Amazon.com Widgets

Is the Christian God the foundation for human morality?

Asked by: missmedic
  • For what I could think of, the Biblical God makes the best criteria for the foundation of human morality,

    Now in argument for morality, circular reasoning will happen and will be even both used by both sides of the debate. But the circular reasoning we are familiar with concerns with arbitrariness and not coherence and consistency. It is completely logically valid to appeal to the tenets of a particular belief system to defend that belief system. This is because one's worldview of appealing to a system's tenet of beliefs is consistent, coherent with his worldview. It would be useless to appeal to a belief system if there is no inner-consistency with its own form and its axioms can be compatible of what we experience on the real world. The Biblical God makes the best criteria for moral foundations because:

    -It is objective, final, definitive and conclusive on every matter and unchanging;
    -is not bound by God's opinion which would be arbitrary but relies on God's nature to define what is Good and what is not (in opposition to God's nature).
    - ONE moral standard is more reasonable to believe in since if polytheism is true and there exists many gods, then they would have different sets of rules for morality which could conflict with one another and would lead to a confusion- but the Biblical God gets rid of that by having a one and decisive standard for morality.
    - Transcendental values and ideas exists OBJECTIVELY, they are not the product of the mind nor of nature nor of an "illusion". Since transcendental values exists, then it follows that there has to be something single, transcendental, unchanging and objective standard for morality, which is clearly pointing out to God. The laws of logic and nature are not products of nature, but are transcendental and unchanging laws governing the cosmos and has not changed ever since. If that is so, then they can only be the product of an Intelligence since abstract things can't create something nor something from nothing cannot come it being.

    And to make a point, you cannot believe in evolution and adopt Biblical principles since those two have conflicting ideas and principles. If you believe God created the world, you would also believe in the Bible's morality. You must believe earthly first before you believe on spiritual and moral things.

  • Without christianity there would be no laws

    Lying, stealing, coveting, murdering, and adultery would not be illegal if it weren't for Christianity. Sabbath-observance and parent-honouring would not be the same if it weren't for Christianity. The TCs give you everything you need to run an orderly society. Without religion we would live in a state of depravity like they do in Holland.

  • If you study history you find out the he is

    If you read the Old Testament or any history text from BCE times you see that people thought very differently. There was an eye for an eye morality in the world. There was an enormous amount of lawlessness and people's moral compasses were based simply on what they could get away with. If you had moneya nd power you could do what ever your wanted and that is exactly what you did.

    When Jesus came his teachings entirely changed the way that human beings thought and felt. He introduced the concept of loving thy neighbour and treating other as you would like to be treated. This was a total foreign concept prior to this time.

  • First of all, there is no such a thing as Christian God.

    So, logical and reasonable people should vote NO. And all moral laws of Christianity is derived from Judaic laws. It is hypocrisy to suggest that Jewish law is Christian law. And biblical God does not make the best criteria for the foundation of human morality, if it makes then it is OK to kill everything that moves, even donkeys.

  • Nope. God is not the source of morality, God is the source of pain!

    No. God is not the source of morality. God is the source of misery and pain. Instead, it is humans that reflect on this misery and pain and who want to minimize it that are the source of morality. Even though it can be argued that God does play a part in the establishment of human moral systems and human laws, it is in fact almost entirely contributed by human action, in response to the pain, misery God inflicts on the world.

  • Perhaps, if Yahweh came first.

    There have been numerous written codes of law which predate Judeo-Christianity in its entirety. Take the Code of Hammurabi, and the Code of Ur-Nammu for example; both are much older than the 10 Commandments. Not to mention that there have been gods before Yahweh that have "established the Law." Therefore, there is no reason to deny the possibility that perhaps the 10 Commandments (and Yahweh, for that matter) might have been influenced by past events.

  • No, I disagree.

    Human morality did not come from the Christian god, but the limbic system which exists within the human brain. It allows for happiness, sadness, anger, jealousy, and most importantly, empathy. People with morals have a fully functioning amygdala (the limbic system) and people without morals have an amygdala that doesn't function to its full potential.

  • Flying spaghetti monster

    The flying spaghetti monster is the foundation for human morality.

