Orrrrrrrr... maybe... it doesn't? Maybe even when we're all alone and have to figure things out for ourselves we can come to understand ourselves in genuine relation to those around us and discover a kind and empathetic morality built from logical first principles? Even without the fear of the judgement of almighty sky daddy?

Why "kind and empathetic"? Who said that's how we should be?

If we are nothing more than an arbitrary arrangement of matter, formed according to arbitrary laws of physics, and only for a relative moment, then what is "kind" and "empathetic"?

In a godless universe, you are no more significant than a rock. The only sound position you can then take is that there is no such thing as morality.

"People feel good when they help ...". No argument. But is morality just about the feels? No, it isn't.

Now, if one believes in a creator that is many orders of magnitude (or infinitely) more intelligent than a human, sure, saying that they probably have a better insight into morality and we should listen to them makes sense. But it would be because of their greater ability to understand what is moral, not them being the law maker of morality.

Well, because the god can stick you in a fire for all eternity if you follow the human's moral code instead. That's not really a great case for the soundness of their moral teachings but nonetheless presents a compelling argument for obedience.

You say that, and it's good that you did because the arguments you're making don't work together to prove your point in the way that you think they do. What about a godless universe makes morality impossible to justify? Is it that god is the only possible source of morality or meaning or value or something? Because you haven't proven that and can't just take it as axiom.

This is the way it ought to work, but often does not. Or, when your peer group associates criminal or antisocial behavior with positive attributes.

Shaming does not work in a large population of antisocial people. Religion is not THE answer however for a large population of people it is necessary (currently).

Can you think of anything in between? Why the extreme jump to “it’s either all or nothing”?

To state that The Only way to not be a meaningless hunk of rock is to worship your god seems like a pretty big lack of imagination.

I don’t need your god or your god’s rules to appreciate that you’re probably an amazing person in many ways. My partner is “godless” and she’s far more amazing than a rock.

If you want to argue that certain people need religion and that it may provide more benefit to society when those people personally worship their god I can see how this may be a sound argument. Some people really do need jesus, but this hardly means everyone needs jesus or some other sky god to see the value of other people.

This is such a good example of why I push back on organized religions and their foot soldier bible thumpers… this all or nothing thing. I don’t want your god, I don’t want your religious prudery. I thinks it’s amazing that you find meaning there, i really genuinely do. But it isn’t for me. No. I don’t want your god. I still see your value and still care—and, honestly it’s not a wild impossibility that I see value in others and that I do this without a god.

Because you clearly don't understand the context or reasoning behind any of the situations you listed, you resort to simply condemning God upon your own authority.

You think of yourself as better than God.

And that is what sin is.

Try acknowledging God as the authority, as He is your maker, and then you might even get to understand all the events you are ignorantly referring to.

I think most people would agree that mass murders are morally wrong.

> You think of yourself as better than God.

I have my own problems, but otherwise I don't murder people.

> Try acknowledging God as the authority, as He is your maker, and then you might even get to understand all the events you are ignorantly referring to.

Fortunately the god doesn't exist, and the bible is just poorly written fiction.

But even if I was convinced that the Abrahamic god exists, it wouldn't change my opinion that the god is a narcissist psychopath.

That's a rough approximation of my beliefs. The universe is massive and long-lived. I am neither.

I want to leave the world a better place than when I entered it. That trickles down to my daily life - are things better or worse when I go to bed than when I awoke? Being as insignificant as a rock doesn't preclude that desire.

And frankly, it's kind of offensive when Christians tell me I'm less-than-moral because I don't need their scripture to decide what's good or bad.

The moral argument isn't telling you that. You people (HN readers) seem intent on misunderstanding my initial statements.

It's not that atheists are not moral. Not even less moral than religious people.

The point I am trying, and failing, to express is that morality must come from a higher, non-human source. If it does not, then it is just a product of fallible human minds and is entirely meaningless. That's it.

At the scale of the universe, everything we do is meaningless. We simply are what we are and that's that. Realizing this causes me no small amount of existential angst. So I try to live in the moment as best I can and leave the world ever so slightly better than I found it.

So maybe we actually agree (on what lack of religion means, not on what we personally believe about morality or existence)?

This might be more convincing if we had empirical evidence that this “higher power” even exists and could discern (and thus agree on) what it wants and why what it wants is good.

I got $1000 that says that I could name several “Godly” (greater than 90% abrahamic affiliation) that you would immediately label “a shithole country”, but if I were to name the most secular ones, you’d most likely state that “theyre great, beautiful places to live with good people.”

(I'm trying to point out that your comment isn't helpful to the discussion.)

Countering with two Catholic moral | ethical philosophers doesn't negate the suggestion of Cicero, it seems to be just an attempt to make the first proposition a second time.

That's just my drive by two cents worth, FWiW.

It's going to take more time commitment than people reading random forum posts will give to do that. It would be better to try summarising some aspect of his ideas (which is of course a task that would demand time from whoever wishes to promote him). That's why I said the comment isn't helpful.

Would you be willing to give the hours+ time commitment if a random stranger said the two words "Read [name]" with no further elaboration or would you ignore it? It would be more helpful in a discussion to bring actual ideas to the table, or else the discussion would consist of no more than reading recommendations.

In a thread about education, I expect the responses of the educated.

When an absolute position is taken a single exception rebuts the absolute.

If a comment is made regarding the absolute necessity of religion as grounding for morals and virtue and a simple response is given "Read X" then I expect that X addresses either supoort or raises an exception.

Cicero is sufficiently well known for many to be aware of the material, those that are unaware (in a thread about education) should be curious enough to learn more and advance their own position as to why Cicero may or may not be a suitable rebuttal.

FWiW I felt the comment given re: Cicero to be neccesary and sufficient and I'd tip my hat to the user if I had a hat, were to cross paths, and recognised them as such.

But this is just me, a random drive by HN commenter.

Each to their own.

I, for one, made no such comment.

I've been attempting to express the moral argument for God. Religion doesn't feature, as such.

> The more we move away from God the worse our societies will become.

Whose God? How well is it working in Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan?

The Bard makes an excellent point: "The devil can cite Scripture for his purpose." We could find countless "justifiable" actions that are based on "God told me to", so ignoring that aspect is dishonest.

Is there a threshold for belief in God that you think is necessary for a healthy society? 50%? 75%?

It's not true at all to state that morality has no grounding without a "higher power". (See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics)

For example: belief in a higher power simply isn't required to allow people to make their own medical decisions. Belief in a higher power isn't required to give someone food.

It's absolutely fine to propose religion as an ethical framework, but I don't think it can possibly make sense to propose it as the only ethical framework, or to propose that society will become worse if humans "move away from God".

There are plenty of good alternatives.

It's not that you need God to be moral. It's that you need an objective "higher power" as the source of that morality.

So I totally agree with what you wrote there, but you can't make a sound argument for a moral position without God or some objective higher power.

> "Belief in a higher power isn't required to give someone food."

So it's a moral duty to give a hungry person food. OK. I agree. Now we could have an exchange where you try to make a strong rational case for that, during which I will ask "why?" an annoying number of times until we get to the part where it's clear there is no basis for the moral duty absent a higher, non-human, source.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cp9Nl6OUEJ0

Acting so that we decrease suffering, increase wellbeing, and otherwise reduce harm is moral in and of itself without any higher source.

Casual sneaking in of "non-human" here, when a powerful human would fit just as well.

Your issue is that there often isn't a basis for anything at all except "seems to work". That's why we have the joke about the 5-year-old who keeps asking "why", exasperating its parents.

That we don't have a complete rationally-grounded framework doesn't imply the existence of God or even that it's good to act as if such a being exists. Insisting otherwise is basically a god-of-the-gaps argument.

I do understand your argument, and I definitely agree that some set of non-self "objective higher-power" can be very helpful. Like a personal or societal code of ethics. Bodies of law are an attempt at that.

I simply don't agree that our society will become worse the more we "move away from God". It's totally fine if "God" is how you want to do it. But not everyone wants this, and the development of secular philosophy, laws, professional ethics, and personal ethics are excellent substitutes for people who don't believe.

Not to mention, secular alternatives still allow people to practice their religious-based ethical framework without forcing others to do so.

I am a Christian because Christ is God. This is bigger than me. This is outside, and regardless of me.