But how do you know for sure what the word of God is?

You can have a principle defined on whatever you wish. But it's up to you to stick to it, you follow it because you allege it to be important, but without a repercussion for not following it, said principle could quickly lose the value it once had if times ever get tough.

As an example, it makes rational sense to avoid striking or harming someone from another group, due to them finding out and/or retaliating. But any and all strict reason not to do so disappears if you determine for yourself you could "get away with it" undetected. It's a form of "absolute accountability", justice is I mean. Right gets rewarded and wrong gets punished. Nothing wrong with that. Especially today.

Honestly, I think morality is mostly utilized to condemn others. We withdraw to the inner sanctums of our own personal courtrooms and judge the hell out of other people. It's shadow all down the line.

The root of it is identity, right?

Quite a generalisation. Is this based on facts and if so can you share where you elicited these facts? — david plumb

...see the research cited in the link immediately after the piece you quoted, in the opening post.

Being taught that you will be punished if you do not do what you are told is not being taught to be good.

↪Athena
But how do you know for sure what the word of God is? — frank

Personally I do not believe a God has spoken with people and if he did they would not understand him any more than back in the day people could have understood Einstein and the theory of relativity. I think anyone knowing the word of God is no more than wishful thinking. My opinion is based in part on reading of many primitive ideas of a god and being chosen people. What is for sure is if a person succeeds with a god story and convinces people he is god's special messenger, most people will believe whatever this person says, is the word of god. The point is people pay attention when they believe something comes from a god, but if it is just a human talking, why would anyone pay attention?

What humans say is capricious. It may sound good today but not tomorrow. It is much harder to lead people into a war if only a human says this is necessary. However, if they are convinced going to war is the will of God, they will do their very best to do the will of God.

1 of 10,000 — KerimF

That's a lot of people.

What I find interesting is that they tend to die more in countries with mad right-leaning irrational leaders.

Curious.

Another way to phrase it is, people believe you need justice and/or law and order ie. belief in very real consequences for one's harmful actions to avoid harm that is not conducive to a diverse and free society. And is it not? — Outlander

People believe being moral is about punishing the wicked? That would go along with the lack of education bit...

Again, being taught that you will be punished if you do not do what you are told is not being taught to be good.

The statement of believing in god makes you do good is absolutely false being good or bad has to do with ethics and morals

If a person has no belief in God, he can act morally. Yet, morality that is not grounded in principle is relativistic, and a matter of caprice.
So, for such a person to base his morality on principle is quite irrational. — Merkwurdichliebe

So for you, and unfortunately for so many others, the choice is between god and relativism. As if the entire body of ethical thought never happened! And again, isn't that just ignorance?

The detractors of religion use and abuse this argument that they found in Humboldt (not the explorer and naturalist Alexander, but his philologist brother Wilhelm): Human morality, even the highest and most substantial, is in no way dependent on religion, or necessarily linked to it.

All civilizations were born from original religious outbreaks. There has never been a “secular civilization”. A long time since the foundation of civilizations, nothing prevents some values and symbols from being separated abstractly from their origins and, in practice, becoming relatively independent educational forces.

I say “relatively” because, whatever the case may be, its prestige and ultimately its meaning will remain indebted to the religious tradition and will not survive long when it disappears from the surrounding society.

All “secular morals” are just an excerpt from previous religious moral codes

This cut can be effective for certain groups within a civilization that, in the end, remains religious, but, if this fund is suppressed, the cut is meaningless. The secular Europe’s inability to defend itself against Muslim cultural occupation is the most obvious example.

The present state of affairs in countries that have detached more fully from their Judeo-Christian roots is demonstrating with the utmost evidence that the so-called “lay civilization” never existed and cannot exist.

It lasted only a few decades, it never succeeded in completely eradicating the religion from public life, despite all the repressive devices it used against it, and in the end, its brief existence was only an interface between two religious civilizations: dying Christian Europe and nascent Islamic Europe.

Humboldt’s opinion is based on a double error, or rather, on a convergence of errors that give the impression of confirming themselves as truths. On the one hand, he makes a logical deduction from the general meanings of the terms and, seeing that the generic concept of morality does not imply any reference to God, he applies to the world of facts the conclusion that one thing does not depend on the other.

This is an addiction to abstractism: inferring facts from reasoning instead of reasoning based on facts. On the other hand, however, he observes that around him there are atheistic individuals “of high and substantial morality”, and believes that with this he obtained empirical proof of his deduction.

