Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The connection between Religion and Morality
Religion and morality
Importance of doing good work
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The connection between Religion and Morality
Giving to the homeless, assisting an elderly woman across the street, and conducting oneself with integrity are all examples of moral acts. Often we consider doing nice things for our family and friends, or going out of our way to help someone in need a “Good Samaritan” act. However, benevolence and moral adherence are only a few of the qualifications necessary for a belief in God and good morality. A moral is defined as, “pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical” (Dictionary.com). “Objective morality” is our society’s way of signifying that some behaviors are right (honesty, kindness, patience) and some behaviors are wrong (stealing, racism, abuse). We are told by our parents, from atheists, and in holiday songs to be “good for goodness sake,” but is that the only reason we have to be good? Many people were taught, and expected, from a young age to uphold integrity and morality because it is right. Most religious people disagree with morality deprived of God and believe that a person can only be good with God, but it is indeed possible for people to be good without the knowledge of God. I contend that humans can be lacking religion and still know the concept of right or wrong, and that morality can exist independent from God.
Over time, this concept that morality cannot be separate from God has encountered perpetual doubt from several atheists. The Bible tells us in Luke 18:19 that, “No one is good – except God alone” (Bible). From this, a believer might argue that we are incapable of being good, but by God’s grace and mercy we can be better. Atheists who speak in terms of good and evil have manipulated religious dialogue in their favor; they ha...
... middle of paper ...
...ctive freedoms and choices (Young). We are fighting a fight that we are funding and, when we undress the luxury of all the good in our world, we are looking at the motive behind the goodness. There is a notion that morality requires a spiritual vision and the idea of purity is nothing more than an illusion, but without a spiritual vision we just care for our body before caring for the soul within our body. The insight of spirituality is more than likely deficient in those who have trouble recognizing the true black and white of morality (Young), but the ability to decipher and live by ethical principles is still very tangible. To an extent, it is in our nature to be good, but beyond that it is defined by our believer values. Ultimately, we have acknowledged, and over time developed, a standard of right and wrong that is self-governing and independent of God’s will.
Contrary to popular belief, there is not so much a “war on Christianity” as there is a war on the first amendment by the religious and atheists. However, if we are to have this discussion properly, we must assert which is better for moral and ethical teaching. Paul Kurtz in his article, Atheism Teaches Morality and Ethics, argues from the view that—though it is quite obvious from the title—atheism is the best source for these teachings; Stephen J. Pope argues from the opposite view in his article, Only Religion Can Teach Morality and Ethics. Although I do not believe either writer quite gets it right, these two present quality perspectives from both sides of the aisle.
The humanistic perspective on personality deals exclusively with human behavior. Humanistic psychologists believe that human nature includes a natural drive towards personal growth, that humans have the freedom to choose what they do regardless of environmental factors, and humans are mostly conscious beings and are not controlled by unconscious needs and conflicts. They also believe that a person's subjective view of the world is more important than objective reality. Two of the humanistic theorists that have made an impact of humanism are Carl Rogers and Abraham Maslow.
Motive theory is one more way psychologists evaluate personality. The motive theory searches for reasons why people do what they do. It asks questions like what drives people. The underlying idea of the motive theory is that behavior reflects underlying needs. A need represents an unsatisfactory state of being. For instance, primary needs are biological, such as a need for air, water and food. After these basic needs are met, less important needs can be met such as friendship and even love. David McCelland and John Atkinson studied the need for achievement. The need for achievement is the desire to do things well and have pleasure in overcoming obstacles (Clark et al., 1956). The need for achievement varies depending on sex, and childhood
Dating all the way back to ancient Greece, Plato raised a challenge by merely asking, “Is it right because God commands it, or does God command it because it’s right?” Nowadays, this simple yet complex question poses a problem to modern day Christians. When understanding this question, you are forced to believe you only have one of two choices to accept. Those being either it is right because God commands it or God commands it because it is right. If it is right because God commands it then anything, specifically evil, could be right. On the other hand, if God commands it because it is right then the standard of goodness is no longer. Both options are hostile to Christianity. However, after further investigation, there is a third option: God’s very nature is the standard of goodness. By closely examining Plato’s Euthyphro Dilemma, it’s clear that a theist should undoubtedly accept the third option, being that of God’s nature is the standard of goodness.
