Atheism more moral?

[schulze43]

In one of my classes on religion and violence we read an article by slavoj zizek if you want to read it here it is…

nytimes.com/2006/03/12/opinion/12zizek.html?pagewanted=print

any ways in the article he talks about how if you are an atheist you do things because they are the right thing to do and not because a god is telling you that you should, he claims that the only way that we can have a society that everyone is free to believe what they want is if it is an atheistic society…our class then started discussing where morality comes from and if you can have a moral code if you do not have a god telling you what to do…I wasn’t really sure what to say because I know that there is a God and that He is the one who sets the standard for morality and such but I didn’t know how to explain this to a class full of atheists and agnostics…

is it right to say that everyone has some sort of moral code because God has written His law on our hearts? but how do you explain this in a scholarly way??

any help is appreciated

also I do not want to argue with people about where morality comes from I just want the Catholic teaching on this, so please only Catholic answers…thanks:thumbsup:

 

[Langdell]

I don’t know if there is anything you can say that will persuade the atheists and agnostics. Since they don’t believe in God, they’re not going to respond to any argument that relies on God as the source of morals.

However, there are some holes you can poke in the argument in the article:

1. The author’s argument simply assumes, without support, that there is an agreed-upon way to measure how “moral” a person is. Maybe moral-ness is incommensurable. If so, then asserting that one type of person is more moral than another is nonsensical.
2. Even if we get past objection 1, the author hasn’t shown why a person’s motivation for being good is the proper measure for moral-ness. For example, why isn’t the frequency of good conduct the standard for measuring it? Why is one measure assumed to be appropriate as opposed to another?
3. Even if we get past the first two objections, how do we know that atheists actually do do the right thing solely or primarily because they believe it is right? There are boatloads of ulterior motives for being good aside from fear of God or a desire to please God. If an atheist does the right thing in order to protect his reputation is he any “more moral” than a theist who does the right thing because it pleases God?
4. Even if we ignore all of the above problems, it’s meaningless to say that atheists are as moral as, or more moral than, or less moral than religious believers because the two groups have different concepts of morality. For example, Christians and Jews believe that one of most important characteristics of a good person is that he accept the one true God (the First Commandment). An atheist obviously doesn’t care about that – his/her morality focuses at least in part on a different set of virtues. It’s like trying to say that a guitar is more musical than a clarinet.

.

 

[Julian0404]

You relate it to a class of atheists and agnostics with historical information they can validate, such as the laws and commandments of GOD, through the Catholic church, has been the corner stone of Western Civilization in establishing the first Hospitals to care for the sick (moral obliation), schools and colleges to teach the ignorant, 10 commandments, which are the foundation of most of our legal laws. The founding pioneers who came over to America to practice the faith they wish without fear.
Morality “was” the formation of this nation, and the removal of it will be its demise.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

In one of my classes on religion and violence we read an article by slavoj zizek if you want to read it here it is…

nytimes.com/2006/03/12/opinion/12zizek.html?pagewanted=print

any ways in the article he talks about how if you are an atheist you do things because they are the right thing to do and not because a god is telling you that you should, he claims that the only way that we can have a society that everyone is free to believe what they want is if it is an atheistic society…our class then started discussing where morality comes from and if you can have a moral code if you do not have a god telling you what to do…I wasn’t really sure what to say because I know that there is a God and that He is the one who sets the standard for morality and such but I didn’t know how to explain this to a class full of atheists and agnostics…

is it right to say that everyone has some sort of moral code because God has written His law on our hearts? but how do you explain this in a scholarly way??

any help is appreciated

also I do not want to argue with people about where morality comes from I just want the Catholic teaching on this, so please only Catholic answers…thanks:thumbsup:

First off, you could point out that this isn’t simply an academic exercise - there have been actual atheistic societies we can look at to see how they made moral decisions. Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Hitler’s Germany - these were societies where millions of people were slaughtered, every basic human right was trampled on - BECAUSE they were atheistic societies.

