I have been pondering this recently:
Note, although I believe in God, I have no religion, thus am not indoctrinated as such, so I follow my own personal moral code. In fact I am in many ways less flexible in my morals than the average religious. I don't for example consider it proper for children to be allowed to play in graveyards, yet I note that the congregation often allow their chidlren to do so.
All this aside, my ponderance is thus:
Most religions seem to possess a fair amount of 'God fearing' which guides peoples actions (for the greater good generally) but I wonder how much genuine goodness is possessed or demosntrated by these individuals or how much is based on fearing the consequences if they did otherwise?
I guess this could also apply generally to the law, ie. how many of us would steal if it was legal to do so.
I have the following points for discussion:
Atheists
1)Atheists are good without the 'fear' of God's wrath, so does that make them genuinely good as oppose to 'forced to be good'?
2) Are atheists less likely to be bound by 'law' and normal cultural conventions in the absence of their ability to be 'influenced' or 'controlled'?
May they be thus more anti convention, rebellious ...anarchists?
3)Is the fact their moral code is self determined mean it is stronger and less likely to deviate than that of a theist who has been indoctrinated with fear based goodness?
Theists
4) Are theists as result of their early compliance with 'rules' more susceptible in general to other forms of law abiding or worse manipulation?
Note, although I believe in God, I have no religion, thus am not indoctrinated as such, so I follow my own personal moral code. In fact I am in many ways less flexible in my morals than the average religious. I don't for example consider it proper for children to be allowed to play in graveyards, yet I note that the congregation often allow their chidlren to do so.
All this aside, my ponderance is thus:
Most religions seem to possess a fair amount of 'God fearing' which guides peoples actions (for the greater good generally) but I wonder how much genuine goodness is possessed or demosntrated by these individuals or how much is based on fearing the consequences if they did otherwise?
I guess this could also apply generally to the law, ie. how many of us would steal if it was legal to do so.
I have the following points for discussion:
Atheists
1)Atheists are good without the 'fear' of God's wrath, so does that make them genuinely good as oppose to 'forced to be good'?
2) Are atheists less likely to be bound by 'law' and normal cultural conventions in the absence of their ability to be 'influenced' or 'controlled'?
May they be thus more anti convention, rebellious ...anarchists?
3)Is the fact their moral code is self determined mean it is stronger and less likely to deviate than that of a theist who has been indoctrinated with fear based goodness?
Theists
4) Are theists as result of their early compliance with 'rules' more susceptible in general to other forms of law abiding or worse manipulation?