What he doesn’t even realize is that their morality is only good because their conduct schematically — and externally — coincides with what the principles of religion demand, that is, that the very possibility of good lay conduct was created and sedimented by a long religious tradition whose moral rules, once absorbed in the body of society, began to function more or less automatically.

In short, only the abstract man — or the heir more or less unaware of religious traditions — can have a moral without God. The first is a logical fiction, the second is an appearance that covers the reality of its own origins.

Taking them as realities, and even more so as universal and unconditioned realities, is a primary philosophical error, which shows little ability to analyze the experience.

The detractors of religion use and abuse this argument that they found in Humboldt — hithere

Not me. Never heard of her.

There are many church going people that are not good so to say that believing in god makes you good is ignorant

This is supposed to be open minded discussion not blindly holding on to one idea or belief

...many... — Miguel ybarra

Most. Going to church can allow one to pretend one is not morally responsible. Belief in a religion is handing your own moral responsibility over to others.

"No man is an island,
Entire of itself,
Every man is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manor of thy friend's
Or of thine own were:
Any man's death diminishes me,
Because I am involved in mankind,
And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls;
It tolls for thee."

John Donne.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

In a word, the need is meaning... — praxis

We can't sum up anything as large as religion in a word, but ok, that's a place to start.

It's clear that many people look to religion to provide meaning, some story about our relationship with reality. So let's keep digging..

Instead of arguing about which story is better we might ask, what is a story? A story is a collection of symbols, abstract concepts in our mind, which strive to point to the reality of our human situation.

Why do we seek such stories? What is the need which causes us to go looking for stories? Yes, we want meaning. But why? Why do we seek meanings?

Keep digging...

In my book, people who are not considerate of others are not good people. — Athena

I personally read it (based on my various experiences in life and my personal observations on the ground for many decades):
people who are not considerate of what their ruling system asks them to believe and do are not good people in the eyes of 'the system's people'.

I am sorry for not being able to give you all the necessary evidences of what I said (claimed, in your view) because I would need to write a thick book (if not many books) and I am far from being a good writer in any language.

But, what you said: "people who are not considerate of others are not good people." is also totally right if it is not about something from which the ruling system (the powerful high class) gets profits, usually not seen/noticed by most ordinary people.

Anyway, I am not here to convince anyone about anything. We are all given intelligent brains, so every one knows what is good and bad for him (and for the ones who trust him) more than anyone else.

For example, did anyone here hear that knowing how to control/paralyse (temporarily and permanently) the body's immunity was one of the greatest discoveries in medicine a few decades ago?
Without this discovery, transplanting live organs would fail always, as it was clearly revealed in the 70's. Doctors found out that the original immunity system of the patient has to attack and destroy the new (stranger) planted organ. But the peoples around the world heard of this as AIDS besides all the fairy tales about it which were created, and updated year after year, for adults.
Unfortunately, those who know the truth behind the worldwide propaganda of AIDS, other than certain men on power, are the few professional surgeons only who transplant successfully life organs by applying the discovered technique before their operations. Soon after an operation, they apply the reverse technique and revive the immunity system of their patient which sees the new organ as if it were original.

In brief, what was planned to happen after attacking the people's economy, almost in all countries in the world, in the name of flu/cold virus (sorry, this year I have to call it, corona virus) is much worse than what is happening now. So I think the only thing the powerless ordinary good persons, anywhere on earth, can do is to wish each other be safe (as you did already).

Regards, stay safe 'n well. — Torus34

You too, thank you.

You may like reading this:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/462404

That's a lot of people.

What I find interesting is that they tend to die more in countries with mad right-leaning irrational leaders.

Curious. — Banno

Well, I witnessed certain years in which the flu killed in my country not less than 1 of 100 while about half the population (50%) were affected by it. But, in these years, no system/organization, local or abroad, saw it even an epidemic. This year with 1 of 10,000 is called a pandemic!!!
By the way, in these years, I had to stay in bed with high fever for not less than 10 days (usually 1 to 3 days) before my brain was able to synthesise the proper ant-virus in my blood.
This year (I am 71), it took me 3 days to recover but with moderate fever, so I didn't have to be in bed all the day.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/462404

Why do we seek such stories? What is the need which causes us to go looking for stories? Yes, we want meaning. But why? Why do we seek meanings?

Keep digging... — Hippyhead

You seem to suggest that you have answers to your four questions but for some weird reason aren't saying.

Don't worry, I promise no one will make fun of your answers.

You seem to suggest that you have answers to your four questions but for some weird reason aren't saying. — praxis

The method to my madness is to encourage readers to do some of the thinking involved for themselves. But ok, here's a clue.

