"Why Believe in God" ad campaign

[flippyshark]

I just have to add, for those who have watched the skit linked in my previous post - where in the Bible does Jesus say anything like "Let me make all of your decisions for you!"

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by flippyshark

I just have to add, for those who have watched the skit linked in my previous post - where in the Bible does Jesus say anything like "Let me make all of your decisions for you!"

WWJD?

And don't dare question WHY!

[David E]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

We have, for instance, a pretty damned good set of laws in the US that do not rely on belief in God. Whether they were inspired by religious beliefs to begins with is irrelevant as to whether belief in God is a necessity for goodness.

I wasn't saying one had to believe in God, rather that the concept of rules coming from a transcendent authority, and that are known and predictable, is what has created our successful concept of good and bad. Even though our laws came from religion, what's more important is that people develop a sense of conscience (traditionally through religion) so that they choose to behave well before the law has to be used to reign them in.

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

as long as I can remember, my sense of morality was, "Be good because it's the right thing to do," not "be good because god said so."

But the first thing doesn't make sense without the latter. That was my point about the bus ads: our idea of what "the right thing to do" is didn't just come from nowhere or from instinct, it DID start with "because God said so". (Whether you believe or not as Voltaire said). Without that, we are back to whatever each person feels is good.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by David E

Without that, we are back to whatever each person feels is good.

Yes, we are. And there's nothing wrong with that.

[David E]

Without that, we are back to whatever each person feels is good.

Originally Posted by Alex

Yes, we are. And there's nothing wrong with that.

You don't think there's anything wrong with murder as long as the murderer feels he is doing good? I don't know if you read my original post, but I gave 3 examples of this (Mao, Jim Jones, suicide bombers).

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by David E

You don't think there's anything wrong with murder as long as the murderer feels he is doing good? I don't know if you read my original post, but I gave 3 examples of this (Mao, Jim Jones, suicide bombers).

You're confusing atheism (or non-religiousness or whatever) with anarchy.

Yes, he does think there's something wrong with murder. And so do most people, regardless of the existence of god. It doesn't require a belief in god to come to the conclusion that acceptance of murder is a bad thing.

What he doesn't think there's anything wrong with is leaving it up to a reasonable social dialog to determine what is and isn't acceptable rather than relying on some external source of morality.

[Alex]

Originally Posted by David E

Without that, we are back to whatever each person feels is good.

No we're not. Or rather, of course we are but that has little to do with morality at the societal level. And societal morality has little to do with morality at the individual level.

You don't think there's anything wrong with murder as long as the murderer feels he is doing good? I don't know if you read my original post, but I gave 3 examples of this (Mao, Jim Jones, suicide bombers).

Of course I think there is something wrong with it, but my thinking that does not make it objectively wrong (and it obviously has no influence on the personal morality of the murderer; we'll ignore the fact that most murderers consider what they do immoral even if they derive some pleasure or other benefit from it).

The definition of murder is surprisingly fluid over time and place. The social contract can exist in the absence of an absolute universal morality. In my opinion, it does.

As I said earlier, religion did not create morality, it just claimed credit for it and generally just claims credit for whichever morality is in current vogue (or maybe current vogue minue 30 years).

Also, of your three examples, I don't really have a problem with Jim Jones. Well, I have a problem with the congressional assassination but not really with the mass suicide part. Death is a perfectly acceptable choice, and if others are willing to join you in it then I'm ok with that.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by David E

Without that, we are back to whatever each person feels is good.

I would argue that people are like that anyway.

[bewitched]

Originally Posted by David E

That was my point about the bus ads: our idea of what "the right thing to do" is didn't just come from nowhere or from instinct, it DID start with "because God said so". (Whether you believe or not as Voltaire said). Without that, we are back to whatever each person feels is good.

Coming late to the discussion, I respectfully disagree. Christianity has merely incorporated the social contract which has been around forever of "don't do this to me and I won't do it to you." Fear of "in kind" retribution (whether by an individual or the state) is a powerful motivator for choosing what we now call "the moral path".

[David E]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

There are plenty philosophers who deduce what is a priori good, without evoking God. I don't think Buddhism requires a God, but suggests as good the absence of suffering. I think one can understand suffering and it's aleviation as a basis for morality that transcends the concept of God.

Yes, I specifically mentioned Buddhism as an example of a value system that produces good results in modern times. But it is a religion. That’s one of the reasons I referred several times to “non-religious” (as opposed to "athiest") folk in my original post.

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

Of course, as a rational hedonist, I'd also say that ultimately what feels good is the basis for most morality anyway - it's just easier to justify when you say you were only following (divine) orders (like killing the godless infidels)

That may be hedonistic, but its certainly not rational: I was talking about what is good and you wrote "what feels good" as being the basis for most morality. Big difference; they are almost always the opposite! Examples: 1) Tagging feels good, but is not good. 2) Stealing something when no one is looking feels good and is easier than working for it but is not good. (In fact, many thieves steel not for gain, but because it does feel good to them.) 3) Heroin feels good, but is not good.

Morality is about doing the right thing which is usually the harder choice. As far as your comment about killing infidels, I don't think anyone can say the suicide bomber is motivated by it it feeling good, in fact it feels quite bad, but in his mind it is doing good.

I see a few comments from others too who maybe got confused by what I wrote: I didn’t say “what feels good”, I wrote that I fear “what each person feels is good”, which the suicide bomber is an example of.