Is it possible for atheists to be moral, ethical people or do you believe that ethics and morality are inseparable from religion? Give reasons for your answer.
: Is it possible for atheists to be moral , ethical people or do you believe that ethics and morality are inseparable from religion ? Give reasons for your answer Atheists can be moral like other kind of person regardless of religion . Ethics and morality is separate from religion . While admittedly it is easier for those non-atheists to believe that morality is more prevalent in religious people , it could not be however argued that non-religious people or atheists are less moral than the rest of the people When people in science and its benefits
Atheists can be moral like other kind of person regardless of religion . Ethics and morality is separate from religion . While admittedly it is easier for those non-atheists to believe that morality is more prevalent in religious people , it could not be however argued that non-religious people or atheists are less moral than the rest of the people
When people in science and its benefits
, it does not follow that they necessarily believed or not believed in God . The capacity therefore to believe in proof with what the human mind can conceive and capable to do is just human . The reasoning could therefore be invoke the atheist could believe in the benefits of inherent goodness of an act without really attributing it to God but something that is natural in them . What causes therefore atheists belief in goodness of a men and the consequences of it is their belief in natural law
There is therefore ground to separate ethics from religion . The best proof is the US Constitution which allows the free exercise of religion which carries with the right of atheist not to believe in God Thus the evolution of the principle of separation of the church and state since human experience has found that the unity of two could really confuse many societal issues . It could therefore be argued that goodness is not the monopoly of the religious people as atheist could also be good to their neighbors . To say that the atheist people are the only bad people would be to find evidence that all persons convicted of crimes are those who have no belief in superior beings
It may be argued that by non-atheist that Divine Providence must the source of everything that is good hence belief in the that Divine Providence hence the obvious influence of religion in causing people to act accordingly to what is good . On the contrary , the atheists could counter argue that the Divine Providence must have also caused the creation of what is evil . But then the believer would say that the Divine providence may have caused creation of what is evil but human freedom was the paramount in making a choice of what is good and what is evil . The atheist could find then a way to agree with the Divine Providence-believer that there is the human freedom that would be held accountable with the choices . The atheist then could say that he or she can also choose to be moral not because of a belief or lack of belief of superior being but in the consequences of actions which he or she readily feel ,see , experience by being human in the environment he or she believes
Kaminer (1997 ) argued about the impossibility of measuring the historic effect of organized religion on human welfare , where questioned about the way to balance the Inquisition with the Civil Rights Movement She further emphasized the difficulty of about the use of religious beliefs as to predict virtuous behavior . The fact that there are religious people who either practice or oppose slavery supports her point about the separate realms between religion and ethics (Kaminer 1997
What could explain the tendency of the American to blame Islam fundamentalism on many acts of terrorism while the US Constitution proclaims if respect for the right to religion ? Is not the US contradicting itself ? Apparently , the US has a religious or political bias in viewing situations not only in the acts of terrorisms but also in its economic life . While it proclaims the under is highest law about the non-interference of the state in right to religion , it at the same time puts in its coin , In God We Trust
Kaminer (1997 ) admitted about the difficulty of building up an affirmative defense of atheism absent a sense of self-righteousness which as done religious zealots when they quote the bible but argues that atheism is not inherently nihilistic . She took the position that atheism does not deprive people moral standards instincts or standards (Kaminer , 1997 . She even argued that atheism could deny one the luxury of believing that the wrongs of this world to paid or suffered to in the life to come . What she meant of course is the primacy of reason in trying to find out the relationship of things around
What then could explain ethical impulses aside from religion Kaminer (2007 ) cited science to have capacity to explain it when she mentioned Antonio Damasio 's suggestion in Descartes ' Error about the mechanisms caused by biological mean in explaining man 's most sublime behavior . She was arguing that guidance to do good things was possible whether one is a believer or not in the God . Kaminer (1997 ) however agreed though that common sense would reveal that parental nurture coupled with a correct vision of the divine do aid in making people good . Thus she believed that about the possibility of instilling respect for justice and generally accepted notions moral or good behavior in children even in the absence of belief in God
But believers would argue for the intelligent design hence morality must be a function of intelligent design . In this regard Dawkins (2006 ) used evolution to show to be false the ideas behind intelligent design . By trying to rebut the proposition that morality cannot be found without God , Dawkins (2006 ) insisted about divisiveness and oppression created by religion
At this point , it is clear that possibility of moral action being done without relating it to religion could come from reason or science theories . However science should not be necessarily meant to contradict belief in God either . McGrath , A (2004 ) has noted Dawkins ' philosophical bias to atheism , with the attempt to justify the same using Darwinism hence author countered by taking the position that Darwinism is not necessarily equate to atheism . McGrath (2004 ) cited the limitation of science in its inability to neither prove nor disprove the existence of God hence it could not be case either of atheism only being capable of moral acts
Based on foregoing , it may be concluded that religion and morality belong to different realms . Hence both atheists and believers are capable to make moral decision apart from the presence or lack of religion References
Dawkins , R (2006 ) The God Delusion , Houghton Mifflin
Kaminer , W (1997 , Pro Con : Atheists Can Be Moral , Too www document URL , http /www .speakout .com /activism /opinions /4991-1 .html Accessed December 6 , 2007
McGrath , A (2004 ) Dawkins ' God : Genes , Memes , and the Meaning of Life (back : Wiley-Blackwell ...
More Essays on people, religion, moral, ethic, Divine Providence
- Politics and Ethics
- Christian approach to world religions
- Ethic Essay
- Pick one of the following questions
- Ethics system table
- Should scientific knowledge be pursued for the sake of knowledge, or should there be limitations for moral, social, or religious reasons? Who should have the authority to determine these limitations?
- Is Buddhism a Religion or Philosophy ?
- Western Religion and Morality