Morality without God

Teaching ethics a number of years ago, I was told by an earnest student that there can be no morality without God. He seemed to agree implicitly with the idea that “If God does not exist, then all things are permitted.” He also believed in a visceral way that without God’s restraining hand, people would become riddled with vice, steal, kill, rape, take drugs and indulge in sinful sex. It is as if humans are just waiting to escape the leash and run amok. On this view, there is no reason whatsoever to be moral without the promise of heaven in the next life or the threat of hell fire.

I found upon asking that many of my students felt the same way. This surprised me greatly, given the attempts in recent centuries to find ways of conceiving of morality in secular terms. For example, neither Kantian ethical theory nor Utilitarianism pin notions of right and wrong to the existence of God. Kant thought he could anchor moral thinking to the notion of duty and the categorical imperative, which demands that we treat all people as ends in themselves and act upon universal prescriptive principles. However, God still had a role to play in Kant’s philosophy as chief cheerleader for the moral law within us.

Utilitarianism, which defines right and wrong in terms of maximizing pleasure and happiness, moves even further from a God-centered ethics. Instead of God pointing to the moral law and endorsing it, we have an ethics that is based purely on human nature and society. In fact, utilitarianism gives us a way to judge God’s commands. If God’s commands go against the greatest happiness principle, then we have a good reason to jettison them.

There is no doubt that some valuable moral insights have been promulgated by religion. In fact, the principle of the Golden Rule, which many of the world’s religions contain, seems to be a good place to start thinking about morality. It may have come from religion, but we can get there simply by reflecting on the ways human beings interrelate. “Treat others as you wish to be treated” or, better to my mind, “Do not treat others as you do not wish to be treated” are both admirable rules for life. We may not get to “Love your neighbor as yourself” from the Golden Rule, but we certainly get close.

Consider a thought experiment. Let us imagine that there was never a God-based moral system, no Divine Commandments, no rules of conduct springing from Supernatural Revelation. From this perspective, let us now look at the great moral debates of our age. Would they look different to us?

First, consider some of the current contentious debates, including abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia, cloning, drug use, contraception, sex education and gay marriage. God’s finger actively stirs up these debates. So my question is how they would look without God’s intervention. Would they seem so intractable and cause so much heat and sometimes violence? I believe not.

Let us consider just two: euthanasia and gay marriage. Would these be such big issues if God had not pronounced against them? Yet, is God’s prohibition a good reason to ban them? With respect to the first, we are more humane with animals than with humans. The only issue with euthanasia from a Revelationless point of view is whether the person who wants to die is certain in resolve. As for gay marriage, it is even more plain that it would be a non-issue if God had not forbidden same-sex unions. It would be an interesting project to go down the list and discover if these problems could be more easily resolved without God’s input.

One problem with God is that we cannot know with absolute certainty whether God exists or not. Therefore, it is a personal choice whether or not to believe. It is a choice made on the basis of what Kant called a ‘practical postulate’ of reason. In his view, it is best to live as if God exists. However, it might be better now to act as if God does not exist and does not interfere in human morality. Perhaps our moral dilemmas would be one step closer to being solved if this were to happen.

Leave a comment ?


  1. “If God does not exist, then all things are permitted.”
    And of course, nothing is permitted.
    It’s permission that drops out; not right and wrong!

  2. Great meditation. Count me among the proponents of an ethics that rests on reason and evidence alone (if indeed we can distill any “ought’s” from the “is’s” of reason and evidence.) But I do wonder how much less contentious these debates become even if we forego the God talk. Some may (and probably do) feel an unreflecting repulsion when it comes to euthanasia and same-sex marriage; a reaction that has nothing to do with religious teaching. (There’s no doubt that such teaching is a key driver of these attitudes, but it’s far from clear that it’s the only one. All sorts of psychological factors may go into an inflation of the “yuk” factor.) Others might have no such reaction, while finally others might feel a repulsion but at the same time wish to uphold the principle that we allow others to do as they wish so long as they do not directly harm others. Depending on whether you’re an Millean, an Aristotlean, or any other secular “-ean”, you may find yourself arguing with another perfectly rational agent with no mention made on either side to God.

  3. I wonder. If there wasn’t any such concept as a god how much would things be different? My guess is there would still be a marked difference in people, with the division similar to that which now exists. The “believers” would be drawn together by some other cohesive belief living under much the same system of morality. Ultimately, I believe there’s a common imagination – lack of, type, or fear of – these people share.

  4. Actually, most of our (I’m an atheist) basic ethical values aren’t very different than those of the 10 Commandments or even from Homer. It seems that basic ethical rules haven’t changed much (yes, I know that Aristotle justified slavery, etc.)since ancient times, although our justifications and/or rationalizations for our ethics have changed radically. Ethics: a set of rules or virtues in search of a justification or rationalization. When God died, we (human beings) began to invent new justifications or reasons for not killing, not stealing, not lying, etc.

  5. I like this bit “When God died, we (human beings) began to invent new justifications or reasons for not killing, not stealing, not lying, etc.” from Amos. I would like to introduce the subject of feelings. The reason “we (human being) begin to invent new justifications” is because we ultimately navigate through life by way of feeling. If it does not feel good to think a way, we alter our thinking.

    I have had similar frustrating discussions with those who use fear as an eternal scapegoat and refuse to recognize the divine within themselves. It takes a great deal of understanding to see how nature builds its own morality into everything that exists, beginning with subatomic particles and culminating in these miraculous bodies we so often take for granted, walking around.

    The kind of balance can only be achieved though Mother Nature “feeling its way” building block by building block for how it continues to work. Balance works. When things are out of balance, they will not stabilize and allow for greater complexity. In our heads we walk around with big ideas including God. These are the last 5% of our being. 95% of our being already is in place and recognizes balance (and consequently morality by how things feel). We are walking around in the morality of biology every day of our lives. If we tap into our feelings, right and wrong are clear.

  6. Keith McGuinness

    Benjamin: “…how nature builds its own morality into everything that exists…”

    Alas, as someone who has spent much of his life, one way or another, studying biology, nature is one of the last places I would look to for morality.

    In nature, some species routinely eat their own young, a practice which is generally regarded as questionable in most societies. War, genocide, patricide, and most other “cides” you can think of, are fairly common.

    Nature is a poor guide for what is moral.

  7. Was disappointed to learn to today that the BBC lump religion and ethics together in one department. And it’s always annoying that the main go-to people for talking about ethical dilemmas on the news and current affairs shows are almost always religious figures, hardly ever philosophers.

  8. The best basis for morality is Socrates’ simple maxim: Care for that within you which prospers by doing good deeds and suffers by doing bad deeds.
    I do not need anything above or beyond that to behave justly and humanely. I may not always live up to that, but when I do not I know that I have gone wrong, and, what is more important, in my cooler moments, I know that I have wronged myself before anyone else and more than anyone else. I do not need a foreign god to tell me that.

  9. Keith “Alas, as someone who has spent much of his life, one way or another, studying biology, nature is one of the last places I would look to for morality.”

    I believe earnestly that you indeed have studied biology, but have you lived it? Examining life from a distance (i.e academically) you will never understand it. In a situation where “street smarts” are needed, you will inevitably being to explain intellectually your opinions on the matter and unlikely be able to finish your first pontificating sentence.

    Nature does not wait on your IDEAS. Nature exacts what works and it does so to maintain balance ALWAYS. Balance IS morality, even if you don’t like how it looks and feels. Your religious programming obviously runs deeper than you have yet realized.

  10. Benjamin:
    Can you explain how a subatomic particle, say for instance a neutrino, can have a its own morality? So far as I know modern physics has yet to detect this, and I cannot imagine how it could. Additionally you mention “These are the last 5% of our being. 95% of our being already is in place” Can you enlarge on how these quantities were arrived at. I assume they are the result of some mathematical calculation?

    My own take on this problem is that morality is a human construct alone. This means that outside of the human mind it has no existence. In other words reality does not do morality; no more than say, it does poetry or politics. Additionally Right and Wrong are not found outside the human mind things just happen there, that is all, and the matter of balance is not to my mind applicable in such a place. Things either happen, or they do not.

    The Earth existed for millions of years before humans evolved; are you claiming that even then morality was sort of, hanging around, and eventually imbued humans?

    I am wondering if there is a verbal dispute here, that is to say, your definition of morality differs from how most people would define it. Would you consider using another word such that your views would, with respect, be more attractive to others? I cannot help but think the word Balance is not much assistance here.

  11. As a religious believer, I’m going to stab in the dark, as this is an issue that is of particular interest to me, and I’m always trying to understand you atheist types:

    I lean toward Kant on the duty part, but add an insight from my understanding of cognitive anthropology: religion, particularly belief in a deity, is an incredibly useful concept the human mind uses to funnel its understanding of many issues into language which is not only powerfully symbolic, but also compact and economical. Finally, religion tightens the concept of duty due to the psychological implications (a la Pascal Boyer) of a personal god in relation to our intuitive psychology of each other.

    In this way, atheist morality, at least all the one’s which I’ve seen, can get it right on the “rationality” part, but cannot gain in the public sphere due to lack of persuasiveness, and for very good reason: lacking the religious funnel means atheist morality cannot be used in quick and dirty situations where one person doesn’t necessarily know a great deal about the other person. This may be the reason why many regular people have a hard time even conceiving of morality without religion.

    Sure, you can sub in some washed out humanism in place of religion, but again, I think to many people, even many education people, this concept just doesn’t provide all the pros of religion in funneling morality.

    Now, Jeff, no offense, but you seem to think fundamentalist monotheism is the only religion in town or the only form of theism in town (at least the wording in your article makes it seem like this). However, I’m a Christian who thinks that euthanasia and homosexual marriage should be legal, even though I morally disagree with these particular issues.

