What philosopher believes in God and good morals?
399548
Anne Finche Conway (1631-1678) \nAntoine Arnauld (1612-1694) \nBartoleme de las Casas (1484-1566) \nBenedict Spinoza (1632-1677) \nBlaise Pascal (1623-1662) \nCatherine Trotter Cockburne (1679-1749) \nDamaris Cudworth Masham (1659-1708) \nDavid Hume (1711-1776) \nEmmanuel Kant (1724-1804) \nFrancis Bacon (1561-1626) \nFrancisco de Vitoria (1492/93-1546) \nFrancois-Marie Arouet de Voltaire (1694-1778) \nG.W. Leibniz (1646-1716) \nGeorge Berkeley (1685-1753) \nHugo Grotius (1583-1645) \nJean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) \nJohn Locke (1632-1704) \nMargaret Lucas Cavendish (1623-1673) \nMary Astell (1666-1731) \nMary Wollstonecraft (1759-1797)\nMichele de Montaigne (1533-1592) \nNicolas Malebranche (1638-1715) \nNicolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) \nPierre Bayle (1637-1706) \nPierre Gassendi (1592-1655) \nRene Descartes (1595-1650) \nSir Thomas More (1478-1535) \nSor Juana Ines de la Cruz (1648-1695)\nThomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
629178
Immanuel Kant (22 April 1724 – 12 February 1804), \nwas a German philosopher from Königsberg (now Kaliningrad) in East Prussia. Kant is frequently esteemed as one of the greatest and most influential thinkers of modern Europe. He is generally considered the last major philosopher of the Enlightenment.\n\nLook for more at....
93923
Well...  What religion does is make morality an objective idea instead of a subjective one; people obey the tenets that a certain religion sets forth.  Morality without religion is subjective; it is every individual's own perception of right and wrong -- which often differs.  Very similar is the difference between Christianity and humanism; one sets God as the absolute of all reality, and the other sets humankind as the absolute of all reality.  \nSo, do people need "god" to be morally "responsible" to their own concept of morality?  No.  Whether their idea of morality is correct, on the other hand -- take Hitler's morality for instance; he may very well have been responsible to his idea of morality -- is a totally different question.
672982
I do not believe that there is such a thing as absolute good and evil; however, if there were, it would be impossible to tell the difference between the two.\n\nFor example, many people  believe that it would be evil to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians; however, this is exactly what the United States did when it dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima.  Some people believe that this was not evil and actually prevented a larger number of deaths by helping to bring an end to the war, while others believe that the end did not justify the means and regard the bombing as evil, regardless of the consequences.\n\nTwo research topics which may help you better understand this issue are the religious concept of dualism and the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche.\n\nDualism is the idea that there is definite good and evil, and the two are separate from one another.  Zoroastrianism, an ancient religion from Persia, was one of the very first dualistic religions.  Before Zoroastrianism, gods and goddesses were often both good and evil.  For example, Greek and Roman gods were often considered neither good nor evil but were regarded as being capable of both.\n\nIt is believed that Zoroastrianism heavily influenced Judaism during the Babylonian Exile, and it is well known that Christianity is built upon the foundation of Judaism.  Many modern-day western ideas of good and evil are a product of this Judeao-Christian ethic; and these ideas have have been passed on from generation to generation, even when Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity themselves were not.  Conflicting ethical and religious systems have often been the cause of conflicts that led to wars between peoples.  The medieval crusades are a prominent example.\n\nFriedrich Nietzsche was a German philosopher who vigorously challenged the Judeao-Christian ethic and the common understanding of morality.  Nietzsche saw traits like generosity, mercy, and modesty as against the normal and natural order and declared them immoral.  It should be noted that Nietzsche did not deny the existence of good and evil, he simply redefined what was good and what was evil.  It is for this reason that he is sometimes called a moral skeptic.\n\nAdolph Hitler claimed to have admired Nietzsche's writings, and it is possible that Hitler's obsession with German world domination was a result of a value system alien to most people--a system that valued the strength of the German nation above almost all else, even human life itself.\n\nWith the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Japan joined Hitler's Germany as an Axis power during World War II.  Many Americans classify this surprise attack, which killed a large number of American soldiers, as evil; however, the Japanese value system highly regards honor and sees revenge for wrongs as a duty that must be performed.  The United States had placed an economic embargo upon Japan, and the Japanese saw this as an attack which required retribution.\n\nAs referenced earlier, the war ended with the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  As you can see, the definition of good and evil, and ideas about good and evil, are constantly shifting and changing, depending on who is making the judgment and the history and context of each situation.\n\nThere is no such thing as ABSOLUTE good and evil--it is all a matter of perspective and only a subjective one at that.
