Atheism more moral?

[UnworthyApostle]

Ah, let me throw in some monkey wrenches.

First, perhaps the correlation between less religious belief among those with higher IQ tend to be what has happened in academic circles. Academia is predominantly liberal-secular today in the world. Liberal-secular people tend not to be very religious. Here I belive we are just seeing a product of the modern paraidgm. For instance, the educated in the middle ages were the religious men. So, the historical paradigm must be taken into account.

Secondly, many people have a distaste for organized religion. One does not have to be religious to believe in a higher power. I used to be that way myself and so I have had teachers who were the same way. The person in that mindset rejects religious dogma, but does have a sense of spirituality. So, some people who have been surveyed in these IQ surveys may have spiritual beleifs but may not be religious. The data can be skewed by this fact as well.

And lastly, the very notion of IQ is very contreversial in itself as a measure of intelligence. I myself suscribe to the 9 Intelligences Theory. Here is a link to it: web.cortland.edu/andersmd/learning/MI%20Table.htm
I also refer people to Stephen Jay Gould’s book: The Mismeasure of Man for further information.
God Bless All of You

 

[AntiTheist]

Ah, so now you are reading Hitler’s mind.

No. I’m according more importance to things that he published and said officially in public than to things that he supposedly said in private conversation – partially because people tend to think through the things that they publish and publicly declare moreso than the things that they just say casually.

A guy who consciously publishes words like these comes off as a believer:“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”

I think it’s a distinct possibility, based on his words, that Hitler thought, at the very least, that he was some kind of appointed chosen one of a divine force.

But it’s not really relevant to the argument here either way, though.

What we maintain is that atheism enables atrocities because it removes the commands of a benevolent Deity from human affairs.

We’ve been over this. Atheism – as you yourself conceded, I think – is unconnected to moral systems. There’s nothing preventing an atheist from adopting the moral system of Christianity, any more than there is preventing an atheist from adopting the moral system of a Kantian, a Utilitarian, a boyscout, or anything at all really. Atheism doesn’t “remove” any moral system. An atheist does not think that the Christian moral system comes from a divine being, but there is nothing preventing an atheist from finding the Christian moral system in accord with his personal values and worthy of pursuing, regardless of its source.

It’s similar with anything else that is not connected to a moral system. For instance, there’s nothing in wearing a mustache that prevents a person from adopting any of those moral positions.

To say that atheism “enables” atrocity is valid only in the same sense in which you can say that atheism enables a walk in the park or enables you to sing.

 

[StrawberryJam]

No. I’m according more importance to things that he published and said officially in public than to things that he supposedly said in private conversation – partially because people tend to think through the things that they publish and publicly declare moreso than the things that they just say casually.

A guy who consciously publishes words like these comes off as a believer:“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.”

I think it’s a distinct possibility, based on his words, that Hitler thought, at the very least, that he was some kind of appointed chosen one of a divine force.

But it’s not really relevant to the argument here either way, though.

We’ve been over this. Atheism – as you yourself conceded, I think – is unconnected to moral systems. There’s nothing preventing an atheist from adopting the moral system of Christianity, any more than there is preventing an atheist from adopting the moral system of a Kantian, a Utilitarian, a boyscout, or anything at all really. Atheism doesn’t “remove” any moral system. An atheist does not think that the Christian moral system comes from a divine being, but there is nothing preventing an atheist from finding the Christian moral system in accord with his personal values and worthy of pursuing, regardless of its source.

It’s similar with anything else that is not connected to a moral system. For instance, there’s nothing in wearing a mustache that prevents a person from adopting any of those moral positions.

To say that atheism “enables” atrocity is valid only in the same sense in which you can say that atheism enables a walk in the park or enables you to sing.

FYI, believe it or not, but facial hair can be an issue with people who claim to be christians.

 

[reggieM]

Atheism doesn’t “remove” any moral system. An atheist does not think that the Christian moral system comes from a divine being, but there is nothing preventing an atheist from finding the Christian moral system in accord with his personal values and worthy of pursuing, regardless of its source.