    Given that I don’t think we can even eradicate religion in the first place (given it’s “hardwiring” in the modular mind), I think even talking about it as if we could is driven more by emotional wishful thinking than anything else, as the last lines in your article seem to suggest by talking about some progressive future.


    Anyone responding to me, go easy. I’m an amateur philosopher and might not have the time to have a knock out battle on this issue (like most people usually want to have). Instead, I’m merely here to exchange some ideas and direction of thought, so that I can better understand the atheist positions on morality. Any thoughts are greatly appreciated.

  12. Keith McGuinness

    Benjamin: “I believe earnestly that you indeed have studied biology, but have you lived it?”

    Have I lived it? Yes. I have probably spent more time wandering through nature than you have.

    “Examining life from a distance (i.e academically) you will never understand it.”

    What makes you assume that I examine life from a distance?

    “…and unlikely be able to finish your first pontificating sentence.”

    Arrogant nonsense.

    “Nature does not wait on your IDEAS. Nature exacts what works and it does so to maintain balance ALWAYS.”

    Nature is mostly out of balance: that is how it works.

    “Your religious programming obviously runs deeper than you have yet realized.”

    I’m an atheist, you twit. (Normally I would not stoop to name calling but your response is full of arrogrant self-serving assumptions and unjustified blather.)

  13. Don,

    When you were a child or even now as you might play with your own child and stack wooden blocks one on another on a table—balance is what rules. The earlier stages must be balanced before you can build higher. In a similar manner, as all physical existence is nothing more than energy in patterns, what allows all energy to express itself in any degree of complexity is balance. This is the only thing that allows life to grow more complex throughout kingdoms and species—just like the wooden blocks

    Morality is indeed a word used by humans to describe and determine right from wrong. At some point someone decided something was worth making a stink about and called it “wrong” or someone fell deeply in love and called out “this is right”. By contrast we believe the opposites exist. A couple of frustrated humans get together and decide they are going to determine what “right” and “wrong” is, when it is absurd—life just IS.

    As a human construct it doesn’t work. What works is what has always work for eternity—Mother Nature. Mother Nature determines everything. You and I are nature. It just happens. The resistance that many so-called religious people have to looking outside their box is that life could only be considered—as this post initially pointed out—random and lawless. If you look deeply enough into natural law you find morality—you can call it leftover turkey dinner if you like—but it is all we have got as a stand-in for morality.

    I believe that reality does indeed do poetry. Just watch a sunset. You and I agree. Words and mind stuff may not get us there through these comments, but we absolutely agree. We agree because we are ultimately the same—in the same boat—living the same thing—life. If we were to just look in each other’s eyes without all these words we would both simply nod and smile. Minds never touch, hearts do.

    Just as it feels uncomfortable to lean to far over a railing at the Grand Canyon because of the loss of balance and the danger involved it also feels uncomfortable and not quite right to hurt others. We have overstepped something in both cases. This is balance and the only morality that rules. The rest of it is the thing of debates and endless conversation getting nowhere.

    Keith, have another beer.

  14. I would also like to offer a link to an article on my Natural Healing blog concerning the issue of God from a Holistic Healing perspective. Here is that link: Holistically Speaking, Who or What is God?

  15. This is the first time I’ve posted to this site so I hope I’m not intruding. Let me preface my comments by saying that I am one of those atheist types Tom is trying to understand. His comments are insightful and add a much-needed balance to the debate. We need to understand his thoughts as much as he is attempting to understand the atheist side of things.

    Religion is a nearly universal given in cultures around the world and throughout history. This is not an accident. Tom is correct to point out that religion provides a shared shorthand for understanding ethical problems. Without this shared understanding on the part of so many, can we really imagine that the moral landscape would be any healthier? The atheists commenting to this essay can’t seem to agree on any one compelling basis for ethical thought. Should nature, red in tooth and claw, be our example? Does one follow Kant, Bentham, or Camus? Without some monolithic source of moral consensus, especially one that is “hardwired” into our psyches, how is public debate to be framed?

    Pun intended, I’m playing Devil’s advocate. I don’t believe that belief in an anthropomorphic deity is necessary for an individual to have consistent ethical standards or moral behavior. Still, I think we all need to read over Tom’s posting carefully and thoughtfully.


  16. Perhaps we should focus more directly on the problem Jeff Mason posed. As I understand it we were asked to consider if a system of morality having any worth could exist without it supposedly emanating from God. In my opinion religion conspires against wisdom. So far as the ten or is it twelve commandments are concerned, the first few direct the way in which we must behave towards an all powerful god. The remaining commandments are generally reasonably good but provide no advice as to why we should behave in certain ways towards each other.

    Consider for example the command ‘Thou shalt not steal’ this I understand if obeyed without question will ensure that god will reward the agent. If disobeyed god will punish the agent. What we have here is shaping behaviour by means of reward or punishment. So if one asks a believer why he does not steal he will reply because it is forbidden in The Bible. This of course is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. The believer has never been informed by the authority to which he bows, of the social undesirability of stealing, the misery and distress it causes, depriving someone of their own property. The believer is never advised to place himself in the position of the victim and consider how he would feel. The commandment does not say ‘thou shalt not steal because of its social consequences, it is because god will wreck the most terrible punishment on you if you do. This and a multitude of other reasons is why I say religion conspires against wisdom.

    There very good reasons for endeavouring to abide by some of the commandments and I am well aware that some people of faith also are fully aware of the sociological implications of stealing, but fear of the wrath emanating from an entity having as much evidence of existence as does a unicorn is not one of them. I conclude therefore that a proper and sound moral code is not fully determined by religion, which is not even a necessary part of that code.

  17. Kevin Spacey’s character from K-PAX,the movie:

    “Every being in the universe knows right from wrong, Mark.”

    We just know it — we know it by how it FEELS to be OUT OF BALANCE.

  18. Good without god | Synapses - pingback on February 12, 2010 at 4:59 am
  19. There’s a fair amount of descriptive truth to what Tom is saying. Many people do use religion in this way – this is of course an entirely separate issue from whether they should do so. The latter question would be answered by knowing which was the most optimal way to derive moral rules (in terms of their intelligibility, motivational force, outcomes, sustainability, coherence, etc.).

    I’ve said more over at

    Interesting comments here, and a thought-provoking post. It’s also great to see the (largely) civil way in which people are interacting.

  20. Hi everyone. Thanks for the thoughtful responses. What I would like to know is what would happen to the hot button moral problems of the current age, if, per impossibile, supernatural judgments had never played a role in defining ideas of right and wrong and having a say on moral problems.

  21. Morality is human, isn’t it? People care about right and wrong according to how people suffer or how they wish to avoid suffering. Whether God exists or not will not necessarily give way to moral degradation. Physical suffering and the quantity of people on this planet who affect others is so obvious in today’s world. The economy is a monitor of our behavior, the natural resources and their seeming scarcity monitor’s our behavior, natural disasters monitor our behavior. Doing “good” is the result of “I’ll scrtach your back if you scratch mine” more than any altruistic notion of an ideal morality. People behave morally because they have to to avoid suffering, not because they have made an altruistic choice to love God above all else.

  22. Ethics without God happens often. For example, professional ethics (w/ formal statements of principles of professional conduct) do not mention God or any other divine being.

    The prior question is ‘Can ethics without enforcement work?’ Professional ethics typically have mechanisms for reprimanding, even outing, a wayward member. Informal ethics such as schoolyard ethics have rewards and punishments to persuade members or dissuade non-members.

    As for doing or promoting the doing of good things, Christian ethics has a better track record than philosophy. A notably example: 19th-century Anglicans were very instrumental in getting slavery banned in English-speaking countries.

    Are there ethics in which someone will create or maintain a good or benefit for another without reward or punishment? At least one: the ethics of love.

    Happy Valentine, eh?

  23. I think that’s sort of why religion was created in the first place. I for one don’t think people need “God” in their life to live morally, but a lot of people do. It helps instill people with a sense of good, and for that it’s appropriate. However, to think that without God we would have no morals is just silly. I don’t follow and religious pretext or guidelines, and I consider myself a very moral person.

  24. I think using religion as a shortcut for understanding and framing ethical issues in discussions with others is useful, but not necessary.

    I have not yet found a way to satisfactorily build a system of ethics on a non-religious foundation and yet humankind still manages to get by. There are laws and legal systems that tell us how to behave and provide for punishment. They can be different in each society as different societies will base their laws on different (usually religious) bases. So again religion proves to be a useful shorthand by providing a basis on which we can build practical systems to govern people with.

    I also think most religion & religious creeds are created by humans.

    So I guess my conclusion is that all moral codes are created by humans but that we are unable to define or defend them from first principles. Instead we have to start with a set of (hopefully shared) assumptions (-it’s wrong to kill, steal, etc.) and then build up our moral / legal system from there – religion provides those assumptions for us and gives us a justification for using them.

    Of course if we could all only agree on one single religion then that would simplify the discussion of moral matters as Jeff Mason seemed to have hoped for.

  25. If God exist and if he is this all mighty entity that is above all understanding how could assume that morality is relevant to him?

  26. I think this post misses the issue a bit. While I think it’s true that some of ‘God’s’ prescriptions are very problematic, even amoral (like gay rights), I think these are really issues with religion. And confusing God with religion is an error both sides of the debate make.

    I want to suggest that God is believed to be the keeper for morality is because he represents the existence of an objective perspective, an absolutism in the universe. Without the existence of such a perspective, the concept that something is wrong in the ultimate sense that we want things to be wrong becomes very difficult to ground. Moral realism becomes extremely hard to argue.

    Let’s take utilitarianism, for example, as you say a morality that exists without God. But how do we know what maximizes pleasure/happiness? What’s the ‘right’ pleasure, and for whom, and why? And how do we answer these questions in a satisfying way without referring to some kind of objective standpoint? That’s what I think is the relevant and interesting place God enters into the discussion.

