To start off here, the simple answer from my Atheist, Secular Humanist position would be NO, I do not need God to be a genuinely moral person.. The way I live my life shows that I do have a moral compass.
BUT IS IT A GENUINE MORAL COMPASS?
That's the most important word in tonight's question:
Do you need God to be a GENUINELY moral person?
A great many Christians will express two interesting points in this area:
1) That the answer to this question is "Yes, you can't be genuinely moral without God." AND
2) That a great many atheists are moral people in the sense that they follow a code of conduct, value structure in their lives, and agree on basic rights and wrongs, but nothing deeper than this..
I argue that the morality of Atheists includes this but goes deeper than a mere code of conduct, structure, and basic rights and wrongs. I argue that the morality and ethics of theists AND Atheists is intrinsic and in our nature.
Simply put morality has evolved and doesn't not require the intervention of God. Unfortunately, easy reading material on the subject of evolutionary morality is not easy to come by, so those of you here who want to reading more, I suggest Primates and Philosophers: how morality evolved, by Frans De Wall & The Science of good and evil, by Michael Shermer.
Michael Shermer in his book, The Science of Good and Evil argued "that the moral sense evolved within us because we are a social primate species and we need to get along with one another and therefore we are pro-social, cooperative, and even altruistic at times. And not altruistic in a game theory tit-for-tat calculating way, in which I help you and you owe me one, but in a deeper genuine sense of feeling good about helping others."
So those are two books I recommend that anyone here can get through, but again, they won't give you detailed arguments instead the basic concepts and ideas.
To go against what we know and feel is ethical, is to go against our nature..
And this leads into the topic of consequentialism
"That the consequences of one's conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence."
Or you can ask this question from the position of a nonbeliever:
"Does disbelieving in God encourage people to be less moral and does it strike at the heart of being genuinely moral?"
I personally don't feel non-belief as this weight that pulls at my morality in a downward spiral. ALSO non-belief in God and in him being the source of my morality or a lack of belief in absolute moral standards doesn't leave the morality I practice feeling hollow and artificial.
Now you may ask, Does moral nihilism does logically follow from a morality with no reference to or source of God, no transcendent, absolute meaning?
Frederick Nietzsche is credited a lot with the concept of nihilism.
He defined nihilism as emptying the world and especially human existence of meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value."
"When we find out that the world does not possess the objective value or meaning that we want it to have or have long since believed it to have, we find ourselves in a crisis."
There is something to be said about this. I was raised in Christianity to believe the world possessed objective value and meaning. As I moved away from Christianity and the faith, over the years, there was a disillusioning process where the evidence I studied made me to come to conclusions such as there is no evidence for God, no intelligent design to this life, only one life to live and when it's over it's over, no heaven, 99% of all the species that have ever lived have gone extinct, humans are not the center of the universe, no ultimate source to our morality only human nature determined by evolution.. That IF there is a design and purpose in the world it is "the survival of the fittest" and "natural selection".
So if there is no ultimate meaning or direction in this reality we live in, why should one be moral and make this life we live as meaningful as possible?
A real answer to this would be: because we are hardwired to find meaning and to not make meaning in our lives would be to go against the psychology of our minds as determined by our brains. In other words, to do this would be to go against our nature...
But one might argue, "But it is also our nature to hurt others, to steal, to even take life, especially when we feel our life and survival being threatened." To which I would respond, you are absolutely right, compassion and violence are neurological predispositions we have..
It is also interesting that both compassion and violence have an evolutionary survival value to them. Our compassion helps us to survive because together is better than being alone. When we share, the other reciprocates and there becomes a relationship. The more this sharing happens, the greater the number of participants, and so there becomes strength and safety in numbers insuring a greater survival of those in that group. This is how clans, tribes, and, ultimately, civilizations started..
Our fight or flight response is also there for when there is no reciprocation; no sharing, when there is no relationship but one species trying to dominate or destroy(for resources, etc.) the other.. The evolutionary logic or instinct is simple, kill or be killed. And this need to survive is probably our deepest instinct, even deeper than altruism; cooperation and sharing in groups..
So it is important to realize that moral Nihilism does logically follow with non-belief in God and no ultimate meaning in the world and to indeed go down the path of disillusionment it takes you.
But just because it logically follows doesn't mean we have to live that way. There is also the obligation to stay true to our psychological nature; our mental state, in other words, that we are hardwired to find patterns, to make meaning in our daily lives, and to make our lives significant. We also have the instinct to be happy, to share, to enjoy our lives with others....
