Thinking back to the destruction of the Gnostics, the instructions to bash infant brains out on rocks, the crusades, the inquisition, the witch hunts, the tale of Egyptian first born murdered because God "hardened Pharaohs heart" or that all the descendants of Eve are condemned to death for her actions...no I'd have to say that we don't need a god for guidance. We can't possibly do any worse than God did or that people did in His name.
On the other hand, it was against God's direction that slaves were freed, that women became real people with real rights and that child beatings slowed dramatically.
No. Whenever someone claims that morality is based in religion/God I think of the Euthyphro dilemma.
"Is what is morally good commanded by God because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by God?"
If it’s the first one then morality exists without God, he’s just a voice that reminds you to follow it. If it’s the second then morality isn’t actually based in anything, if God decides what’s good then he could have just as easily said “killing your neighbours is morally good” and since morality, in this scenario, hinges on what God says is good... that suddenly is what’s good. If you care to argue it then you’re reverting to the first scenario, in which morality exists before/without God, he’s just the perceived speaker.
One has only to look back through history to find the answer here. The church (God's will) has always lagged behind while civilization and morality grew within our societies. When society decided slavery was wrong, the church followed along. When women were declared to be first class citizens, the church was forced to change their rules. When gays were found to be people just like the rest of us, the church gradually accepted the fact. Even the "holy grail" of morality - the Golden Rule - is slowly becoming accepted by the church, even to the point that it, sometimes, applies even when "God's rule" dictates otherwise.
It is always a slow thing - the church is forced, kicking and screaming, into changing what "God's Rule" is, simply to remain in existence for if it does not it will be left along the wayside, discarded as simply another case of the immorality and cruelty of our ancestors. As the things God has declared moral are constantly changed, they must have been moral and right only because God said they were, not because they were innately right.
Whether we need God or not, God is behind everything. To hide from God is fine, but to ask for God's help is brilliant.
Bhagwat Geeta, a sacred text of Hindus, clarifies this question. It says that different guys seek God for different reasons. There are four kinds who seek God : one ,who are in some trouble, second, who want riches for themselves, third, who are curious to know, and lastly, the wise ones. Only the fourth kind is able to fathom God.
Now, your question has an answer : Though we may be like these four kinds, we don't need God because we rather rely on ourselves, otherwise, we always seek or need God for help and support.
If the question is whether atheists can be moral (not do bad things, do good things) the answer is all around you.
by Joseph O Polanco 3 years ago
How do you prove something is morally right or wrong without using the Bible or appealing to God?
by lanablackmoor 5 years ago
Do you think religion compels morality, or does morality determine religion?Obviously the relationship is somewhat multi-directional for most people, but I'm wondering which you think is more powerful. Do people usually choose a religion that aligns with their preexisting morality? Or do they...
by Sooner28 5 years ago
I plan to write a hub about this, because more and more, I see this defense as ridiculously weak, especially for the conservatives who believe in an afterlife.I'm only going to contest one point here: That people are allowed to do evil things because God doesn't want to interfere with their free...
by Sooner28 5 years ago
An atheist at a presentation given by the philosopher William Lane Craig asked why, if the holocaust was morally abhorrent, is the flood not even more so? Hitler never favored the near extinction of the human race. The flood, if true, would have wiped out most of the population of the...
by Rishad I Habib 7 years ago
Atheists sometimes claim that & they do have some reason for such claims. Whats your views on this? & WHY?Remember, exceptions should not be examples. We are talking about the majority of the group not individuals.
by ilmdamaily 8 years ago
Been grappling with this one for a while now. Can't seem to find a way out of it. Is what is "legal" equivalent to what is "moral"? The question is raised because the justification for the enforcement of many laws these days seems to be that it is "the right thing to...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|