Can One Be Moral and Not Believe in God - Research Paper Example

? Can One Be Moral and Not Believe In God? Outline Introduction The relationship between ethics and religion is an ancient problem. People claiming that moral order would not be present without God assert that fundamental concepts of morality are made available by God. Sense of morality and life does not necessarily require God. Even though humans can grasp God’s moral principles independently, it is inadequate to comprehend the details of these moral principles. Humans can either have moral knowledge before divine revelation, or not have the knowledge at all. However, this argument is fallacious. Thinking that God entrenches moral concepts to human beings at birth, and thus moral knowledge relies on God in this regard is incorrect. Belief in God does not necessarily lead to morality, but rather the vice versa. This paper is about the argument that one can be moral without belief in God. There is also arguments that oppose the thesis, and response to the counter-thesis. One Can Be Moral and not Believe in God Our arguments tend to be biased, which makes it difficult for us to distinguish between right and wrong. How do we know that our arguments are biased? Our thinking is subject to many errors, and therefore cannot provide reliable arguments. Presupposing that our moral knowledge is purely dependent on God’s revelations is implausible. We require knowledge that some actions are morally necessary, and that our own presuppositions do not reveal that these actions are necessary. If we conclude that an action is morally right based on the premise that God demands us to behave in a particular manner, then what remains is at least one of our own judgments that whatever God requires is morally right. The belief that God entrenches moral concepts to human beings at birth, and thus moral knowledge relies on God, is incorrect. The belief that certain moral instructions legislated by God are morally plausible, stems from knowledge of the general moral standards. This argument, however, leads us to several questions. If God provides us with knowledge of specific moral instructions, how can we rationally know the general moral principles independent of God? What is so special about these specific standards, which we cannot know without God’s revelation? If rational considerations are necessary for explicit moral principles, why is their epistemic status different from the general? Indeed, the sense in which humans acquire knowledge of such detailed instructions remains questionable. Morality has no basis in religion. In other words, morality does not owe its origin from doctrinal claims of religion entirely. In fact, quite the opposite is the truth, namely that our conceptualizations of good and evil, if present, does not depend on religion, despite one holding the Jewish-Christian-Islamic view of the Deity. Our morality depends on our very nature. If humans lack such desires and needs, there will be no morality at all. Our nature makes us not to get satisfied with non-religious morals. We cannot derive satisfaction of our cravings purely from secular. We crave for a superior being to protect us, someone who would alleviate our suffering, a God that can provide us with the promise of a wonderful everlasting life. Counter-Thesis and Counter-Argument: Morality Requires Belief in God The belief in a supreme being, God, is important for humans because life without religious beliefs cannot provide a proper rationale or basis for moral beliefs. It would be difficult for humans to practice good will or practice morality in a world without God. A world without God would not require any aspect of morality for individuals living in it. God is the genesis of moral foundation required of humans; therefore, without God, the concept of moral necessity is baseless (Nielsen, 1982). Despite that many people do not acknowledge the foundation of morality to be the Word of God, the morality and regulations that a majority of humans hold to are anchored in the Word of God. The absolute standards for behavior are, therefore, defined by God the Creator. The basis of morality cannot be justified by non-believers in God. The non-believers lack an appropriate standard to determine what defines morality, differentiating the good from the evil. Nonetheless, they still classify actions and practices as good or bad (Purdom & Lisle, 2009). The absence of a universal basis for non-believers makes the concept of morality become personal preference by humans, providing no rationale for arguing with someone with a valid opinion. Response to Counter-Thesis It is inappropriate to argue that life without religious beliefs cannot provide a proper rationale or basis for moral beliefs, and that it would be difficult for humans to practice good will or practice morality in a world without God (Nielsen, 1982). Belief in God does not translate to upholding the moral values. Practice of morality does not depend on belief in God. The acquisition