Atheism more moral?

  • Thread starter Thread starter schulze43
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
it would be deviant in respect to the fairly common set of morals that most of us adhere to now, which for most people has a grounding in the teachinngs of one religion or another.

maybe being viking like hedonists is our default state and it is religion that makes all the difference.

though that boils down to a which was first argument, like the ‘chicken or the egg’

id have made a great viking! 😃
 
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.

.
Well it does, but then we would have to have a discussion about evolution, and the propagation of cooperative societies, which is a banned subject.
 
Well it does, but then we would have to have a discussion about evolution, and the propagation of cooperative societies, which is a banned subject.
OK. Let me put it this way: How would the discovery of a testable something X that is the source of what people call morals tell us whether the promptings of X are good?

.
 
OK. Let me put it this way: How would the discovery of a testable something X that is the source of what people call morals tell us whether the promptings of X are good?

.
Define good?
 
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 does not follow from the fact that all our decisions entail some subjective judgment that
all human decisions are equally reasonable and acceptable.
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.

Thank you for giving an interesting and accurate account of your moral development. I agree that our autonomy is a part of our decision-making but you accept it as a natural ability whereas I regard it as a supernatural gift because it infringes the law of conservation of energy. It enables us to transcend physical causality. We do not regard animals as responsible for what they do because they are shaped by physical events. Why do we differ so radically when less than 5% of our DNA differs from that of chimps? Our free will and responsibility cannot have a physical cause because then we would not have the power of self-control. Self-control presupposes an intangible self , not a biological machine!
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!

I’m glad we also agree on that score!
 
It does not follow from the fact that all our decisions entail some subjective judgment that all human decisions are equally reasonable and acceptable.
Oh, I agree completely. I hope I did not lead anyone to believe that’s how I deal with moral diversity.
Thank you for giving an interesting and accurate account of your moral development. I agree that our autonomy is a part of our decision-making but you accept it as a natural ability whereas I regard it as a supernatural gift because it infringes the law of conservation of energy. It enables us to transcend physical causality. We do not regard animals as responsible for what they do because they are shaped by physical events. Why do we differ so radically when less than 5% of our DNA differs from that of chimps? Our free will and responsibility cannot have a physical cause because then we would not have the power of self-control. Self-control presupposes an intangible self , not a biological machine!
Hmm. I don’t quite know what to say to all that. You packed a whole lot of disagreement into a single paragraph!

I suppose I’ll begin by reminding you that, in a materialist model, consciousnesses are features of physical systems. When a materialist talks about free will, he’s referring to his interpretation of certain behaviors of organisms, and not some kind of non-material ingredient for their experiences. So, if you have something else in mind when you use the term free will, then I’d ask you to do two things: First, please briefly explain what you mean by it; and second, try to outline the reason(s) you believe it is real.
 
Dear friend, a quick search would tell you that Langdell has not been online since well before you asked your question. Your taunts are falling on disconnected eyes.
Thank you, Spirithound.

Regarding Hooding Trees’ question: Catholics (and other Christians) define good as God. God is goodness itself. We therefore trust that what He asks us to do is good.

Defining good is a problem, however, for atheists, because atheism ignores the existence of God. Without God, good becomes merely a matter of convention.

.
 
Thank you, Spirithound.

Regarding Hooding Trees’ question: Catholics (and other Christians) define good as God. God is goodness itself. We therefore trust that what He asks us to do is good.

Defining good is a problem, however, for atheists, because atheism ignores the existence of God. Without God, good becomes merely a matter of convention.

.
Well then all you have is a circular arguement. God must exist because good does, good exists because god does.
 
Well then all you have is a circular arguement. God must exist because good does, good exists because god does.
I don’t see this as an argument for the existence of God. I was just answering your question.

.
 
I don’t see this as an argument for the existence of God. I was just answering your question.

.
This then begs the question, if god decided that it was ‘good’ to rape and murder would you then start raping and murdering people?
 
Certainly Hitler’s Germany was predominantly Christian, yet those Christian soldiers committed the same atrocities as their non-Christian counterparts.
We need to make a common sense distinction here. Just because someone calls themselves a Christian doesn’t necessarily make them so. If they behave in a manner consistent with Christian teaching then they are a Christian. If they behave in a contrary manner especially when it comes to killing ie, ethnic cleansing, abortion, etc. are clearly not behaving as Christians. Jesus said “You shall know them by their fruits”. Killing is not a fruit consistent with the life and teaching of Jesus Christ.

Let me ask you something. If I were to join PETA and attend all the meetings… protest labs that conduct animal experiments but I also kill puppies would you consider me a member of PETA?
 
This then begs the question, if god decided that it was ‘good’ to rape and murder would you then start raping and murdering people?
We believers know that God would never “decide” such a thing because God also implanted in us (as in people in general) a sense of the natural law (our conscience), and those things are contrary to the natural law. Any prophet, apparition, Pope, or whatever that asserted such acts to be good would therefore obviously be not-from-God.

Scripture and the teachings of the Church work out and help us to understand the natural law, and the natural law helps us appreciate scripture and the teachings of the Church – and also helps us recognize false teachings. The natural law, Church teachings, and scripture all must be consistent.

.
 
We believers know that God would never “decide” such a thing because God also implanted in us (as in people in general) a sense of the natural law (our conscience), and those things are contrary to the natural law.
You are avoiding the question. If god came down to earth today and decided that rape and murder was good, would you rape and murder?

Oh and i would not be sure that your god would** never** “decide” such a thing…

(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

Anyway, its a straight answer to a straight question… Yes or No?
 
You are avoiding the question. If god came down to earth today and decided that rape and murder was good, would you rape and murder?

Oh and i would not be sure that your god would** never** “decide” such a thing…

(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)

As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

Anyway, its a straight answer to a straight question… Yes or No?
The question can’t be given a straight answer because it is nonsensical in view of what we believe God to be. A being purporting to be God who asserted such a thing would not be God. It would have to be a demon, a hallucination, an alien, or some such thing.

.
 
The question can’t be given a straight answer because it is nonsensical in view of what we believe God to be. A being purporting to be God who asserted such a thing would not be God. It would have to be a demon, a hallucination, an alien, or some such thing.
.
Well as i have shown your god has endorsed murder and rape, however that is beside the point.

You again refuse to answer the question. I wonder why, actually i know why.
 
Well as i have shown your god has endorsed murder and rape, however that is beside the point.
I don’t think the passage you quoted means what you appear to think it means.
You again refuse to answer the question. I wonder why, actually i know why.
I have shown why the question makes no sense and therefore cannot be answered in the way you expect. It’s akin to expecting a yes or no answer to, “Have you stopped beating your wife?”

.
 
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??
This is something that Paul believes and he explains this at the beginning of Romans. You can explain this by saying that it seems that very person has some sort of moral code. You don’t have to reveal the origin of this though.
 
I don’t think the passage you quoted means what you appear to think it means.
Hmm, i am not sure what else it could mean…

“But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.”
I have shown why the question makes no sense and therefore cannot be answered in the way you expect. It’s akin to expecting a yes or no answer to, “Have you stopped beating your wife?”.
Not at all, i am asking you if god told you to murder an innocent would you do it, would it then be good.

Are you aware of the story of Jephtha? This is EXACTLY was god asks. Now i am asking you, if god tells you to murder your daughter, is it now the moral thing to do?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top