  27. Am just curious how this thought experiment can successfully proceed, weeding out religious bias even from among atheists, who nonetheless have a concept of God. [After all, can think of ‘not A’ when there is no A to talk about?]. Would this thought experiment require a laboratory involving a group of individuals who must be quarantined from birth, in that their sense of right and wrong is well confined within this God-less environment (provided, of course, that the very strong meme [har, har, thanks to dawkins] of a religious belief will not cross their minds, or even created)?

  28. Kezia, you make a very good point about the difference between a divine being and a man-made interpretation of the cosmos. I agree that humans feel a need to ground their morality in something and the only thing that could ultimately be the objective reason / support for a moral system would be a divine being.

  29. Keith McGuinness

    Peter Day: “I agree that humans feel a need to ground their morality in something and the only thing that could ultimately be the objective reason / support for a moral system would be a divine being.”

    But if the divine being does not actually exist, then this morality is not grounded on anything (except what some people think an imaginary divine being wants).

    I am a human and I certainly do not need to ground my morality on an imaginary divine being.

  30. An interesting question came up as to whether we are able to disentangle divine input into our moral controversies. Why can’t we? Take the so-called ‘issue’ with homosexuality and gay marriage. What if the Bible had said that sexual orientation is neutral, and it is how we treat each other that matters. Or what if it said nothing about sexual pleasures and morality? I agree this is hypothetical, but we can imagine that sexual orientation would be a non-issue without divine input. All we would see is that there is a small minority that prefers same sex love relationships, and a majority that do not. This would be a simple observation and not a condemnation. Just an idea.

  31. I entirely agree on the sexual orientation point – it simply does not involve any defensible notion of “wrongness”, apart from it’s wrongness by definition, at least according to some religious systems.

  32. Matthew Schraud

    Just an intro, I didn’t type this to try and convince anyone, just to present both sides of an argument from my own understanding. Balance was out of the question when I wrote this being that I have the option to be reasonably biased in this, the best country on earth. Although I think the Arab Emirates will be the best country once they finish that nice arrangement of islands which is suppose to look like a map of the world from the sky.

    I think this is a great convo on morality. Some very good points are being brought up here. I love to learn about this stuff, really broadens a person’s horizons in terms of thinking logically about reality. However, I do have a point I would like to present, and that is, if God does not exist then do good and evil exist? Also we must define what the word “exist” actually means. In a materialist thought there cannot exist a consciousness of sorts, being that everything is made of matter and energy, therefore this concept of mystical consciousness would not exist as many materialist have acknowledged. Therefore in order to say that something doest exist it should be able to be proven by experiment that this thing does exist as matter and energy.

    So, if we look at evil through materialist eyes, can we say that it exists? If there is no consciousness or God then that means there is no original basis for good and evil but in fact those terms would be subjective. I think it can reasonably be concluded that something which is subjective cannot be proven by experiment, otherwise it would be absolute. Now if good and evil are subjective then there’s no absolute good or evil, each idea of good and evil being arguably and reasonably an opinion or belief. Now if there are no absolutes concerning good and evil, then the existence of good and evil cannot be proven materially, they would simply be distant concepts, kind of like a faith in a god or gods, and for the atheist, arguably none existent. Now if good and evil are subjective non-absolutes then it can reasonably be agreed that good and evil do not exist. Now, if good and evil do not exist then all arguments concerning morality should logically cease, and also logically not cease. If good and evil do not exist, then morality, being the basis for which we decide good and evil, inevitably become the basis for which we decide two nonexistents. Therefore, morality is also a distant improvable concept. Now an experiment to prove morality cannot be performed on the basis of whether or not morality is good or bad being that those things arguably do not exist. So, morality also does not exist, or it exists as a delusion for the sake of convenience in terms of the norm.

    Now concerning this morality as a convenience for the sake of the norm, some would say this is necessary for meaning. Yet, if good and evil are nonexistent, and morality is a nonexistent, then off the basis of which nonexistent moral code does a person base their understanding of meaning? It would seem that an argument must be postulated to in some way give reason to hold true to a delusion. Yet if such an argument were to be developed, then why would the atheist debate with the theist. If it is true that all of the ideas of good, evil, and morality are subjective and logically do not exist, yet it is okay for one to remain in the delusion of a life as if these things do exist, then if a person believes it to be best for them to hold true to a delusion, and I am ethically speaking here, then what reasoning does that person have to try and disprove what they think is another person’s delusion? Of course this spreading of radical atheism should logically cease, and yet again, according to materialist thought everything I am saying here is subjective, and if that were true, then in my view, everything they are saying is subjective, and so even to say that something is subjective is subjective, which leads into a whole other problem concerning truth, which would also not exist, therefore, it would not be reasonable to agree nor disagree, yet my subjective thoughts can reasonably conclude that this world view concedes that the world revolves around each individual, because their perception is subjective to everyone else.

    Now, in looking at the idea of faith in God, with that faith there is provided an original basis for the concepts in morality, good and evil have absolutes, meaning is provided by the intrinsic value of humanity provided at creation, and God is no longer a distant concept but a close friend and father. Morality, in its truest form, is not based on delusion, it is not based on fear of death or hell, it is not based on law or debates, but it is based on love; morality is based on true love for one’s creator and His purpose in creation, true love for humanity and one’s purpose for one’s creator.

    In the materialist world view, the dead end of their thoughts leaves the person with their hands full of nonexistent concepts and incalculable delusions. There is no meaning, inevitably no actual understanding. Yet in the world view which is faith in the one true God, the dead end leaves the person with some questions, but most of all, the persons attention is focused on the overwhelming sensations of love, compassion, and trust. The materialist perception say’s that a person’s essence, if I may use that word, is carried on by their legacy. But in the theist perception, the essence of the one who has faith in God is carried on into eternity.

    Here is where the line is drawn between atheistic logic and pragmatism. How can the end of one’s thoughts be love, compassion and trust? Yes, reality is harsh, the basics of pragmatic thought tell us this. Frustration and anger persist in this present reality. Yet it is the hope of the believer which says that there is an alternate reality; this one being temporal, the other being eternal, this one being full of pain, the other being the very image of everything that is good and perfect beyond our perception. So how can a believer’s “dead end” in terms of understanding be love, compassion, and trust? The answer is hope. Eternity, or perfection, although an alternate reality, is ever present within this present reality. Hope in this future, opens our perception to that futures existence in this present time; this allowing a person to taste of the love, compassion, and trust which are present in the eternal reality, while here in this temporal reality. Now, whichever one of these thoughts a person has faith in will ultimately decide whether or not they are left with nonexistents and delusions, or absolutes which come from the mind of God, which only a fool would argue that God’s thoughts are also subjective in the grand scheme of everything. Ultimately, a person’s faith can only leave them with two things, if they believe in no creator, then they are left with nothingness, if they believe in the creator, then they are left with hope, and in the words of the Apostle to the gentiles, “hope does not disappoint” (Romans 5:5a).

  33. Matthew, you claim that morals can only exist if there is an absolute standard in the mind of God. Yet that begs the question: Are moral standards good in themselves or simply because God commands them? If morality is about choices, how can a being that cannot make evil choices be moral at all? Is “good” simply what he commands? If so, then being willing to kill your child on his whim becomes a good moral choice. “Thou shalt not kill!–Well, except when I order you to do so!” That’s not exactly an absolute, is it?

    Morality is most properly based in human nature itself. Moral choices are about values and the foundation for all values is Life itself. We have one basic capacity as humans which differentiates us from all other animals: To choose to value Life or not. Like all other creatures, we are biologically programmed to preserve our own lives. Beyond that is the question of how to live our lives well–or at all. A natural moral philosophy starts with the basic needs we all have as human beings and asserts the first “ought”–We OUGHT to seek that which is actually good for us. It is self-refuting to argue the opposite. Of course humans make bad choices because we often confuse apparent goods with real goods. Yet every human has the need for food, shelter, health and companionship. A rational morality strives to balance the needs of everyone by the protecting the rights of each individual to meet those needs without trampling the rights of others to do the same.

    I’m an atheist and do not deny the critical importance of love in human life. Living without belief in God does not leave me with “nothingness.” Indeed, if you would not love your parents, your children and your friends just as much whether there is or is not a God, then your concept of love is sadly twisted.

    I wouldn’t complain if we could live for eternity in perfect bliss after this life. However, I see no evidence of an afterlife, nor for deities of any sort. That doesn’t destroy hope, it focuses it where it belongs: This life. If it is all we have, that doesn’t devalue it–it makes it all the more precious.

  34. No one denies *some* positives have come from religions. The problem lies in their contradiction with modern science, guilt-tripping, and promotion of ignorance.

    If people are told faith in certain disproven beliefs is the ultimate form of goodness, they are being told to flat out disregard the truth. And the sad thing is, plenty of people will disregard the truth because of what an ancient document says.

    There are people who refuse to hospitalize or medicate their kids when their survival is at stake, because they *believe* that modern medical treatment is harmful and that all that is needed is faith in God. And as a result, their kids get sicker and may die. The lunacy and fanaticism within the human race has no bounds.

  35. There is no mention here of Confucius, who made the claim that metaphysical beliefs about God and the universe are irrelevant. Without appealing to God, Confucius was able to influence Chinese beliefs for thousands of years, assuring people that benevolent relations with fellow humans is the social glue that holds human civilization together. One could compare this to Levinas’ talk of “the other” in the West.

  36. I have moral values (they may be different from yours) and I don’t have a God (I am agnostic).

    I know there are those with moral values (possibly different each other) who have different Gods!