of the knowledge of general moral standards does not require a belief in God (Larmore, 1997). Theists argue that God is the supreme authority and the basis for knowledge. Morality, therefore, is defined by God. According to S?a?gi? and St?at?man (1995), concluding that an action is morally right or wrong using the rationale that God is the basis of this knowledge is inappropriate because it demonstrates personal judgments that whatever God requires is morally right. The view that moral knowledge is entirely dependent on God’s revelation is implausible. Conclusion Prior to God’s commands to humans, no moral order ever existed. The belief in God and the universal rights and wrongs exemplifies best the strong morals. Non-believers have no solid foundation to anchor their moral order; hence, their opinions or beliefs on morality are loosely held and ambiguous. The acquisition of knowledge of general moral standards by humanity does not necessarily require God. Humanity does not require God to acquire knowledge of general moral standards, but need God for acquisition of specific moral principles. References Larmore, C. (1997). The morals of modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nielsen, K. (1982). God And The Basis Of Morality. Journal of Religious Ethics , 10 (2), 335-350. Nielsen, K. (1991). God and the grounding of morality. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. Retrieved from http://www.worldcat.org/title/god-and-the-grounding-of-morality/oclc/180704087. Purdom, G., & Lisle, J. (2009). Morality and the Irrationality of an Evolutionary Worldview. Phi Kappa Phi Forum , 89 (1), 8-11. S?a?gi?, A., & St?at?man, D. (1995). Religion and morality. Amsterdam : Rodopi. Introduction Can one be moral and not believe in God? Belief in God does not necessarily translate to upholding of moral values. Sense of morality or life does not require belief in God. Humanity does not require God to acquire knowledge of general moral standards, although need God for acquisition of specific moral principles. According to Kant, humans either can have some type of moral knowledge before divine revelation, or not have the knowledge at all (Larmore, 1997). If humanity has such knowledge, God is not necessary to acquire such knowledge. If humanity has no such knowledge, however, there is no way people can know whether God’s revelation is morally plausible or not (S?a?gi? & St?at?man, 1995). Ascertaining whether divine revelation is plausible or not, requires one to have at least the knowledge that God is good. Nonetheless, our lack of moral knowledge will make us not to know this. Instead of requiring God to distinguish between right and wrong, morality leads to belief in God. One Can Be Moral and Not Believe in God Rachels in 1981 (cited in S?a?gi? & St?at?man, 1995) argued that our arguments are subjective, which makes us not to distinguish between what is right and what is wrong for ourselves. How do we know that our arguments are subjective? We require knowledge that some actions are morally necessary, and that our own presuppositions do not reveal that these actions are necessary. If we conclude that an action is morally right based on the premise that God demands us to behave in a particular manner, then what remains is at least one of own judgments that whatever God requires is morally right. In this regard, our holding of the view that we have some moral knowledge is far-fetched, and that our views come entirely from God’s revelation. The view that moral knowledge is entirely dependent on God’s revelation is implausible. It is incorrect to think that God entrenches moral concepts to human beings at birth, and thus moral knowledge relies on God in this regard. This implies that humans behave independently, and comprehend moral truth by exercising judgments independently. This also implies that not every facet of moral knowledge relies on God (S?a?gi? & St?at?man, 1995). Human reason can grasp God’s moral principles independently, although can be inadequate to comprehend the details of these moral principles. Humans can thus, acknowledge God’s moral perfection from their knowledge of general moral standards. Humanity can therefore, know that certain moral instructions legislated by God are morally plausible. Nonetheless, this argument leads us to several questions. If God provides us with knowledge of specific moral instructions, how can we rationally know the general moral principles independent of God? What is so special about these specific standards, which we cannot know without God’s revelation? If rational considerations are necessary for explicit moral principles, why is their epistemic status different from the general? In fact, the sense in which humans acquire knowledge of such detailed instructions remains questionable. If humans cannot comprehend the simple moral rule that, “Thou shalt not steal” (S?a?gi? & St?at?man, 1995, p. 88), how do humans come to comprehend that stealing is bad? Moral standards are not merely based on