What is right and what is wrong is only right or wrong because that’s what God felt it should be for no specific reason.

However, if God does have a cogent justification for his decisions on morality – and it’s not just him flipping coins – then why not just circumvent God altogether and appeal directly to that justification?

God-given morality becomes little more than an absurd and utterly senseless celestial dictatorship, if God himself is not providing a reason for his legislative decisions. Without a secular argument for morality, it ceases to be regardless of the issue of God’s existence or non-existence.

Therefore, the theist loses.

Sincerely,
Sketch

P.S. Yes, I do realise that I am making an extension of the Euthyphro dilemma.

However, “Society” has nothing to do with our definition or adherence to “morality.”

And we do not get our morality from the Bible. If we did, given the track record of genocide, child abuse, rape and incest, we would be in a very sad state of affairs indeed. Hmmm. On the other hand, maybe that’s exactly where we do get our morality from. OK, I meant that tongue-in-cheek.

Bottom line, however, is that regardless of what your interpretation of the Bible is, no religion is *necessary* for moral behavior. It is most likely hard-wired into our genes as it would be an evolutionary disadvantage to have groups that do not protect one another and ensure civility.

The ten commandments are often cited as the basis of morality in our society. A closer look at the ten commandments would suggest that this is not the case. The first three have NOTHING to do with morality. Instead, the supreme being of the universe found his stature ranking more important than, say, murder or rape. The last commandment seems

Let’s look at the Jainist religion. They seem to have managed to construct a “commandment” that is far more succinct than the ten commandments (the first three of which have nothing to do with morality).

The Jainist perspective is simply “do no harm to any living thing.”

Seems pretty straightforward, and Jainists didn’t need a book with a great many ludicrous ideas about the nature of god or the universe.

You state:

> Doing that which is right simply for later rewards is not morality, it is bribery.

This is very true. It is just sucking up, looking over your shoulder at the great security camera in the sky.

Even if it were true that we need God to be moral, it would of course not make God’s existence more likely, merely more desirable.

Let’s also consider how societies change over time and where these impacts come from. Can we really say that slavery (which is endorsed in the Bible, even by Jesus) was outlawed in our country because of a faith in god? I don’t think so. It is self-evident that slavery is wrong. Every civilized country has thrown it onto the trash heap of history. Yet if we followed the precepts of the bible, we should be encouraged to enslave.

The belief in god is not *necessary* for the existence of morality. If it were, atheists would be topping the headlines with out-of-control murder, torture, robbery, working on the sabbath, incest, theft, and so on.

Seems to me those who espouse their view of morality, based on concepts of absolute virtue, are far and away more guilty of crimes against humanity.

“…one has to be aware of any claim to absolute virtue, because it’s absolute virtue that you call forth to kill large numbers of people. It may be impossible to do that without that claim.”

– Robert Jay Lifton
Visiting Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School

However, "Society" has nothing to do with our definition or adherence to "morality."

And we do not get our morality from the Bible. If we did, given the track record of genocide, child abuse, rape and incest, we would be in a very sad state of affairs indeed. Hmmm. On the other hand, maybe that's exactly where we do get our morality from. OK, I meant that tongue-in-cheek.

Bottom line, however, is that regardless of what your interpretation of the Bible is, no religion is *necessary* for moral behavior. It is most likely hard-wired into our genes as it would be an evolutionary disadvantage to have groups that do not protect one another and ensure civility.

The ten commandments are often cited as the basis of morality in our society. A closer look at the ten commandments would suggest that this is not the case. The first three have NOTHING to do with morality. Instead, the supreme being of the universe found his stature ranking more important than, say, murder or rape. The last commandment seems

Let's look at the Jainist religion. They seem to have managed to construct a "commandment" that is far more succinct than the ten commandments (the first three of which have nothing to do with morality).

The Jainist perspective is simply "do no harm to any living thing."

