Good without God

Jafar

What about people who've never read the Koran but have done good all their life?

The Koran is full with lifetime stories of those who never read the Koran but have done good all their life.
Namely; Jesus, Noah, Moses et. al.

What about people who don't really have any religion but keep doing good for humanity? Will they be saved?

Jesus is an infidel of Judaism and so does his cousin John.
And during Jesus times, Christianity do not exist and so does Islam.

And have you wondered what's the religion of Noah? or Adam?

Shouldn't all good people be saved? I come across so many people from other faiths who are so good and simple and honest. They never harmed anyone in their lives.

Yes they will... "faiths" / "religion" is just human invention of labeling their group, so-called 'social identity'.

What will happen to them?

They will be ok..

It's quite clear that we don't need faith to be good people. I wish the Koran said something about it....

If 'faith' = 'religion / tradition', yes good people doesn't need religion in order to be good.
The Koran contains stories of many 'infidels' (Jesus and John) and other un-religious person who lived a good life.

However if all people leave their religion, their priest will be 'jobless' and 'powerless'.
That's why the 'priestly class' insist on the importance of 'religion' and they do many things in order to ensure that, including injecting verses inside the scriptures...

Salam / Peace

Scribbler

As-salam alaykum.

769
We only feed you for the sake of God; we do not desire from you any reward or thanks.

Doing good for the love of humanity is one think, and doing good for the sake of God is indeed another.

Regards.

spodacus

Salam,

The whole point of life is to redeem ourselves to God and prepare for the Day of Judgement (the Day we meet God and He questions us on everything we did). Unless your deeds are done with this purpose in mind, at the end of the day it is useless. That goes for anything you do in life, good or bad.

Just my opinion thus far.

huruf

As-salam alaykum.

769
We only feed you for the sake of God; we do not desire from you any reward or thanks.

Doing good for the love of humanity is one think, and doing good for the sake of God is indeed another.

Regards.

Obviously it is not forbidden to feel compassion and love, yes, for those we help but what is saying is that we should not expect thanks or reward from those we may help. In other ayas, precisely we are warned against being disdainful with those we help. As I read it in English it sounds to me as it is being disdainful for the needy. We cannot do that. It would be like throwing a bone to a pestering dog. We are not God, but needy brats.

I think that what is in the aya is in order to not make the indigent et al to feel indebeted to those who feed them, not to make them feel that they are shit because in fact where we are getting our reward is somewhere else.

Of course we may love human kind, and if we manage to love it it is much better for us. Love is never too much, but it can be too little many times. Prophets love humakind, the cannot do otherwise, because if they worship God they have to love what God created and gives them as their mission. I think they do not even need to be told such a thing. It is only out of love that people, saintly people can be patient, compassionate, put up with things like some mentionned in the Qur'an that would send many other people climbing up the alls, me the first.

I am afraid there are some things I just don't get. Why make conflictive love of humankind and worship of God? Where is the need for that conflict? I love dogs, at least my family dog, does that shrink the urge to worship God or the love for my children or my mirror? What is the problem?

I do not get either the need to distinguish between prophets, to what end and what purpose?

I think we have real problems, unless we want to become like byzantines and get entangled with the sex of angels and all that mental masturbation.

Salaam

Man_of_Faith

Peace huruf,

It is something like that "we can only love God if we love our neighbor".

Have faith

BobaFett

To be honest the fate of good atheists is something that bothers me because the Koran does seem to indicate that their good deeds will not help them. However there are several instances of God mentioning hell but then leaving a "loophole" by saying "except those whom I choose". So perhaps the good atheists will be among those.

<b>It's quite clear that we don't need faith to be good people. I wish the Koran said something about it....</b>

While I agree that some people can be good without faith I don't believe humanity as a whole can be. Without God what is right or wrong becomes subjective. So while you can say "I think this is right/wrong" you could never say "This is right/wrong", because you are a fallible man just like me, why should I consider the same things as right or wrong as you do when you might of made a mistake in your belief? Since God makes no mistakes this option is not available to those who believe.

