Christian Morality Without God

[Atticus Finch]

Would this be hypocritical?

The Book of Ecclesiastes reminds us that wisdom is greater than foolishness. This stands even when death renders both as meaningless.

If it were discovered that God does not exist in any form and that there is no afterlife, would you change the way you live?

Would the wisdom of the Bible still shine on your mind or would it simply be a damper on the fun you could have without God-given moral rules?

Sometimes I feel that it would be very liberating to discover the non-existence of God. Of course this feeling lasts a mere few seconds. A life with absolute proof of the non-existence of God would most likely be a complete tragedy for the human race. It would be like leaving a group of children to live by themselves without any parental guidance.

Thoughts?

[Jac3510]

First off, if I didn't believe in God, there would be no reason for me to consider Ecclesiastes as any more of a source of authority than Greek philosophy. So, the direct answer to your question - as I see it - is that I wouldn't submit to biblical authority if it had no divine authority behind it.

Second, if I didn't believe in God, I suspect I would behave differently to some extent. But, we also have to keep in mind that behavior, at the end of the day, is strongly influenced by what is culturally acceptable. Because of the personality that I have, I don't think I would be radically different that I am now.

This leads me to my third and last thougt here: if I didn't believe God existed, I can't think of anything that would keep me out of depression and despair. I'm a "thinker," and it would be immediately obvious to me that absolutely nothing I ever did, either good or bad, would have any significance whatsoever. My outlook on humanity would be overly pessimistic. I would have little to no compassion for human suffering as there would be no logically objective basis for such emotions. I would die a young, miserable man, and would probably prefer things that way.

Liberating? No, I don't find that idea liberating at all. My walk with God in Christ allows me to live a free and meaningful existence. Outside of that, I would be in bondage to utter meaninglessness. You started your question by referencing Ecclesiastes. I'll refer you right back to it. Without God, we're in utter bondage to misery.

God bless

[Atticus Finch]

You started your question by referencing Ecclesiastes. I'll refer you right back to it. Without God, we're in utter bondage to misery.

I agree completely.

I've noticed that amongst non-believers who have not read a Bible with an open mind and heart that their opinions are swayed by the current anti-christian approach in the secular world. People will often arrogantly claim that they are not in need of God, and will offer their self as their own leader and god. This is a position rooted in pride which shows the error of the thought itself. If we can only rely on ourselves, then nothing can be definite since we are temporal and our plans are often destroyed by circumstance. Without God, life is a game of dodging cars on a highway in some respects. The most intelligent person can boastfully shoot down the idea of God and a religion based on love, but they cannot realize that this view is from pride and not knowledge.

[Turgonian]

The most intelligent people I've met up to now were Christians.

You're right: atheism is rooted in pride and arrogance. Today I read a newspaper article written by a philosopher (Herman Philipse -- who also argued that people should be able to choose their religion at the age of 6 ), who said that religion is based on a book which nobody is allowed to question rationally, and if someone starts to question, he will abandon his religion. Apparently he has never seen rational Christian apologetic sites (hey, like this one! ), which question all the time -- and answer, too.

I must say I like your 'dodging cars' analogy...

[non-affiliated]

I've noticed that amongst non-believers who have not read a Bible with an open mind and heart that their opinions are swayed by the current anti-christian approach in the secular world. People will often arrogantly claim that they are not in need of God, and will offer their self as their own leader and god. This is a position rooted in pride which shows the error of the thought itself.If we can only rely on ourselves, then nothing can be definite since we are temporal and our plans are often destroyed by circumstance. Without God, life is a game of dodging cars on a highway in some respects. The most intelligent person can boastfully shoot down the idea of God and a religion based on love, but they cannot realize that this view is from pride and not knowledge.

Not sure if op reads this anymore but I question a few things in this post:

First the sentence People will often arrogantly claim that they are not in need of God, and will offer their self as their own leader and god.

1. First off I believe if a person claims to not need God they are admitting to the existence of God therefore this claim would not be made by an atheist.

2. If I claim (omitting any reference to God or a god) that I am in charge of myself and my own actions thus I am completely responsible for all that I do is this truly an arrogant point of view? Is it arrogant to take responsibility for ones actions?

Next question:
If we can only rely on ourselves, then nothing can be definite since we are temporal and our plans are often destroyed by circumstance

1. How do you form a coherent connection between reliance on onesself and something being definite? It would not be logical to say that: because I rely solely on myself it is not definite that Hurricane Katrina occurred. Or, because I rely solely on myself it is not definite that I just called my girlfriend. In reference to future events: Because you believe in God and rely on others do you definitely know where you will be 2 years from now? Can you say that your foreknowledge of the events in your life is any greater than a person who relies on themselves only and rejects the existence of God?

