In this paper I will discuss the relationship between religion and morality. I will first address the question asked by those with religion, how are atheists moral? Then I will examine morality and its relativity to culture. Next I will explore whether those without a religion are actually more moral than those with a religion. And finally, I will discuss any possible objections to my claims. This argument is in no way saying that those that believe in God are unmoral but that those who don’t believe in God, are just as capable of being moral. Being atheist means that you choose to believe that God, or a god, does not exist. You have no faith or religion, you don’t go to church every Sunday morning, or pray every night before you …show more content…
At a point in the book, Wang Lung kills his newborn daughter because of her sex. During a time of famine, he steals gold coins from a wealthy family. And after he encounters money and prosperity, he spends his time in a tea house with a concubine instead of with his dying wife (Sparknotes Editors, 2012). But, in this story the main character does feel guilt for the things that he did. Knowing that it wasn’t right, and that it didn’t feel right to kill his newborn child, Wang Lung still did it and the act was perfectly acceptable according to their culture. When he stole the gold from the wealthy, he knew morally that it was wrong but, his family needed the money therefore his motivation was to provide for them. And when he purchased a concubine, Wang Lung was complying with the cultural norm of wealthy Chinese men. Whereas in our culture, and its predominant religion, the idea of adultery and lust is considered unmoral. It is even arguable that those without a religion are more genuinely moral. For example, the Christian religion. The whole belief is that you don’t sin and therefore are rewarded with eternal bliss. If you do sin then you will be forever damned. The motivation for all the good that they are guided to do is to have a better afterlife, selfish isn’t it? Well one who has no religion, has no belief in the afterlife. All the actions and choices that they make in this physical life are all
To many individuals, morality and religion are two related but distinct ideas. To be specific, morality consists of principles set by societal norms concerning the distinction between right and wrong and good and bad behaviour among persons. Alternatively, religion involves the relationship between human beings and a transcendent reality or a superhuman controlling power, God. In many societies in the past and present, the idea of God is used to help reinforce moral codes as valuable and vital through rituals and methods of presenting the teachings of God. By many, religion is used to instil fear
Therefore, the only reason one has to behave ‘morally’ is because god, the bible or Jesus says you should. Moreover, the consequences of behaving in contradiction to Christian values or behaving ‘immorally’ involve punishment by god whether it be in this life or the after-life. This philosophy sheds some light on why atheism is feared, despised and misunderstood as well as why atheists are persecuted in America. If there is no god to answer to or no consequences for ‘bad behavior’, why then, would anyone behave in a good moral fashion? What is to prevent deviant behavior, if there is no god? These questions are the main basis for the Christian argument which maintains that atheists are untrustworthy, immoral or amoral, social deviants and therefore lesser human beings. Some have gone as far to say that atheists are unpatriotic, un-American and do not even have the right to be acknowledged as citizens of the United States.
Not all people who are religious have sound morals, just as not all people who are atheistic are immoral. In his article, John Arthur discusses why religion does not depend on morality and morality does not depend on religion. Arthur seeks to alter the perspective of those who believe religion is necessary within a society to have a proper moral code. Many believe religion provides a purpose in life, a motivation to do what is right, and a set list of guidelines to follow in order to be a good person.
These individuals are known to be experts of morality. The chapter proposes two reasons as to why these individuals are called upon so frequently. One, for those who believe and have some sort of religious back round, and second, for those who believe in what is called a “scientific view” of the world. This chapter presents the idea that there is some popular belief that religion and morality go hand in hand and that in order to understand morality, you must understand religion. It is explained that when we view morality from a religious perspective, we give meaning to morality in a way that a “good man” made this world that we currently live in and that we are his children. While the book proposes the question that people who believe in God, or a higher power, base their values on what those religions state is right or wrong, whereas for an atheist the question still remains; how do these individuals weigh their moral compass and place their values?
In this essay, I will be arguing that Zagzebski’s argument illustrates that it is rational to believe that God does exist. I will briefly explain the “Does Ethics need God?” fundamental argument about morality that is presented in Zagzebski’s argument. After the first two parts of my essay I will discuss some objections and respond them. I will argue that Zagzebski’s argument indeed proves that God exists and I will do this by outlining the main claims of this argument and by responding to objections to this argument.
In addition, the traditional arguments that refute the existence of God disregard the source of morality, of humans in the sense that moral actions are objective, however, the belief that moral people will be rewarded with good fortune and immoral people will be punished with misfortune. Morality along with the pursuit of happiness would become obsolete without the belief that those who perform moral actions are rewarded, due to the large population performing immoral actions that seem more rewarding and worthy of their time. In the
To answer this question, we must first understand what both ethics and morality are. As ethics is defined as the philosophical study of morality, those who study religion get their moral precepts from what they believe God says should be done. This perspective is not at all unexpected, because all religions apply a perspective on morality. Morality is defined as beliefs concerning right and wrong, good and bad- beliefs that can include judgements, values, rules, principles, and theories. Morals are what help us guide our actions, define our values, and give us reason for being the person that we are.
In an organized religion debate, Alan Dershowitz and Alan Keyes contended many issues on religion and morality. Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard law professor, believed that "morality can be maintained without religion." He also stated that it must be maintained without religion because times have changed. He said that if religion is not separated from state it could have severe damage, such as the Crusades and the Holocaust. Dershowitz believes that there is a difference between morality and religion. When people are moral without religion, they are being virtuous on their own, not because they are afraid of God. He stated that religion should not consist of a Cost-Benefit Analysis. Alan Keyes, a former
In examining the relationship between religion and morality, there are many equally important topics that should be considered. One topic, nonetheless, that I think is essential in beginning to discuss the philosophy of morality in the context of religion is that which is concerned with whether religion has a significant role in the definition of morality. Religion does have a significant role in the defining and understanding of morality, and this is important for ethics. The aim of this paper is not to argue whether it is possible for one to be moral without being religious, for this I assume is more or less evidently possible, but rather whether a general concept of religion and God is needed in the proper interpretation of morality. I will refer to Plato’s Euthyphro and its focus on piety and the dilemma it generates, in guiding this discussion.
To be moral simply means to do what is right; however, doing what is right is easier said than done. Perhaps if one was a child, one would, to the best of their abilities, follow what his parents demand of him, this would constitute them as doing what is right. Now let us say that the child is an orphan, or does not believe what his parents say is right, should following them still be considered moral, or is it even up to him to decide? Perhaps the child has evolved past parenting all together and therefore needs no more guidance. Defining what is considered moral has now become much more complex. Sam Harris presents the same basic argument of morality in his book Letter to a Christian Nation, by applying it not to a child and his parents,
Cultural norms define what part of ourselves we put forth for society to view. We are told what is appropriate to tell others and what we should keep between the walls of our home and our family life. Religion and spirituality are the biggest concepts that society views as taboo in the public sector. Although most people have some sort of spirituality, the conflict that arises when religion is a topic of conversation has made it so faith, similar to politics, becomes forbidden by social norms. It is viewed as irrational, subjective, and distinct from the rest of the world, and the principles of it cannot be applied in public life.
The opposing arguments towards the belief in God and it having anything to do with moral society usually state that the religiousness of our country doesn't have much to do with the actual religion part (Bender, Bruno, 27). The counter argument says that religion is being used more as sociability or a way of belonging, rather than the actual believing in a God and wanting to spread his holy word. Other facts they may use are that people are able to have a conscience and are able to make decisions without having a holy book to tell them the difference between right and wrong. They usually express the fact that all people have the ability to tell between right and wrong due to instincts.
Religion in the world has always been considered a rather important aspect of society. Although this is true, there are still people that question the existence of God. A survey done among 1000 people showed that 65 percent of Americans believe that religion is losing its influence on American life (Sheler, 8). Even so, Belief in a God is necessary for a moral society because since the beginning of history man has always made up some sort of role model to explain events and situations that seem inexplicable, God gives people a sense of comfort and hope to know they aren’t alone, and when a society believes in a God, there is a religion behind it that gives ethics and values that they must
We can act without fear that attempts to shore up our values, responsibilities, institutions, and communities will cause us to charge into a dark tunnel of moralism and authoritarianism that leads to a church-dominated state or a right-wing world.” (Friedman, 1995)those who claim to hold religious and moral values have above all else proven nothing more than their desire to rule over those with different beliefs and/or body parts than theirs. Morality is not the sole intelectual property of religion or it's members. Morality does not require multi-million dollar megachurches or golden altars. The simple home of morality is built using common decency, tolerance, and
Morality only exists if we believe in God; therefore if God doesn’t exist there is no morality. There have been so many evil acts committed in the name of God that it is difficult to maintain that a belief in God equates to morality. There are situations that happen every day where decisions are made based off of human rights that contradict the word of God. Morality comes from within, it is an understanding of right versus wrong and the ability to choose what is right. Knowing all this a belief in God is not a requirement for a person to be moral. (Mosser, 2011)