JavaLatte

This is actually simple.

If faith is not something that is very important, then, for what God sent prophets and messengers who repeatedly remind people to believe in God (to have faith in God)?

And, why they feel very uneasy/sad to see their people don't have faith in God?

Why not the prophets said something like "O my people, it's okay if you don't have faith in God, as long as you do good in your lives, then you'll be fine, don't worry, I promise."

Salm.

Armanaziz

Salamun Alaikum.

Before we ponder what will happen to "Good without God" people... may I humbly ask to discuss what this "Good without God" concept really is? I mean what is the basis or reason for believing good or bad even exist if we think the entire universe including us - is a massive coincidence without any purpose or reason what so ever. Is it "bad" if a falling stones hits another stone and breaks it? Then why should it be bad for one person to kill another? Why not - "Eat, drink and be merry - forget about good or bad, for who cares!" Without any God - shouldn't the sole purpose of life be "maximize your sensual pleasures during your lifetime however you can"? I mean - seriously - can someone explain this "Good without God" proposition to me?

I know that Buddhists have a framework - good karma, bad karma - but the moment you believe in karma - it means the universe has some sort of spirit beyond its physical existence that records the karma and ensures that a balance is maintained. I would say this is a form of believe in an "Impersonal God" rather than no God at all.

I have actually surveyed some of the writings by people from atheist school of thought - but couldn't find any satisfactory answer. If someone has figured this out please enlighten me - I am deeply curious about this.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Regards,
Arman

huruf

I said in previous posts, it is rare that people do not believe. Only the hardest, beastly, evil beings do not believe. That is believe in their passions or appetites as the ruler in their life and conduct. Most people believe. Whether they happen to formulate a mental concept of a God or not is not the question. They act in a certain way out of belief, otherwise they would not act so. As I also said, there are the names of God, we know they are many and are the manifestation of certain qualities that when practiced by human beings are moral qualities, they are names of good. A person who may not mentally or pholosophically formulate a belief but who with his or her actions or ommissions reflects his or her belief in charity, or compassion, or justice or truth or whicheve moral quality that person most certainly believes, is a believer. That he or she does not use the formulisms of formal religion does not change anything in her, that she or he acts out of belief. I know such persons, one can trust them and they are good, they are not faithless, but they may not formulate with their words a belief that may be emotionnally would be for them putting up a face they, intellectually would feel dishonest putting up. They do believe- They do not worship themselves or their passions or their whims, far from that.

On the other hand we all know those who always have God in their tonges and religiousness aspersed everywhere and in fact are beastly an worshippers of their own selfish image and whims.

We all know ourselves, I hope, we know where we act out of true belief, when we do it out of shame for being seen doing this or that or not doing it...

I personally do not worry that there may be injustice in God treating anybody because of their "beliefs". He knows, nothing nor anybody can cheat HIm and He knows each thing and living being completely and without anything in the shade. He is compassionate and he will not wrong a soul. Those who did an otam of good will see it, those who did an atom of wrong will see it. I doubt that they will be asked for proper religious formulas.to recite. If you were sparse with formulas but helped your neighbour out of sheer belief in you heart on helpfulness, God will be helpful.

That is what gather, God under any of His names is worshipped all the time everywhere, alhamdulillah. His imprint is in everythign and everycreature, even while we may not be conscious of it. Whever lets any of his names of beauty shine through him or her, over him or her will that light shine forever.

Salaam

Jafar

While I agree that some people can be good without faith I don't believe humanity as a whole can be. Without God what is right or wrong becomes subjective. So while you can say "I think this is right/wrong" you could never say "This is right/wrong", because you are a fallible man just like me, why should I consider the same things as right or wrong as you do when you might of made a mistake in your belief? Since God makes no mistakes this option is not available to those who believe.

Right or wrong is subjective...
That's why the guidance is related to 'reciprocity'..
One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.

And the belief of God / Gods has nothing to do with being good.
The Pagan Arabs in the time of the Quran are all believer in God/Gods.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arabian_mythology

They have a set of rituals and codes where most of it has nothing to do with morality.
For example The women in their period are not allowed to perform any worshiping rites to any of the gods..