2. What difference does it make? If we can agree that the theist and atheist alike can not be definite as to where they will be in 2 years then why does being definite matter? Wouldn't attempting to be definite on this knowledge be pointless seeing that it is not possible to do so?

Next line:
Without God, life is a game of dodging cars on a highway in some respects.

I guess I just don't understand how this fits into the argument presented. Unless you feel that by believing in God your foreknowledge of your own life is completely accurate thus you have no need to "dodge cars" (be uncertain about future events) while an atheist does not have the luxury of this accurate foreknowledge thus he has to be stuck "dodging cars" (being uncertain of future events).

And finally:

The most intelligent person can boastfully shoot down the idea of God and a religion based on love, but they cannot realize that this view is from pride and not knowledge.

Honestly I just don't understand this one. It doesn't seem to follow the previous argument but I'll give it a shot.

If a person believes there is no God then they are blinded with pride because they cannot believe that they are not in control of their own actions. So...this pride clouds their vision and does not allow them to see the knowledge that God truly is in control of their life.

There that's how I interpreted it after some thought. My argument against this would be similar to my response to the first statement of your post that I questioned so I don't feel the need to repeat it.

So that's my thought on your post. Comments and critique welcome!

[puritan lad]

... who said that religion is based on a book which nobody is allowed to question rationally, and if someone starts to question, he will abandon his religion.

I love it when an atheist (presumably a naturalist) appeal to "reason" and "rationality". Without a Spiritual component, what is reason? From an atheistic or naturalistic viewpoint, reason is nothing more than a bunch of data being created by human neurons which, according to their worldview, evolved from a prebiotic soup. Thus, from a naturalistic worldview, reason becomes unreasonable.

Both worldviews begin with assumptions. The Christian wordview assumes that truth and reason come from God. The atheist, while he may appeal to truth and reason, does not have a foundation for either.

[Turgonian]

Not sure if op reads this anymore but I question a few things in this post:

First the sentence People will often arrogantly claim that they are not in need of God, and will offer their self as their own leader and god.

1. First off I believe if a person claims to not need God they are admitting to the existence of God therefore this claim would not be made by an atheist.

Not quite; people can also mean 'You're so insecure you need a God idea, whereas I don't.'

2. If I claim (omitting any reference to God or a god) that I am in charge of myself and my own actions thus I am completely responsible for all that I do is this truly an arrogant point of view? Is it arrogant to take responsibility for ones actions?

Taking responsibility for your own actions is not a bad thing at all, and actually very Christian. But in what way are you 'in charge'? If it means a person determines the rules on his own, it is arrogant. Atticus was not referring to 'taking responsibility', but 'offering oneself as one's own leader and god'.

Next question:
If we can only rely on ourselves, then nothing can be definite since we are temporal and our plans are often destroyed by circumstance

1. How do you form a coherent connection between reliance on onesself and something being definite? It would not be logical to say that: because I rely solely on myself it is not definite that Hurricane Katrina occurred. Or, because I rely solely on myself it is not definite that I just called my girlfriend. In reference to future events: Because you believe in God and rely on others do you definitely know where you will be 2 years from now? Can you say that your foreknowledge of the events in your life is any greater than a person who relies on themselves only and rejects the existence of God?

No, we don't know, but Somebody does. If we can only rely on ourselves, we are lost in a whirl of contingencies and meaningless processes. If there is a God, there are no contingencies, and there is meaning. There is a definite Plan, which there would not be without God. But I don't understand precisely what Atticus meant, so he'll have to defend himself here.

2. What difference does it make? If we can agree that the theist and atheist alike can not be definite as to where they will be in 2 years then why does being definite matter? Wouldn't attempting to be definite on this knowledge be pointless seeing that it is not possible to do so?

A theist believes in a paternal Guidance; an atheist does not. So while neither knows where they will be in two years, the theist is sure he'll be in the right one, whereas the atheist can't be sure of that at all.

Next line:
Without God, life is a game of dodging cars on a highway in some respects.

I guess I just don't understand how this fits into the argument presented. Unless you feel that by believing in God your foreknowledge of your own life is completely accurate thus you have no need to "dodge cars" (be uncertain about future events) while an atheist does not have the luxury of this accurate foreknowledge thus he has to be stuck "dodging cars" (being uncertain of future events).