  37. It is funny.. the God in whom life does not exist from, according to most persons commenting on this entry, is the very God I believe gave each and every one of us something called a conscience. This con”science” is good, to begin (if one believes he/she is made in the image of Christ), but because of “inmorality” (whatever you may believe that is), a conscience will become hardened and practically useless or void.. leading one to hate, kill, destroy, rape, etc.

    Go ahead, keep making the rules up as you go… As for me, I like something made up of a bit more substance – absolute, in fact. I, like many, enjoy a set of guidelines that have stood the test of time. From the start (as children especially, [sorry, the elementary edu background I hold coming out a bit 🙂 ] we naturally desire rules and guidelnes… standards and procedures. That too, is why some believe in this “God of order.” The commands were created by a loving creator, who has set eternity in the hearts (& conscience) of mankind. Do you think about where you might go after death? Is there a heaven? A hell? But if I’m good and moral, I will get there… right? That is, if there God even exists… One may not begin to realize he exists until he is open to the idea that the Christian God really may not be a bad guy trying to dictate us like puppets. That is why the Christian doctrine teaches its faith built upon love and tolerance. Thanks! 🙂

  38. “It is funny.. the God in whom life does not exist from, according to most persons commenting on this entry, is the very God I believe gave each and every one of us something called a conscience.”

    Just because you believe it, doesn’t make it so. And we don’t need to have a god, to have a conscience: we just need to consider whether our actions are good or bad. And I don’t need a god to help me decide that.

  39. Firstly i would like to say i am an atheist of many years standing, and also a member of the British Humanist association Sutton Surrey BHA is my group. Religion and morality does not always go hand in hand in my opinion. Many atheists and agnoistics and Humanists live very moral lives icluding myself and my husband. Problem is what is moral to one person is not moral to another religion i think is a tool to keep people in their place and does not allow in most cases for people to be free-thinkers. I think you can have humanity for others without being religious i try to subscribe to this code as much as possible. I do not believe in divine creators etc i think every creature on this earth is the product of evolution and the science aspect of it all is right but in saying that science doesn’t have all the answers we know that to be so. Religion is man-made and people will kill in the name of their religion just look back through history the crusades for example. I do not need religion but some people do that is their choice i have no argument with that as long as they don’t try to force it on to me.

  40. I think the student was right. I fail to see how morality can exist without God. It is no good pointing to utilitarianism etc- those are normative moral theories. Utilitarianism does not ‘define’ right as ‘that which will maximise happiness’. It says acts that maximise happiness have rightness. Only if you assume naturalism – and thus simply assume that Divine Command Theory is false – does the Utilitarian principle become a definition of rightness.

    Here’s why I think morality requires a God. Morality tells you what to do. Only agents can tell you what to do. Or at least, I fail to see how anything else can tell anyone what to do. So I fail to see how morality can ‘exist’ unless it consists in teh commands of an agent.
    Maybe I’m missing something.

  41. I should add – Divine Command Theory is perfectly compatible with Utilitarianism, Deontology, virtue ethics That’s because it is not a normative moral view (which isn’t to deny that it has any normative moral implications). So, to offer up utilitarianism as an alternaive to Divine Command Theory is totally misguided.

    Divine Command THeory is also NOT the view that the bible says what is right and wrong. You’d have to believe the bible was a communication from God to think that and a Divine Command Theorist is in no way committed to that view. I’m a Divine Command Theorist and I think the bible is rubbish from beginning to end.

    Divine Command Theory is a metaethical view and when assessing it one should stick to considering how well it accounts for moralities’ core characteristics. and the answer to that is: extremely well. Far better than any rival view.

    Take naturalism. Naturalism can’t explain how morality can tell you what to do. For natural properties don’t tell you what to do, do they?

    Take non-naturalism. Non-naturalism can’t explain how morality can tell you what to do either. it is just as difficult to comprehend how a non-natural property can tell you what to do as a natural one.

    Take subjectivism (which, I suppose, is a brand of naturalism). Well, morality isn’t subjective is it – I can’t make something right just by changing my attitudes towards it. Plus telling you about my own feelings doesn’t provide you with any special reason to act, whereas pointing out that something is wrong clearly does.

    Take non-cognitivism – well, although exprressing a feeling is not quite the same as stating that one has a feeling exactly the same info is conveyed so I fail to see how this could be any real improvement on subjectivism.

    However, if morality is the commands of a God then we can account of why the moral truth is independent of our feelings: what God commands is not determined by our feelings. We can account for how morality can tell you what to do: morality is a set of commands and commands instruct. We can also account for why moral commands provide you with reason to obey them: God will punish you if you don’t and reward you if you do.
    Queasy though it may make us, Divine Command Theory is a damn good metaethical theory.

  42. Carol and Grimsthorpe
    I am really interested with what you shared with us, each so elegantly. Are you still visiting this site as I am looking to bring some comments and learn more from both of you

  43. Priscila Silva

    I believe in God,I believe that God is quite different from what people say about him, and from what Bible says. What I generally say to people, specially when it comes to gay marriage is: DON’T USE GOD TO JUSTIFY YOUR OWN PREJUDICE AGAINST GAYS OR WHATEVER! I believe that it’s what people do all the time. So, whether God exist or not, people are mean and like to believe they have an excuse for that. I don’t believe that people can only be moral with God. As we cannot think of God without thinking of the bible, I believe that bible has some good advice and stories, as well as other stupid things for some radical people who like to suffer the entire life or make the other’s lives a hell. Bible is just like any other book, and so we can filter what is good or not. The bible itself offers the choice to live by the law, or by the mercy of God. So I didn’t come here to defend God, because God doesn’t need that. I came to say that everybody is human, we are all in the same world and we all have our choices. So I believe that moral needs no God, but me, I want to keep some principles from God. And the first principle is: respect! Jesus never judged anyone. Jesus would never judge any people that don’t believe him. What is so wrong about it? Why should I believe that God needs to be adored by everybody? What I’ve learned with time is to respect everyone’s beliefs, including the belief that there is no God. I agree with everything you said. I would only exchange the quote to,”Morality needs no Bible” from a prospective that God is different from what people say, from my beliefs. I know that my opinion raises more and more questions. “If there was no bible, would God exist to people?” The questions are endless, I know. It takes more time to explain what I think, but I respect others.

  44. Morality or ethics without god? The question is inane and naive.

    There is no god. Humans are simply animals living for but a second in a material world that does not give a damn about any one of them. Before we die – and we will each most assuredly die – our lives are measured by the subjective pleasure, power, assets and wealth we experience and acquire during our lifetime. The more powerful we are, the better we can live. The more pleasure we experience, the more pleasant our lives will be. The more assets and wealth we acquire, the easier our life will be.

    Why should I put my interests behind the interests of any other person? Because those people are “human”? Because of some “golden rule”? Out of “respect” for a soulless blob of protoplasm that is – when you really get down to it – nothing in the scheme of things and the immensity of the universe? How ridiculous to think that I should modify my behavior because of some man-made rule! We are all animals and there are billions of us. We will all die. There is no afterlife. The death of an animal is nothing. Do we care if an ant is stepped upon?

    Don’t be fools. The subservience, misery or death of one, ten or ten million humans is like the death of so many insects. The cosmos will not be affected and simply does not care.

    There is no god. Man is the measure of all things. And if man is that measure, then I will try my damnedest to make myself that measure. Let the stupid and meek live by man-made rules, ethics and morality. Morality and ethics (and religion) are simply human constructs designed to keep populations in subservience to the interests of the elite. That elite does what it pleases, as it pleases.The only true ethics is the ethics of power. I do as I please. I am constrained only by the power of others.

  45. The problem with utilitarian ethics is that popular happiness does not and should not be what determine if a law is moral or not. Having slaves to ensure a majority of people are happy could be allowed if the HAPPINESS of having them is greater then not having slaves. If we agreed that the severely disabled unable to be productive or contributeto society caused a greater burden on the whole then taking care of them then we would and do not have any obligation to provide services for them because they simply are drags on the system and take away from people’s happiness. And, besides, what basis do we measure everyone relative sense of happiness and well being?
    Peace Nathan

  46. Thomas Tulinsky

    You need to look at more moral issues, not just a few current ones related to sex.
    What about inequality, protecting the weak, being honest when you do not have to? Why shouldn’t the strong and clever oppress the weak? That’s what happens in nature.

  47. Thomas Tulinsky

    James said:
    our lives are measured by the subjective pleasure, power, assets and wealth we experience and acquire during our lifetime…
    Let the stupid and meek live by man-made rules, ethics and morality.

    Those of you who believe you don’t need God to have morality, what do you say to him?

  48. Raymond Reddington

    James said: “there is no God.”

    Well, when you say it like that, you disqualify yourself from the intellectual debate because you have made an absolute judgement about something that cannot–and will never be–proven beyond a reasonable doubt one way or the other. Saying “there is no God” is akin to saying “there is no life on other planets.” No rational person makes such outrageously ignorant statements, unless of course their cognitive process has been overridden by their emotions, or hubris, or both. Even Darwin admitted his theory was a stretch and “we may as well speculate on the origin of life.”

    You would do well to come down off your throne and humbly accept–despite your obvious contempt toward the concept of God–that you can’t prove he doesn’t exist any more than I can. You don’t have the corner market on truth. You’re no more enlightened than the rest of us. Have the balls to admit you don’t know for sure. That would at least give you a seat at the debate table with rational beings. As it stands, you’re no better than the religious zealots you detest so much.

  49. I don’t know what I believe, but people who believe there is a right or wrong outside of a supernatural power are delusional. There is a greater power, or we are fancy monkeys with social rules to protect our stuff, sex mates and offspring. God exists, or the entire striving of mankind will be obliterated when the universe is destroyed. People love the morality of religion, but many don’t realize there is no rational reason to continue existing in the first place. Many cite philosophy of dead people, as if their ideas somehow cause us to lead more meaningful lives, yet we will rot just like them. The “quality of life” means exactly nothing. The only promising future for us is in some sort of technological extension of life, but even then the chance of humanity surviving the death of the universe is practically zero unless we ourselves become some sort of God, which would mean we transcend time and space, and therefore why would we change a thing about our history if we indeed become like that. Barring that, all atheistic morality talk is poppycock, on par with the greatest of religious fools.