A common pattern of all pagan religion (greek, romans, egyptians etc..), 0% morality, 100% ritual / faith in the gods.

If faith is not something that is very important, then, for what God sent prophets and messengers who repeatedly remind people to believe in God (to have faith in God)?

From the Tanakh to the Quran you shall see a pattern that the "Prophets" are there to deliver a warning type of message regarding their BEHAVIOUR.

?The experts in the law and the Pharisees sit on Moses? seat. Therefore pay attention to what they tell you and do it. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they teach. They tie up heavy loads, hard to carry, and put them on men?s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing even to lift a finger to move them. They do all their deeds to be seen by people, for they make their phylacteries wide and their tassels long. They love the place of honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues and elaborate greetings in the marketplaces, and to have people call them ?Rabbi.? The greatest among you will be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted."

?Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites! You cross land and sea to make one convert, and when you get one, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves!"

?Watch out for the experts in the law. They like walking around in long robes and elaborate greetings in the marketplaces, and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows? property, and as a show make long prayers. These men will receive a more severe punishment.?

I know that Buddhists have a framework - good karma, bad karma - but the moment you believe in karma - it means the universe has some sort of spirit beyond its physical existence that records the karma and ensures that a balance is maintained. I would say this is a form of believe in an "Impersonal God" rather than no God at all.

I have actually surveyed some of the writings by people from atheist school of thought - but couldn't find any satisfactory answer. If someone has figured this out please enlighten me - I am deeply curious about this.

The law of Kharma contains the principle of "'reciprocity".
One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself because one shall receive the consequences of their own action.

Siddharta doesn't even mention any conception of deity / god.
Yet he didn't reject it either.. he's focusing on deed which he deemed as the most important.

The 'eastern traditions' are often labeled as "Dharmic religion" which means "Deed religion". (Dharma = Deed/Action in Sanskrit). That's why it's uncommon to find Buddhist or Taoist wage war / invasion for the sake of a deity.

The "Belief and Disbelief of God/Gods" can resulted in good or bad deeds..
If one belief or disbelief in God/Gods resulted in good deed (morality), then fine.. if not, then that's a problem..

Salam / Peace

Armanaziz

The law of Kharma contains the principle of "'reciprocity".
One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself because one shall receive the consequences of their own action.

Siddharta doesn't even mention any conception of deity / god.
Yet he didn't reject it either.. he's focusing on deed which he deemed as the most important.

The 'eastern traditions' are often labeled as "Dharmic religion" which means "Deed religion". (Dharma = Deed/Action in Sanskrit). That's why it's uncommon to find Buddhist or Taoist wage war / invasion for the sake of a deity.

Salamun Alaikum.

Thanks for the clarification. I would take the principle of "'reciprocity" as a purely secular cooncept if it were limited to the life of the world - but as the Buddhist ideology suggest this reciprocity extends beyond one's life - and thus it indicates a spriritual world beyond the materialistic physical world we observe - that is already implying the "spirit of the universe" as a super authority.

OK, putting the Dharmic religions aside - do you have a definition of "Good deed" from a purely materialistic atheist point of view?

Regards,
Arman

unknownuser

This idea begs to me the question what of those who neither believe firmly nor disbelieve ardently in the existence of the Almighty? Allah says in the Qur'an that the only matter unforgivable is the association of partners with Him, if I am not mistaken. Does this mean agnostics can potentially be forgiven? An individual who neither believes nor disbelieves does not associate partners with the Almighty, and he may not deny His existence.

I understand Allah speaks of doubters in negative tones throughout the Qur'an. In light of the verse about shirkh being the only unforgivable matter, is it plausible that agnostics can be forgiven based on their works in this life?

unknownuser

Salamun Alaikum.