    -It is objective, final, definitive and conclusive on every matter and unchanging;
    -is not bound by God's opinion which would be arbitrary but relies on God's nature to define what is Good and what is not (in opposition to God's nature).
    - ONE moral standard is more reasonable to believe in since if polytheism is true and there exists many gods, then they would have different sets of rules for morality which could conflict with one another and would lead to a confusion- but the Spaghettical God gets rid of that by having a one and decisive standard for morality.
    - Transcendental values and ideas exists OBJECTIVELY, they are not the product of the mind nor of nature nor of an "illusion". Since transcendental values exists, then it follows that there has to be something single, transcendental, unchanging and objective standard for morality, which is clearly pointing out to God. The laws of logic and nature are not products of nature, but are transcendental and unchanging laws governing the cosmos and has not changed ever since. If that is so, then they can only be the product of an Intelligence since abstract things can't create something nor something from nothing cannot come it being.

  • How to good without god

    We all have a basic moral compass. We all know how we would like to be treated so we try to teat other that way. These are universal ideas not just a Christian one. The time for gods and goddesses are over. I think we can be good people with out them.

  • There is no Christian God, it's Abraham's God and it is Extremely Malevolent, no Morality There:

    Though all Jesus did was to introduce Buddhist philosophies and teachings into Judaism, so it would be more correct to cite Buddha as the source of Christian morality.
    Though human morality evolved in spite of Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Taoism, all parallel sources of morality along with Buddhism.
    Humans evolved morality through Group Survival, that's all.

  • That doesn't make any sense

    Whether or not you are Christian or not, human morality is not based on JUST the Christian God. Thinking that wouldn't be sensible.
    First of all, the first humans were not Christian. The first societies and communities were not Christian.
    Second of all, if the Christian God was the foundation of human morality that would imply that people who were not Christian weren't moral or that people who aren't exposed to Christianity in the slightest aren't moral. And that, clearly, is not true.
    Lastly, a lot of "Christian" morals and ideas aren't original. Christianity is actually largely based on Judaism, and even Judaism has similarities to religions/beliefs that preceded it.
    Saying that this ONE God, something that probably doesn't exist, is the basis of ALL human morality is unreasonable.

  • We live in

    A continuously changing world with new kinds of moral problem being generated all the time and much harmful ignorance still to overcome. It's only through abandoning certain widespread religious ideas that progress towards a truly just and consistent morality is possible. There's an ongoing need to develop and refine our moral understanding. The problem is the false and morally corrupting idea that the lawmaker is perfect. It's corrupting because, in causing us to accept unjust laws, it leaves us defending the indefensible. We don't base morality on revelation from authority, that would render us merely obedient. Moral behaviour is doing what's right, not what we're told unless what we're told is also what's right. The worry that, without religion or gods, we've no basis on which to discuss morality, is without foundation. Plain empathy can trigger natural help responses to others' distress and create natural aversion to causing others harm. Two prerequisites for reliable moral assessment are reason and accurate, relevant information. Sound reasoning won't lead to valid assessments if we're operating with flawed information, nor will sound information if our reasoning is flawed. Without sound reason and information we can't determine how the universe works, how different life forms suffer or flourish, where responsibility lies and what the short or long term consequences of our actions are on an interpersonal or global scale. As moral awareness takes time to develop in an individual it also takes time to develop in societies. Some societies still believe in magic. Some have largely outgrown belief in magic but not animal cruelty, racism, sexism or homophobia. For things that cause no harm, moral condemnation simply isn't appropriate. For example, homosexuality is often misidentified as a moral issue but gay relationships involve no intrinsic harm any more than mixed ones. Indeed, when classing harmless things as immoral results in persecution we've reason to condemn the misclassification. So often declared -'the territory of religion'- moral development is in fact something to which the scientific approach contributes far more and far more reliably due to its emphasis on reasoned logic and evidence, the tools that help us discern what's true and false and without which one can't even formulate a valid argument. To make informed moral choices and therefore moral progress religion needs science, but science does not need religion. We can be good without god.

  • I totally disagree

    1. There were societies with laws regarding morality before the ten commandments. Examples of these are the Code of Hammurabi written 1790 BC (the bible was written around 1400 BC) and The Code of Hammurabi, which it's self is predated by The Sumerian Code of Ur-Nammu.

    2. Many religions claim their deity gave them laws.

    3. A lot of social animals have demonstrated that they have something that looks like a rudimentary conscience and a rudimentary system of morals. It been observed that chimpanzees will exhibit what appears to be fear and shame when they do something that violates the rules of its group. Should it be assumed that the chimpanzee fears God? Or is it instead more likely that such feelings should develop in social animals?
    Humans are social animals so it's also to be expected that, like other social animals, we would have social rules which regulate group behavior. We certainly don't need gods to explain it.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.