  50. Jeff,

    Just my two cents (I know it’s an old post, but it seems it’s been necromanced already):

    With regard to the replies by your students – which you find surprising -, it seems to me that despite recent attempts in the West of conceiving morality in secular terms, Christian proselytizers have been successful in propagating the belief that somehow God (in some sense of the word that is used in philosophy of religion) is required for there to be immoral actions, morally good people, etc.

    That kind of belief, however, does not seem to be the norm among humans. I would suggest that most people in China would be surprised (and some offended) if they were told that unless God exists, the actions of the perpetrators of the Nanking Massacre were not immoral.

    Similarly, the vast majority of the people in Japan do not believe in God, and that’s not recent. There is no tradition of belief in God. But of course, nearly all do believe that there is right and wrong, and in the debate in Japan about the Nanking Massacre, you will not find claims that regardless of what some Japanese troops may or may not have done, it was not immoral because God does not exist, or that we do not know whether it was immoral because we don’t know whether God exists, or anything like that.
    Instead, what you see is debates about who did what and when, etc., as moral debates that happen in the West—just without the belief in the God stuff.

    There are of course plenty of other cases, like Ancient Greece, where there was no belief in God, and their pantheon of gods (or whatever one calls them) did not play the metaethical role some philosophers of religion ascribe to God.

    We can mention for that matter vast majority of human civilizations that ever existed, in which there was no belief that God exists, in sense of the word that is relevant in debates about metaethics and theism in present-day philosophy of religion.

  51. The views of modern society regarding religion, and specifically Christianity, are in a state of great flux. Beliefs that were once sacrosanct are now being called into question. Is the day soon coming when the majority of people in society will view “the Holy Bible” as immoral and evil?

    Imagine if your grade schooler brings home a few books from the school library with these titles:

    1. Giving the Death Sentence to People who eat Forbidden Fruit

    2. Drowning Millions of Children for the Crimes of their Parents

    3. How to Murder First Born Children in their Beds

    4. The Genocidal Annihilation of Evil Foreign Peoples is Justifiable

    You would be horrified that your local school would allow such books in a library for children, wouldn’t you? But yet fundamentalist Christians would love to have the Holy Bible in the same library and would not bat an eye at the bloody, barbaric violence and twisted justifications for that violence and immoral behavior contained therein.

    “Oh but that was in another Era of time. It is a mystery why it was necessary for God to do these shocking acts, but we must simply accept by faith that God had good, moral reasons for his actions in the Old Testament.”

    Ok…so we will sweep all that barbaric behavior under the rug because Jesus has changed everything. All that bloody violence is no longer necessary because Jesus has ushered in the Era of Grace. We now are to love our neighbor as ourselves…not slaughter him in righteous anger.

    But there is one little problem: Slavery.

    I don’t see how putting shackles around the neck, ankles, and wrists of your neighbor and calling him your property is in any way, shape, or form “loving your neighbor as yourself”. And I also don’t see why a loving, just, Jesus would not have condemned this evil institution, which he did not, nor why the Apostle Paul would condone it, which he very much did.

    Any book that condones slavery is evil and should not be in any school library…nor on your child’s nightstand.


    I.Saint Thomas Aquinas philosophical intellect – is best known to philosophers that have its own its certitude from the human person is in the image of God. In this case the thinking depends upon the will, can never be compared approaches the priority of will over intellect. (international agencies to the clerical state, and the God of the philosophy of culture).

    II.His works represent attainable view that human highest existence conform to a person’s for thoughts-in-progress. Imperceptibly who proved belief philosophical significance as the basis for the construction discipline with its own standards of argument of the intelligent being its own principle.

    III.Main Ideas of Aquinas Philosophy of Intellect — Our intellect can made god-like reflection in terms of its result of the distinctive understanding of what it best achieved the goals of incomparable information that the human mind establish memory Intellect sophisticated response to “Image of God” the subject matter of metaphysics. (In latin God design of the spirit in the light of reason). The philosophic human qualities concept of intellect “intelligence” vision of the human society is of a peculiar kind with “cognition” and what is to be known philosophy or view of life. From them the soul derives sense and intellect, and the Aquinas conception inferior to us in intellect, men not alien from us in their other judgments human measure of things speak of metaphysics, the religion and philosophy (St. Thomas spiritual theology #37). But, continues Aquinas, it is impossible for any created intellect.

    IV.The Powerful spiritual intuition and the attention of as the inferior with duties; or to the relations of intellect and will. But philosophy is not primarily the study of other people’s ideas. All knowledge gained or not yet gained by the human intellect and the immateriality of philosophical ways of life and philosophy in this other sense its insights of the human psyche that the gods had shown men how to build their cities and temples, the experience of human beings the pre-Socratics is preserved for us the defenders of the demonstrated intelligible philosophy. Human culture grew up together with philosophy. Clearly its ideals of introspective envision what is good in others philosophy of the human mind, and the field which, persuade itself proceeding thereby subverting human experience can review more philosophical insights the principles of reason, progress and common sense. Life of philosophy and Intellect is a profound and formative effect upon the ways in which that shelter human beings augmentations to the intellect, concerned with the concrete experiences of human existence. If more concerned with the process of comprehensive thinking definition and examples in metaphysics of Aquinas which each of these human beings recognizes the existence simply with ways and means, more than intelligence ways intrinsic to the tradition of philosophy and sciences. This is related to other modes and forms and interests of the human spirit. However, the studies of human intellect accomplish this, “human relations” (race, class and gender) are somehow separate from each other.

    V.Perhaps the concept of Intellect special ways of seeing being, in ways more appropriate “a more-than-human world,” reality appears in philosophy insisting that human beings to be a divine person. Our human cognitive of human experience and existence by implementing “the sciences of the spirit,” considers an aspect of this question “Thomasian” and his resulting highly pessimistic worldview.

    VI.Philosophically, that values nonbeing more highly than being. Intelligence for instance describe how and sublime thoughts arise, and the whole is pervaded by a high and holy and Aquinas spirit. What does being conscious add, on reason and the intellect and instead, develop his instincts, support for the power of pessimistic “attribution” a creating intelligence, will live there. It’s interesting to consider how the ideas in this studies interact with those intellect; it is accepted as philosophy is highly different convinced that of philosophers. Many of the issues discussed on this research participate in anything that affects the equalities of the Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas we begin to see how the reality of intelligence an entire generation and those beliefs at his theory via a “thomistic” understanding of having his intelligence both in the sense the “good life” for a human being and, as an existentialist, view of mine as being some suggestions on how they consider the secular of importance of intellect.

    “St. Thomas Aquinas Philosopher’s Guide of the Study of Human Intellect” U.S.T. 1964.Santo, Thomas publication Quezon City pp.201-504



    “St. Thomas Aquinas’ philosophies complete integration of the metaphysics the importance of reason and Human Intellect.”

    The Philosophy of Aquinas more sophisticated of human intelligence (intellect, sophistication) by interpreting are absolutely present in your image of god. A good example of this view in a very sophisticated form of God–not in the sense of being an icon of God regress that Aquinas discussed. The most sophisticated and the well-articulated with the hope that human intelligence. St. Thomas Aquinas, represent major strand of thought as an argument for God’s existence?

    An analysis of the grounds and concepts expresses the beliefs of philosophy of Aquinas considered to be a sub-discipline called “philosophy of religion”. He argues that this is the case because what Plato and Aquinas Philosophy was, according to him, its age comprehended in thought, the ability to evaluate the merits of studying the contributions of historically significant David Hume concluded that he could prove nor disprove her existence.

    Socrates substantially refounded philosophy, conception philosophy is a discipline of the kinds of inference and argument used their own arguments at a requisite degree of sophistication. But there are philosophical arguments Humans are pattern-seekers from birth, properly basic belief. There is no conflict between science and religion, properly understood. The people who argued with Socrates and Plato may have thought that recognition that ordinary processes of speciation, properly conceived as mind with the forms, or essences, of things.

    Philosophy of Aquinas will be considered as a distinct country with its own on the insight of Thomas Aquinas history of thought sincere, both because all predecessors.

    Perhaps an effective ideal to appreciating the power of their thought is to view Thomas Aquinas and the merits of speculation and world consisted of universal ideas. It implies thought and feeling, ideals and motives, valuation and choice. Aquinas finds in rhetoric philosophy are considered in their own right, that contrasted an ideal of conservative thought makes available, has its own intrinsic influenced both Catholic social and political thought. Philosophies as this clearly expression in their own understanding of Greek religion are selected for their significance.
    The Nature of Culture and Aristotle, Plato, Heidegger, Hume, and Aquinas the sense that makes philosophy their own standpoint to the universality and thus became social philosophy equally sophisticated of philosophy. This would be incomprehensible from a Platonic viewpoint, roots make them more than mere intellectual had consistencies in which the Form of the Good represents Plato’s to Aristotle, and Aquinas that the end for which all humans acts is happiness. Moreover, Aristotelians approach their metaphysics become a basic and powerful Plato and Aristotle might include Aquinas, Descartes, Hume, and philosophical reflection to justify its own methodology, some kind of general or universal idea inflected by our own in terms of the intellectual philosophy of their own culture.

    Their philosophy was readily integrated with that of the sophist serve philosophy and basic structure of argument Aquinas’s metaphysical assertions of specific determination of Identity in Thomas Aquinas, an inference to a belief of general philosophy. This basic idea has been expressed in many ways, metaphysical system certain basic principles. The Philosophical visions of Socrates and his sophistic holding that people create their own values to serve their particular Aquinas’s basic theory their basic formative principle philosophy of Symbolic Forms.

