Atheism more moral?

[Zatzat]

Stalin was an atheist. He thought what he was doing was good, because he had defined good to be that which advanced the cause of his particular political party. So there was nothing wrong with killing people if it helped advance his party. In fact, it was good to kill those people.

I could say the same thing about the Crusades and the Popes who led them…or even the inquisitions…

All created, orchestrated and controlled…by Christians…Roman Catholics to be exact.

 

[Leela]

I could say the same thing about the Crusades and the Popes who led them…or even the inquisitions…

All created, orchestrated and controlled…by Christians…Roman Catholics to be exact.

You are right, but this whole contest to see whether atheists or believers have done worse things misses the point. None of these deeds were done because people were too demanding of evidence in support of their dogmatic claims. All these evils whether committed by atheists or believers were done out of dogmatic adherence to ideological thinking and intolerance of intellectual criticism. As Sam Harris said,

"People of faith regularly claim that atheism is responsible for some of the most appalling crimes of the 20th century. Although it is true that the regimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot were irreligious to varying degrees, they were not especially rational. In fact, their public pronouncements were little more than litanies of delusion–delusions about race, economics, national identity, the march of history or the moral dangers of intellectualism. In many respects, religion was directly culpable even here. Consider the Holocaust: The anti-Semitism that built the Nazi crematoria brick by brick was a direct inheritance from medieval Christianity. For centuries, religious Germans had viewed the Jews as the worst species of heretics and attributed every societal ill to their continued presence among the faithful. While the hatred of Jews in Germany expressed itself in a predominately secular way, the religious demonization of the Jews of Europe continued. (The Vatican itself perpetuated the blood libel in its newspapers as late as 1914.)

Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields are not examples of what happens when people become too critical of unjustified beliefs; to the contrary, these horrors testify to the dangers of not thinking critically enough about specific secular ideologies. Needless to say, a rational argument against religious faith is not an argument for the blind embrace of atheism as a dogma. The problem that the atheist exposes is none other than the problem of dogma itself–of which every religion has more than its fair share. There is no society in recorded history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable."

 

[tonyrey]

Indeed but the murderer has not lost his right to life. If you can safely protect your family without killing him you should not kill him. Even if you are obliged to kill him it does not alter the fact that everyone is born with the right to life. To kill him is the lesser of two evils.

But you agree that in life we sometimes have to choose between the lesser of two evils?

That is not consistent with my understanding of rights—legal, moral or otherwise codified guarantees on freedom.

Why not? Don’t courts decide whether killing in self-defence is justified?

Your uncertainty seems to reveal cynicism - as if the right to life is no more than a human convention. Is that what you believe? If so why bother to respect it?

As an atheist, I see rights as human conventions, yes. As a Catholic, I suspect that the rights granted by human entities are considerably less important to you than those rights you believe God grants to us.

If both sets of rights are identical the question does not arise. If human-granted rights conflict with God-given rights we reject them.

But surely you can agree that even if divinely-granted rights matter the most, human-granted rights still have some importance.

Of course.

For example, the right to own a firearm is guaranteed by the United States government, a human institution;

I reject that right in view of the consequences to which it leads!

You have the government-granted right to visit your spouse in the hospital, should she become incapacitated; we have the right to travel freely from state to state; etc. Are these rights unimportant to you? I should think not. They’re certainly important to me. Yet they are not divinely-granted rights.

Belief in divinely-granted rights does not exclude the need for human-granted rights.

Perhaps you think that the importance of human-granted rights comes ultimately from the importance of divinely-granted rights. So, for instance, we could say that governments get their authority from God, and so we should respect, possibly with exceptions, the rights granted by those governments for that reason.

I don’t believe that at all because the decisions of governments do not always reflect the wishes and welfare of the people. Even when they do rights do not exist because they been granted by governments but because rights exist regardless of whether they are recognised by anyone! Even if everyone voted against the right to life it would not make it disappear!

However, I do not require any higher authority.

I believe you do! The fallibility of governments is not a sound reason to accept their authority. Nor is your own fallible judgment not that of any other human being - as we can see from the history of the human race.