doctrinal claims of religion. In fact, quite the opposite is the truth, namely that our conceptualizations of good and evil, if present, does not depend on religion, despite one holding the Jewish-Christian-Islamic view of the Deity. In view of this fundamental perspective, religion is based on morality rather than morality being based on religion (Nielsen, 1991). The religious claim that humans can derive satisfaction of our deepest and highly relentless moral demands from God-centered morality, perhaps Christ-centered morality, is wrong. Humans endeavor to fulfill their desires and needs, search for happiness and love, and experience life’s anxieties. If humans lack such characteristics, there will be no morality at all. In other words, our morality depends on our nature. Our nature makes us not to get satisfied with non-religious morals. We cannot derive satisfaction of our cravings purely from secular. We crave for a superior being to protect us, someone who would alleviate our suffering, a God that can provide us with the promise of a wonderful everlasting life. This makes necessary obedience and love of God. Our innermost moral hopes will be dashed if we do not conceptualize ourselves as creatures of a loving sovereign. Perhaps, such hope is based on illusions, although worth the risk of faith, a believer would argue. Indeed, secular ethics cannot offer such hopes entirely (Nielsen, 1991). According to Christian humanists, our nature underlies our cravings for such promises, which case we cannot lead a truly meaningful life. Humans have been fragile and entirely dependent creatures for many centuries. This, therefore, makes us develop an innermost psychological longing for a universal protecting father. Nonetheless, such security tends to be illusionary. Our inherent feelings of dependence do not imply that we can rely on something. Furthermore, and more critically, if there is no such purpose to life, as believers claim, this does not necessarily mean that there is no purpose in life. In view of religious morals, it seems true that our pursuits of material things in life are vain. What the religious moralists fail to account for is that we have goals, aspirations, and interests to pursue. In fact, we have things we treasure and admire the achievements and realizations of our dreams and desires, including those we are deeply engaged in, give moral significance of our lives. God does not provide meaning to our lives, but rather robs us of our liberty. Our commitments and purposeful behavior can provide meaning to our lives (Nielsen, 1991). Counter-Thesis and Counter-Argument: Morality Requires Belief in God The belief in a supreme being, God, is important for humans because life without religious beliefs cannot provide a proper rationale or basis for moral beliefs. It would be difficult for humans to practice good will or practice morality in a world without God. A world without God would not require any aspect of morality for individuals living in it. God is the genesis of moral foundation required of humans; therefore, without God, the concept of moral necessity is baseless (Nielsen, 1982). It, therefore, follows that non-religious people or atheists are morally deficient. God is the basis for morality and morality issues are, thus, part of God’s will. Religion embodies the will of God, in respect to various religions. Subsequently, religion can be perceived as the source of morality as well as the source of good will and practices. Consequently, believers in God argue that lack of religious belief equates to immorality. Believers in God point out to the Bible where Jesus Christ instructed his disciples, in the gospel of Matthew, to do unto others as they would have the disciples do unto them as the foundation of moral conduct. Without the belief in God, therefore, it would not be necessary for people to treat others in a similar way they would want to be treated. Despite that most people do not acknowledge the foundation of morality to be the Bible, the morality and regulations that majority of humans hold to are anchored in the Bible. According to believers in God, the Word of God was revealed through the Bible. Further, religious believers postulate that God is the supreme authority and the basis for knowledge. The absolute standards for behavior are, therefore, defined by God the Creator. The basis of morality cannot be justified by non-believers in God. The non-believers lack an appropriate standard to determine what defines morality, differentiating the good from the evil. Nonetheless, they still classify actions and practices as good or bad (Purdom & Lisle, 2009). Non-believers in God have established moral standards differentiating wrong actions from the right actions. Nevertheless, these standards are not universal besides being arbitrary, potentially leading to incongruous conclusions. The absence of a universal standard of morality implies that everyone can create her or his own morality code, making it impossible to judge the morality