“If God does not exist, everything is permitted.” by Fyodor Dostoyevsky is a popular phrase used by theists, theologians and conservatives when questioned about the connection between faith in God and morality. In other words it is claimed that without the belief in a supreme supernatural figure who maintains law and order in the whole of cosmos, a man cannot regulate himself as a socially and morally acceptable individual. This in fact presents a major logical fallacy since it is based on a belief of reward and punishment in the after-life, which doesn’t always imply in the case of theist, who according to research in the area of social psychology has shown having innate human desire of social acceptance and a sense of control, which can only be acquired by establishing a co-relation between supreme authority and morality. Morality can therefore be argued as a separate entity, built on what society see as lawful and just and free from religious obligations.
We as humans have a tendency to belief in an authority figure. Someone who has control and can provide us with laws or simply rules of living. We are so accustomed to having lawmakers and enforcers, that the conception of having none has a ring of chaos to it. The thought of having none simply depolarizes our compass and brings the feeling of chaos and confusion. Therefore our brain resort to making connection between authority and a sense of rightfulness. The chain begins with God- the ultimate ruler of the universe, followed by our government and all the way down to law enforcers. This chain of thought is explained by Dr Shermer in his book the “the believing brain’’. His words “We form our beliefs for a variety of subjective, personal, emotional, and psychological reasons i...
... middle of paper ...
...N, Genocide, Children, Women, Violence, Holocaust,." UN News Center. UN, 09 Apr. 2014.
< http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/Oxfordpaper.pdf>
Hamdani, Yasser Latif. "Do Ahmadis Deserve to Live in Pakistan?" Ahmadiyya Times. 09 Apr. 2014.
< http://ahmadiyyatimes.blogspot.com/2012/08/religious-intolerance-do-ahmadis.html>
Hamdani, Yasser Latif. "Are Ahmadis Non-Muslims?" Pak Tea House. 09 Apr. 2014.
< http://pakteahouse.net/2011/12/15/are-ahmadis-non-muslims>
Jinnah, Muhammad Ali. "Jinnah's Quotes." – Wikiquote. 09 Apr. 2014.
< http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali_Jinnah>
"Lahore Tense after Mosques' Attacks - Central & South Asia." - Al Jazeera English.28 May 2009
< http://www.aljazeera.com/news/asia/2010/05/2010528923401784.html>
"Nuremberg Laws." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 04 Aug. 2014. Web. 09 Apr. 2014.
Major newspapers around the world wrote about Masih’s story, even though it was often demoted towards the end of the newspaper. It was not long before both the media and the public disregarded it. A little less than seven thousand miles away from Pakistan, however, another 12-year-old boy in Thornhill, Canada devoted Masih’s story to memory, an undertaking that signified the beginning ...
Mere Christianity is divided into four books or sections that build and expand off of the prior. The first book is entitled “Right and wrong as a clue to the meaning of the universe” and he examines the common understanding among all men of a universal moral law hardwired in the minds of men. He begins this examination with a presentation of man’s concept of right and wrong. The simplest understanding among all men is the concept of fairness. This fair play points to a law and can be seen in the reactions of mankind to justice and injustice. He contrasts this moral law, the Law of Human Nature, with the law of nature found in the world. The mind of the moral relativist denies such standards yet fail to recognize their call for fairness as a fatal flaw in their reasoning.
Russian author Fyodor Dostoevsky was among those philosophical thinkers who grappled with the task of explaining why evil exists in a world created by a perfect god. Despite the powerful influence of Christianity in his early childhood and throughout his life, Dostoevsky encountered difficulties in answering this question, which he described, “Nature, the soul, God, love – all this is understood by the heart, not by the mind” (Gibson 1973, 9). Nevertheless, Dostoevsky not only felt obligated to discover a solution to the problem, but also “responsible to his fellow believers for its success or failure” (Gibson 1973, 169). This quest for a solution to the problem of theodicy ultimately led Dostoevsky to write The Brothers Karamazov, a novel that attempts to explain the need for evil in the world. In posing his solution to this problem, Dostoevsky explains the necessity of suffering for the realization of human redemption, as well as the role of Christ’s atoneme...