Before we ponder what will happen to "Good without God" people... may I humbly ask to discuss what this "Good without God" concept really is? I mean what is the basis or reason for believing good or bad even exist if we think the entire universe including us - is a massive coincidence without any purpose or reason what so ever. Is it "bad" if a falling stones hits another stone and breaks it? Then why should it be bad for one person to kill another? Why not - "Eat, drink and be merry - forget about good or bad, for who cares!" Without any God - shouldn't the sole purpose of life be "maximize your sensual pleasures during your lifetime however you can"? I mean - seriously - can someone explain this "Good without God" proposition to me?

I know that Buddhists have a framework - good karma, bad karma - but the moment you believe in karma - it means the universe has some sort of spirit beyond its physical existence that records the karma and ensures that a balance is maintained. I would say this is a form of believe in an "Impersonal God" rather than no God at all.

I have actually surveyed some of the writings by people from atheist school of thought - but couldn't find any satisfactory answer. If someone has figured this out please enlighten me - I am deeply curious about this.

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Regards,
Arman

There are extensive studies on the evolution of morality. Humans are not the only species to exhibit altruistic behavior, for example. Setting God completely aside, there are significant beneficial effects for acting with moral standards for the survival of the individual. Acting in ways beneficial to society stimulates order and peace which, in turn, increases survivability.

Armanaziz

There are extensive studies on the evolution of morality. Humans are not the only species to exhibit altruistic behavior, for example. Setting God completely aside, there are significant beneficial effects for acting with moral standards for the survival of the individual. Acting in ways beneficial to society stimulates order and peace which, in turn, increases survivability.

So per this concept of morality - our morality is a social obligation - live and let live? There is nothing inherently good or bad - it is all what society dictates? What if someone has lost faith on society - he no longer trusts or wishes for increased survivability - does it morally justify for him to take a gun and kill a few men for fun - before he commits suicide? Or - does it justify that he could torture an animal to death - when no body else is watching? When a society sanctions grossly wrong practices (e.g. burning of widows with the dead body of husband - practiced in part of Ancient India; or slavery; or child marriage) - what is the moral justification to challenge the society, especially when such a challenge reduces the chances of survival of the individual? Where is the moral justification for Copernicas or Socrates to sacrifice their lives for upholding the "truth"?

Best Regards,
Arman

Jafar

Thanks for the clarification. I would take the principle of "'reciprocity" as a purely secular cooncept if it were limited to the life of the world - but as the Buddhist ideology suggest this reciprocity extends beyond one's life - and thus it indicates a spriritual world beyond the materialistic physical world we observe - that is already implying the "spirit of the universe" as a super authority.

Perhaps it is, perhaps it is not..
Yet what matters the most is the deeds..

OK, putting the Dharmic religions aside - do you have a definition of "Good deed" from a purely materialistic atheist point of view?

Certainly you need to ask those who claimed that they are "Materialistic Atheist" for that.

Yet it's interesting to hear out on what a "self-proclaimed-Atheist" said regarding "Good Deed".

Quotation A
"The behavior which we call morally good, selfless good deeds, has been wired into our brains by evolution. That is, people who were generous and kind to others may have survived and those who were selfish fell to the ravages of time."
-- R. Dawkins

Quotation B
?Do you really mean to tell me the only reason you try to be good is to gain God's approval and reward, or to avoid his disapproval and punishment? That's not morality, that's just sucking up, apple-polishing, looking over your shoulder at the great surveillance camera in the sky, or the still small wiretap inside your head, monitoring your every move, even your every base though.?
-- R. Dawkins

Dawkins has a valid point on quotation A due to

Human and some other big Primates (Bonobo, Orangutan) are among the few species on earth who has proven to possess the capability of empathy not only towards their own species yet extended to other species as well.
This hormone governs such attitude.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin
The "Canaanites scriptures" also support his hypothesis,
The most direct statement are
"Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth." (Matt 55)
"He will punish you with a painful punishment and will replace you with another people" (Q 939)
"He can remove you and bring (in your place) a new creation! And for Allah that is not hard or difficult" (Q 1419)
"among you there are some who hoard. And as for him who hoardeth, he hoardeth only from his soul. And Allah is the Rich, and ye are the poor. And if ye turn away He will exchange you for some other folk, and they will not be the likes of you."
(Q 473

Those who are kind shall survive, those who are not shall become extinct..
The survival of the nicest.
The evidence can be seen from past history as well..
Dawkin is correct on this matter.