Seems pretty straightforward, and Jainists didn't need a book with a great many ludicrous ideas about the nature of god or the universe.

You state:

> Doing that which is right simply for later rewards is not morality, it is bribery.

This is very true. It is just sucking up, looking over your shoulder at the great security camera in the sky.

Even if it were true that we need God to be moral, it would of course not make God's existence more likely, merely more desirable.

Let's also consider how societies change over time and where these impacts come from. Can we really say that slavery (which is endorsed in the Bible, even by Jesus) was outlawed in our country because of a faith in god? I don't think so. It is self-evident that slavery is wrong. Every civilized country has thrown it onto the trash heap of history. Yet if we followed the precepts of the bible, we should be encouraged to enslave.

The belief in god is not *necessary* for the existence of morality. If it were, atheists would be topping the headlines with out-of-control murder, torture, robbery, working on the sabbath, incest, theft, and so on.

Seems to me those who espouse their view of morality, based on concepts of absolute virtue, are far and away more guilty of crimes against humanity.

"…one has to be aware of any claim to absolute virtue, because it's absolute virtue that you call forth to kill large numbers of people. It may be impossible to do that without that claim."

— Robert Jay Lifton
Visiting Professor of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School

There is a sense of right and wrong that is common to all human beings.

I would agree to this, with a caveat. Generally, our sense of what is “right” and “wrong” is instilled in us at a very young age by our caregivers. For example, to you and I, cannibalism would be considered “immoral” or “wrong.” However, to a very few tribes, it is not only acceptable, but a way of life. Prostitution, to many, is considered immoral. To some, it is not. It all has to do with upbringing.

If human babies were born in a manner that made them able to survive on their own without the nurturing of their parents, you may see a different result. However, we will never see a test done to see how a group of humans would evolve socially without the influence of their parents.

Your approach leads to a morality that cannot be enforced. Why is genocide wrong?

Genocide is wrong because it does not serve to perpetuate the species. We understand and know what death is, unlike other animals. We are self aware. we know the past and understand the gravity of our actions and how causality shapes our future.

However, your statements do bring to light an interesting question. How do we know right from wrong? This knowledge must be independent from any god. And it is. Should I murder another person without it being construed as wrong, I am setting a precedent for myself. This means that one could murder me without it being considered wrong. Generally, we care quite a bit about our well being which makes this thought quite unnerving. Respectively, the opposite is true.

Let us take, for example the phrase, “God is good.” In order for us to determine that God is good, we must have an independent knowledge of what good is, outside of God. Otherwise, you are left with the reasoning that God is good simply because he says that he is good, which is not a reason at all. It is entirely plausible that, if there is a god, he is quite evil. However, since he is a god and designed us, he has made us to believe that he is good.

It may well be true that I, and other atheists like me, only came to have our moral beliefs because of certain things in a Christian, Jewish or Islamic tradition. Certain beliefs and habits that were handed down to us from those traditions. However, the validity of a belief is independent of its’ origin. That Stalin said something does not immediately make the statement false. Respectively, just because Billy Graham said another thing does not make the statement true. How I got my beliefs is one thing. Whether or not I am justified in believing them is another.

<blockquote>There is a sense of right and wrong that is common to all human beings.</blockquote> I would agree to this, with a caveat. Generally, our sense of what is "right" and "wrong" is instilled in us at a very young age by our caregivers. For example, to you and I, cannibalism would be considered "immoral" or "wrong." However, to a very few tribes, it is not only acceptable, but a way of life. Prostitution, to many, is considered immoral. To some, it is not. It all has to do with upbringing.

If human babies were born in a manner that made them able to survive on their own without the nurturing of their parents, you may see a different result. However, we will never see a test done to see how a group of humans would evolve socially without the influence of their parents.

<blockquote>Your approach leads to a morality that cannot be enforced. Why is genocide wrong?</blockquote> Genocide is wrong because it does not serve to perpetuate the species. We understand and know what death is, unlike other animals. We are self aware. we know the past and understand the gravity of our actions and how causality shapes our future.