People seek food (ie. meaning) because they want food. Why do they want food?

Good moral judgment is essential. How do people gain good moral judgment? — Athena

Sorry, I personally have no reason to judge anyone. I just live with others the way they are.

But I also understand that most people in the world have no choice but to be guided by their instincts only. So, to me in the least, they have the right to judge me the way they like.

For example, many decades ago and during my military service (for about 2 years), someone liked to send me to prison for a month in the desert. On the same day he accused me of something I had no idea of, the accusation was dropped. But, by curiosity, I asked him about the reason for which he did that to me. His reply was simply:
"You treat all around you here in good ways. Such attitude is not supposed to exist in a military environment. So I liked to teach you this, though in a hard way".
How could I judge him for seeing my goodness wrong? He simply did what his instincts told him it was the right thing to do.

What humans say is capricious. It may sound good today but not tomorrow. It is much harder to lead people into a war if only a human says this is necessary. However, if they are convinced going to war is the will of God, they will do their very best to do the will of God. — Athena

I see what you're saying. In medieval times warlords paid attention to their moral standing in the eyes of their soldiers because if the soldiers became convinced God had abandoned them, the will to fight would wane. The soldiers would fear that they might be fighting against God and so dooming themselves to hell.

So if nothing else, God can be a very powerful aspect of the human psyche.

I think if you had something worthwhile to say that you would be able to articulate it succinctly and without further tedium.

I think if you had something worthwhile to say that you would be able to articulate it succinctly and without further tedium. — praxis

That's an odd thing to assume. Maybe he doesn't want to throw his pearls in the wrong direction.

I think if you had something worthwhile to say that you would be able to articulate it succinctly and without further tedium. — praxis

If you're actually interested in the subject you'll do more than sit on your fat ass waiting for me to type something you can reject. :-) We're done, waste of time.

Why would basing morality on principle be quite irrational without God?
— frank

How is a principle determined? If it is the word of God then that is a for sure the right thing. If it is just what an individual thinks, how can we be sure it is the right thought? — Athena

Good and evil. What is each, and by what criterion is each determined?

For someone that believes in God (a believer), there is an eternal structure to existence (sometimes referred to as essences). The believer relates to his existence in the same way a player relates to his game: there are rules, there is a right way to play, and hypothetically, there is a potentially perfect way.

For the believer, the very nature of existence imposes an absolute good upon him at the metaphysical level, hence there is an imminent and inevitable morality to which he is fundamentally subjected - there is a definitive ought. Hence the believer's morality is absolute, there are many wrongs, but only only one right. If the believer desires to think and act rightly, he will base his decisions on principle

There is another type of believer who believes that God relates to each individual on a personal level, and in that capacity stands as judge for each individual. Such a believer has a personal stake in the ethical, and an even greater reason to stand on principle.

On the other hand we have the nonbeliever, who has no necessary ethical obligation imposed on him. There is no proof, nor any reason to think that there is some eternal structure to existence, thus there is no external source by which the ethical could be imposed. Additionally, the nonbeliever does not believe in God, thus there is no internal source to compel his morality. The nonbeliever lacks the transfigured judge which is lurking over the shoulder of the believer at all times.

As far as morality is concerned for the nonbeliever, the rules can come from any source, internal or external, it does not matter. Any morality can be rationalized and justified, hence the nonbeliever only has access to relative morality.

In addition to this, the judgement of an individual can be reduced to mere appearance, because thinking or acting only become morally relevant under inspection. Whatever the nonbeliever can get away with is fair game. This is to say: no two individuals ever receive fair or equitable judgment...completely rendering "justice" into a relativistic notion.

Well put. So the non-believer can only arrive at moral absolutes by embracing delusion. Maybe it started as a coping mechanism, but it develops into a hidden contradiction.

Wonder what the signs of that would be? What kind of character does a person like that have?

Well put. So the non-believer can only arrive at moral absolutes by embracing delusion. Maybe it started as a coping mechanism, but it develops into a hidden contradiction. — frank

When it come to morality, both the believer and nonbeliever are deluding themselves. Only the delusion of the believer is, internally speaking, more coherent. Both are using morality as a coping mechanism that innately harbors hidden contradiction.

I think if you had something worthwhile to say that you would be able to articulate it succinctly and without further tedium.
— praxis

That's an odd thing to assume. Maybe he doesn't want to throw his pearls in the wrong direction. — frank

Is it odd? Maybe it seems that way because you don't know him as well as I do.

He can keep his damnable pearls. This pig ain't interested.