On Quotation B..
He is again correct, if one does a good deed merely to 'gain some reward', that's not 'morality', it's not 'sincere' it's basically 'sucking up to the big boss'.

And again Bonobo and Orangutan is capable of doing 'good deeds' not only to their own species but to other species as well.

An Orangutan saving baby chick from drowning
http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTUIfHyHQRs

What's the religion of Orangutan?
Is Orangutan an infidel? or a believer?
The question shall baffled any priest..

It's very much possible, that they are standing next inline to 'evolve further' and receiving the future mandate for "guardians of the earth", replacing their 'extinct gone evil cousin' namely human, as previously warned in the scriptures.

Salam / Peace

unknownuser

So per this concept of morality - our morality is a social obligation - live and let live? There is nothing inherently good or bad - it is all what society dictates? What if someone has lost faith on society - he no longer trusts or wishes for increased survivability - does it morally justify for him to take a gun and kill a few men for fun - before he commits suicide? Or - does it justify that he could torture an animal to death - when no body else is watching? When a society sanctions grossly wrong practices (e.g. burning of widows with the dead body of husband - practiced in part of Ancient India; or slavery; or child marriage) - what is the moral justification to challenge the society, especially when such a challenge reduces the chances of survival of the individual? Where is the moral justification for Copernicas or Socrates to sacrifice their lives for upholding the "truth"?

Best Regards,
Arman

Morality is not so black and white as "live and let live." There is live, and give. Furthermore, it is not all of what society dictates, as there are generic principles that are present under the moral umbrella throughout the world and throughout history clearly evident. It is universally seen as wrong to kill another person unjustly, as an example.

I am not speaking about society's definition of morality, as society can become very sick. I am speaking in the reverse direction the individual's responsibility to the society itself how to benefit society? That goes beyond good intentions, but into rationality and knowledge.

The examples you mention regard survivability on a micro scale, but there is survivability on a macro scale, in which case, the individual's existence can be surrendered through personal sacrifice for the lives of others, strengthening the survivability of the species. There is an important distinction between "survival" and "survivability."

Armanaziz

Salamun Alaikum.

Thank you brother for exploring this concept with me - I have also gone through all these in my mind - and believe it is quite fundamental that we investigate these concepts.

I'd like to draw attention to 2 comments from your earlier post

There is survivability on a macro scale, in which case, the individual's existence can be surrendered through personal sacrifice for the lives of others, strengthening the survivability of the species.

There is a inherent assumption behind the above statement that the cause of survival (or well-being) of many - is superior (or better) than the cause of survival (well-being) of one. This is a moral evaluation between two choices. But doesn't this assumption already requires a concept of "moral evaluation" independent of the question of survivality? From a purely materialistic point of view - where one believes existance begins at birth and ends at death - why should one be concerned about well being of others at the expense of well being of oneself? Why shouldn't maximizing the well-being (i.e. sensual pleasure) within one's lifetime be considered the ultimate goal of the life of an individual?

There are generic principles that are present under the moral umbrella throughout the world and throughout history clearly evident.

This is exactly what I am talking about - what is the genesis of these "generic moral principles" that seem to exist independent of time, place and society? Who decided these principles and why are we - human beings - bothered to uphold these principles?

Let's put some thoughts around this so that we can clarify in our mind what "Good" really means.

Regards,
Arman

unknownuser

Salamun Alaikum.

Thank you brother for exploring this concept with me - I have also gone through all these in my mind - and believe it is quite fundamental that we investigate these concepts.

I'd like to draw attention to 2 comments from your earlier post

There is survivability on a macro scale, in which case, the individual's existence can be surrendered through personal sacrifice for the lives of others, strengthening the survivability of the species.