The Christian moral system requires a belief in and worship of God. So, atheism does, indeed, “remove a moral system”. An atheist cannot pursue the Christian moral system (which includes motives, orientations, consequences and reasons for various actions) while denying belief in God.

By removing God as the orientation and source of all moral acts, atheism allows any human action to be morally justified.

Atheism removes God … and what does it replace Him with?

It’s a good idea to for everyone understand what Catholics believe God to be, and then recognize what it means when God is removed from one’s worldview. This is essential in understanding the value of moral acts.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

StrawberryJam

*To say that atheism “enables” atrocity is valid only in the same sense in which you can say that atheism enables a walk in the park or enables you to sing. *

This is absurd. Enough with the mustache!

Atheism, because it removes the Absolute, removes the requirement to obey the Absolute and allows invention of new Absolutes, such as Absolute atrocity, without fear of Absolute consequences.

 

[Langdell]

Hello Charlemagne II !

I assume possibly wrongly, that you believe in the Rapture theology? It could simply be because of your statement that you would rather be a** live **Christian than a dead atheist.

Of course, I realize there is a lot of “Christianese” in the language and terminology being used here. Just asking for a translantion in terms that non theists can understand.

Just to clarify, rapture theology is mostly a Protestant Evangelical thing. It’s contrary to Church teaching, primarily because it presupposes that Christ will return twice (once to “rapture” those who are saved and then later for the Final Judgment), whereas Catholics believe that there will be only one return, the Final Judgment.

.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Langdell

Just curious, do you care to share why you are a former atheist?

Was it a personal epiphany, or a dissatisfaction with some aspect of atheism that drove you away, such as a conclusion that atheism tends to be less moral than theism?

 

[Langdell]

Langdell

Just curious, do you care to share why you are a former atheist?

Was it a personal epiphany, or a dissatisfaction with some aspect of atheism that drove you away, such as a conclusion that atheism tends to be less moral than theism?

Hi – Since a number of CAFers have asked me that, I posted a short version of my reasons on my profile page. I would add, since you’ve asked about this specifically, that one contributing factor was that I concluded from experience that atheism had made me less moral. It was just to easy to justify to myself doing things that I knew were wrong.

.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Langdell

Thank you for those remarks.

I returned for a similar reason. It seemed to me that my life had gone downhill, but that also our entire society had gone downhill since the decline of religion.

Also, I began reasoning through the claims of atheism, and found that they were all bogus without exception.

 

[AntiTheist]

The Christian moral system requires a belief in and worship of God. So, atheism does, indeed, “remove a moral system”.

It doesn’t. I have friends who were raised atheists. What moral system did atheism “remove” from them?

It’s a nonsense assertion because, as we all agreed a few pages ago, atheism is unconnected to moral systems.

You can’t agree that atheism is unconnected to moral systems and then turn around and claim that an atheist can’t pursue a particular moral system.

Perhaps I need to be clearer: I’m speaking of morality solely in terms of actions. An atheist is completely and totally free to find good the actions that Christians call “good” and to find bad the actions that Christians call “bad,” to admire the teachings of Christ, and to follow them as best as he can. Richard Dawkins even wrote an interesting article called “Atheists for Jesus,” in which he suggested that humans need to cultivate the kind of “super niceness” found in some members of our species, like Jesus.

Now I don’t agree with Dawkins on that point, but it should be blindingly obvious that it is more than possible for atheists to find the Christian moral system, or at least aspects of it, to be worthy of following. Atheism doesn’t prevent someone from admiring Christ’s teachings or emulating him.

Your argument is proceeding from a premise that is false, that religion “removes” a moral system. It doesn’t.

Langdell:

one contributing factor was that I concluded from experience that atheism had made me less moral.

See, you have to be careful in attributing causality here. You can’t logically attribute the cause of certain actions that you judge to be “immoral” to things you don’t believe in.

