common sense and most people agree. That makes me think there might be something objective about it, regardless of whether I’m a Christian or not. But as a Christian I believe there are objective moral standards given by God, especially in the person of Jesus Christ, and at the very least for the Christian. I’m not exactly sure whether those same moral standards apply to non-Christians. In other words, are you expected to act like an ideal Christian whether you know anything about Christ or not?

@T_aquaticus

In my experience, you are judging Christ’s commandments using your own sense of morality and judging them to be moral. Atheists are using that same judgment, just without the religious tie-ins.

I don’t think it’s nearly that clear cut. Honestly, I have been a Christian my whole life, I don’t think I’m a good judge anymore of what’s my own sense of morality and what comes from being a Christian. My experience is that some things are just obvious (murder, lying, etc.) and other things are not obvious (do I really need to keep the Sabbath?). Some things are super tough (right now sexual ethics are a huge conversation in society and the church) and/or unclear. So it’s not just that I’m agreeing to the Bible morality because it aligns with my personal morality. It’s more that I’m using some of my universal (I think God-given) sense of morality to help make sure I’m interpreting the Bible correctly. I see that at play with genocide in the OT, for example. I am not comfortable with that, so I’ve tried to use that uncomfortableness as a data point in trying to figure out what it all means.

@T_aquaticus

What if God decides that murder is moral? What then? We don’t have to dig to far into the Old Testament to find instances where God ordered people to commit genocide, even asking people to kill children. Would that now be immoral, where it was moral before? Does God’s morality change through time? Do we say it isn’t murder if God orders it?

See my response above. This is a very difficult area. I have a very hard time imagining the God I see in Jesus actually ordering people to commit genocide. What that means about the OT I’m not exactly sure. Jesus, as God incarnate, is the “fullest” revelation of God to the Christian. Jesus says “love your enemy”, it seems hard to love them when they’re dead. But then I also believe there is real evil in the world and is it loving to not defend the vulnerable and innocent? There’s also OT language that sounds like genocide and then later on the Israelites are intermarrying with them to a significant extent, so how does that work? So yes, those are all worthwhile questions, that may not have obvious or easy answers for the Christian.

@T_aquaticus

In my experience, on average we are all equally flawed. We just happen to take different paths towards improving ourselves.

I don’t disagree, I think there is a lot of common ground there. I just suspect that one of those paths is better than others. I also think that the end goal is not necessarily just “improving ourselves”, not that you were implying as such. A major component to Christianity is service to others, which isn’t necessarily self-improvement, and worship, which is a responsive thing to do.

[Patrick]

Many Christians have been serial killers.

[Jordan (Jordan Mantha)]

I still expect them to not be.

[Patrick]

me too.

[T_aquaticus]

@Jordan

I don’t think I’d agree that morality is subjective, exactly. I think a whole lot of what we call “moral behavior” is pretty common sense and most people agree. That makes me think there might be something objective about it, regardless of whether I’m a Christian or not. But as a Christian I believe there are objective moral standards given by God, especially in the person of Jesus Christ, and at the very least for the Christian. I’m not exactly sure whether those same moral standards apply to non-Christians. In other words, are you expected to act like an ideal Christian whether you know anything about Christ or not?

That’s a great answer. I think we are all trying to figure out what morality is, and the best we can do is give honest and thoughtful answers.

@Jordan

I don’t think it’s nearly that clear cut. Honestly, I have been a Christian my whole life, I don’t think I’m a good judge anymore of what’s my own sense of morality and what comes from being a Christian. My experience is that some things are just obvious (murder, lying, etc.) and other things are not obvious (do I really need to keep the Sabbath?). Some things are super tough (right now sexual ethics are a huge conversation in society and the church) and/or unclear. So it’s not just that I’m agreeing to the Bible morality because it aligns with my personal morality. It’s more that I’m using some of my universal (I think God-given) sense of morality to help make sure I’m interpreting the Bible correctly. I see that at play with genocide in the OT, for example. I am not comfortable with that, so I’ve tried to use that uncomfortableness as a data point in trying to figure out what it all means.

The main point I usually try to get across is that morality and obedience are two different things. A dog or a robot can follow rules and commands. That doesn’t make them moral. Therefore, there has to be something to human morality other than following commands.

It’s not too surprising that an atheist like myself would question authority, but it does lead to some interesting questions. I often hear that God is moral, so following God’s commands will make you moral. But why assume God is moral? If God is immoral, could we know? I know that isn’t something you believe in, but it does flash through the mind of non-Christians.

@Jordan

I don’t disagree, I think there is a lot of common ground there. I just suspect that one of those paths is better than others.