There is a inherent assumption behind the above statement that the cause of survival (or well-being) of many - is superior (or better) than the cause of survival (well-being) of one. This is a moral evaluation between two choices. But doesn't this assumption already requires a concept of "moral evaluation" independent of the question of survivality? From a purely materialistic point of view - where one believes existance begins at birth and ends at death - why should one be concerned about well being of others at the expense of well being of oneself? Why shouldn't maximizing the well-being (i.e. sensual pleasure) within one's lifetime be considered the ultimate goal of the life of an individual?

There are generic principles that are present under the moral umbrella throughout the world and throughout history clearly evident.

This is exactly what I am talking about - what is the genesis of these "generic moral principles" that seem to exist independent of time, place and society? Who decided these principles and why are we - human beings - bothered to uphold these principles?

Let's put some thoughts around this so that we can clarify in our mind what "Good" really means.

Regards,
Arman

Walaykum assalam, dear brother.

I am very interested in this and would love to learn more, and I'm glad to have this conversation with you.

There is a symbiotic relationship between the individual and the society in which he lives. In the specific case of social injustice where one vows to sacrifice himself/herself for the betterment of society, we can still see the behavior as motivated by the individual. There are, among our species, individuals who do gain pleasure from helping others, despite it seeming outwardly as sacrifice. In terms of our relationship with others, we can think that experiencing pleasure selfishly may seem the most rational. However, this method can backfire, because we have the age-old concept of consequences. In fact there is interesting literature on "consequentialism" branch of secular morality studies which you might find interesting. The key is that we find the individual who can experience the most pleasure is the individual who is living in harmony with his/her neighbors. How much pleasure can one feel and for how long if he/she is apathetic towards those around him/her? What goes around comes around.
That's the beauty, my brother. Evolution. Natural selection has allowed these qualities to flourish as they have proven to be highly beneficial to the survival of the species. We are creatures of biology, and our instincts are more or less the same as other species survive and reproduce.

Salaam,
Bilal

Jafar

There is survivability on a macro scale, in which case, the individual's existence can be surrendered through personal sacrifice for the lives of others, strengthening the survivability of the species.

Human (and also some other species) has shown an in-built capabilities / tendencies for such act.

Yet, only within human we can also sees how such capabilities are being twisted.
Through the rituals of human sacrifice to the gods.
The 'victim' or 'the sacrifice' is considered as a 'hero' by their society, because their death shall please the gods.

Religion can really turn good people into evil..

From a purely materialistic point of view - where one believes existance begins at birth and ends at death - why should one be concerned about well being of others at the expense of well being of oneself?

There are religions who do not explains thus seems to have no concerns regarding 'the existence after death'.
Judaism is among them, there are no clear description in the Tanakh on 'existence after death'.
Is Judaism a 'purely materialistic point of view'??

Why shouldn't maximizing the well-being (i.e. sensual pleasure) within one's lifetime be considered the ultimate goal of the life of an individual?

Those who do are categorized as 'psychopath'.
And psychopath has been found lacking of Oxytocin.
They're now injecting Oxytocin as a 'treatment' for psychopath.

Why Some People Are Evil?
http//www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-moral-molecule/201109/why-some-people-are-evil

And feel to take this self-test to see how 'psycho' are you..
http//personality-testing.info/tests/LSRP.php

Albeit the small percentage of their presence in today's human population (~ 1%) once they took power they can influence other human to become as psychotic as they are.

There are generic principles that are present under the moral umbrella throughout the world and throughout history clearly evident.

This is exactly what I am talking about - what is the genesis of these "generic moral principles" that seem to exist independent of time, place and society? Who decided these principles and why are we - human beings - bothered to uphold these principles?

And across species as well.. Bonobo, Orangutan, Dog, Dolphin has been witnessed of capable doing "selfless act for the benefits / welfare of other species". Biologically wise the Oxytocine hormone exists on all mammals..

Thus as Dawkin said it's "hardwired" on SOME of us.
Psycopath is an exception..

Let's put some thoughts around this so that we can clarify in our mind what "Good" really means.

You may extend your research to seek out what "EVIL" really means, and why human turned EVIL.