The rulers of these societies believed they were doing good. But they were atheists, so they had no reference to God or His commandments to know what “good” was - they defined “good” in some other way - social progress, racial cleansing, class struggle - and we can see the result of that. Dostoevsky was right - where there is no God, everything is permitted.

It’s not just the fear of heaven and hell, as the author of the article indicates, that make up Christian morality. It is founded on the belief that all men were created by God, that we all have an immortal soul, and that Jesus came to save all men and that salvation is always a possibility for anyone. Flowing from that, there is the belief in the sanctity of human life, the basic framework of the 10 Commandments, etc. If you believe that God created all men and sent His only Son to redeem them, you won’t set up death camps trying to exterminate millions of people.

If you believe man is basically an intelligent monkey who exists only by accident, and has no immortal soul - you can justify killing millions of them in the service of whatever end you have in mind at that time. Stalin did it, Mao did it, Pol Pot did it, Hitler did it. We’re not just talking theoretically.

 

[schulze43]

thanks for your insightful answers those really help!

am I correct in thinking that the reason that a person say in the rain forest who has never been taught anything about how they should act morally, but chooses to act in a good way (lets say choosing to tell the truth or treating others with respect and dignity), is this because God’s law is written on our hearts? Is there a more technical theological answer for this?

 

[hatsoff]

First off, you could point out that this isn’t simply an academic exercise - there have been actual atheistic societies we can look at to see how they made moral decisions. Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Hitler’s Germany - these were societies where millions of people were slaughtered, every basic human right was trampled on - BECAUSE they were atheistic societies.

That connection is tenuous at best, and in my opinion fairly plainly false. First of all, totalitarian governments do not act to serve the will of the people. So, even if, say, Stalin’s Russia was an atheistic society, it is not to blame for the actions of their corrupt government—at the hands of which the society was itself oppressed! Second, I do not believe those societies were atheistic. Certainly Hitler’s Germany was predominantly Christian, yet those Christian soldiers committed the same atrocities as their non-Christian counterparts.

So, that leaves us with the governments. Were they atheistic? Well, they were secular and totalitarian, and so they oppressed the religious along with everyone else, sometimes more so. I suppose you might call that atheistic. American and many European governments, in contrast, with which we are intimately familiar, are democracies of some form or another, just as secular and non-religious as any totalitarian government. The key difference is that they don’t oppress the religious—or anyone else, for the most part. We are free people, and we all deeply appreciate that freedom. Should we call our governments atheistic? Well, they’re secular, so maybe that label fits, too.

But of course in both cases the label is shaky. Governments aren’t atheists; people are. And there are good and evil atheists just like there are good and evil Christians. Then again, as has been pointed out elsewhere, good and evil are somewhat subjective. So maybe by your value system the situation is somewhat different. To each his own.

In the end, though, regardless of how we choose to label the governments, we’re interested in the morality of people. And the behavior of a handful of dictators and their cronies won’t tell us about the large-scale social trends.

 

[Black_Rose]

First off, you could point out that this isn’t simply an academic exercise - there have been actual atheistic societies we can look at to see how they made moral decisions. Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, Hitler’s Germany - these were societies where millions of people were slaughtered, every basic human right was trampled on - BECAUSE they were atheistic societies.

I believe the calamities caused by Mao have been greatly exaggerated.

 

[tonyrey]

American and many European governments, in contrast, with which we are intimately familiar, are democracies of some form or another, just as secular and non-religious as any totalitarian government. The key difference is that they don’t oppress the religious—or anyone else, for the most part. We are free people, and we all deeply appreciate that freedom. Should we call our governments atheistic? Well, they’re secular, so maybe that label fits, too.