For example, let’s say that you became an atheist, and you started lying more frequently. To choose a random scenario, let’s say you start frequently lying to your wife about where you go after work, something like that. What is causing you to lie? Is it a lack of belief you have, or is it some aspect of your relationship, such as frequent misunderstandings in communication and silent resentment?

Is your non-belief in a deity causing you to lie? Or is the aspect of your relationship in question causing you to lie?

The answer is obvious – and you may say, “well, my atheism lets me lie,” but it “lets” you in the same sense that wearing overalls “lets” you…it’s a non-cause in terms of actions that you undertake.

It’s sloppy thinking to attribute the cause to a non-belief and skip over obvious causes that are in front of your face.

 

[Leela]

Atheism, because it removes the Absolute, removes the requirement to obey the Absolute and allows invention of new Absolutes, such as Absolute atrocity, without fear of Absolute consequences.

Do you really think of morality as obedience? Or do you try to do good out of concern for others?

Best,
Leela

 

[Charlemagne_II]

AntiTheist

*The answer is obvious – and you may say, “well, my atheism lets me lie,” but it “lets” you in the same sense that wearing overalls “lets” you…it’s a non-cause in terms of actions that you undertake.

It’s sloppy thinking to attribute the cause to a non-belief and skip over obvious causes that are in front of your face. *

What’s really sloppy thinking … your metaphors of overalls and mustaches!

As I said earlier, atheism does not cause sin. However, it may be chosen as a philosophy so that sin becomes more excusable. Likewise, it allows you to invent your own morality … and we know how convenient that could be for great sinners like the Marquis de Sade who expressly said that he was an atheist so that he could indulge in all kinds of cruelty without fear of eternal consequences.

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao could have chosen atheism for the same reason … since all three were ruthless killers and mass murderers.

No Christian can comfort or justify himself by creating a moral (or rather immoral) system that goes against the morality Jesus taught.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

Do you really think of morality as obedience? Or do you try to do good out of concern for others?

One always does good out of a concern for others or even for oneself, but that does not rid us of the obligation to obey God’s laws.

Even when we are not concerned for others, we still have an obligation to help them out when we are able. One motive might be more pure than another, but both motives are valid.

The first and greatest sin was not neglect of concern for someone’s need. The first and greatest sin was disobedience. It was so with Satan, and it was so with Adam and Eve.

Not my will, but “Thy will be done.”

 

[Leela]

Leela

Do you really think of morality as obedience? Or do you try to do good out of concern for others?

One always does good out of a concern for others or even for oneself, but that does not rid us of the obligation to obey God’s laws.

Even when we are not concerned for others, we still have an obligation to help them out when we are able. One motive might be more pure than another, but both motives are valid.

The first and greatest sin was not neglect of concern for someone’s need. The first and greatest sin was disobedience. It was so with Satan, and it was so with Adam and Eve.

Not my will, but “Thy will be done.”

“First and greatest” are two words that are irrelevent to how the goats and the sheep will be separated according to Jesus:

Matthew 25:31–46 (WEB):

31"But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. 32Before him all the nations will be gathered, and he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33He will set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34Then the King will tell those on his right hand, ‘Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35for I was hungry, and you gave me food to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me drink. I was a stranger, and you took me in. 36I was naked, and you clothed me. I was sick, and you visited me. I was in prison, and you came to me.’
37"Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you; or thirsty, and give you a drink? 38When did we see you as a stranger, and take you in; or naked, and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?’
40"The King will answer them, ‘Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’ 41Then he will say also to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels; 42for I was hungry, and you didn’t give me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink; 43I was a stranger, and you didn’t take me in; naked, and you didn’t clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’
44"Then they will also answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and didn’t help you?’
45"Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you didn’t do it to one of the least of these, you didn’t do it to me.’ 46These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Based on the above and pretty much all of Jesus’s teachings, love is much more important than obedience, and certainly atheists are as capable of love as believers are. Jesus said that we are to recognize Christians by their love not by their obedience. Personally, I can only tell the difference based on their proclamations and obedience to certain purity regulations.