of others. The absence of a universal basis for non-believers makes the concept of morality become personal preference by humans, providing no rationale for arguing with someone with a valid opinion (Purdom & Lisle, 2009). The ultimate ethical as well as the moral values have to be absolute. Otherwise, individuals with simply relative standards founded on personal opinions or feelings may not be related to God. Rules may be relative depending on circumstances and situations. The relative standards cannot define morality in humans. The basic moral principles should be objective and universal to all humans irrespective of the emotions or opinions. Atheists recognize morality founded on biblical rationale but this does not mean that they practice morality or that they are moral. The unbelievers cannot provide sufficient reason for believing in the moral absolute principles. These moral beliefs may be borrowed or copied from the foundation of the believers. The absence of the rationale basis of the morality of the unbelievers makes them hold loosely to their moral principles, unlike the believers with solid foundation of their moral beliefs. In addition, this argument does not imply that believers are morally perfect (Kurtz & Frame, 1996). Morality devoid of belief in God is founded on, among other things, living according to human nature. Morality demands that humans, both believers and non-believers, reflect on their human nature. Additionally, human beings believing in God, unlike the unbelievers, contend that morality embodies that which God intends for humans. Eventually, solid morality is shaped by the belief in God (Velasquez, 2011). Response to Counter-Thesis It is inappropriate to argue that life without religious beliefs cannot provide a proper rationale or basis for moral beliefs, and that it would be difficult for humans to practice good will or practice morality in a world without God. According to Nielsen (1982), a world without God would not require any aspect of morality for individuals living in it. God is the genesis of moral foundation required of humans. This argument is not true because belief in God does not translate to upholding the moral values. Practice of morality does not depend on belief in God. The acquisition of the knowledge of general moral standards does not require a belief in God. Nevertheless, acquisition of certain moral principles requires belief in God. According to Kant, humans tend to have some type of moral knowledge before divine revelation, or do not have the knowledge at all (Larmore, 1997). Morality leads to belief in God, instead of requiring God to distinguish between right and wrong. Purdom and Lisle (2009) emphasize that religious believers postulate God as the supreme authority and the basis for knowledge. The absolute standards for behavior are, therefore, defined by God the Creator. Subsequently, the basis of morality cannot be justified by non-believers in God because they lack an appropriate standard to determine what defines morality, differentiating the good from the evil. S?a?gi? and St?at?man (1995) counter this argument arguing that humans require knowledge that certain actions are right or wrong. Conversely, they state that concluding that an action is morally right or wrong using the rationale that God is the basis of this knowledge is inappropriate because it demonstrates personal judgments that whatever God requires is morally right. The view that moral knowledge is entirely dependent on God’s revelation is implausible. This also implies that not every facet of moral knowledge relies on God. Conclusion Prior to God’s commands to humans, no moral order ever existed. The belief in God and the universal rights and wrongs exemplifies best the strong morals. Non-believers have no solid foundation to anchor their moral order; hence, their opinions or beliefs on morality are loosely held and ambiguous. The acquisition of knowledge of general moral standards by humanity does not necessarily require God. In view of Kant’s philosophy, humans either can have some type of moral knowledge before divine revelation, or not have the knowledge at all. Humanity does not therefore require God to acquire knowledge of general moral standards, but need God for acquisition of specific moral principles. Human arguments tend to be biased, thus makes them unable to distinguish between right and wrong. References Larmore, C. (1997). The morals of modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nielsen, K. (1982). God And The Basis Of Morality. Journal of Religious Ethics , 10 (2), 335-350. Nielsen, K. (1991). God and the grounding of morality. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press. Retrieved from http://www.worldcat.org/title/god-and-the-grounding-of-morality/oclc/180704087. Purdom, G., & Lisle, J. (2009). Morality and the Irrationality of an Evolutionary Worldview. Phi Kappa Phi Forum , 89 (1), 8-11. S?a?gi?, A., & St?at?man, D. (1995). Religion and morality. Amsterdam : Rodopi. Read More