“for the most part” says it all! Minorities are always at a disadvantage in any secular society. The mere fact that laws are made by the majority is enough to put them at a disadvantage:

“Heathrow check-in worker Nadia Eweida was sent home after refusing to remove the crucifix which breached BA’s dress code…
Under rules drawn up by BA’s ‘diversity team’ and ‘uniform committee’, Sikh employees can even wear the traditional iron bangle - even though this would usually be classed as jewellery - while Muslim workers are also allowed prayer breaks during work time.
But Miss Eweida, 55, from Twickenham, insisted her cross, **which is smaller than a ten pence piece, **was not jewellery but an expression of her deep Christian faith.
She questioned why she was being forced to hide her religion when BA’s Muslim and Sikh workers could express theirs…
She said her treatment was all the more extraordinary as she and fellow employees had just undergone “diversity training” - including receiving advice from pressure group Stonewall on how to treat gays and lesbians in the workplace.” !

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-410299/Christian-BA-employee-legal-action-suspension-wearing-cross.html#ixzz0jpZklNBl

Then again, as has been pointed out elsewhere, good and evil are somewhat subjective. So maybe by your value system the situation is somewhat different. To each his own.

It is not good and evil that are subjective but people’s opinions. The fact that people differ does not alter scientific laws nor does it alter moral laws. If you dispute the right to life does it disappear forthwith?

In the end, though, regardless of how we choose to label the governments, we’re interested in the morality of people. And the behavior of a handful of dictators and their cronies won’t tell us about the large-scale social trends.

You seem to be suggesting that morality is - or even should be - determined by social trends rather than rational principles. The teaching of the Catholic Church is that our ultimate authority is our conscience, not decisions made by those in power - not even the Pope!

We are created in order to choose for ourselves how to live and love others as responsible individuals and members not only of the human race but of the community of all God’s creatures. If we harm animals and pollute this planet we are failing in our obligation to cherish and appreciate the immense value and beauty of this magnificent universe.

 

[hatsoff]

“for the most part” says it all! Minorities are always at a disadvantage in any secular society.

In democracies, yes. Under totalitarian governments, though, certain minorities enjoy many privileges denied to the majority.

But otherwise I agree. As the saying goes, democracy is the “least worst” form of government. It’s definitely not perfect.

It is not good and evil that are subjective but people’s opinions. The fact that people differ does not alter scientific laws nor does it alter moral laws. If you dispute the right to life does it disappear forthwith?

Well, I take the position that moral laws are social conventions, and that moral disagreements cannot always be rationally resolved. But if the Catholic God exists, then you are correct to point out that his moral law is fairly objectively determined, with little room for subjective interpretation.

You seem to be suggesting that morality is - or even should be - determined by social trends rather than rational principles.

Just to clarify, I’m not a liberal interested in social tolerance. In other words, I’m not suggesting that morality should be anything. I’m only commenting on what it is.

We are created in order to choose for ourselves how to live and love others as responsible individuals and members not only of the human race but of the community of all God’s creatures. If we harm animals and pollute this planet we are failing in our obligation to cherish and appreciate the immense value and beauty of this magnificent universe.

Thankfully, even though we disagree in our foundations, we do seem to share many moral values. I’ve always been impressed with the Catholic interest in Church unity, for example. I’m pleased also to hear you speak so well of our home here on earth.

 

[tonyrey]

“for the most part” says it all! Minorities are always at a disadvantage in any secular society.

That is true, although some forms of democracy are superior to others - as when there is freedom to criticise the government.

It is not good and evil that are subjective but people’s opinions. The fact that people differ does not alter scientific laws nor does it alter moral laws. If you dispute the right to life does it disappear forthwith?

Well, I take the position that moral laws are social conventions, and that moral disagreements cannot always be rationally resolved. But if the Catholic God exists, then you are correct to point out that his moral law is fairly objectively determined, with little room for subjective interpretation.

Don’t you believe the right to life is universal?

You seem to be suggesting that morality is - or even should be - determined by social trends rather than rational principles.

Just to clarify, I’m not a liberal interested in social tolerance. In other words, I’m not suggesting that morality should be anything. I’m only commenting on what it is.

But you must have some idea of its purpose…

We are created in order to choose for ourselves how to live and love others as responsible individuals and members not only of the human race but of the community of all God’s creatures. If we harm animals and pollute this planet we are failing in our obligation to cherish and appreciate the immense value and beauty of this magnificent universe.