However, your statements do bring to light an interesting question. How do we know right from wrong? This knowledge must be independent from any god. And it is. Should I murder another person without it being construed as wrong, I am setting a precedent for myself. This means that one could murder me without it being considered wrong. Generally, we care quite a bit about our well being which makes this thought quite unnerving. Respectively, the opposite is true.

Let us take, for example the phrase, "God is good." In order for us to determine that God is good, we must have an independent knowledge of what good is, outside of God. Otherwise, you are left with the reasoning that God is good simply because he says that he is good, which is not a reason at all. It is entirely plausible that, if there is a god, he is quite evil. However, since he is a god and designed us, he has made us to believe that he is good.

It may well be true that I, and other atheists like me, only <it>came</it> to have our moral beliefs because of certain things in a Christian, Jewish or Islamic tradition. Certain beliefs and habits that were handed down to us from those traditions. However, the validity of a belief is independent of its' origin. That Stalin said something does not immediately make the statement false. Respectively, just because Billy Graham said another thing does not make the statement true. How I got my beliefs is one thing. Whether or not I am justified in believing them is another.

Our sense of right and wrong is not simply what our society has decided is acceptable. There is a sense of right and wrong that is common to all human beings. (There are exceptions to this, but they are few and carry names like “sociopath.”)

We know this because when people do wrong, we don’t respond as if they’ve broken the rules like in Monopoly; they have done wrong and we feel outraged.

Your approach leads to a morality that cannot be enforced. Why is genocide wrong? Because our society has said that it is? Well, that society says it isn’t, so [raspberry].

I’m sure you’ve read CS Lewis on this, but let me quote briefly from Mere Christianity: “What was the sense in saying the [Nazis] were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practiced? If they had had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the colour of their hair.”

If a prohibition against murder is simply a pragmatic agreement in our society, then there is nothing wrong with murder. It can be illegal, impractical, or rude, but it cannot be immoral.

But everybody knows that it is immoral (again, with the exception of the truly defective). We feel right and wrong in our deepest being.

If morality were simply a survival instinct, we would obey it like birds building nests. But we just as we all know what we ought to do, we also all know that we don’t do it. Thus morality is neither social contract or instinct; it is a real thing that is external to us, and we feel responsible for following it and guilty when we fail.

Now, which is better to do right for the sake of doing right or to avoid punishment? Christianity teaches that it’s better to do right out of love than out of fear or for reward, but the latter is certainly better than doing wrong.

Our sense of right and wrong is not simply what our society has decided is acceptable. There is a sense of right and wrong that is common to all human beings. (There are exceptions to this, but they are few and carry names like "sociopath.")

We know this because when people do wrong, we don't respond as if they've broken the rules like in Monopoly; they have done <i>wrong</i> and we feel outraged.

Your approach leads to a morality that cannot be enforced. Why is genocide wrong? Because our society has said that it is? Well, that society says it isn't, so [raspberry].

I'm sure you've read CS Lewis on this, but let me quote briefly from <i>Mere Christianity</i>: "What was the sense in saying the [Nazis] were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practiced? If they had had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the colour of their hair."

If a prohibition against murder is simply a pragmatic agreement in our society, then there is nothing <i>wrong</i> with murder. It can be illegal, impractical, or rude, but it cannot be immoral.

But everybody knows that it is immoral (again, with the exception of the truly defective). We feel right and wrong in our deepest being.

If morality were simply a survival instinct, we would obey it like birds building nests. But we just as we all know what we ought to do, we also all know that we don't do it. Thus morality is neither social contract or instinct; it is a real thing that is external to us, and we feel responsible for following it and guilty when we fail.

Now, which is better to do right for the sake of doing right or to avoid punishment? Christianity teaches that it's better to do right out of love than out of fear or for reward, but the latter is certainly better than doing wrong.