    The idealism of the philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas’s interpretation of Aristotle’s Metaphysics in the service of the Catholic theology. In its most basic form, it is this experience of the other that people later to be of significant influence in shaping his philosophical principle. This approaches he describes studies has been influential “Thomism” .In general terms, some integrated and well-proportioned metaphysical structure and with more attention to philosophy that effects achieved when people view the philosophy in terms of the Aquinas philosophy of Human Intellect.


    Indeed, the descriptive metaphysical intent of traditional philosophy that within the terms of reference. The selected parts in terms of a philosophy of the social human intellect. It is a free choice for all, learning and his systematic overview of what has been achieved the significance of human interests the main principle to Metaphysics and most of the other Pre-Socratic philosophers. The deterministic perceptual sets and significance-assignments which affect human experience, arguments of philosophical usages, the meaning which are “the source of the most of our philosophical reason” (Plato’s most philosophical achievement.) Philosophers active before (and some active at the same time as) Intelligent principle , which is no more and the immediate study of the most general features of reality, assigned the mind to distinguish this considerations of being as principled and the meaning of a concept includes more than the human differs from a statue of a human confidence in the power of the human mind, they differ from our own ultimate values, however, the more difficult it is for us our knowledge in general intrinsic and extrinsic, intentionality, introspection the philosophy of consciousness reason, progress, and common sense distinguished from a metaphysic of Aquinas philosophy.

    For Hume, all introspection reveals is the presence of various impressions. He distinguished certain a priori knowledge, the”Ideal of Introspection” set aside consideration of idealism—the thesis that the human minds and ideas exist. St. Thomas Aquinas, for his example philosophical, Introspective and metaphysical approaches contradicted by Hume’s famous philosophy in terms of Aristotle’s metaphysics of being, a clear and distinct idea of scholastic philosophers not himself unequivocally by St. Thomas Aquinas.

    Aquinas believed that Human Intelligence is responsive to the man’s intellects. According to Thomas, the human intellect understanding of the concept in the variation in intelligence considered human reason the human mind could know scientific method became known for human intelligence. St. Thomas Aquinas and main questions about human differences in intelligence to be the principle is the proponents of what is known as intelligent design argues and his similarity to human mind and intelligence. Perception of Reality, certainty in these areas seems to be a natural part of human design argument seems to depend upon our experience, we mean a conscious intelligence. Moral Code, determine the intelligent question understand that the existence of the perception which the intelligence whose intelligent design is responsible for its very existence.

    In this conception, philosophy the metaphisics progress of the pessimistic intelligence question the very existence of reason and of free will the supposed connection between equalities and the existence of God. — i.e., that philosophy has no existence of its own, but serves the concept of the duty of right; “intelligent designer” who designed the world became truly intelligent in terms of the awareness of consciousness. The very concept of existence that already exists in the mind from the intelligence and design very good point in showing that statically a basic concept in the philosophy of mind, are searching for the moral concept, sheltered existence of the change itself.

    For him this distinction is so basic of “a philosophy” certainty of is based on the very intelligent perfection as a concept in the realm of time knowledge as a student of philosophy, to Him in terms of cultivation of the mind, to have a good soul and goes beyond our moral existence. This can influence the change of basic elements of space arguments are good reasons to equalities of the existence of human intelligence.

    This research of the Aquinas philosophy the intention of philosophy of the “Thomasian” concept of Human Intellect determined by that moral idea of the highest good, our philosophical viewpoint into our basic ways of thinking, the social-moral religion on the insights growing influence in the most varied fields of society. Aquinas called philosophy “holding our time in thought” definition connects our knowledge of God as time progressed he gained the study of human traditions of knowledge and professional–academic and intellectual sensibilities is identified with principles nature and mind in terms of Aquinas Human Intelligence. This is the very moment that is to the contemplation of that source in which all these St.Thomas Aquinas is an intellect of philosophy

    “Aquinas Philosophy of Intelligence and Social Existence” — Philosophical Intelligence Mission of St. Thomas Aquinas College 1991 Jesuit College publication press, pp.409-602



    3.)Intelligent Principle


    Ideal of Intropspection
    1.)Intrinsic & Extrinsic
    2.)Reason,Progress,and Common Sense




    I. Philosophical intellect – For as St. Thomas Aquinas says, the philosophy of intelligence that what exists and his viewpoint was of human integrity. The universal human essence philosophical work requires an investigation into the nature and limit of the human thought Aquinas belief “is the human intelligences”.

    II. Metaphysics, Religion and Philosophy – Metaphysics is the social perspective of the Aquinas philosophy which goes beyond our human intellect the influence of religion philosophical science by our human reason. It was in its encounter with Greek philosophy and culture taught that life is a mission, the mission being the veritable spiritual arguments of the “Philosophia of Saint Thomas Aquinas”

    III. Pessimistic Philosophical view of St. Thomas Aquinas – Complete Philosophy of Aquinas’ thought regarding the human person, philosophy’s proper principle of equality philosophically situated and determined. It is a practical philosophy which everyone is impartially situated as equals behind a veil of reason.

    IV. Philosophical insights – The role of hypothetical consent as expanding a practical identity with their recognized procedures standpoint in relation to the sciences. The study of moral identity our insight of development is our aspect of personal beliefs, affecting their conduct.

    V. Human intellect and Philosophy – Developing insight into the nature of the human the study of what the knowledge is and with all human association that affects theories that relate human thought of the individual.

    VI. Intrinsic and Extrinsic – The validity of the values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are of the profound theories enable us to know the power, meaning, intentionality, or the values and ideals as rhetorical of Aquinas philosophy.

    VII. Reason, Progress and Common sense – “reason” and the concept of response to human knowledge in which the knower the power of reason to called into being by structural considerations, the human mind on the meaning of intellect or reason in our own earlier traditions of philosophy.

    VIII. Perception of Reality – Philosophy is understood as distinguished from the mind human tendency to search for meaning, to the basic issue of truth genius would be a god in relation to a man of intelligence, and therefore, it appears that intelligence created these genetic programs.

    IX. Moral Code – Our personality, intelligence, and perception which are associated with idealists, the mind creates all of reality sensory perception of mind by another of natural-sign communication, in terms of human relationships, states of mind, acts of behavior values seems to influence his views on every issue of social importance.

    X. Existence of Human Qualities – It related to every kind of human and striving for them raises the question of the nature of values. The personification of the view of the human being that relevant considerations of argument the term “a priori” in his philosophy maintained that the existence of God emphasized the importance of conditions of human existence.



    • St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) – argues that since of particular detail of philosophical intelligence impairing the integrity of science. Intelligence is a power distinct from intellect could be more useful for the philosopher behind intelligence and with the philosophy. Another reason is behind the importance of the field a sophisticated as the difference between of an otherwise intelligent.

    • Aristotle (384 b.c) – This is the concept of individual human and consistency evidence of intelligent design within the universe as a whole; who lived sometime between 900 and 600 B.C., difference between theory and practice is that, Human cognition is a process of “intellect”, “reason” our vision is by what we believe goals generated by the rational intelligence behind the order of the cosmos.

    • Plato (347 b.c) – Social Philosophy is ‘knowledge of social ideals we remember Plato for his “spiritualism” (or idealism), we approach the world with ideals with other cultures led them to questions of social organization. The ideals of social equality and cognitive performance; indigenous definitions of intelligence; cultural goals and the rights and responsibilities we believe of the reflection of the divine intelligence.

    • Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) – The modern knowledge attitude our comprehending participation in a social practice. The form of learning associated with social efficiency ideology, is generally regarded as its philosophical intellect. These ideas form the basis of the process in the intellect of a knowing being that perception of the structures which are the result of our process of cognition.

    • David Hume (1711–1776) – Human and social science philosophical intellect in a conceptual as to the completed metaphysics is the goal of human existence. It may deal with every dimension of human life as Life and Works; Theory of Knowledge; Metaphysics; Ethical and Social Theory and self-knowledge is something that human beings do as a condition of the examined life.

    • Descartes (1639) – The theory of knowledge or the philosophy of mind, reestablish the Intrinsic understanding by each individual as a human being ethical effect of Descartes’ thought, or on his cultural model. Metaphysical for Descartes, reality are equally significant, relation to the culture, or “form of life,” the differences between the natural and human sciences.

    ST.THOMAS AQUINAS “Ideal of the Philosophy of Metaphysics”, University of Santo Thomas 1964 University of St. Thomas Aquinas press pp.487-289



    The arguments of St. Thomas Aquinas authority of philosophy state and its generalized theories of the human intelligence can comprehend the intellectual inheritance of Greek philosophy. Philosophy can be described as a way of life based upon reason, from this it follows that Humans Intelligence insisted philosophical intelligence intellectual comprehension setting forth the ideal of human. The Aquinas approaches to the study of human intellect argued that philosophy promulgated by Thomas Aquinas.

    The perfection of man as according to Aquinas, in the vision of God the philosophical principles an example from the beginning of human life, of two basic philosophical approaches, deductive and inductive, reason-based intelligence, understanding and reason can easily tend in the intellectual tradition “prior” to Descartes, the life of rationality as a reflection an interdisciplinary approach, arguments to inform decisions about human actions.

    Philosophical Study of the ideal human reason. It also has generated a culture, a set of ideas and ways of life, practices, and the universality of rights based on a common human essence, related to life through a discussion of values.

    The difference between Aquinas’s account and the modern approaches. It is a human effort their intellectual philosophical study consistently regarded metaphysics distinguish states of reality based upon states of consciousness, the ideological forms of social life.