Thankfully, even though we disagree in our foundations, we do seem to share many moral values. I’ve always been impressed with the Catholic interest in Church unity, for example. I’m pleased also to hear you speak so well of our home here on earth.

Thank you!

“Dull would he be of soul who could pass by
A sight so touching in its majesty…"

Wordsworth was referring to Westminster Bridge but his words are also appropriate to the spectacle of the night sky:

“Two things awe me most, the starry sky above me and the moral law within me.”

• Immanuel Kant

 

[Mea_Culpa]

That connection is tenuous at best, and in my opinion fairly plainly false. First of all, totalitarian governments do not act to serve the will of the people. So, even if, say, Stalin’s Russia was an atheistic society, it is not to blame for the actions of their corrupt government—at the hands of which the society was itself oppressed! Second, I do not believe those societies were atheistic. Certainly Hitler’s Germany was predominantly Christian, yet those Christian soldiers committed the same atrocities as their non-Christian counterparts.

Do you know anything about the ideology of Stalinist communism, or National Socialism? They are explicitly atheist. The crimes committed by the communists and the nazis were the result of their atheism. It was their atheistic ideology that allowed them to commit such atrocities.

So, that leaves us with the governments. Were they atheistic? Well, they were secular and totalitarian, and so they oppressed the religious along with everyone else, sometimes more so. I suppose you might call that atheistic. American and many European governments, in contrast, with which we are intimately familiar, are democracies of some form or another, just as secular and non-religious as any totalitarian government. The key difference is that they don’t oppress the religious—or anyone else, for the most part. We are free people, and we all deeply appreciate that freedom. Should we call our governments atheistic? Well, they’re secular, so maybe that label fits, too.

These aren’t just totalitarian regimes - they are societies run by atheists - communists and fascists.

But of course in both cases the label is shaky. Governments aren’t atheists; people are.

A communist government is an atheist government.

And there are good and evil atheists just like there are good and evil Christians. Then again, as has been pointed out elsewhere, good and evil are somewhat subjective. So maybe by your value system the situation is somewhat different. To each his own.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. The atrocities of the 20th Century were carried out by atheistic regimes and were the RESULT of their atheism. You can have an evil person saying he’s a Christian, but he wouldn’t be living out the true meaning of his Christianity. An atheistic communist engaging in a “purge” that kills million of people because he thinks it will enhance the purity of his society is acting in line with the dictates of atheism. Since, for him, there is no God, right and wrong are all relative - good is whatever he defines good as being (as you say, to each his own.) WRONG. There is an absolute, objective right and wrong. Killing people is wrong. The ends do not justify the means. These are Christian principles.

In the end, though, regardless of how we choose to label the governments, we’re interested in the morality of people. And the behavior of a handful of dictators and their cronies won’t tell us about the large-scale social trends.

You mean the large scale social trends like - let’s see - THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF THE 20TH CENTURY! Communism, fascism, the response to the rise of these evils - you mean like those large scale social trends? The killing of millions and millions of people doesn’t matter, doesn’t have anything to do with right and wrong or morality?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

hate to tell ya hats, but i got to go with them on this one. i mean that the correlation between atheistic regimes and human rights violations, pogroms and genocide is nearly 100%, i cant think of one officially atheistic society that hasnt wound up treating people as if they were ‘surplus’. maybe there is some very small society, where an atheistic regime hasnt descended into madness, but i cant think of one.

it seems obvious from the rate of correlation. obvious that an entire society from the government on down of atheists, might not be a great idea.

on just a single atheist basis, one of the brights was here, at my house a couple weeks ago, and we were talking about this subject, in general. he mentioned to me that he feels bad about ignoring homeless people. ive been close to him for a long time and i didnt mention it to him, because im not interested in hurting his feelings, but it seems strange to me that he feels that way. i mean if one is really sincere in his beliefs, then why feel bad about something like that? i suppose that we could chalk it up to some aspect of basic humanity, but then, wouldnt that same basic aspect lead one to not ignoring homeless people?

it seems a strange dichotomy to me.

