Typically many religious people claim that ethics and morality relies on what God rules them to be and fail to see that morality can still be just as significant to a person that doesn't believe in God. Theists, followers of God presume religion to be a substantial reason for our moral conduct. Nonbelievers such as atheists are still capable of understanding the difference between what is right and wrong without religion. John, believes that if there wasn't a higher power to give us the set rules and reasons of how to behave then anything we do would be measured equally. Whereas Andrea, who is against this theory points out that God is not the key for having moral values. Her argument seems to be more convincing because an atheist can still to do the right thing based on their own interest if it has a rational explanation for moral values. The only difference is that non-believers don't have a supreme ruler to measure the intensity of how moral their actions are. Doing the right or wrong thing should be justified on a level of whether or not your actions hurt or harm someone in any w...
In Truth Matters, Köstenberger asks “If there’s no God, if there’s no Word, no truth, then what makes someone who busts out your windshield any more wrong than if they wash your car or buy you a tank of gas?” (Köstenberger 22) In God’s Not Dead, Wheaton also brings up this argument by stating that morality leads directly back to God. If God did not exist, then human by nature would not be able to tell the difference between right or wrong, unless that ability was given to them by an intelligent designer. Nonetheless, in both cases, the existence of morality is used as an argument to prove the existence of
Religion motivates people to not stray from the path of virtue, but in return, their fear of God keeps those who believe from deviating from the morals set in place by the bible. This can be problematic. You see, people following God’s rules would not be doing so for the right reasons, instead they do it because they fear God’s wrath. This person would be unreliable in terms of morality, and would probably stray from God’s morals if they believed God would not offer a reward for their ‘good’ behavior.
Morality has a strong connection with religion. The connection is so strong that most panels on ethics contain Ministers of God. This scenario therefore creates a natural question, “Does morality depend solely on religion?” The first point to understand in this scenario is the fact that God and religion are not the same. For instance, Christianity and Christ are not the same. The existence of God is independent of us just as the planets of Jupiter and Saturn are independent of human existence. The independence of God from us makes him prone to human weaknesses. For instance, Christians proclaim that their God is god but it is obvious to state that the religion - Christianity in itself has not been good as expected. For instance, when one sees
Morality and ethics have always been a large source of debate and contention between different factions of various interests, beliefs, and ideals due to its centrality and foundational role in society and civilization and incredible importance to everyday life and decision making. In many of these disputes religious belief, or a lack thereof, serves as an important driving force behind one or both sides of the argument. In the modern world, one of the bigger instances of this can be seen in the many debates between Atheistic and religious individuals about the implications of religious belief on morality. One of the most famous Atheists, Christopher Hitchens, asserts that religion is not only unnecessary for morality, but actually impedes it. In his work God is Not Great: Why Religion Poisons Everything, Christopher Hitchens challenges religious believers to “name an ethical statement or action, made or performed by a person of faith that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer”, and proudly states afterwards that many have made the attempt but no one has given him a satisfactory answer. However, the best response to this challenge is to point out the inherent flaws in his logic, the unfairness of his challenge, and the fact that Hitchens is asking the wrong question in the first place.
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.
The atheist might also interject that moral codes and values are created by societies to prevent strife and discordance. This argument and question is logically incoherent, for atheists have no basis upon which value judgments can be made. The atheist believes that rape is no worse than stealing a candy bar, for they believe that actions aren 't beholden to any mode of intrinsic objectivity, but are rather different, not good or bad. The next point I would make is as follows, why would an atheist characterize modern society as being morally superior to an ancient Hebrew society? The atheist cannot answer this question, for they have no basis upon which value judgments can be made, which would therefore justify the existence of objective moral
In an organized religion debate, Alan Dershowitz and Alan Keyes contended many issues on religion and morality. Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor, believed that "morality can be maintained without religion." He also stated that it must be maintained without religion because times have changed. He said that if religion is not separated from state it could have severe damage, such as the Crusades and the Holocaust. Dershowitz believes that there is a difference between morality and religion. When people are moral without religion, they are being virtuous on their own, not because they are afraid of God. He stated that religion should not consist of a Cost-Benefit Analysis. Alan Keyes, a former Republican presidential candidate, stated that religion sets the standard for what's moral. Keyes argued "power only ultimately respects another power," and Martin Luther King Jr. was not a preacher by accident. Dershowitz also stated that not everything in the Bible should be believed word-for-word, even George Washington said "indulge religion with caution." Keyes believed that if state and religion should be separated, then why does the Declaration of Independence contain so much about religion? Alan Dershowitz and Alan Keyes would have argued endlessly about religion's role in society if there were not a moderator to stop them.
Meynell's strategy in his chapter on the relevance of theism, he begins by arguing that belief in God does have specifically moral effects upon those who have. It enables us to act upon our beliefs about what it is right for us to do, and enables us to correct our pressing and depressing tendencies toward self-deception and self-interest. And he then argues that philosophical challenges to this view of the relations between theism and right action fail. The principal challenge he has in mind is the claim that Socrates' question in the Euthyphro-whether the gods love what is good because it is good, or whether what they love is good merely because they love it- cannot be answered. The main point of the chapter is not that theists are better people than atheists. It is concluded that theists do not agree to abandon their belief that theism is relevant to moral beliefs and actions.
God (it does not matter whether it exists in different forms or in different numbers because the basic concept of existence is same), is a source of moral strength, but it would seem ignorant to claim that those who do not have faith in God do not often live moral lives. There are, of course many atheists (believers of non-existence of God) who do not refute the principles of morality and are ethical because they realize their importance (either by having credence on any of the other ethical systems such as Kantian ethics, Social Contract theory and Utilitarianism). With the advent of modern liberalism, people have become rational (or at least they believe so). Although they condemn the acts of murder, child abuse, rape and ethnic cleansing but this does not make them more ethical than a believer of God because realization of good or bad is already progr...
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.
Religions have always played a vital role between humans and its society especially in terms of what is good and proper in the society. In modern world, people have become increasingly dissociated from religion and spirituality.
Does morality depend on religion? Why? Might morality not depend on religion? Why not? Is it desirable for our moral rules and principles to depend on religion? Is it necessary? I believe that morality can depend on religion, but I also think that it does not have to depend on religion. I believe that people do not usually look at what is morally right or wrong on a daily basis. The people that do, it is rare. It all comes down to how a person was raised, taught, and their surroundings they grew up with or the people they grew up with. I do think that it is desirable to some people that grew up in a religious household for them to think that morality depends on religion. I do not, however, think that religion is necessary for morality. I think that
The relationship between religion and ethics can be chronicled as how religion relates to the use of experience and critical reasoning to study morality. Many of those who practice religion believe that there is no need to understand why their religion believes in particular morals because all they need to know is what God says is morally correct. It doesn’t matter to them the reasoning behind why certain things are morally good, while other things are bad. This rejection of critical reasoning, however may prevent those who feel this way from truly understanding all the particulars of their own religion.
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.