Atticus's point is that life without God is without a firm meaning; even if you 'give your own life meaning', it would be meaningless, in the relentless flow of evolution. It's not about foreknowledge, it's about meaning.
Basically, the atheist believes in that which is temporary, and his main purpose is therefore surviving in an irregular world. The theist knows there is an eternal dimension to this world, and living up to that realization is (or should be) his purpose. Surviving is inferior to living in the right way.

[non-affiliated]

Not quite; people can also mean 'You're so insecure you need a God idea, whereas I don't.'

Ok that's legitimate but then the question should probably be rephrased.

Taking responsibility for your own actions is not a bad thing at all, and actually very Christian. But in what way are you 'in charge'? If it means a person determines the rules on his own, it is arrogant. Atticus was not referring to 'taking responsibility', but 'offering oneself as one's own leader and god'.

Well I don't see how a person determining their own rules is being arrogant but again, I'm viewing this from an atheists POV. Should I take the perspective of a Christian I could easily see how disregarding God in ones choices and lifestyle could be deemed as arrogant.

A theist believes in a paternal Guidance; an atheist does not. So while neither knows where they will be in two years, the theist is sure he'll be in the right one, whereas the atheist can't be sure of that at all.

That may be true. From an atheists viewpoint I can't say where I'll be in 2 years but it really isn't that important. What is important are the plans that I have for the future. Whether those plans come to fruition or not doesn't really make a difference in the present time. So either way I don't stay up late tossing and turning wondering about my future.

Atticus's point is that life without God is without a firm meaning; even if you 'give your own life meaning', it would be meaningless, in the relentless flow of evolution. It's not about foreknowledge, it's about meaning.

From a non-affiliated standpoint I don't necessarily see the need to have a specific meaning other than to enjoy the time I have on earth.

Basically, the atheist believes in that which is temporary, and his main purpose is therefore surviving in an irregular world. The theist knows there is an eternal dimension to this world, and living up to that realization is (or should be) his purpose. Surviving is inferior to living in the right way.

And what the "right way" is exactly is up for debate in my opinion. Obviously not to the Christian which I understand (18 years of Christianity teachings haven't gone completely to waste ), but I choose to believe that it is up to me to decide what the right way is.

Agree to disagree I guess. Ayn Rand is my favorite author...go figure

[Turgonian]

Well I don't see how a person determining their own rules is being arrogant but again, I'm viewing this from an atheists POV.

Nietzsche believed the Übermenschen would create their own rules, their own morality. Hitler, Stalin and Mao duly followed his exhortation. I'm not comparing you to any of those murderers, but pointing out what can (and will) happen if morality is made subjective. It's the rule of the fittest, the most powerful. An atheist can still make choices he thinks 'good', or 'moral', or 'self-fulfilling' -- but what's the point, especially if doing 'good' will get you killed instead of being self-fulfilling for you?

From a non-affiliated standpoint I don't necessarily see the need to have a specific meaning other than to enjoy the time I have on earth.

What if this enjoyment consists of immoral actions? Or actions Christians see as immoral, but you don't see the harm of?

And what the "right way" is exactly is up for debate in my opinion. Obviously not to the Christian which I understand (18 years of Christianity teachings haven't gone completely to waste ), but I choose to believe that it is up to me to decide what the right way is.

You undoubtedly have a great moral strength. (Or not? And if not, why do you think you're the one to determine the rules?)
What do you see as the 'right way'?

[B. W.]

Nietzsche believed the Übermenschen would create their own rules, their own morality. Hitler, Stalin and Mao duly followed his exhortation. I'm not comparing you to any of those murderers, but pointing out what can (and will) happen if morality is made subjective. It's the rule of the fittest, the most powerful. An atheist can still make choices he thinks 'good', or 'moral', or 'self-fulfilling' -- but what's the point, especially if doing 'good' will get you killed instead of being self-fulfilling for you?

--Off topic but to Turgonian — “Nietzsche believed the Übermenschen would create their own rules, their own morality.” Sounds like you know philosophy. Maybe on another thread you and I could discuss philosophy and its ramifications on divergent societies as grand experiments?--


Now back on topic, what about Social Utilitarianism and its forms both old and new and also neo-Marxism? These produced their-own brands of morality.

You do not have to ascribe to any particular religion to be moral or live moral. However, in secular moralism what is moral and what is not changes like the wind or becomes subject to the whims of the state.

Religions also can impose its will on the state. History is replete with this happening and even now we see it happening in the Middle East. What many fear about Christian Moralism is it imposing itself on the State and thus forming a Christianized Taliban State. Many attack Christians out of fear of this occurring never realizing how dumb this is as it imposes dangers to Christians of other view points too who would resist such a thing.

