Atheism more moral?

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

*Do you think that there are some people in the world who do not believe in God that are morally superior to some people who do believe in God?

Yes or no? *

This is a question I don’t need to answer. It is for God to decide. Refusing to believe in God and love him is the greatest sin of all because it violates the first commandment, which Christ himself called the greatest commandment. I don’t know how you get to call yourself morally superior when you have violated the greatest commandment. You cannot be the judge in that question any more than I can. But I’ll let God be the judge.

I won’t bet any money on the “good” atheist.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela
*
But if I don’t already think that there is a God, why would I concern myself with overcoming my resistance to belief in God? Why would I think that I am actively resisting the truth if I doubt that God’s existence is a fact?*

Doubt all you like. But a hundred doubts do not amount to a single proof. Until you can prove there is no God, you are on very shaky ground indeed so far as the fate of your immortal soul is concerned.

I would concern myself very much:shrug: if I were driving near the edge of a cliff.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

By the way, if you like doubting so much, why not doubt your doubts?

 

[ManOnFire]

But if I don’t already think that there is a God, why would I concern myself with overcoming my resistance to belief in God? Why would I think that I am actively resisting the truth if I doubt that God’s existence is a fact? I don’t think that there is any wall that needs to be climbed over. I feel like I am already free.

Best,
Leela

Free like what? Like a child who hasn’t grown up yet? The only way to be perfectly free is to be perfectly selfish with all of one’s choices. Pop culture’s attempts to sell freedom are the easiset to sell to people : every adult child will choose to please self over others. This makes for a lonely life once the shallowness wears off.

Ultimately, adults must either choose to become mature and sacrifice for others (spouse and kids) via God’s Covenant of behaviour through the Church, or remain immature as a child at any age through the infinitesimal pursuit of shallow amusements for the self via love-less sex, drugs, excessive materialism, gluttony, etc.

 

[Betterave]

Hi Dave,

Does this mean you’ve been following this discussion all along. If so, why are you leaving it to me to explain Catholic theology to Charlemagne II and others here? They don’t want to hear it from me.

Heliotropium thinks that atheists have no more capacity for moral behavior than bears. Reggie thinks that not praying is not simply the lack of doing some particular good thing but actually evil in itself (like mistreating your children). UnworthyApostle thinks I am bound for hell because I am not convinced that Jesus is the Son.

Any thoughts?

I’ve followed, wincingly. I think there has been a lot of polemic (on both sides) without much attempt to be charitable and to understand the other. One thing that has been particularly painful to read is the claim that Christians who have are not perfect are not Christians. A Christian is still a Christian if, in an appropriate historical context, he defends the execution of witches. A Christian can be cruel, credulous, stupid, insensitive, superstitious, etc., just like every other human being.

I am certain that I won’t be judged based on my belief that any particular sentences are true such as “God must be understood as a Trinity” or “Jesus is the Son.” My certainty comes from my belief that if there actually is an omniscient, benevolent, and omnipotent personal God, she wouldn’t be so petty as to concern herself with whether or not I was convinced that she exists. My sense of the world is that it is far more beautiful and mysterious than to be a simple test to see if I believe the right things based on insufficient evidence. I am quite certain that the universe is not God’s great multiple choice test to see if we manage to pick the right religion. That would be silly. (I am sure you see yoru Catholicism as something far richer than the silly version promoted by Charlemagne, Unworthy, and Reggie.) I don’t think of the universe as a puzzle to be solved at all. I understand people’s searches for the meaning of life–presumed to be the answer to some Ultimate Question–as rather people’s reaching for the experience of being alive. Life is not a question, it is an experience. The great spiritual masters of the world perhaps all taught one thing in common about life: be there. Be completely present to the experience of being alive. This is how I understand the notion of Eternal Life: The Kingdom of God is withing you.

In other words, if there is a God (who created you and loves you), you believe that God would not be interested in having a personal relationship with you? Leela, I’m not very inclined to defend you against unjust attacks because there is too much that is unjust in your own way of construing the problem of the relationship of belief and morality. There is no question that from a Catholic point-of-view there is still natural goodness available to the unbeliever, but also that unbelief itself can only be evaluated as objectively evil, insofar as it is an objective disorder of the intellect which bears some relationship to the will. - Although Catholics do believe in invincible ignorance, wherein the role of the will dwindles to nil, which means we recognize that unbelief does not necessarily arise from a disorder of the will, i.e., it is not necessarily subjectively immoral, i.e., the unbeliever is not necessarily evil (just as a slave-owner or a witch-burner or a homosexual is not necessarily subjectively evil).

What I don’t understand is how you think you can search for the experience of being alive (which, though abstract, is a decent summary of what Christianity is supposed to be about) without asking all sorts of questions and actually trying to answer them (rather than trivializing them as some kind of insignificant multiple choice test)! The kingdom of God is within you - sure, potentially; but so are lots of other things, don’t you think? Don’t we have to ask serious questions, questions which aim to discover serious answers, if we want to take the abstract notion of “the kingdom of God within” seriously?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Betterave

A Christian is still a Christian if, in an appropriate historical context, he defends the execution of witches. A Christian can be cruel, credulous, stupid, insensitive, superstitious, etc., just like every other human being.

*One thing that has been particularly painful to read is the claim that Christians who have are not perfect are not Christians. *

Either you did not read me carefully, or I did not make myself clear enough. In charity, I’ll assume the latter.

Yes, there are some people who call themselves Christians but are really not, because they have used their religion as a way to exploit others and advance themselves. These are the hypocrites that Jesus so despised and took several occasions to condemn. Theirs is a policy of being a wolf among the sheep. Jesus “never knew them.” Why, because they were atheists in their heart, even while wearing the badge of Christian on their sleeve.

If you want to explore this thought in more depth, read Jacques Maritain’s The Range of Reason, where he talks about theoretical versus practical atheism.

I was not talking about Christians who truly believe and have lapses in their conduct and feel badly about what they have done and repent. These people are still Christians. Why would you think I had said anything to the contrary?

 

[reggieM]

No it doesn’t. Where are you getting this from? In the first place, atheism doesn’t teach anything, least of all what people should or should not do, which includes praying.

Arguments in support of atheism, which defend atheism and promote it and which argue against theism are the teachings that follow from the intellectual concept called “atheism”.

As an atheist, I’m fine with people being allowed to pray – I think it’s a right that they should have.

As I mentioned the Leela – when you personalize the topic it forces us to discuss “you” and not the concept called “atheism”. Is it possible that you are not consistent in what you profess and believe?

See, here’s the problem. You’re confused as to what atheism actually is. You seem to think it’s some kind of belief or philosophical school with “teachings.” It’s not. It’s a word we use to label people who don’t have a belief in gods – they can have all kinds of other beliefs, including the belief that other people should have the right to believe whatever they like.

Atheism is not a word used to label people. What person or group of persons do we refer to as “atheism”? You don’t refer to yourself as “an atheism”. Instead, you claim that you are an “atheist”. An atheist is a person who accepts the concept called “atheism”.

Ok. I’ll grant that if you think not believing in gods is evil, then the position of not believing in gods (which is what atheism is) is tautologically “evil.”

As Charlemagne has pointed out, from the Catholic moral perspective (why do you expect us to argue from a different moral system?) the denial of belief in God is a very serious evil. That’s the nature of Catholic (and Christian, Jewish and Islamic) religion. It’s not like I just made this up or it’s unheard of. It’s the dominant moral code in the world and always has been.

The vices of impiety, sacriledge and blasphemy are all necessary consequences of atheism. The vice of arrogance is also a necessary consequence.
You seem to be claiming that arrogance is not a moral defect because it’s not a “behavioral action”. This is also in radical opposition to the common view of morality.

But for those people with realistic definitions of “evil” that pertain to action, you’re talking a whole lot of nonsense here.

Again, the First and Greatest Commandment …

 

[Heliotropium]

Heliotropium thinks that atheists have no more capacity for moral behavior than bears.

What I’m saying is morality deals with good and evil. If good and evil are not things that we subject animals, plants, the weather, or the universe to then why humans? Aren’t we humans also just mammals in the animal kingdom? If there are no such things as good or evil animals in nature then as an atheist I would be forced to conclude the same logic towards humans because if we are not spiritual beings, and there is no supreme law giver aka God, then we humans should be counted like the rest of nature and morality should have no baring on us. Yet atheists do not do this and while they deny the existence of a spiritual nature and a God they at the same time use the products (morality good and evil) of our spiritual nature and apply them to humans and themselves in their everyday life.

Basically if an atheist imposes mortality on anyone including themselves he/she is a walking contradiction since morality should not even exist in their world.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

*But for those people with realistic definitions of “evil” that pertain to action, you’re talking a whole lot of nonsense here. *

When you go to an atheist website and morality is discussed, what do you usually hear as a “realistic” definition of evil? Is there a consensus as to this definition? How do you know there is any such consensus?

You don’t know, because there is no one who can stand up and speak for all atheists. That means atheism offers no moral glue by which society can be held together.

On the contrary, Christianity, Judaism and Islam all offer a very specific set of do’s and don’ts that most people agree on. Only by such an agreement can we have a social contract that makes any sense.

When the framers of the Constitution lived, they wanted the government to be small and the laws few as possible. That was possible because at that time there was a moral consensus about right and wrong that was covered by religious, rather than civil law.

But now that religious laws are breaking down, more and more civil laws are necessary to cover the increasingly bizarre and criminal behavior of Americans. Atheism contributes nothing to solving this problem, because atheism has no collective voice with which to speak on the morals of our time.

 

[Betterave]

What I’m saying is morality deals with good and evil. If good and evil are not things that we subject animals, plants, the weather, or the universe to then why humans? Aren’t we humans also just mammals in the animal kingdom? If there are no such things as good or evil animals in nature then as an atheist I would be forced to conclude the same logic towards humans because if we are not spiritual beings, and there is no supreme law giver aka God, then we humans should be counted like the rest of nature and morality should have no baring on us. Yet atheists do not do this and while they deny the existence of a spiritual nature and a God they at the same time use the products (morality good and evil) of our spiritual nature and apply them to humans and themselves in their everyday life.

Basically if an atheist imposes mortality on anyone including themselves he/she is a walking contradiction since morality should not even exist in their world.

Isn’t the obvious answer here that atheists believe in a naturalized form of spirituality (whether or not they use the term)?

 

[Betterave]

Betterave

A Christian is still a Christian if, in an appropriate historical context, he defends the execution of witches. A Christian can be cruel, credulous, stupid, insensitive, superstitious, etc., just like every other human being.

*One thing that has been particularly painful to read is the claim that Christians who have are not perfect are not Christians. *

Either you did not read me carefully, or I did not make myself clear enough. In charity, I’ll assume the latter.

Yes, there are some people who call themselves Christians but are really not, because they have used their religion as a way to exploit others and advance themselves. These are the hypocrites that Jesus so despised and took several occasions to condemn. Theirs is a policy of being a wolf among the sheep. Jesus “never knew them.” Why, because they were atheists in their heart, even while wearing the badge of Christian on their sleeve.

If you want to explore this thought in more depth, read Jacques Maritain’s The Range of Reason, where he talks about theoretical versus practical atheism.

I was not talking about Christians who truly believe and have lapses in their conduct and feel badly about what they have done and repent. These people are still Christians. Why would you think I had said anything to the contrary?

I’m not sure that it’s not a third option: you didn’t read yourself carefully enough.

“Surely the motives of Aquinas for inflicting pain are not the same as the motives of the Marquis de Sade, who took pleasure in the pain he inflicted.
We are talking about an error in the way of thinking of Aquinas that is not consistent with what Christ would have taught. [Easy for us to say in hindsight!] People must accept God freely and love him without coercion. But I can hardly put Aquinas in the same pack of wolves as those that run with the infamous Marquis de Sade.”

It seems clear that you are talking about a different kind of case here, no? My point was that Christians can have deep-seated faults that they never recognize or amend, and yet still be Christians. Of course you can use the term polemically so as to exclude this possibility, but the term “Christian” is then not being used in a standard way. I know some Christians who might say they know Muslims who are “more Christian” than they are - i.e., “that Muslim I know is a very nice person” (this kind of thing might even be said about an atheist! - that would be very unusual, I know ). But that is an improper and misleading use of the term “Christian.”

 

[Betterave]

Also, thanks for the Maritain reference. That is an excellent account of the problem we are discussing, but you need to recognize that Maritain’s use of terms was in a context that explained them quite clearly. I think that that kind of clarity has been lacking sometimes in what you have written here. Remember, you need to try to explain your view in a way that others can understand, not just in a way that might be construed as technically true/defensible, if read in the appropriate context. (The comments about “this is a Catholic website, so… (etc.),” which I seem to recall in this thread, are not helpful, I think.)

 

[kjd]

if I was an atheist why be moral at all. I will eventually die so why not indulge yourself and have as much fun as you see fit. Morality comes from natural law as set by God. My point is that there is no reason for an atheist to be moral other than what they make up after all from that point of view we are just part of the animal kingdom.

 

[Betterave]

if I was an atheist why be moral at all. I will eventually die so why not indulge yourself and have as much fun as you see fit. Morality comes from natural law as set by God. My point is that there is no reason for an atheist to be moral other than what they make up after all from that point of view we are just part of the animal kingdom.

Morality comes from natural law as universally inscribed in human nature. That’s one obvious reason why an atheist can’t avoid being moral.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Betterave

It seems clear that you are talking about a different kind of case here, no? My point was that Christians can have deep-seated faults that they never recognize or amend, and yet still be Christians. Of course you can use the term polemically so as to exclude this possibility, but the term “Christian” is then not being used in a standard way. I know some Christians who might say they know Muslims who are “more Christian” than they are - i.e., “that Muslim I know is a very nice person” (this kind of thing might even be said about an atheist! - that would be very unusual, I know ). But that is an improper and misleading use of the term “Christian.”

It seems that you persist in misreading me. It is clear from the remarks of Jesus himself what I am talking about. Those remarks were cited earlier in this thread, but you seem not to have read them.

• "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them…. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit…. Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?' Then I will declare to them solemnly, 'I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.'” *

If I read Jesus correctly (please suggest a different reading if you like), He is talking about Christians who were never really Christians … who used religion as a cover for evildoing. He never knew them? Then they never knew him. Then what are they but atheists (without God … a-theos)?

I don’t think you can say he is talking about ordinary Christians who do know Christ, but who fail from time to time and then recover and repent.

It seems clear that you are talking about a different kind of case here, no? My point was that Christians can have deep-seated faults that they never recognize or amend, and yet still be Christians.

I have already said as much in an earlier quote. I think you do not read my posts as well as you should.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Betterave

*Morality comes from natural law as universally inscribed in human nature. That’s one obvious reason why an atheist can’t avoid being moral. *

It’s also a reason why atheists can recover from atheism and convert. The law never dies inside them, though they can try as they might to ignore it.

kjd

*if I was an atheist why be moral at all. I will eventually die so why not indulge yourself and have as much fun as you see fit. Morality comes from natural law as set by God. My point is that there is no reason for an atheist to be moral other than what they make up after all from that point of view we are just part of the animal kingdom. *

Your point is well taken. This was exactly the argument of the Marquis de Sade in his Dialogue between a Priest and a Dying Man. Since atheism is false, it paves the way for all the other lies we might tell ourselves, such as “that there is no reason for an atheist to be moral.”

 

[Hooding_Trees]

if I was an atheist why be moral at all. I will eventually die so why not indulge yourself and have as much fun as you see fit. Morality comes from natural law as set by God. My point is that there is no reason for an atheist to be moral other than what they make up after all from that point of view we are just part of the animal kingdom.

Weak weak argument. One word for you, empathy.

 

[Hooding_Trees]

Morality comes from natural law as universally inscribed in human nature. That’s one obvious reason why an atheist can’t avoid being moral.

100% correct. And this these natural laws have been inscribed in us due to the fact we are a social species that evolved in cooperative societies.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

“There are practical atheists who believe that they believe in God (and who perhaps believe in Him in their brains) but who in reality deny His existence by each one of their deeds. Out of the living God they have made an idol” Jacques Maritain, The Range of Reason

Gospel of Matthew (7:15-23).
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them…. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit…. Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’”

 

[LittleSoldier]

Well you can play semantical games but i think we both know there are facts in science. Anyway…

…Anyway, suppose I tell you I don’t have a dog. Do you say “Well you can play semantical games but I think we both know you have a dog.”? When I say there are no facts in science, what I mean is there are no facts in science. I’m not lying. Do you understand?

Not only is there a correlation between IQ and religiosity, but there is an even stronger correlation between scientific education and religiosity. This does not mean there are no clever scientists that are religious (Ken Miller, George Coyne) but these people are most defiantly in the minority. In fact only 7% of the members of the National Academy believe in a god, with over 70% being atheists, the rest agnostic (which is in fact an atheist).

So what? It doesn’t matter if 100% of the “clever scientists” are atheists, or believe in Cthullu, or bow down before a giant plaid Portuguese man-o-war. Consensus has NO effect on Truth. God is Truth. He doesn’t need permission or acceptance of His existence to exist.

The question quite rightly asked by Neil deGrasse Tyson is why is this number not zero? What makes these 7% hold on? I would suggest a number of possible reasons. Childhood indoctrination, fear of death, the humans need for answers (even if they are wrong). If 7% of the smartest more educated people on earth still hold on to religious belief, even if it contradicts everything they know about the accumulation of knowledge, then it is not surprising that the general public (most of which are indoctrinated at a time in the life when they will believe such stories as Santa and the tooth fairy) will hold on to such beliefs. For most people never achieve any level of scientific education which is needed to understand the cosmos and our origins, and most people never develop critical analysis skills, which are needed to properly address the unfounded claims of religions.

The question quite rightly asked by me is: Where did you ever get the idea that Truth is dependent on what any percentage of “clever, more-educated, more intelligent scientists” believes?