I respect our government because I appreciate its benefits, not just those granted to me but to all citizens. And I respect the general ethical opinions of my culture for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that I wish to interact with others as a social being.

I agree with you. The general ethical opinions of our culture are far superior to others for definite reasons - one of which you have given. They are not based on emotion but on rational considerations. They are not based on subjective opinions but objective facts. The highest authority in this world is reason - although it cannot be the ultimate authority. We cannot co-exist in peace and harmony unless we respect the rights of others. Rights are based on our social nature and our personal needs. They are based on the fact that we all have a capacity for choice, enjoyment, friendship, love and happiness. Why should people be deprived of their opportunities unless they interfere with those of others?

It is obviously possible to believe all this without believing we are created by God but it is difficult to understand how we have acquired these capacities if we exist for no ultimate reason or purpose. Survival value is a grossly inadequate explanation of our existence as persons rather than animals.

It follows that neither atheism nor theism is intrinsically more moral. Atheists can and often do share all the moral values of Christianity with regard to life in this world. Whether they have a rational basis for doing so is another matter! But our main concern should be how people live rather than their metaphysical beliefs. We cannot love God unless we love our neighbour - and Jesus defined our neighbour as anyone who needs our help, regardless of race or creed…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

You claim that apart from God, you should simply do what maximizes your pleasure. But without God, what does it mean to say that you should do anything? Prescriptive terms like “should” require someone to prescribe them. Who fulfills that role in a world without God? If we wish to lay a foundation for moral prescriptions, then it does us no good to assume their existence from the outset.

So, that leaves us with the notion that without God, you will simply do what maximizes your pleasure. But is that really true? I live without belief in God, and yet I am not nearly so selfish as that. Perhaps you will say that I am being irrational, but in what way? Why is it irrational to sacrifice for the sake of others? Or maybe you will say that I am merely serving my selfish interests by reaping pleasure from helping others. But why should I be concerned that helping others often makes me happy? How is that cause for alarm?

i forget, people get excited over should/ought statements.

what i mean is that without G-d there is no particular reason to conform to any particular code of behavior. simply what ever you can get away with, without incurring an undesireable reaction

in other words you are free to kill, rob and pillage as much as you like, as long as you can avoid consequence.

 

[tonyrey]

The problem that the atheist exposes is none other than the problem of dogma itself–of which every religion has more than its fair share. There is no society in recorded history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

I agree with you. We need to establish what it means to be reasonable - which depends on our interpretation of human nature. If we agree that we cannot co-exist in peace and harmony unless we respect the rights of others, that rights are based on our social nature and our personal needs and on the fact that we all have a capacity for choice, enjoyment, friendship, love and happiness we cannot go far wrong!

 

[Leela]

i forget, people get excited over should/ought statements.

what i mean is that without G-d there is no particular reason to conform to any particular code of behavior. simply what ever you can get away with, without incurring an undesireable reaction

in other words you are free to kill, rob and pillage as much as you like, as long as you can avoid consequence.

WPS, you have admitted before that without the fear of hellfire and damnation that you would be tempted to do all sorts of evil deeds. In your case I am very glad then that you have your religion to keep you in line.

But you should not suppose that you are typical in that regard. Most people do not need an externally handed down answer to the question, why love? Most of us don’t think to even ask why we OUGHT to love others. We don’t need to ask since we already DO love others. If I ever did need some philosopher or theologian to explain to me why I ought to love my children I would hope that someone would lock me up and throw away the key!

Best,
Leela

 

[Zatzat]

what i mean is that without G-d there is no particular reason to conform to any particular code of behavior. simply what ever you can get away with, without incurring an undesireable reaction

That whole G-d thingy, the dash, it’s a little unnecessary no? I mean, I know your spelling the word God, except your substituting an ’ O ’ with a dash. Your still spelling God, you’re just choosing to spell it with a dash, instead of an O. If you were really committed to not spelling Gods name, why would you do the following?

’ I just love my ___ , he’s the best ___ in the whole world. ___ bless everyone! ’

in other words you are free to kill, rob and pillage as much as you like, as long as you can avoid consequence.