Let me stress that Christianity is not about morals or even leading a moral life by following a rule book. It is about Jesus Christ and a believers union with Him. It involves a love for God that wants to be a reflection of God's Love where ever one has been assigned in life. If you love someone, you do not want to let them down or misuse their character to attain things strictly for selfish gain and manipulation. You live for whom you love. This love will guide you and your morals: that's Christianity. Too bad we see so little of this today.

-
-

[Turgonian]

Very good post, B.W.! Especially the ending sums it up very well.

Oi moi -- I do know a bit of philosophy; I have an interest for it and am taught the subject at school, but I am not sure if I can participate in real discussions. I am, however, quite willing to try.

Paleoconservatism, an all-round philosophy into which I'm doing research now (and which I think to be very coherent and well thought-out), does not believe in 'artificial separations' like Church and State. It does not wish to impose anything, neither Christianity nor Liberalism. However, it wants to have a state of virile and responsible men with a lot of emphasis on small communities like family, locality &c. The democracy must be protected by the lex naturalis or 'natural law', which is rooted in 'common sense' (the traditional shared values of a culture).

They say the roots of democracy are always undemocratic, and democracy can't be its own foundation without collapsing. One way or the other, there will be tyranny when democracy runs amok. I think they're right. So did Plato, many centuries ago.

[B. W.]

Very good post, B.W.! Especially the ending sums it up very well.

Oi moi -- I do know a bit of philosophy; I have an interest for it and am taught the subject at school, but I am not sure if I can participate in real discussions. I am, however, quite willing to try.

Paleoconservatism, an all-round philosophy into which I'm doing research now (and which I think to be very coherent and well thought-out), does not believe in 'artificial separations' like Church and State. It does not wish to impose anything, neither Christianity nor Liberalism. However, it wants to have a state of virile and responsible men with a lot of emphasis on small communities like family, locality &c. The democracy must be protected by the lex naturalis or 'natural law', which is rooted in 'common sense' (the traditional shared values of a culture).

They say the roots of democracy are always undemocratic, and democracy can't be its own foundation without collapsing. One way or the other, there will be tyranny when democracy runs amok. I think they're right. So did Plato, many centuries ago.

Paleoconservatism is relatively new political movement in the USA, yet it has been around a long time. You can almost say it is a States Rights Movement wanting responsible men/women governing each State with emphasis on communities and family. Each State has its own needs and in their eyes to be governed accordingly. This would be protected and enforced by a Federal Government in service to the States and not the States in service to the Federal Government. In Politics they seek to restore a Federal Government that serves the States to protect social-historic-traditions that the United States was founded upon. Many see the States as serving a Federal Government bent upon non-protection of the social-historic-traditions that the USA was founded upon. There is more but that is all I can remember at the moment.
-
-
-

[Turgonian]

Thank you. I stumbled on the website of the Dutch paleoconservative movement, not (yet?) represented in politics. At the end of the year they're going to publish a magazine, Bitter Lemon. I think I'll subscribe...

[B. W.]

Thank you. I stumbled on the website of the Dutch paleoconservative movement, not (yet?) represented in politics. At the end of the year they're going to publish a magazine, Bitter Lemon. I think I'll subscribe...

Have fun! USA Politics are a mess - maybe that is true everywhere?

Nebuchadnezzer's Dream: He saw an Idol made of metals and clay. What did these represent? The nations that arose later on.

In the World Politick - each nation that the metal and clay represented all shared a common ideal as Nebuchadnezzer. What was that?

It is the Golden Headed ideal of a perfect world - utopian - achieved by man to rule all nations under one Golden Headed Dream that controls the worlds resources, populations, religions, philosophy, science, technology, etc, for wonderful and noble purposes. The struggle of political will epitomizes the struggle of nations recorded in history.

Real World Politick in action, even today - Iran, North Korea, China, USA, Russia, etc and etc. The Golden Headed dream of world domination under good and noble purpose and even religious too.

Politic's - you got to admire it.

Enough of my rant - how is the NE?
-
-
-

[Turgonian]

Ah yes, everyone thinks they can change the world and build Utopia. There are two small Christian political parties (and a big one, but that one's got Muslims and Hindus in it), one reformed, one evangelical; the one tends to be reactionary, the other socialist.

And democracy has been elevated to its own foundation by virtually everyone. The reformed party still holds to theocracy, but the views on that subject within the party are so different that they don't dare explain it, or the whole structure will disintegrate...