Best,
Leela

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Obviously, in Matthew 25 Christ is commanding us to obey … or else.

Look at verse 46.

 

[Leela]

Obviously, in Matthew 25 Christ is commanding us to obey … or else.

Look at verse 46.

Yeah, but you miss the point. The issue–what behavior is cursed–is not lack of obedience but lack of love.

When the “goats” protest and say, “but I went to church every Sunday, and I ate fish on Fridays, and I didn’t stick my pee pee where it is not supposed to go, and I said a Hail Mary and an Our Father before bed every night, and I never took the Lord’s name in vain, and I stayed away from anyone who might tempt me to sin, and I held the correct political views on so-called life issues, and I was one of those so-called ‘values voters’” Jesus says, sure, but so what? You didn’t love, “…for I was hungry, and you didn’t give me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and you didn’t take me in; naked, and you didn’t clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.”

Clearly Jesus’s idea of morality has less to do with what we resist and deny ourselves and who we exclude from our notions of piety than about what we embrace and who we let in to our circle of concern. It isn’t about what we condemn but about what we create.

For Jesus, the only law is love–not “the first and the greatest” but the only. Obedience is only important in so far as it makes us more loving. It is always appropriate to ask, “does the law serve the people or do the people serve the law?” It seems more than clear to me that the purity laws have made Christians on the whole (though with lots and lots of exceptions) less loving and more bigoted. An example is your belief that atheists must all be somehow morally inferior on the basis of their atheism alone. That’s just bigotry.

Best,
Leela

 

[reggieM]

It doesn’t. I have friends who were raised atheists. What moral system did atheism “remove” from them?

Atheism, by its nature, is a negation. It removes the existence of God (and conclusions that follow from that belief) from one’s worldview. (If there was never a belief in God, then there couldn’t be any atheism). Atheism is “non-Theism”. So, Theism (at least as a concept) must exist. Therefore, atheism “removes theism” by its own nature. Atheism does not propose a positive idea – it’s entirely a removal and negation. So, obviously, atheism removes any moral system that relies on God and provides no replacement for it.

If atheism had nothing to do with moral systems, then the Catholic moral system would be perfectly compatible with atheism.

But I think it’s easily proven that the Catholic moral system is incompatible with atheism.

It’s a nonsense assertion because, as we all agreed a few pages ago, atheism is unconnected to moral systems.

You’ve added the word “unconnected” here. This is something new and I did not comment on this formulation before, so I can’t be included in the group “we all agreed”.

You can’t agree that atheism is unconnected to moral systems and then turn around and claim that an atheist can’t pursue a particular moral system.

I think you are claiming that atheism is compatible with Catholicism now, after I’ve shown that it is not – although I’m not sure on what you’re getting at.

Perhaps I need to be clearer: I’m speaking of morality solely in terms of actions.

Ok, it appears that you’re redefining a moral system by placing your own limits and boundaries on it, and then claiming it is now (therefore) compatible with atheism. But this notion that morality is “soley action” is not the Catholic moral system, but rather, your own concept imposed on it. (Christ speaks about internal dispositions, for example). So, by using your opinions as if they are equivalent to the Catholic moral system, you’re arriving at the wrong conclusion.

An atheist is completely and totally free to find good the actions that Christians call “good” and to find bad the actions that Christians call “bad,” to admire the teachings of Christ, and to follow them as best as he can.

As I said, this is false since the moral-teachings of Christ require the worship of God. A failure to pray and honor God through public worship is a very serious moral failing - and thus is incompatible with atheism.

Richard Dawkins even wrote an interesting article called “Atheists for Jesus,” in which he suggested that humans need to cultivate the kind of “super niceness” found in some members of our species, like Jesus.