 

[Miss_Shelby]

In one of my classes on religion and violence we read an article by slavoj zizek if you want to read it here it is…

nytimes.com/2006/03/12/opinion/12zizek.html?pagewanted=print

any ways in the article he talks about how if you are an atheist you do things because they are the right thing to do and not because a god is telling you that you should, he claims that the only way that we can have a society that everyone is free to believe what they want is if it is an atheistic society…our class then started discussing where morality comes from and if you can have a moral code if you do not have a god telling you what to do…I wasn’t really sure what to say because I know that there is a God and that He is the one who sets the standard for morality and such but I didn’t know how to explain this to a class full of atheists and agnostics…

is it right to say that everyone has some sort of moral code because God has written His law on our hearts? but how do you explain this in a scholarly way??

any help is appreciated

also I do not want to argue with people about where morality comes from I just want the Catholic teaching on this, so please only Catholic answers…thanks:thumbsup:

I actually think the article makes the case for Christianity stronger. God lets us choose to do evil or to find the freedom He wants for us by choosing Him. Clearly, only a narrow percentage of people have ever done that throughout history, hence the narrow road. I think where this (the article’s) school of thought errs is in presuming good can be done apart from first the INDIVIDUAL choosing Christ and allowing action to follow from that. There has always been violence, there will be until the end. And only a few will find the true freedom that Jesus offers us all. People just need to understand it starts with ONE person, each and every one of us included, and does not begin on a global basis. I hope this makes sense to people reading this, it makes sense to me in my head anyways. don’t expect your professor do understand this.

 

[Zatzat]

Morality “was” the formation of this nation, …

I would think that there’d be a lot of First Nations people who would vehemently disagree with your statement.

hnn.us/articles/7302.html

'…the reduction of the North American Indian population from an estimated 12 million in 1500 to barely 237,000 in 1900 represents a "vast genocide . . . native Americans had undergone the “worst human holocaust the world had ever witnessed, roaring across two continents non-stop for four centuries and consuming the lives of countless tens of millions of people.” ’

That’s a morality I can due without. I’ll stick to my Godless morality, thank you very much.

 

[Zatzat]

i cant think of one officially atheistic society that hasnt wound up treating people as if they were ‘surplus’.

I’m baffled as to how you can think that the Canadian Government, comprised of a minority Conservative party, ruling in partnership with Liberals, Bloc and the NDP is a theistically driven power base.

Do you care to explain?

 

[Miss_Shelby]

as an afterthought schulze, I don’t know that you’ll find an explanation that will satisfy your teacher or most of the people in your class for that matter. As much as I hate to say it, sometimes when we choose to defend a belief we end up swimming against an ocean of futility. It might be easier to regurgitate back to your professor what he’s teaching, get an A in the class, and go for beers afterwards with your friends and THEN discuss it seriously.

As far as really answering the question, Clive Staples Lewis, one of the greatest intellectual, theological and philosophical minds to have ever graced the planet addresses much of what you’re asking in his book ‘The Problem of Pain’ I recommend it highly and all of his works as far as that goes.

amazon.com/Problem-Pain-C-S-Lewis/dp/0060652969

 

[edwest2]

That connection is tenuous at best, and in my opinion fairly plainly false. First of all, totalitarian governments do not act to serve the will of the people. So, even if, say, Stalin’s Russia was an atheistic society, it is not to blame for the actions of their corrupt government—at the hands of which the society was itself oppressed! Second, I do not believe those societies were atheistic. Certainly Hitler’s Germany was predominantly Christian, yet those Christian soldiers committed the same atrocities as their non-Christian counterparts.

So, that leaves us with the governments. Were they atheistic? Well, they were secular and totalitarian, and so they oppressed the religious along with everyone else, sometimes more so. I suppose you might call that atheistic. American and many European governments, in contrast, with which we are intimately familiar, are democracies of some form or another, just as secular and non-religious as any totalitarian government. The key difference is that they don’t oppress the religious—or anyone else, for the most part. We are free people, and we all deeply appreciate that freedom. Should we call our governments atheistic? Well, they’re secular, so maybe that label fits, too.