784617
"We would be 1,500 years ahead if it hadn't been for the church dragging science back by its coattails and burning our best minds at the stake." - Catherine Fahringer\n\n"Faith is often the boast of the man who is too lazy to investigate." - F. M. Knowles\n\n"Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned." - Author Unknown \n\n"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet." - Napoleon Bonaparte\n\n"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." - Seneca the Younger
854267
Yes Aesop does teach very good values, but I wouldn't say more than all religious texts.  There are a few that teach just as well from all types of different religious and non-religious groups.
1006914
By DEFINTION, God is good. \nAnything He does is good, never bad.\nTherefore, if He does something that *seems* bad to us, there is a good reason for it.
1126716
Nah. The single rule to be good to others isn't specific enough because one person might consider something to be good while another doesn't, such as abortion. Even if everyone had the same understanding of what is good and what isn't, it still makes more sense to assume god doesn't exist.
408840
GOD is LOVE, TRUTH, JOY, WISDOM.
1186882
If you believe God exists then you have accept that He knows everything and therefore everything is His divine plan.  This means that Hitler was His divine plan, cancer is part of His plan, and people who are born disabled are all part of His plan.
1117989
What a sorry way to live life.  If god is so forgiving, he would applaud my free thinking attitude.  My actions in life define myself more than believing is something as ridiculous as a god that kills his own people and then says "thou shall not kill".  There's no reason not to have good morals, regardless of religious faith.  In fact, it seems that religion is inspiring more and more hatred and greed every day!  Those aren't Atheists strapping bombs around their waists and running into a crowd of people.
916619
I consider myself an atheist and a Buddhist. I read Batchelor's book a few years ago. It wasn't bad. My favorites:\n\nThe Dhammapada, translated by Easwaran\nhttp://www.amazon.com/Dhammapada-Eknath-Easwaran/dp/0915132370/\n\nThe translation and introduction are terrific. Also:\n\nMindfulness in Plain English by Bhante Gunaratana\nhttp://www.amazon.com/Mindfulness-Plain-English-Updated-Expanded/dp/0861713214/\n\nWhich can also be found online for free:\nhttp://www.budsas.org/ebud/mfneng/mind0.htm\nhttp://www.urbandharma.org/udharma4/mpe.html\nhttp://www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana/Archive/G/Gunaratana/MindfulnessIPE/index.html\n\nBuddhism can be viewed as a secular philosophy or psychology, so I agree that it's perfectly compatible with atheism/agnosticism.
1154706
I enjoyed reading his stuff years ago when I was questioning Christianity and decided that the concept made a lot of sense -- we're rewarded for our good deeds in the next life and are condemned to suffer the same results in our next life that we caused others to suffer in this life.\nThat remained my philosophy of life until I recently found Judaism which is even more logical, doesn't involve mysticism, and doesn't require "belief" in any miracles.
828514
There is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy.\n\nEpistemological arguments for (or against) ontological claims are all doomed to failure, based simply on the nature of knowledge.  I believe it was Saint Patrick who held forth a shamrock and said "It is three, yet it is one.  It is a mystery."  And although I RATIONALLY agree with your question/statement, your philosophy, Horatio, leaves no room for mystery.  Which is why logical consistency never truly takes root in most human minds;  we desire the sublimation of rationality to the spiritual.\n\nFor the majority, it is not the logic of the belief, but the EXPERIENCE (illusory or otherwise) of the belief which is important.
1152309
With neither a belief nor a non-belief to back me up, I think there is the potential to do good or to do harm in each of us. \n\nI believe that we should do as much good as possible for its own sake, for the benefit of other peope, and for the our own benefit.\n\nI think there are more people who are capable of more good than the evil others do.\n\nDespite everything, I believe that people are really good at heart. --Anne Frank
683149
It is their foundation.  I sometimes wonder if arguing with someone about their core beliefs is moral.  if I ever convinced someone that they aren't going to Heaven, and the most powerful thing ever (God) doesn't love them, they would probably not feel good.  Of course, there are psychiatrists all over the world trying to convince people they are not God, or Jesus, or Napoleon, so I am immoral with company.
271581
God- all loving, but has the unfortunate characteristic of not existing.\n\nJesus- taught a lot of good things, but also taught many things which I believe were harmful\n\nThe Colonel- since i'm vegetarian, i'm not inclined to give it to him.\n\nBuddha- Buddha had a lot of wisdom, and most importantly taught good values and reasoning and disdained dogma and doctrine.  He is my choice.