Mr. Zimbardo is among the many researcher on that topic.
Philip Zimbardo The psychology of evil
https//www.ted.com/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil

Salam / Peace

Armanaziz

Walaykum assalam, dear brother.

I am very interested in this and would love to learn more, and I'm glad to have this conversation with you.

There is a symbiotic relationship between the individual and the society in which he lives. In the specific case of social injustice where one vows to sacrifice himself/herself for the betterment of society, we can still see the behavior as motivated by the individual. There are, among our species, individuals who do gain pleasure from helping others, despite it seeming outwardly as sacrifice. In terms of our relationship with others, we can think that experiencing pleasure selfishly may seem the most rational. However, this method can backfire, because we have the age-old concept of consequences. In fact there is interesting literature on "consequentialism" branch of secular morality studies which you might find interesting. The key is that we find the individual who can experience the most pleasure is the individual who is living in harmony with his/her neighbors. How much pleasure can one feel and for how long if he/she is apathetic towards those around him/her? What goes around comes around.
That's the beauty, my brother. Evolution. Natural selection has allowed these qualities to flourish as they have proven to be highly beneficial to the survival of the species. We are creatures of biology, and our instincts are more or less the same as other species survive and reproduce.

Salaam,
Bilal

Salam brother Bilal.

You are saying, some people find it more "enjoyable" to sacrifice their own life for the sake of others. Agreed - but a vast majority of us are not that motivated - but we still find these people "good" ... so irrespective of whether we ourselves find the selfless sacrifice enjoyable or not - we consider selfless sacrifice for certain causes as good. And when we are forced to make a poor moral choice - we recognize that we are accepting the bad - because our commitment for doing good is not strong enough to sacrifice material well-being after a certain point. This shows that what one considers enjoyable does not "define" what is good. So, I reject the notion that human morality is a subset of our survival instinct / basic biological instincts - rather it must be a totally different instinct which often functions in opposite direction to our survival instinct. When we see a group of muggers mugging a helpless passer-by, our survival instinct tell us to run and flee ? but our moral instinct tell us to engage and fight back.
So you mean - human evolution process has allowed these qualities to flourish? What brother Jafar added after you also indicates that ?morality? is built into human design. Yes, this is more acceptable and per my understanding the only possible explanation. Morality is not something we learn after our birth ? it is something we carry inside us from the time of our birth. We acquired the sense of morality as a unique "instinct" as a part of our evolution / creation - perhaps as part of our genetic makeup. Good and Bad cannot be mere illusions created by society, nor a mere extension of our survival instinct - we humans have an inherent basic sense of good and bad (unique to our species) built into ourselves. As an analogy, trees don?t have vision ? but creatures which possess the ability to move usually have a sense of vision which complements their movement ability. Ones which move in the dark has the sense of night vision - ones which move under water can sense under water. Just like our vision and hearing - human morality is a sense that we inherently poses to guide us in using the extremely powerful tool/ability we have - our intelligence.

This invariably leads me to the conclusion that whatever ?forces of nature? has created or evolved us ? the humans - must have had the ability to ascertain or define moral choices and building them into us. Recognition of this fact already puts ?the forces of nature? above blind mechanical processes ? this automatically implies a "judgemental aspect" - an intelligence behind the make-up of a human being - beyond and above anything we can define using our materialistic perspective - physics, chemistry and biology.

A human being - who submits himself to this sense of morality - i.e. has decided to uphold moral choices above any other biological instinct - is the one who has submitted to - the "greater designer" who created him/her - instead of his own physical instincts. It does not matter whether he calls this "greater designer" GOD or Allah or Brahman or forces of nature or Universal spirit or does not call by any name at all. In other words it is well possible to submit to the senses of good and bad ?God? created in us ? without actually believing or acknowledging ?God?. And that?s how believing (iman) gets distinct from being submissive (islam).

May Allah guide us all to the straight route.

Best regards,
Arman

P.S. Due to personal reasons I will take a longish break from this forum. For those of you who celebrate Eid... wish you a happy Eid.