I can’t argue with serious and honest self reflection. That’s the best we can do.

[DaleCutler]

Christianity is famous for its serial killers.

[Rumraket (Mikkel R.)]

@Jordan

Is there any sense where, assuming the hypothetical objective moral agent, you would potentially align your morality to some degree with the objective moral agent. I’m thinking something like, if you approached an issue where you didn’t have a clear moral stance before hand and you had a history of alignment with the objective moral agent (they seemed like a reliable source of moral authority), would you feel justified in aligning your moral sense to that of the objective moral agent?

In other words, would there ever be a time where, maybe because you are uncertain, you would be willing to adjust your moral sense to something outside of yourself?

I know this is super hypothetical and I’m not trying to trick/trap you, I’m just curious.

I understand, and that’s a really good question. I can certainly imagine trusting someone else’s judgement up to a certain point, but I suppose that is constrained by what comes next if I agree. And I’m generally not inclined to hand over my judgements to individuals.

If I can’t figure out myself what to do or think about some hypothetical moral dilemma, and then some person suggests that X is wrong, my next question is if I agree to that, what should we do about it? I can’t imagine I’m going to just go by someone else’s opinions if that person also says that doing X should carry the death penalty, or life in prison.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Jordan

I still expect them to not be.

I expect everyone - Christians and non-Christians alike - to not be a serial killer.

[Giltil (Gilbert Thill)]

What is this Euthyphro dilemma? Just curious…

[John_Harshman]

The reference is to Plato’s dialog Euthyphro. Does God command it because it’s right, or is it right because God commands it? See this.

[r_speir]

@John_Harshman

The reference is to Plato’s dialog Euthyphro . Does God command it because it’s right, or is it right because God commands it?

So I guess the real question is Who came first, God or Plato? Who created whom? And why should we care what Plato thinks anyway?

[John_Harshman]

@r_speir

And why should we care what Plato thinks anyway?

It’s not a matter of choosing sides. You need to confront Plato’s argument, regardless of its source. It’s not healthy to avoid anything that questions your premises; try to engage a little more with thought instead of shutting everything down automatically.

[T_aquaticus]

@r_speir

So I guess the real question is Who came first, God or Plato? Who created whom? And why should we care what Plato thinks anyway?

Why would order of appearance determine who is morally right? Why would creating someone make the creator moral? Those seem to be completely unrelated things. My parents created me and they came into existence before me, but I can still question their moral authority, and I don’t assume everything they do is moral.

[T_aquaticus]

@Rumraket

I understand, and that’s a really good question. I can certainly imagine trusting someone else’s judgement up to a certain point, but I suppose that is constrained by what comes next if I agree. And I’m generally not inclined to hand over my judgements to individuals.

Without playing he Godwin card, some of the worst atrocities in history have come about due to people ignoring their own moral sense and instead blindly following the edicts of another. We don’t allow people to shirk responsibility for their actions by simply saying, “I was following orders”. This means we know each person has an inner moral sense, and we expect them to adhere to it regardless of religious affiliation.

[Ashwin_s]

@Dan_Eastwood

@Ashwin - This stilted characterization is fairly insulting to atheists, and quite a few Christians too. Would you perhaps consider rephrasing that?

Apologies if you are bothered by the language
But if we look at things in purely materialistic terms rape/violence etc must have an evolutionary basis.

And there is no dearth of scientists proposing stories based on Darwinism to explain the origin of religion, patriarchy and other social phenomenon.
So why are you offended?

And sorry for the late reply…

[Ashwin_s]

@T_aquaticus

Objective morality is way overrated and dictatorial. Subjective moralities are much better since they are based on what humans want. If an objective morality went against everything humans believed was moral, would that objective morality be worth following? No.

Interesting take. Atleast you are honest enough to admit a materialistic perspective cannot give us an objective basis for morality.
The only problem with your statement seems to be that you seem to believe that human beings have a common standard of subjective morality. This is true in cases involving different cultures and even across time in the same culture.
Your moral standards is probably different from that of your grandmother’s.

[Roy (34-year veteran)]

@Ashwin_s

Apologies if you are bothered by the language
But if we look at things in purely materialistic terms rape/violence etc must have an evolutionary basis.

First, any apology with an “if” in it isn’t really an apology.

Second, the equivalent of your claim above is that in your worldview, rape and violence must have a religious basis.

[Ashwin_s]

@Roy

Second, the equivalent of your claim above is that in your worldview, rape and violence must have a religious basis.

What’s the logic of this claim?
Rape and violence does have spiritual and moral implications.