The current theist/atheist debate
Posted: Sun Nov 25, 2007 1:14 am
There is an aspect of this debate that interests me as it relates to ancient philosohy.
Proponents of current religion, when responding to an attack by the likes of Hitchens or Dawkins, sometimes claim that without God, or perhaps more accurately a belief in God, there is no morality, or reason to be moral.
I am not sure this is the case, at least if "God" is defined by those believing in current religions, such as Christianity. Certainly the ancient philosophers were able to come to the conclusion that the virtuous life is the "good" life without relying on the existence of a personal God, and did so long before Christ and long before the Judeo-Christian ethos was stamped on Western civilization.
The Stoics, for example, seem to have developed their ethics from a consideration of the inferences they made from what they believed to be human nature, and how it relates to nature as a whole. It is true that Epictetus, at least, seems implicitly or explicitly to recognize the existence of a creator, as also seems to be the case with Aristotle. But I wonder whether the creator they believed in can be said to be the God we see worshiped today. Acquinas, when considering the "proofs" of the existence of God, would go through the Aristotelian argument for a first mover, and then state "and this we call God." But don't we now consider God to be much more than that? And if that is the case, is it legitimate to maintain that without God there is no reason to be moral?
Any thoughts or comments on this issue would be welcome.
Proponents of current religion, when responding to an attack by the likes of Hitchens or Dawkins, sometimes claim that without God, or perhaps more accurately a belief in God, there is no morality, or reason to be moral.
I am not sure this is the case, at least if "God" is defined by those believing in current religions, such as Christianity. Certainly the ancient philosophers were able to come to the conclusion that the virtuous life is the "good" life without relying on the existence of a personal God, and did so long before Christ and long before the Judeo-Christian ethos was stamped on Western civilization.
The Stoics, for example, seem to have developed their ethics from a consideration of the inferences they made from what they believed to be human nature, and how it relates to nature as a whole. It is true that Epictetus, at least, seems implicitly or explicitly to recognize the existence of a creator, as also seems to be the case with Aristotle. But I wonder whether the creator they believed in can be said to be the God we see worshiped today. Acquinas, when considering the "proofs" of the existence of God, would go through the Aristotelian argument for a first mover, and then state "and this we call God." But don't we now consider God to be much more than that? And if that is the case, is it legitimate to maintain that without God there is no reason to be moral?
Any thoughts or comments on this issue would be welcome.