Not in my Godless life. It just ain’t nice to kill, rob and pillage.

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Not in my Godless life. It just ain’t nice to kill, rob and pillage.

Why isn’t it “nice”? What makes it wrong, to an atheist? It’s only because you have a remnant of Judeo-Christian morality that you think that way. If you took atheism to it’s logical conclusion, you would conclude that anything is permissible.

 

[Fayle]

“A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.” - Albert Einstein

Works for me

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Not in my Godless life. It just ain’t nice to kill, rob and pillage.

why not? why bother being nice if you are capable and willing to take what you want? as long as you can avoid consequences, whats the problem with it?

 

[lemondiesel]

We look at it like this;

If you take the Ten Commandments for example, if God were to say “Thou Shall Kill” one would think logically and reply “No” because you know its morally wrong, making the 10 Commandments logical moral codes. We will live just by the 10 Commandments, except the parts involving God of course :bigyikes:
We just think that if you truly want to worship the 10 Commandments, you have to get rid of your rational thinking. That means we would have to throw out all the ideas of science field, which believe it or not proves thing time and time again.

Hopefully i could help, and remember, not trying to start any conflict. I am simply here to give my views a proper defending while also broadening my knowledge.

 

[tonyrey]

“A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.” - Albert Einstein
Works for me

It may work for you but why do you think there is so much suffering, misery, injustice, crime, violence, conflict and bloodshed in the world? Mankind is in a very poor way indeed because many people are not restrained by anything whatsoever. They think they can get away scotfree with doing exactly what they want - and they act accordingly…

 

[Hooding_Trees]

Why isn’t it “nice”? What makes it wrong, to an atheist? It’s only because you have a remnant of Judeo-Christian morality that you think that way. If you took atheism to it’s logical conclusion, you would conclude that anything is permissible.

Empathy.

 

[Langdell]

Empathy.

But how do you know empathy is good?

I don’t want to start a cross-examination. Where I’m going with this is that being an atheist doesn’t solve the problem. If you keep peeling back the layers, you eventually come to one of two positions (or a combination of the two) – either our idea of good is based merely on convention, or it’s based merely on evolved instincts.

Neither position gives the atheist any basis for saying why, for example, hanging pickpockets is wrong or protecting our children is right.

.

 

[hatsoff]

But you agree that in life we sometimes have to choose between the lesser of two evils?

Why not? Don’t courts decide whether killing in self-defence is justified?

Of course we—or the courts—sometimes have to choose between the lesser of two evils. I’m only pointing out that it’s not always crystal clear which evil is “lesser.” Hopefully I needn’t regale you with examples of unusual moral dilemmas to show that deciding that requires some subjective judgment.

It is obviously possible to believe all this without believing we are created by God but it is difficult to understand how we have acquired these capacities if we exist for no ultimate reason or purpose. Survival value is a grossly inadequate explanation of our existence as persons rather than animals.

Well, no doubt you’ve run across some atheists who cry “evolution!” as an explanation for every last mystery of humanity. While it’s true that evolution must have played some role in shaping morality, that role is going to be largely indirect. Evolution shapes organisms by shaping their genes. So, unless morality is genetically determined—and, for the most part, I don’t think it is—then evolution is not going to be directly responsible for it.

So, if not evolution, then what is responsible? I cannot answer that question with perfect confidence, but I do have some thoughts. In particular, I like to divide up contributing components into three basic categories: First, we have an instinctual empathy for our fellow man; that is to say, very often it happens that we feel bad when we see others feel bad, or that we feel good when we see others feel good. So, we learn to respect the feelings of others since they rub off on ourselves. In a sense I suppose you could say that this is evolution in action, since evolution is largely responsible for our instincts. But regardless of where we get our empathy, the fact remains we have it. Second, we are conditioned by our environment to behave certain ways. For example, I was raised in a conservative Christian (LCMS, to be exact) home and sent to a private Christian (also LCMS) school for grades pre-K through eight, where I was indoctrinated with conservative Protestant values. So, it should be no surprise that I still share many of those conservative values, even though I’m now an atheist with an entirely different set of beliefs. Heck, I might even vote for Palin if it came to that! I regard this environmental component as the largest of the three contributors to our morality. Third, and finally, our own autonomy drives us to identify and shape our individual, personal values. Wherever our instincts and indoctrination are in conflict, or where they are silent, we may fill in those gaps by making autonomous decisions. So, for example, suppose an atheist is unsure of how to deal with polygamy. He could simply decide how to value it by connecting it to other values which have already been determined.