But of course in both cases the label is shaky. Governments aren’t atheists; people are. And there are good and evil atheists just like there are good and evil Christians. Then again, as has been pointed out elsewhere, good and evil are somewhat subjective. So maybe by your value system the situation is somewhat different. To each his own.

In the end, though, regardless of how we choose to label the governments, we’re interested in the morality of people. And the behavior of a handful of dictators and their cronies won’t tell us about the large-scale social trends.

Governments lead, whether by some sincere good motive or for some purely utilitarian motive. What do you do if your country is taken over by the Russians? Is anyone going to say Nyet if their leaders tell them to shoot at the Capitalists? What about all those people who set up nuclear missiles in Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis? Did any of them tell their leaders, “Ya know. I think this whole idea of starting a nuclear war is a bad one.”?

I had the privilege of meeting some Americans about to be deployed to Iraq. Did they call the President beforehand and say, “Ya know. I don’t like this whole Iraq idea.”?

“large-scale social trends”? It’s all about social engineering. Get the people to believe this and not that. That’s the primary social trend I’m seeing.

Are atheists more moral? How is morality defined? By what yardstick are actions to be judged moral?

God bless,
Ed

---

Choose Jesus.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I’m baffled as to how you can think that the Canadian Government, comprised of a minority Conservative party, ruling in partnership with Liberals, Bloc and the NDP is a theistically driven power base.

Do you care to explain?

to my understanding, they arent an officially atheistic regime yet.

 

[hatsoff]

hate to tell ya hats, but i got to go with them on this one. i mean that the correlation between atheistic regimes and human rights violations, pogroms and genocide is nearly 100%, i cant think of one officially atheistic society that hasnt wound up treating people as if they were ‘surplus’. maybe there is some very small society, where an atheistic regime hasnt descended into madness, but i cant think of one.

Can you actually name an “atheistic society”? I can’t. Every time I have checked the statistics, I’ve been unable to find a population with a majority of non-religious people, much less bona fide atheists. For example, Pol Pot’s regime is often cited as atheist, but according to wikipedia, 95% of the Cambodian people are Buddhist. Now, that is a modern statistic, but I find it hard to believe that the population was predominantly atheist only 35 years ago, during the rule of the Khmer Rouge.

On the other hand, we might wish to describe certain communist states as atheistic, since anti-religious sentiments are tied up with Marx’s communist philosophy. So, we might be justified to say that Pol Pot’s regime was atheist, as long as we do not mean to imply that the people of Cambodia under Pol Pot were mostly atheists. But as I pointed out earlier, we’re concerned with people, not governments. In other words, we wish to determine whether becoming or remaining an atheist tends to result in some kind of moral breakdown. And as I have stated previously, looking at a handful of dictators—or at Marx’s philosophy, if you like—isn’t going to answer questions about large-scale tendencies.

on just a single atheist basis, one of the brights was here, at my house a couple weeks ago, and we were talking about this subject, in general. he mentioned to me that he feels bad about ignoring homeless people. ive been close to him for a long time and i didnt mention it to him, because im not interested in hurting his feelings, but it seems strange to me that he feels that way. i mean if one is really sincere in his beliefs, then why feel bad about something like that? i suppose that we could chalk it up to some aspect of basic humanity, but then, wouldnt that same basic aspect lead one to not ignoring homeless people?

Feelings aren’t rational responses. Our emotions can be controlled to some limited degree, but in the end, we are slaves to our passions. So, this friend of yours requires no reason to feel any particular way at all. It just happens that way.

 

[hatsoff]

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. The atrocities of the 20th Century were carried out by atheistic regimes and were the RESULT of their atheism.

Well, it sounds like you’re pretty passionate about your beliefs. I can understand that. However, I must disagree, for the reasons expounded previously.