This might seem fine, but he is seeking to control and manipulate the teachings of Jesus for his own purposes. This is, frankly, dishonest and arrogant. It is ripping apart the moral system and then claiming that he can then find it to be consistent with atheism. This is similar to how some people try to claim that “Jesus was a nice guy” – and therefore the demands of His moral teachings are watered-down and made frivolous. But His spiritual demands, alone, are very challenging. How can we just dismiss those?

… to find the Christian moral system, or at least aspects of it, to be worthy of following.

(my emphasis added)

Ok, you’ve turned around your initial idea here and this is a key point. The Catholic moral system is just that – it’s a holistic-system. Atheism is not compatible with it and you’ve changed your argument from a “system” to merely “aspects of it”. Why say “aspects” and not the entire system? Yes, certainly, atheists are free to pick and choose some behaviors, but they cannot worship God in spirit and truth, which is a serious moral requirement for Catholics.

Atheism doesn’t prevent someone from admiring Christ’s teachings or emulating him.

It does prevent that – in a very serious way. Christ prayed to the Father – this is at the very core and essence of His teachings. It is not possible to emulate Christ while denying that God exists. It makes a mockery of Christ and it quite dishonest at the same time. Christ taught that faith in God is an essential moral virtue. A lack of faith – certainly, a denial of God’s existence is extremely immoral in the Catholic worldview.

As I see it, you spend a lot of time posting on this Catholic site and that may be a very good thing in many ways. You do offer more subtle distinctions in your view and I think that is good also. With that, I would invite you to look at the Gospels, slowly and thoughtfully – and see the various dimensions of the moral teaching of Christ. Yes, there are “basic actions” that just about anyone would consider “good deeds”. But there is another dimension which is deeper – in the heart and mind of each person. This is where we do our actions “in relation to God” so that we have the right motive for what we do.

 

[AntiTheist]

You’ve added the word “unconnected” here. This is something new and I did not comment on this formulation before, so I can’t be included in the group “we all agreed”.

My apologies. I had confused you with a poster who did agree that atheism is unconnected to moral systems.

I think you are claiming that atheism is compatible with Catholicism now, after I’ve shown that it is not – although I’m not sure on what you’re getting at.

I’m claiming that atheism is perfectly consistent with following the moral system of Catholicism, which I’m specifically defining in terms of behaviors and actions, not motivations, because we’ve been talking about actions on this thread (historical atrocity, etc).

For example, atheism doesn’t prevent someone from finding atrocity horrifying and bad and worthy of avoiding. It is unconnected to the way people form judgments on matters like that.

I have to leave now – more to come later.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

For Jesus, the only law is love–not “the first and the greatest” but the only. Obedience is only important in so far as it makes us more loving. It is always appropriate to ask, “does the law serve the people or do the people serve the law?” It seems more than clear to me that the purity laws have made Christians on the whole (though with lots and lots of exceptions) less loving and more bigoted. An example is your belief that atheists must all be somehow morally inferior on the basis of their atheism alone. That’s just bigotry.

Leela, please show me where I said all atheists are morally inferior.

You can’t do it because I never said it.

Jesus does not ask us to love. He commands us to love. We obey his command to love, or we perish. Sometimes it isn’t easy to love … especially people we don’t even know or people we find offensive. But Jesus commands us to love everyone. You’re right … love is at the heart of all law, but all law is a command, even the command to love. Jesus gave us two commandments, not requests. And if we do not obey, if we choose not to love everyone, even people whose behavior we find disgusting, we are at risk of losing our immortal souls.

Go into a prison some day and minister to criminals. You’ll find out what is meant by obedience to the law, and what happens when you don’t obey the law. You also learn to love more by obeying commands you’d rather not.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

AntiTheist

For example, atheism doesn’t prevent someone from finding atrocity horrifying and bad and worthy of avoiding. It is unconnected to the way people form judgments on matters like that.

It also doesn’t prevent someone from glorifying atrocity as pleasurable, such as the Marquis de Sade who was an atheist and who encouraged others to find in atheism a release from the need to obey Christ.

Catholicism does not allow any such morality … the exercise of inflicting pain for the sheer pleasure of it.