Of course, these are just my own thoughts on the shaping of morality in individuals. To reach any firm conclusions, we require rigorous research, which is still forthcoming. In the mean time, however, we don’t get to fill in the blanks of our knowledge by claiming that God is responsible; for that’s no answer at all.

It follows that neither atheism nor theism is intrinsically more moral. Atheists can and often do share all the moral values of Christianity with regard to life in this world. Whether they have a rational basis for doing so is another matter! But our main concern should be how people live rather than their metaphysical beliefs. We cannot love God unless we love our neighbour - and Jesus defined our neighbour as anyone who needs our help, regardless of race or creed…

A laudable teaching, to be sure!

 

[hatsoff]

i forget, people get excited over should/ought statements.

what i mean is that without G-d there is no particular reason to conform to any particular code of behavior. simply what ever you can get away with, without incurring an undesireable reaction

in other words you are free to kill, rob and pillage as much as you like, as long as you can avoid consequence.

Well sure, but only deviants are going to be interested in living that kind of life, and thankfully they are relatively uncommon. Now, if religion can be shown to help these folks lead normal lives, then great! But I don’t see any evidence of that.

 

[Hooding_Trees]

But how do you know empathy is good?

I don’t want to start a cross-examination. Where I’m going with this is that being an atheist doesn’t solve the problem. If you keep peeling back the layers, you eventually come to one of two positions (or a combination of the two) – either our idea of good is based merely on convention, or it’s based merely on evolved instincts.

Neither position gives the atheist any basis for saying why, for example, hanging pickpockets is wrong or protecting our children is right.

.

We are all subject to evolution, however i see that evolution is a banned topic so best not to go into that.

Empathy is self explanatory, i.e. i can empathize with another’s situation. Therefore i will not punch you because i understand the effect that will have on you, and i do not want to you punch me. Or i will not steal your car because i do not want you to steal my car.

Empathy is merely an evolved instinct. However just because something has evolved does not take away intensity and significance of the emotion.

 

[Langdell]

We are all subject to evolution, however i see that evolution is a banned topic so best not to go into that.

Empathy is self explanatory, i.e. i can empathize with another’s situation. Therefore i will not punch you because i understand the effect that will have on you, and i do not want to you punch me. Or i will not steal your car because i do not want you to steal my car.

Empathy is merely an evolved instinct. However just because something has evolved does not take away intensity and significance of the emotion.

True. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant by your initial post. My point was that it does not get us any closer to having a basis for morality without God.

.

 

[Spirithound]

person in the rain forest who has never been taught anything about how they should act morally, but chooses to act in a good way, is this because God’s law is written on our hearts? Is there a more technical theological answer for this?

We call it the Natural Law.

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…

The key is (IMHO) where does the moral code come from? If it comes from man himself, then any atheist can follow their moral code perfectly, because they just change it every time they “sin” against it.

To say that Christians only behave morally because God is telling them to is to take a rather low view of Christians. There are certainly some Christians who behave morally because it is the right thing to do. That is an empirical assertion that nobody can actually back up.

 

[neophyte]

…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…

The inescapable conclusion from atheism is that there is no such thing as right or wrong, but only personal preference. An atheist who speaks of right and wrong is kidding himself.

The flip side to not being constrained by a god who places limits on behavior is that under that circumstance society can’t legitimately place any such limits either, because, again, in that world view such mores are merely a metter of personal preference. The effect is that he proposes a society in which one may freely act in conformance with any personal preference, to believe any falsehood he cares to, and in which no law constrains him from acting on such beliefs and preferences. That would be a very, very dangerous place to live.

I guess that his personal preference would be to live in such a society, but he is unable to make a coherent claim that it would be good.