In this philosophical essay regarding God and the controversial existence of objective morality, I will argue in favour of Shafer-Landau’s conclusion that if you are an atheist, then you should object the proposition that objective morality requires the existence of God. In addition, for Shafer-Landau’s argument to make sense, I will be mentioning the Argument from Atheism, a classical argument based upon moral skepticism. I will also be providing Shafer-Landau’s arguments in objection to the Argument of Atheism along with key pieces of terminology and definitions which are crucial to understanding his argument in support of objective morality. Lastly, I will be providing possible theistic and atheistic objections against Shafer-Landau’s criticisms
In Western society and culture, religion and morality have often intertwined and they have reflected their values onto each other. Today it is sometimes impossible to make a distinction between the two, since their influence has transcended generations. In modern Western culture, religion and society preach conformity. In order to be a “good” person, one must conform to the values imposed by the church1 and state.
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.
Religion gives a person wisdom and security. Religions ask us to perform good deeds; pray, donate, etc. These are positive things religion encourages us to perform in the name of God. If we do good during our lifetime, we will go to heaven after we die - this is a common belief of religion. However, the question of God’s existence arises which leads people to question whether or not religion is required for moral choice. Throughout this essay, I will discuss the most basic human right of all - the right to believe.
Goodstein, Laurie. "Islam: Not in My Backyard?" New York Times Upfront 20 Sept. 2010. Print.
Zakaria, Fareed. "Islam and the West." Online posting. 12 Oct. 2001. Newsweek Live Talk. 15 Oct. 2001. <http://www.msnbc.com/m/nw/talk/talk.asp?lt=101201_islam>
Many of us have wondered about the role of a Deity, in defining our moral code, and this has been a subject of discourse among scholars and philosophers since centuries. Many define morality as the innate ability of the human conscience to draw input for decisions which they believe is present there by itself. While some say that the (belief on the) presence of God gives them strength and inspiration to overcome their inability to follow moral standards (which are already defined) especially when they conflict with their self-interests. Although, some people argue that social stimulus imposes limits to one’s actions even if God does not exist. However, a person is at absolute liberty to perform, whatsoever one wants to in the non-existence of God because one does not regard anything as right or wrong in absence of objective moral principles and does not fear any Divine judgement.
This essay is a conclusive look at the problems and contradictions underlying a belief in God and the observable traits of the world. This problem is traditionally labelled The Problem of Evil. This essay will be an analysis into the Problem of Evil and a counter rebuttal to objections levied against the Problem of Evil. This analysis will be on the nature of god and the world of evil, the world as a mixed creation, ‘sorting’ into heaven and hell objection, God’s ‘mysterious ways’ objection, the inscrutability of god objection, values presupposing pain objection, inherent contradictions in ‘God’s freewill’ and finally non-human
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.
One of the central developments was to establish what principles is shared by people of different faiths, as Christianity is not completely universal nor necessarily natural in all of its principles set forth. Grotius took part in initiating this development as he denounced the notion of universal Christianity, and suggested a better degree of validity would be possible under a less biased set of moral principle (Coleman, pg. 67). This development was found to be what is most “reasonable” for mankind by modern theorists such as John Finnis, yet branching from the notions set forth by prior theorists. Finnis’ theory operates in the absence of a divine figure, yet still holds a universal standard of what is “good.” This reasonable notion is further evaluated as moral principles are naturally embedded into human beings, and a particular system such as religion is not necessary to reflect such (Coleman, pg.
In Pojman’s essay, “Religion Gives Meaning to Life,” he presents eight premises of what theism would make true. Pojman’s deems religion provides life meaning; whereas a secular life is not significant to the way individuals view the world. He argues that autonomy is freedom with no restrictions and religion gives meaning and purpose to life, even though there are sacrifices to our freedom. Pojman suggests a number of conditions that something must meet in order to count as what we might call a "meaning maker" for life (Matheson, Lecture 5). One of these conditions is premises three, individuals comprehend and know that God loves and cares for us; this love that we have from God offers humans the motivation needed to live a morally good life (Pojman, Louis P. "Religion Gives Meaning to Life.” The Meaning of Life). Ultimately, people live morally good lives since God is known to love all children, which influences those t...
It seems as if the constant argument of how much religion should play a role in our lives will never end. The Divine Command Theory is a theory in which one may receive a revelation from God telling them that doing a certain thing is good. This meta-ethical theory states that actions are only good if God deems they are good. This statement poses various advantages, disadvantages, and arguments as to whether we should conduct our morality based upon the acceptance of a higher being. Many religions are based upon the idea of reward and punishment for good and bad deeds, respectively, and this is a great problem that critics bring to the front.