“Is man merely a mistake of God’s? Or God merely a mistake of man?” These words spoken by Friedrich Nietzsche, the late 19th-century German philosopher who challenged the foundations of Christianity and traditional beliefs of morality, are central to the ages-old discussion; are atheists less moral than theists? While theists place their faith into the hands of an almighty being, atheists place their faith into their own hands. Contrary to popular belief, atheists are not devil-worshipping thugs who corrupt our cities, but are ordinary people, just like you, with many of the same morals and values.
“Death to God, all hail reason!”, cries out the secular world, fervent for nothing but themselves. The new age of skepticism has come, ushered in by God-hating men and dictators bound to satan; and its zealots follow in the footsteps of the rest of the world. They lay down cheerfully in valleys of dry bones and their banner stands, waving through air that is choked by the smoke that rises from their fathers burning in Hell, its motto, “Love and Tolerance.” Words bought by the blood of anyone who dissented. This is the fruit of the religion of Atheism.
The problem of reconciling an omnipotent, perfectly just, perfectly benevolent god with a world full of evil and suffering has plagued believers since the beginning of religious thought. Atheists often site this paradox in order to demonstrate that such a god cannot exist and, therefore, that theism is an invalid position. Theodicy is a branch of philosophy that seeks to defend religion by reconciling the supposed existence of an omnipotent, perfectly just God with the presence of evil and suffering in the world. In fact, the word “theodicy” consists of the Greek words “theos,” or God, and “dike,” or justice (Knox 1981, 1). Thus, theodicy seeks to find a sense of divine justice in a world filled with suffering.
Generally, people hold one of two views about morality; they either believe in the Postmodern view or the Christian view. The Postmodern view of morality states that morals come from a person’s external environment. This view is incorrect. As C. S. Lewis explains in his book Mere Christianity, every individual is born with an innate sense of right and wrong. Some, however, argue that morality is taught at a young age or that it is just instinct. The universal sense of moral law proves that morality is not these things.
Peterson, Michael. “Toward a Theodicy for Our Day.” Evil and the Christian God. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1982.
He adds that it would be more practical for men to seek comfort and strength from friends and ‘men of good will,’ who are able to give it, as opposed to from religious belief (McCloskey, 1968). However, concepts such as morality exist because of God, and not in spite of Him (Craig, 2008). Without God, murder would be no different from childbirth, just as a human being’s life would not be distinct from that of a dog. Murder and childbirth, held on the same plane, would be a hardly comforting scenario. Although different cultures have widely varied perspectives regarding morality, not all persons or communities have accepted God’s revelation.
We can only achieve good will and thus morality by isolating our motives and desires and acting out of the sake of duty. To aid...
In God and Objective morality: A debate, Craig interprets the objective morality and states that the existence of God is the only foundation of objective morality. My purpose of this paper is to argue against Craig’s argument. My thesis is objective morality does exist in society to both theists and atheist, and the foundation of the moral value to individuals does not have to be God. For an atheist, God is also an abstract and not reliable foundation. Social harmony is the general foundation of moral value in modern society, and it is objective without the existence of God. In §1, I present the Craig’s argument and explain the motivation of each premise. §2, I present my critique and show that Craig’s argument fails. In §3, I defend against possible rebuttal.
Human nature, being created by God, is in itself good for “God has made all things exceedingly good” (VII, 18). The goodness in human nature is evident in the morals and beliefs of human beings. Despite the difference in culture, man has set for one another a standard of moral expectations. C. S. Lewis in Mere Chr...
Less than one hundred years ago, several million innocent Europeans lost their lives in gas chambers and by other – and usually more violent – means. In Africa, genocide continues to plague the continent. Every single day, parents use violence against their innocent children. These and countless other heinous acts have plagued Earth since the very beginning of human existence. The horrors of the world cause people to question the existence of any sort of God. One religious skeptic may ask, “How can evil exist if there is a God?” It seems doubtless that an ultimate good – such as God – can exist in an atmosphere filled with murder, abuse, violence, and rage. Evil, however, is the consequence of the freedom that God granted man. The horrors that occur around us occur because God allows us to make our own choices.
When considering morality, worthy to note first is that similar to Christian ethics, morality also embodies a specifically Christian distinction. Studying a master theologian such as St. Thomas Aquinas and gathering modern perspectives from James Keenan, S. J. and David Cloutier serve to build a foundation of the high goal of Christian morality. Morality is a primary goal of the faith community, because it is the vehicle for reaching human fulfillment and happiness. Therefore, great value can be placed on foundations of Christian morality such as the breakdown of law from Aquinas, the cultivation of virtues, the role of conscience in achieving morality, and the subject of sin described by Keenan.