Morality+and+God

__Morality and God__ A commonly debated topic has been “can you be good without God?” (Re-structure sentence) Now, I propose this: people can be good without believing in God, but they can only be genuinely ethical if they don’t believe in God. (Refrain from using personal pronouns) The term God (try not using God so many times) is used to describe a supreme deity that is believed to have created everything in the universe, including mankind. To believe in God is to accept His existence and to live by his norms and commands. To be clear, many people use the words “ethical” and “good” as synonyms but it must be noted that a discrepancy exists between them. To be good is to act in a way approved by society, but not necessarily understanding why you act that way. To be moral is to be able to freely make and understand your own decisions. As a start, (awk) people can be good if they believe in God (according to? citation?). He has rules, such as the Ten Commandments, and if people respect them, they are being good. If someone lives according to the Bible that person will be fulfilling God’s expectation of goodness. Now, even if you don’t accept God’s existence you can act properly. There have been studies that show atheists and agnostics have similar beliefs of good deeds as religious people. The research of Dr. Pyysiainen and co-author Dr. Marc Hauser, from the Departments of Psychology and Human Evolutionary Biology at Harvard University, suggests that intuitive judgments of right and wrong seem to operate independently of explicit religious commitments. (Cell Press, 2010) (citation not accurate) One may not fear going to hell, but he (object & pronoun do not agree in tense) can fear jail or the death penalty, so he’ll still behave and act in a way approved by society. Goodness, after all, is just an outward and superficial appearance. It’s just conforming to society. Just as a child can learn to read and write, by coercion (wc) (good word) and rewards he can learn to be good. (awk) Don't forget your APA formatting 1268852003 An atheist is a person who believes that there are no deities (????). An agonist (wc?) thinks that the existence of any deities is unknown and probably unknowable. You'll want to add citations for your definitions here simply because these definitions themselves can be controversial. 1268852003 Morality is a creation of man, so you don’t need to believe in God to possess it. Even more, if you do believe in God, from a point of view, you cannot be moral because you will not be able to make moral choices on your own. You will be ruled by God’s rules, not by your own conscious decisions. Your “morals” will depend on what God ordains, so they won’t be morals at all because you will not be making your own choices of what is right and wrong; rather God has already made them for you, He has already set a line between good and bad and right and wrong. People who believe in Him don’t have the freedom to question. They can’t really decide for themselves what is god and what is not. These people are rules by God’s rules, not their own. They do things because God says they are good but you can’t tell for yourself, so in reality you are not ethical, you can’t think for yourself. Being that morality is a creation of man, God has nothing to do with its authenticity, and only these two kids of people can be truly ethical because they are the only ones not biased by His commands. (Make sure you explain your ideas thoroughly, some readers could be confused after reading this paragraph.) An interesting addition would be to talk about the Euthyphro dilemma here as well 1268852003 Some may argue that people cannot be good if they don’t accept God because He is the one who sets the boundaries and if someone does not accept or know these boundaries that person cannot be good. But, as Plato said, are things good because they are favored by the gods or do the gods favor them because they are good? Certainly there are tons of atheists and agnostics that have done good for human kind. Among them are Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, Thomas Paine, and Susan B. Anthony. (Perhaps add detail on what they've done) It is safe to say none of the previous followed God’s rules, still there is more than enough proof that their own individual morality lead them on into the halls of history due to great deeds for mankind. Adding a syllogism could help make your arguments more clear 1268852003 Others may say society bases its norms in religious beliefs. They agree that these are good actions even if they don’t believe in God. So indirectly, they would say, God creates morality and people abide by it even if they don’t acknowledge His existence. Laws in most cases are restrained to a morality which we would all agree God considers rightful. However, not everything that religion says can be considered moral because it sometimes instigates violence, which is not a good deed. There are laws that dictate the exact opposite of which God ordains, for example homosexual marriages and drugs are made legal by laws which where passed by a society that has a very different morality perspective as God’s. Even others can argue that unless someone’s ultimate goal is to reach heaven, you can’t be trusted morally because your ethics are misguided, Therefore, they may argue, only believers are moral. But, if you strictly believe in God, you can make irrational choices because you’ll be an absolutist, taking only what the Bible says at all times. Morality is about logic; it’s about how people view right and wrong and how they create authentic decisions based on their personal beliefs. Atheists and agnostics are the only ones that can be truly moral because their logic and reason is not biased. Yes, morality may differ from person to person but is safe to say that an atheist and agnostics can openly decide whether their actions are moral or not. In short, someone doesn’t have to believe in God in order to be a good person. Also, people can act in a manner accepted by society and not be moral, if they do not have their own unbiased perceptions of good and bad choices. To be considered moral, one must be able to understand why you make the choices you do, and not just follow orders. If you do believe in God you can’t be entirely moral because you can’t make decisions for yourself, only obey His rules. Your conclusion does not seem to reinforce your original thesis, which was that non-theists can be moral but only non-theists can be ethical (I might be rephrasing it in a different way but I think that it means the same). You have some very good ideas, but make it very clear to the reader where your arguments against begin and how/why those arguments against are wrong. 1268852003

__Sources__

Cell Press (2010, February 9). Morality research sheds light on the origins of religion. Retrieved from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100208123625.htm

Epstein, G. (2009, October) Don't believe in good without God? That's prejudice. Retrieved from []

Shellnutt, K. (2010, February) Win for atheists: Study says you can be 'good without God'. Retrieved from []

Remember that you'll need 5 sources, 1 non-internet & not your textbook. 1268852003

media type="custom" key="5636731"

**General Comments:** Introduction - The introduction is ok as of now. When editing, the writer should have in mind that the introduction should be expanded. The reader's attention should be captured with the introduction. Body - Overall, arguments are effective. The essay follows a logical pattern. However, it was sometimes hard to keep track of the writer's focus. But, I am sure the writer will expand ideas and make everything clearer in her final draft. Additional citations could be helpful to add credibility. Conclusion - Just like the introduction, the conclusion needs to be expanded. Overall, this paper has the potential to be a good essay. Keep working on it! 1268505329

1268759180 The essay is correctly address talthough you are still keeping very personal feelings. In some parts, especially the beginning of the second paragraph, you are giving a very bias point of view. The counter arguments do not contain any citation so the ethos is still questioned. Anyways, the structure does move smoothly and I was able to move rapidly and effectively towards the complete essay. Your APA citation is not correct: try using Son of Citation, trust me it will make your life easier. Hope you can really feel in with more factual data the counter arguments.... peace..... AP CHEM :S.............. MY= x/0......

This is an intresting topic. I was intrigued since i ready your outline. The point that is being apprached s very challenging and i consider that evebthough it is hard it would be great if some more evidence were included to support the essays overall reliability. I would recommend to work a little more on the conclusion to leave the reader with a clear sence of what you talked about in the essay. It is very well written with no grammatical erros that make it hard for the reader to understand! again intresting and challenging topic good job. Sofia Chahin

include component="comments" page="Morality and God" limit="10"