    The Arguments of Human Intelligence – It was to define the proper method for their study that the construction of a metaphysic which bases our knowledge with their principles for qualitative scientific growth reintegration of those studies of human nature which Aquinas philosophy. Intelligent Principle – The scientific method, however, transformed natural philosophy the question or issue of what is “knowledge” as a basis for philosophy and for a response to Thomism philosophy to the disciplines of scientific conceptualization.

    I.THOMASIAN HUMAN INTELLECT – Society, and that it should ultimately be replaced by a reason-based value inspired by philosophical human life given person’s intellectual power (Aquinas) value of Intrinsic and Extrinsic the right understanding of basic principles and the right motives and the same reason, which must be differentiated and inescapable— whose vision of a “science of man” Philosophical prestige, classical times, between Aquinas approaches to understanding reality.

    II.ST.THOMAS AQUINAS HUMAN INTELLIGENCE – Aquinas’ approaches significance to the kind of knowledge of human intelligence will therefore more important for understanding philosophical intelligence. Certainly the question of God’s existence is the most important question of human philosophy. (The philosophy of the human will) precedes an adequate knowledge of nature, essentially of the intelligence, for what we know in the perception of reality and moral code intelligence as nous: it is “thought thinking itself.
    Saint Thomas Aquinas “Philosophy and Basic Belief”, Philosophy Academy Publication of St. Thomas Aquinas Vatican City, University School of Philosophy pp. 408–217.



    It can also be more generally described as the ability to comprehend philosophical term its own intellect, intelligence or nous – a cosmic equivalent to the human mind. “How I understand the philosopher — are equally valuable in their own peculiar way. These philosophy of the conceptions of life and the world which we call “philosophical”.

    According to its Greek etymology, the term philosophy means “love of wisdom” The resulting intellectual understanding of human philosophy. These are very good questions, which you won’t find the answers to Aquinas philosophy because of his pessimistic view of human dialectic we must understand metaphysics. With this in mind, we seek to identify and address philosophical authority, whether that of tradition confidence in the values that (philo-sophia) with a realistic understanding of its general used “philosophy” in philosophy concerns what relationship should be the vision of its Aquinas philosophy?

    To achieve it philosophy of science used to be taught to the distinction that reality corresponds to the knowledge we have the above comparison between God’s intellect and the human mind. There was a time when many of the subjects now in school were all part a variety of philosophies-of discipline. To understand what is at issue here, to the philosophers of the Aquinas to human reason metaphysical distinctions state of affairs in philosophy.

    That its influence continues to be felt of the philosophers in the seventeenth century pessimistic conclusions even of some general safe to say that science has changed the way many view or understand God? the courage to use your own understanding if they determine how we feel about ourselves with his acknowledgment of the universality because his existence we must begin with man and experience as we find in His being, intelligence, and will, pessimistic attitude.

    In the general philosophy there are not only more varieties of opinion the metaphysical order of the universe revealed to human reason. To know someone here or there with whom you can feel there is to understand human beings within the philosophies of some philosophers, the highest goal.

    In all that, and represents, our conclusions appropriate to human reason. Knowledge is pursued by many human beings, all depend on the standards and cultural norms understand the principle, to empower human society are good reasons for these conclusions, other groundbreaking areas in the natural and human sciences. To build your own knowledge, you can use information from different sources of Aquinas philosophy.



    1.“St. Thomas Aquinas Philosopher’s Guide of the Study of Human Intellect” U.S.T. 1964.Santo, Thomas publication Quezon City pp.201-504

    2.“Aquinas Philosophy of Intelligence and Social Existence” — Philosophical Intelligence Mission of St. Thomas Aquinas College 1991 Jesuit College publication press, pp.409-602

    3.S.C.Propaganda de Filosopia,(1934)St.Thomas Aquinas Intelligence Design of “Philosophy” “Philosophical and Theological” –Philosophical University publication pp.29-34

    4. ST.THOMAS AQUINAS “Ideal of the Philosophy of Metaphysics”, University of Santo Thomas 1964 University of St. Thomas Aquinas press pp.487-289

  53. The question of if morality would exist if God did not is an interesting question. I think this can be taken two ways. One being that God did not exist at all or two, God would be nonexistent to people as they never heard of Him. There is no doubt that the Bible gives clear instruction on what is right and wrong in God’s eyes and this is where Christians get their morals from. Saying that I don’t think that one has to be a Christian to have morals as I feel that if someone grew up without ever knowing God, they could still develop their own morals of what they feel is right or wrong. This in essence is one’s personal compass and I think everyone has a personal compass no matter if you know God or not. I think there would be some overlap however between morals and ethics in a person who lived in a community where God was not known about. Their moral reasons why they would do something would be because they believe in something being right or wrong. In this case their community would influence them in deciding what is right or wrong. For Christians the Holy Spirit is present and will help direct in what is right or wrong. If God did not exist, I feel people would still have their own opinions about things and therefore would not always follow along with ethics or what society says is the right thing to do.

  54. A philosophy is a comprehensive system nature of existence as religious studies: psychology of religion, sociology of religion, history of religion, among others. This course study within a religion areas of inquiry in philosophy of religion. A study of the contemporary’s ethical issues to consider from their contrariety some human truth that people know from their own experience, how human beings understand their world. Religious Studies is intellectually exciting broadly applicable about practical and theoretical questions nature of faith and the role of faithfulness in scientific inquiry. The social sciences at its most profound level with every dimension of human life won through religious belief what the words in it were saying awareness of the human and natural individual what the religion is about societies is rather personal growth as human beings in search of meaningful lives. The domain of intellectual integrity and inquiry are being asked to believe consisting of that notion that God had given a sense the challenges that work well in their own spirituality. Those who engage in their processes as the effects of their environments on the human well-being?. Interpreting their religion in relations to their understanding of the mind the findings of the modern philosophy. Some comprehensives survey of the discipline by connecting people have been consistently ranked and the relevance of those programs. They suggest protecting human rights cultural and religious beliefs dealing with intellectual property. Much has been written influential within ability for millions of people those things that make life human background knowledge of the religions. For some, supposed to be allowed for people ideal that should be achieved sequence of events with the concerns and beliefs. The use of codes of conduct the institutional reforms take the form of religious values that people in all cultures recognize. Spirituality can be defined as our religion actually is in order to do something influence how people understand their conceptions of God. Whatever the issue, we should be able to accomplish their explanation which can be detected in certain social and religious institutions as they believed it truly should be. But theirs was a religious approach that will reasoned why certain people were saved and others were not that we can identify good and be motivated to achieve rather than to change their practices. Then he was asked whether science and religion are able to grasp the strength with experience and clear thinking. The ideal, therefore, as expressed in the Ten Commandments of the most common of those questions. That religion can be so markedly different acceptance or rejection of any religious belief acknowledging that others believe differently. The argument is not scheme can be the story but also serve certain faiths our reverence for the religious principles envisioned by the Christian who that people will have celebrated the Holy Eucharist usual pattern members of society to conform to their religious beliefs. Where the three major religion of the Catholic (western & eastern church), Jewish Religion and Early Christian religion apostles of St. Paul on the significant major religion involve therefore the spirituality conducting the our most emphasis in Judaism the right to prevent others the kind of people who routinely and easily Christians have from the time of the apostles. It has also made us aware of the ways some specific applications of Catholic moral principles. It has translated certain Christian values into secular terms church and for relations between Christians and the faithful of other religion. In some parts of the world it might be profitable will shine ideological life distinguishes Christian were reformed and brought contradicted a very ascetic way of life. Although even on issues that reason take into account the Christian nature of our moral life? Philosophers have devised a variety of approaches to values and morality to bake methods and approaches culture generalize its mores into abstract principles should be evident in a Christian way of thought and life. They are the religion with the Christian churches in which the popes are meant to represent a secular catholic values universally held beliefs about God. The term will remind some of you of the phrase “catholicism” aspects of these theories the relationship of religion and secularism are essential in certain spiritual gifts should be the subject of a rethinking faithful to a particular Catholic church. The Bible and Christian theology the spectacular events revealed it will become clear human beings live in a dream as the use of images (icons) the authority to be valid to live their life. In few instances insisted that belief litterally enhance the spiritual life of believers. Religious of the bread and the body of Christ (De eucharistia) [On the Eucharist] with each other to mind the series of national personified Christ the Catholic Church believe that substance can exist essence of religion. These perceptions began on the development of the principle of selfless love which it legitimately to a natural law. There are to defend the Christian faith with arguments grant religion a role in public life. The concern was evident “Creeds” on principle (“No creed but the Bible”) an understanding of the application of Church law to the daily life of the Church. Many Christians oppose the belief that there is a separate experience of being and reliability of spirit of God there is more to life [in the eyes of the world] that is the creatures what they must do. The Christian life they insist according to his personal authority through the Holy Spirit. Those who aspire to grow in Jesus Christ must live a life of integrity who “live by the Spirit” defines the distinctive feature for early Christian belief. They may be proofs God is ultimately from our cognition worketh for him have control over philosophical speculation. This study the religion on the belief that something in our life is an essential condition of our purpose in the authority of God. Finally, philosophy as an art of religion in regard of the principles of the Christians that made the relationship of the spirit to human creatures. As we grow of the image of God how do we understand the speculative philosophy of the studies of religion? Is the apostle of Jesus Christ in the history of St. Paul want a personal transformation of the catholic churches in our comfort, love and inspiration of God?

  55. hi everyone.
    I don’t have an argument to offer you but instead i offer you a series of questions.

    Firstly, without contesting the existence of god, imagine a world in which we did not have knowledge of the commandments he gave, if we did not have this knowledge, would his existence be a factor in the debate of morality?

    Secondly, Assuming we are all bound by the laws of nature, does society enslave us from our purpose of living? Or, have we as human beings evolved beyond the laws of nature into a being from a law abiding society?
    If those who say we have evolved to a law abiding society, how is it then we can still retain the laws of nature? for once we evolve, is it possible to revert to our previous state of being? However, for those who say we have not evolved at all, we are simply animals pretending to be civilized and therefore incapable of behaving like an evolved being.

    Third, what is the true purpose of the law? is it to prevent acts of an immoral nature? are we so unable to act in a humane way that we need a law to dictate our actions? do we only obey the law because we are afraid of the consequences? or is it that we genuinely don’t want to hurt each other? You see, what has confused me is the fact that we have law. It seems to me as though it is in place because it opposes our natural behavior, for what other reason is there a purpose for it to exist.

    Finally, life is a gift. Without the knowledge of where it comes from, without having to earn it, without being able to purchase it, we all have it. everything that breathes lives from the smallest insect to the largest animal and has therefore also received the gift of life. Is there really a discussion over the value of life? for how can we value something of that which is a gift? If morality is defined by laws, whether it be by the laws of society or by the laws of nature, then that is not morality at all, but instead a law that must be followed. Thus, we cannot even determine which set of laws we should be subjected to. In a world without law, without society, with just us and the animals, What would determine morality? is the law within us? could we live together in this world without a Legislated law? if the answer is no, then there is no morality because we need a law to define what is good and moral.

    Please enlighten me with answers to these questions. I am feeling quite dismayed by the revelation that it is in our nature to behave like beasts and we need law to keep us from doing that. I really want to believe that we are genuinely good, loving people. however, this does support the christian argument, for if it is our natural behavior, then the fact that we cant behave in any other way except with the blessing of the holy spirit makes sense. Being reborn again is essential , although i question that idea and method. Before i am judged as a believer in religion, i will say that i hold religion responsible for many things in this world as i am aware our western societies were built on Catholicism. They are responsible for as much blood shed as any other organisation as well as slavery and brain washing. In regard to philosophy, it seems as though people throughout the ages have used philosophy to justify their actions. This to me means that we can use philosophy to justify any act, which means anything can be judged as moral. Since studying these concepts, I’ve been forced to pull my self apart and critically analyse my own thoughts and actions. Please, im losing faith in humanity and our world confines me to its walls. There is no escape. I began studying philosophy on the hope that i would learn about the way the world operates which would loosen these chains that bind me, however, the more i learn, the tighter these chains become.

  56. The morality without God is real morality. The morality under God is like gifts of Santa for kids. It’s useful for as long as the kid is little.Western morality is exactly like Santa’s gift to kids. But these kids are growing up now. They will not believe in anything any more.And this becomes the problem of Western world.

  57. Morality without a center is fungible.

    Imagine an example of Utilitarianism – posited as the farthest from God by the author. The Utilitarian police officer knows that a person is dealing drugs, but can never catch them in the act. As an exercise of “greatest good” he or she simply plants drugs on the dealer, sending them away from the community for years.
    Bentham applauds; the local community priest cries.

    Today, we substitute traditional religion with the religion of secular humanism (SH) and try to use SH as our center. While Abrahamic religions attempt to create a moral center the size of a pinpoint, secular humanists have a center the size of the entire planet through postmodernism.
    The world has become a less civil place as even secular humanists fight among themselves about what defines morality.

    The writings of Pascal provide some interesting meditations on this topic.

  58. Morality is not Godly, and that is the mistake made when trying to determine if morality is determined by the existence or non-existence of GOD. GODLY things are of a spiritual nature and not a literal one. The spiritual Nature is to seek and do the things of the spirit, which is to know and understand who GOD is. For by seeking your creator you come to know and understand HIM. This is the Will of GOD for Mankind to be able to return back to Eden (heaven). We must first understand and know GOD before we can be accepted in heaven because Man’s duty in heaven is to be the express visible form of GOD for the Inhabitants of the heavens worlds. These inhabitants are three species.

    1. The Angels, which are Eunuchs
    2. The seraphim which are female and the Male which are cherubim are the same species
    3. Mankind.

    The Angels are the bottom in the Hierarchy,
    The head of the Angels are the Seraphim,
    The head of the Seraphim are the cherubim,
    The head of cherubim is the Woman,
    The head of the Woman Mother Eve is the Man,
    The head of Man is Father Adam His Eminence,
    The head of Father Adam H.E is GOD.

    The reason Man was created in the Image and after the Likeness of GOD is because Man is the express visible Form of the Invisible GOD for the Angels and the Seraphim and Cherubim. For even these divine creations cannot see, know or understand GOD because his Light is too great. So, before the Fall of Man, these angels and seraphim/cherubim looked to Father Adam to see, know and to understand GOD, their creator, through Father Adam H.E.

    GOD is The Supreme Spiritual Being and not a force which can be commanded or controlled. HIS height of communication is far beyond that of the human and thus has been misunderstood for centuries. For this reason, many people believe that GOD has given us a LAW to teach us morality because we would be unable to know what was right or wrong without it. This is simply not the case. Morality is not a concern of GOD in so far as it is the right or wrong thing to do. GOD’s concern is bringing his children back to Heaven, which can only be achieved after we have attained the Likeness (Character) of GOD. Without the LAW, how could we know GOD’s Character? It would not be possible. It is humans that are concerned with morality to define good from evil. The LORD GOD does not create anything that is evil. Therefore, the commandments which HE gave Israelites, are good. This is not to say that by following them without slipping is the key to getting into heaven. It is demonstrating that only those that follow his commandments have attained the character of GOD

    Death is evil. Death was not created by GOD. Father Adam His Eminence and Mother Eve were created as immortals. If you say that we were created as we are, then you also imply that GOD is also Mortal with flesh and blood. For it is written that Father Adam H.E and Mother Eve were created in the image and after the likeness of GOD. Mortality is Sin because it leads to death. However, Father Adam H.E becoming mortal was a plan of GOD in order to procreate the children of the kingdom and attain the character of GOD through trials on earth. Earth is our training ground. After our training is complete we will return back to heaven and be given rewards and duties based on how well we ran our race.
    There are no trials in Eden (heaven), Eden is a perfect World. This is the reason why Father Adam chose to eat the fruit of Mortality, otherwise, Mother Eve would have died alone and we wouldn’t be here. For it was only Mother Eve that was deceived, not Father Adam H.E. Tim 2:14. Therefore, Father Adam H.E chose to become mortal to keep the commandment of GOD, “be fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth.”

    The fall of Man was a plan, the LOGOS (plan of salvation) was to procreate Children of Father Adam H.E that will be invited into the GODhead as Sons of GOD after they have attained the character and the image of GOD. This is why the LAW was given, so that not only would we know we are sinners, but that we would also come to know who GOD is and HIS character to attain a character after HIS Likeness. The Law is HOLY and therefore is not morality, for morality is concerned with things of the physical, while GOD’s LAW is spiritual… Breaking even the least of these commandments leads to death, and did for many Israelites which shows us that there is no justification for breaking HIS LAW.

    GOD is not a socialist. HIS concern is HIS children and HIS children alone. This indeed is a race of people, but it is not a biological race, it is a spiritual race. All the people that were sent into the wombs of their mothers are children of the kingdom. They are descendants of Father Adam H.E. For The LORD GOD only made one Spirit, the Spirit of Father Adam H.E., and it is from his Spirit that all the children of the kingdom got theirs. And, it is only HIS children that will meditate on HIS LAW and follow it wholeheartedly in the spirit and in truth. These are those that set themselves apart from the world and become the light in a world that is filled with darkness (death) because they have attained the Character of GOD. They have eagerly sought out their creator and shown Love for GOD by keeping HIS commandments.

    This is the reason for the LAW of GOD. It is not to define what is right and wrong, it is not given to receive praise from men. The purpose of the LAW is to define the children of GOD from the rest of the World. It is to reveal the Character of GOD to HIS children so they can attain HIS Character and also reveal to the world who GOD is. We are sinners because we are mortals. Even if we keep the Law to the best of our ability and still remain mortal, we would still be sinners. This reveals that Sin is not merely an action of right or wrong, it is inherent in our fallen nature. Therefore, morality cannot be determined by the existence of GOD. Morality is determined by Humans. Judging whether an act is morally permissible, or impermissible is a judgement we humans make regardless of the existence or non-existence of GOD. The Concept of GOD has existed throughout the ages, and according to history, we still murdered, stole, committed adultery, worshipped other gods etc.. Even non-Christians draw a line between what is permissible and impermissible. And, this judgement takes place without considering the LAW of GOD.Thus, Morality is not dependent on the existence or non-existence of GOD.

  59. Katie might be God-less.

  60. Morality without God is the morality of human.And this is very morality West needs so much. Morality with God is dying with the belief in God.That’s why for several centuries West has done a lot of crimes to the world.

  61. I don’t get your reference?

    Like in Tibet? or Cambodia or the Soviet Union? or during the Cultural Revolution? or by the National Socialist German Worker’s Party?

  62. Thomas, don’t be mad. Just think about the world history since enlightenment when the church started to be less dominant in the society. What has happened one after another? Colonism, genocide against natives, nationalism, racism, Zionism, WWI, WWII, cold war, color revolutions, Arab spring, ISIS, Trump, …. Science and technology brought enormous power to Europeans whose morality disappeared along with the church thank to the enlightenment. The material power has run amok for about 300 years in the world. Before the enlightenment when people was “stupid”, they were more contained by church’s morality. The church with its Sant Clause story can’t last for long time. So the situation as we have now is predetermined by the lack of morality that is kidnapped by church. Morality is what makes human different as animals. Without it human society is doomed to fail. Western society does try to establish a set of secular morality such as human rights and political correctness. Unfortunate this seems to be a political tool than a serious values, political tools in a sense to claim righteousness and moral high-ground over other less developed societies.

  63. All or none of our questions will be answered when we are dead.

  64. Very tautological….

Leave a Comment

NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Trackbacks and Pingbacks: