Is Believing in God Immoral?

by AK - Jeff 14 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • AK - Jeff
    AK - Jeff

    A recurrent theme thrust forward by many theists is that morality is unattainable without belief in God. The idea seems to pervade that thinking, that without God-restraint, fear of lost eternity, man would run seriously amok, freely plundering, murdering, and bringing general havoc upon the innocent.

    Might there be some logical points to counter such thinking. Could some of those points actually indicate that believing is immoral of itself? Before the dyed-in-wool believers begin searching for enough lumber to erect a proper gallows upon which to hang this nay-sayer, hear me out please.

    If we accept that belief is rooted in 'faith', and not in logical support, we have already shifted away from any sense of responsibility in the matter of God-acceptance or not. We have laid the matter at the feet of those who have instructed us in 'faith', either since childhood, or later upon some 'experience' that 'bonded' us with Deity. We have passed on adult accountability. Our system of 'belief' was likely not our own to begin with - we either inherited it from parents who were believers, or we acquired it as a result of the social environs in which we were trained to see the world. Almost universally people become believers of the 'Deity of the day', the one chosen by the culture, not by the individual. If you live in the United States for instance, you are most likely 'Christian', though ethnic diversity is changing that somewhat nowadays.

    Other systems of thought come to us in similar ways. Some of those thought systems are rooted out as we age and become aware of the 'immoral' nature of them. For instance, many are reared in a family that is racist. The parents may 'hate' people of other cultures or races, often with no logical explanation, just emotionally charged ones. A fair share of those children will grow up with the precise hatreds as the parents - and they could not logically defend that emotion. Such emotion is destructive, because it is rooted in non-logical base. Some, however, grow up and take an honest look at the matter of race, and logically conclude that what they were taught was clearly unproductive, emotionally stifling, and dangerous to society at large. They make a change based on logic. They put aside 'faith' in what parents had instilled, and make sober reflection to make that change.

    In much the same way, when we are emotionally sober, we can look about and sense in a reasonable, clear mind, that Deity has not shown himself to be as absolutely clear and obvious to us as we had been taught. We can admit that while science is 'imperfect', it certainly has volume of evidence in support of the idea of evolution for instance. God's signature does not appear as obvious to the clear mind, as it does to the emotional dependent.

    Addicts have this emotional dependence problem. They fight the addiction successfully for a time. Then the urge to excuse the logical good choices of avoidance of the dangerous substance begins to subside. Resistance breaks down as emotional and psychological 'needs' override a clear and reasonable course. Soon a bottle or a cigarette, or a syringe, has won the battle.

    Believing is far closer to addiction than the believer wishes to accept. But many parallels can be drawn. It feels good to abandon personal fear and lose that fear in the arms of God. It feels right to 'roll all your needs' into God's lap, and then to excuse God for his failure to fulfill them based on his higher understanding. It feels good to assume that all the bad in the world is a result of dark forces that oppose God, thereby excusing 'good' society, religion, and believers from any part in the shared responsibility of community, and therefore the changes needed to correct the direction of the social evolution personally. Instead we hand it over to God. Soon all will be fixed/healed/repaired in the everlasting.

    The believer is unable to make any distinction between 'believing' and 'believing because my belief is backed by logical thought and reason'. In fact, most belief is emotionally driven, not logical, though sometimes seemingly logical arguments are developed to cover the emotional dependence. Like the cigarette smoker who defends his bad habit. He has no logical defense, but covers with illogical emotion. More of the 'it feels good, therefore I can excuse the chasm between feeling and logic in this case.' Once emotion is settled down again, he sees the need to take a logical good step toward health again. And he repeats the process.

    The dangers of belief are what make it immoral. Deluded thinking. Impeding of scientific progress. Encouraging a vast over-simplification of the worldview of ourselves and our children.

    Believing leads to no answers, no solutions, no response of a long-lasting effect to the problems that face the current hominids who dominate the planet. This is not to say that some charitable work is of not done by the believer. But it is done with the idea that the eventual 'fix', the permanent one, is in the hands of Deity not man.

    This is also not to insist that believers live in a total responsibility vacuum. Nothing can be so clearly stated for any group entirely. But the very notion of 'belief' carries the notion that we are beyond a real solution - only Deity can reduce the problem to it's base issues and solve it. The believer's social responsibility becomes dependent on a supposed eventuality by a 'supposed God' that cannot be defended logically.

    In this barren mind-scape, responsibility is eroded. It is a sloppy view, one that has lowered our bar to a level that puts 'belief' without evidence in a higher place than it does logically driven reality. One that makes 'believing' an elevated position over logic and rational thought. A mind so driven is not behind the solution, but part of the problem of moving mankind toward accomplishment.

    Our ancestors developed blind faith to cover what they could not understand. As science has unraveled the mysteries that early man could not unravel, the need for specific or general deities to explain gravity, movement of the stars and sea, storms, earthquakes diminished. Deities were summarily shelved in favor of reason - yet some of the old superstition remains today. It is that I deem immoral, for it's harmful effects on social evolution today.

    Jeff

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    I think that religion can HELP with ones morals, it certainly doesn't GIVE anyoen morals, as we know.

    I think that at a time religion was the "only" way for some to get morals and of course the organized religions of those times, like now, used that to their advantage.

    You do NOT need to believe in God to be a righteous and moral person.

  • Perry
    Perry

    The believer is unable to make any distinction between 'believing' and 'believing because my belief is backed by logical thought and reason'. In fact, most belief is emotionally driven, not logical,

    Jeff,

    Isn't one thread where you display your lack of logical skills enough? I'm still waiting for you to tell me what is intrinsically illogical about the biblical explanation of God and Suffering here:

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/188807/13/God-and-Suffering

    So far, after 13 pages of posts not you or anyone else has offered one logical criticism. So what about it. Wanna come back and talk about it where you started this mess?

  • BurnTheShips
    BurnTheShips
    The believer is unable to make any distinction between 'believing' and 'believing because my belief is backed by logical thought and reason'. In fact, most belief is emotionally driven, not logical, though sometimes seemingly logical arguments are developed to cover the emotional dependence. Like the cigarette smoker who defends his bad habit. He has no logical defense, but covers with illogical emotion. More of the 'it feels good, therefore I can excuse the chasm between feeling and logic in this case.' Once emotion is settled down again, he sees the need to take a logical good step toward health again. And he repeats the process.

    There's plenty of illogic in that paragraph. Belief is not like an addiction.

    In fact, most belief is emotionally driven, not logical

    So is most unbelief, I contend.

    http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/beliefs/169353/1/Atheism-as-a-psychological-phenomenon

    though sometimes seemingly logical arguments are developed to cover the emotional dependence.

    There are logical arguments, you just choose to not accept them.

    And then you go and contradict yourself in the same paragraph:

    He has no logical defense, but covers with illogical emotion.

    I'd like to understand your motivation in comparing believers to addicts and the like. Are you simply trying to justify your own decisions regarding belief? If it works for you, that's great. But just because atheism works for you, doesn't mean that belief is irrational, illogical, or "addictive".

    BTS

  • Robdar
    Robdar

    I believe it becomes immoral when a believer, or a non-believer, take it upon themselves to feel superior to another .

  • VoidEater
    VoidEater

    Yes, it is immoral to displace your own responsibility and accountability onto "God".

    Put on your big person pants and lay claim to your own ideas and beliefs as *your own*.

    The moment you shirk your own responsibilities by giving credit to God or blaming Satan, you become an empty shell, a puppet, a parrot.

  • Robdar
    Robdar
    The moment you shirk your own responsibilities by giving credit to God or blaming Satan, you become an empty shell, a puppet, a parrot.

    Well said, Void!

  • bluecanary
    bluecanary

    Wow. Jeff, I usually enjoy your posts but this one was excellent enough to pull me out of lurk mode.

    Two statements on religion I made recently in my sociology homework: (1) Religion reinforces superstition, leads people to make harmful decisions and allows them to justify the most abominable behaviors. (2) Attributing a false cause to a desired outcome is unhelpful at best and dangerous at worst.

  • AllTimeJeff
    AllTimeJeff

    Oh man, I am having trouble seeing the responses... Not this one!

    AKJeff, ignore the attempts of some to derail this and be sure to restart it if we can't get more replies.

  • cyberjesus
    cyberjesus

    Perry brother, why do you attack Jeff? Attack his arguments and show us where how and why you think is wrong. otherwise your statement is an ad hominem fallacy that belongs to the watchtower magazine.

    cheers though :-)

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit