Atheism more moral?

[Mystic_Banana]

If all religions are trying to reach Jesus even though they don’t realize it, couldn’t the same then be said of atheists?

Actually, it’s surprising, but Jesus is more ubiquitous than you may think:

bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/beliefs/jesus_1.shtml

Although then again, Christianity pretty much went through most of Asia within a few hundred years, so it was fairly inevitable.

And regardless of whether they believe in Jesus, the manner in which God is experienced and considered is remarkably similar across most major religions, including many Buddhists. I’ve recently found out the other models for new age pantheism, native Americans, are far more likely to have a monotheist, panantheist conception of God than popular myth grants them

And it has to be said, the moralities of most major religions are also far more similar than perhaps many people would suggest - including Buddhism (except, perhaps, according to it’s modernist re-invention by, again, a mythologising West)

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Well, if you look at crimes in the Western World, the US has some of the highest, if not the highest rate of violent crime. Secular Canada, Scandinavia and so on are much safer. Still, you’d be hardpressed to make a causal connection between religion (or lack thereof) and crime. There are so many factors that contribute to crime, such as poverty levels, education levels, presence of discontented immigrants/refugees and so on.

The OP was asking about whether the moral law is written in the heart of men, and empathy certainly seems to be written in our biology. Since the OP wanted an approach that would work for secular folk, I suggested it.

I don’t really understand your question. What do you mean why take empathy over “antipathy”? My nature is such that I feel compassion for suffering people and sometimes help them. There is no why, it’s the kind of organism I am.

I thought the US was actually secular - isn’t that true? And Norway isn’t very secular at all…

But you’re right to question my casual quotation of stats, I suppose - “never believe statistics unless you’ve made them up yourself!” “there are lies, damned lies, and then there’s statistics” (etc.)

And, again, referring back to social influence, as I think I replied to Antitheist, religion has been such a major factor in moral thought for so long it’s difficult to disentangle what comes from religion (or God), or from logic, or from biological inclination (which, perhaps in a Calvinistic way, you could interpret as being from God, although in some ways it almost sounds like God giving you an easy ride to not engage with morality at all). Furthermore, there has clearly been a growing atheist/materialist influence upon popular and intellectual culture for a long time, and that affects both atheists and theists alike. And I have to say, I find my own moral improvement much aided by a profound disillusionment with much of the atheistic, materialistic ideology that’s affected my life decisions in the past

It’s also worth remembering that the general culture of the US of A isn’t to every Popes liking either

Anyway, what you’re positing, I still say, simply isn’t morality - it’s ultimately self expression. And still doesn’t give any reason to resist the urge to murder, rape or theft in anyone for whom they float the boat - even if they spend the rest of the time being nice as pie - even yourself!

Although it’s pleasant that you’re so nice, if a sudden wave of testosterone hit you, what reason would you give yourself not to hit someone with a stick if you felt like it?

 

[The_Catholic]

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.

Leela makes a lot of good points, so do you Charlemagne. I think all in all it is like this, we have to learn to *love *God’s law, otherwise we are empty shells.

That is difficult for a lot of people, and I can understand that. Not everyone has been abused, raped, cruelly and continuously mocked, had their dog killed from someone who just felt like doing it because it was “fun.”

In other words, someone that has just found out that his or her daughter was kidnapped, abused and tossed in a lake like a piece of garbage–someone who just found that out while at the same time here comes some religious individual telling them to love the killer/molester because God commands it. If this were to ever happen to me, there might be two murders that day (OK, I’m kidding).

Healing takes time, and God knows us best. It is not so much “love this person who molested and murdered your child or burn in Hell,” but it is more of a healing process each of us has to endure, learning to love as God commands us.

The Amish of Lancaster county have a beautiful spirit and their forgiveness shined brightly when their own were shot to death back in 2005 I believe. Forgiving the murderer helped ease the pain of the murderer’s parents as well.

I’m babbling, but all in all, loving God means loving His law, and I’m not talking about loving the act of a stoning, rather, the beatitudes of Christ. For some . . . that takes time.

 

[Leela]

Is this not a huge non sequitur? (If you can’t see this, please tell me; I can explain.) Also, do you seriously think that your ‘theistic psychopath’ can reasonably be said to follow rules in the same way as an animal can be said to follow rules? (I take that claim to be self-evidently preposterous.)

No, I’ll need you to explain. If I thought it was a non sequitur I wouldn’t have said it.

So what makes it the case that *your *position retains a view of morality as more than prudence? My original point in asking the question you responded to here was that your presentation of your ethic of empathy did *not *appear to do this. As you presented your position, your appeal to empathy and moral imagination, as well as/in conjunction with your ‘metaphysical’ interpretation of the self and the other, appear to be grounded in prudential considerations.

As I said before, you can, if you want, reduce all morality to a sort of prudence, but I think a distinction between moral intentions (sympathy) and prudential intentions (reward/punishment) is one worth making and one our moral intuitions support. In other words, we generally think that intentions (and not just consequences) matter in morality as well as in considering legal guilt and innocence. Do you have any reason why we ought to stop caring about intentions?

Best,
Leela

 

[ManOnFire]

Do you have children. 5How do you teach them if not how I described?God’s Way.

Even as culture evolves so that people tend to have a more and more enlarged sense of “self” that includes more and more of what were previously thought of as “others,” children born into such a society will still need to personally go through that same evolution. Not if they fear others as being on the other "team."How do we get them to evolve? By fosterring that empathy by what ever means we have. And we have a lot of means at our disposal. Perhaps indeed when we ask our children “how would you feel if someone did that to you” they have simply never felt that way. That doesn’t mean that we can’t help them to imagine what it would feel like. If their fear of others as being on the other “team” is greater than their empathy, then they will feel justified in crimes against the other “team.” See Hitler.That doesn’t mean that they will never do wrong in spite of being able to empathize. We will always need laws and punishments for wrong doing, but when we raise our children we (at least I am) are trying to get our kids to evolve to a point where fear of punishment is irelevent. they do the right thing because it is the right thing. People cheat on their taxes and on government because they believe it is the right thing to do, even though it is stealing, technically. Religion at least attempts to achieve a higher moral conscience for the individual, and collectively, for greater society.

Children are generally capable of such imaginative growth and empathy, but for people’s whose moral growth is stunted (through the lower moral conscience of atheism?)and for those that simply cannot imagine any inner life in others at all (we call such people psychopaths) we will simply have to rely on our legal system and perhaps need to separate such people from the rest of society so that they cannot be a danger. I don’t know who you mean when you say that people are supporting a secular social nirvana. (Don’t atheists believe that a purley secular nirvana is possible? Correct me if I am wrong.) We will never do without the police and prisons as far as I can see. We will surely need more as pop culture media reduces people into simpletons who seek brain pleasure via less-love sex and drugs. A man who runs from an unwanted pregnancy was having sex for his own brain pleasure more than for true love. No one runs from someone they truly love. Instead of media and politicians telling it like it is and risk offending people, they decided it’s easier to get abortions and further demean true, romantic human love even more. It’s nice that you took you’re religious upbringing and have decided that somehow all young kids will learn the same. What if every kids’ parents teach them vastly different morality? You act as though every parent will naturally arrive at YOUR same moral teachings.

You ask, “what is to convince self to love others first?” I don’t think we generally need any such convincing through rational argumentation. Original sin?How did you first come to love others? I loved myself first. It’s called childhood. Many adults are still stuck there. Christ giving up his life was my que to give up mine to raise 5 kids. If I loved myself more, I could have chosen an easier life without kids. Just look at the plummeting birthrates in Europe. It’s happening in the U.S. I think people tend to come to love before they can think Babies love warmth, safety, security. True love is the man who sold his vintage bandless watch to buy a hair clip for his wife’s long hair, while at the same time, she sold her hair to buy him a band for his watch. How many kids learn to give like that? , so rational argumentation is irrelevent.

I don’t know what you are getting at here. Are you having second thougts about your marriage? No, I’m not talking about me. There is nothing preventing you from trading in for a newer model (assuming you think you still got it going on), but do you think that that is the right thing to do? Would the newer model really be better for you and for your family? How many people out there marry for money, excessive materialism, etc. now that media is suppressing True, romantic love? It’s essential prostitution. There’s no formal agreed upon dollar amount, but a leveraged negotiation is still there. People in these relationships are NOT following the Church’s Way. They are following a selfish godless way. We are called to lay down our lives for our spouses and kids. How will this lesson be taught in a godless society?

Pretty much. I was fairly religious as a teenager, but the dogmatic claims of Christianity began to seem less and less plausible to me as I matured. Please see our thread on Infinity, started by cooldude, in the philosophy section.I didn’t want to leave the church, but my inability to make myself believe that the piece of bread turns miraculously into Jesus made me unwelcome at the altar.

Best,
Leela

 

[JohnSanzone5]

No, I’ll need you to explain. If I thought it was a non sequitur I wouldn’t have said it.

As I said before, you can, if you want, reduce all morality to a sort of prudence, but I think a distinction between moral intentions (sympathy) and prudential intentions (reward/punishment) is one worth making and one our moral intuitions support. In other words, we generally think that intentions (and not just consequences) matter in morality as well as in considering legal guilt and innocence. Do you have any reason why we ought to stop caring about intentions?

Best,
Leela

waiting on your response, compadre

 

[Leela]

waiting on your response, compadre

I’m not sure I have anything to say about your last. You are convinced that the Catholic has an advantage in moral deliberation because of the authority of the Church and access to revealed truth. I don’t see any advantage there, and we are unlikely to convince one another of our views on the matter. You are convinced that I am lacking something, and I am not at all convinced that you have anything that I don’t have. In fact, I think that the Catholic Church is wrong about a lot of moral positions, but I have no way of trying to get agreement with you when the Church’s authority and revealed truth are in play since these are premises that I am not willing to accept any more than I would accept the authority of some Muslim Imam or the revealed knowledge of Joseph Smith.

Best,
Leela

 

[JohnSanzone5]

I’m not sure I have anything to say about your last. You are convinced that the Catholic has an advantage in moral deliberation because of the authority of the Church and access to revealed truth. I don’t see any advantage there, and we are unlikely to convince one another of our views on the matter. You are convinced that I am lacking something, and I am not at all convinced that you have anything that I don’t have. In fact, I think that the Catholic Church is wrong about a lot of moral positions, but I have no way of trying to get agreement with you when the Church’s authority and revealed truth are in play since these are premises that I am not willing to accept any more than I would accept the authority of some Muslim Imam or the revealed knowledge of Joseph Smith.

Best,
Leela

“You are convinced that I am lacking something, and I am not at all convinced that you have anything that I don’t have.”

Goodness gracious, when will I be free of the same stale rhetorical statements.

If this is actually how you approach the project of inter-religious dialogue on ethics, why even bother? In fact, why are you even here?

Oh yes,–that’s right–to link me to your silly little blog. Well, I’m sorry, that’s about as intellectually subtle [and respectful!] as me gunning my Psalter at your face. Why don’t you clarify your argument in face of my criticisms, as I asked you to.

You seemed to be going somewhere, with all that name dropping and tripartite divisions of modern ethics.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I think that the Catholic Church is wrong about a lot of moral positions, but I have no way of trying to get agreement with you when the Church’s authority and revealed truth are in play since these are premises that I am not willing to accept any more than I would accept the authority of some Muslim Imam or the revealed knowledge of Joseph Smith.

Best,
Leela

Well, you haven’t given any reason as to why we should accept doing whatever we’re biologically motivated to as ‘moral’ either, but you’ve presented it numerous times, which demonstrates your biological ethics as just as dogmatic as the most dogmatic of Catholic positions, with less logic behind it

 

[Leela]

Well, you haven’t given any reason as to why we should accept doing whatever we’re biologically motivated to as ‘moral’ either, but you’ve presented it numerous times, which demonstrates your biological ethics as just as dogmatic as the most dogmatic of Catholic positions, with less logic behind it

You must have me confused with someone else. I don’t promote an “if it feels good, do it” biological reduction of morality. I have argued that moral concerns are concerns for the well being of others. Do you disagree? I think it would be an unusual position to say that moral concerns have nothing to do with human wellbeing.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

“You are convinced that I am lacking something, and I am not at all convinced that you have anything that I don’t have.”

Goodness gracious, when will I be free of the same stale rhetorical statements.

If this is actually how you approach the project of inter-religious dialogue on ethics, why even bother? In fact, why are you even here?

Oh yes,–that’s right–to link me to your silly little blog. Well, I’m sorry, that’s about as intellectually subtle [and respectful!] as me gunning my Psalter at your face. Why don’t you clarify your argument in face of my criticisms, as I asked you to.

You seemed to be going somewhere, with all that name dropping and tripartite divisions of modern ethics.

Hi John,

Your argument, as I understand it, is that the atheist is lacking something important in not being able cite Biblical and Church authority and divine revellation in support of moral deliberation. In making such an argument you are begging the fundamental question between the atheist and the Catholic. I think that your moral deliberation is pretty much the same as mine and everyone else’s in considering universaibilty, consequences, and human flourishing, asking for advice from those we trust and view as wise, and relying on our culturally constructed moral intuitions. To argue against you on this point anything I would say would only be begging the question in the opposite direction since I don’t think it is worth getting into the issue of whether the Church really has authority or whether the Bible and prayer really are sources of divine revellation. Though you accused me of trying to get you to my “silly little blog” to convince you that your religion is false, I have had enough conversations with believers to know that it is not worth trying to convince you to doubt your religious beliefs. My “silly little blog” is written for other nonbelievers, not to convince believers like you that your religion is more silly than my blog. I’m content to argue against bigotry rather than argue for lack of belief in religion. You belief that I am lacking something in not being able to appeal to God for guidance is expected and not nearly such a concern to me as others in this thread who have argued that “moral atheist” is an oxymoron.

Best,
Leela

 

[Leela]

I asked you, how do you teach them if not how I described [asking them “what if everyone behaved that way?” and also to imagine how they would feel if they were in the situation of another]?

You answered:

God’s Way.

I don’t know what you mean here. Are you referring to the Biblical injunctions to inflict corporal punishment on your children?

I wrote:

"Even as culture evolves so that people tend to have a more and more enlarged sense of “self” that includes more and more of what were previously thought of as “others,” children born into such a society will still need to personally go through that same evolution. "

You said:

Not if they fear others as being on the other “team.”

You apprear to think hat you are disagreeing with me on this point, but I don’t see how. The point is that we ought to raise our children to see ourselves and others as on the same team.

I said:
"How do we get them to evolve? By fosterring that empathy by what ever means we have. And we have a lot of means at our disposal. Perhaps indeed when we ask our children “how would you feel if someone did that to you” they have simply never felt that way. That doesn’t mean that we can’t help them to imagine what it would feel like. "

You responded:

If their fear of others as being on the other “team” is greater than their empathy, then they will feel justified in crimes against the other “team.” See Hitler.

Isn’t this just more reason to teach children to love rather than to fear?

I said:
“That doesn’t mean that they will never do wrong in spite of being able to empathize. We will always need laws and punishments for wrong doing, but when we raise our children we (at least I am) are trying to get our kids to evolve to a point where fear of punishment is irelevent. they do the right thing because it is the right thing.”

You responded:

People cheat on their taxes and on government because they believe it is the right thing to do, even though it is stealing, technically. Religion at least attempts to achieve a higher moral conscience for the individual, and collectively, for greater society.

But that is what I am talking about is well. I support religious as well as nonreligious “attempts to achieve a higher moral conscience for the individual, and collectively, for greater society,” and like you, I disagree with many atheists as well as with many religious people about what is moral. I suspect that you would have much greater agreement with some atheists than you would with certain believers. Don’t you think?

I said:
"Children are generally capable of such imaginative growth and empathy, but for people’s whose moral growth is stunted (through the lower moral conscience of atheism?)and for those that simply cannot imagine any inner life in others at all (we call such people psychopaths) we will simply have to rely on our legal system and perhaps need to separate such people from the rest of society so that they cannot be a danger. I don’t know who you mean when you say that people are supporting a secular social nirvana. "

You responded:

(Don’t atheists believe that a purley secular nirvana is possible? Correct me if I am wrong.)

It is always a problem to try to generalize about what atheists believe since they are sucha diverse lot as are religious people. Personall, as I already stated, I think we will always need police and military to enforce order since people are never born into an evolved moral conscience and there will always be people and regions where moral development is not at a point where coersion to do right is unnecessary.

Best,
Leela

 

[Mystic_Banana]

You must have me confused with someone else. I don’t promote an “if it feels good, do it” biological reduction of morality. I have argued that moral concerns are concerns for the well being of others. Do you disagree? I think it would be an unusual position to say that moral concerns have nothing to do with human wellbeing.

Best,
Leela

Ah- good point. Half the other atheists have related it to biology, you’ve just ambiguously pointed to “we feel love, we’re moral, unless you’re sociopath, in which case, there’s nothing down for you”, as far as I can tell. So are you saying you don’t root it all in biological imperatives? Anyway, you still haven’t given a reason to act not only on empathic sentiments, which most of us feel, rather than also on antipathic impulses - go on, give me a reasonable atheist argument!

I’d say “selfless concerns for the wellbeing of others are moral concerns”. If we are concerned for others out of self interest, it is not really moral, for we are only serving ourselves. Do you disagree?

 

[Leela]

Ah- good point. Half the other atheists have related it to biology,

I think you are conflating arguments that have been made. If you say that there is no biological basis for altruism it is easy to point out that that is false, but there is also a biological basis for promiscuity, homosexuality, and even rape. What biological study can do is tell us that certain behaviors such as altruism, homosexuality, and rape are entirely “natural.” What it can’t do is tell us that altruism is good and rape is bad.

you’ve just ambiguously pointed to “we feel love, we’re moral, unless you’re sociopath, in which case, there’s nothing down for you”, as far as I can tell. So are you saying you don’t root it all in biological imperatives?

Biological drives are not at all equivalent to moral imperatives. I have never heard of anyone who would say otherwise.

Anyway, you still haven’t given a reason to act not only on empathic sentiments, which most of us feel, rather than also on antipathic impulses - go on, give me a reasonable atheist argument!

I don’t think that we need a reason to be concerned for the well-being of others.

I’d say “selfless concerns for the wellbeing of others are moral concerns”. If we are concerned for others out of self interest, it is not really moral, for we are only serving ourselves. Do you disagree?

I agree. If we are going to make a useful distinction between prudence and morality–behavior motivated by carrots and sticks and behavior motivated by our concerns for others–then we need to take such intentions into account.

But note then that demanding a reason to be self-less beyond the fact that we have concerns for others is self defeating. If there were such incentives and rewards for motivating a selfless act, it would not be selfless. This is why divine punishments and rewards are not only irrelevant to the moral intentions of atheists but also to the moral intentions of Catholics. Even if you believe in divine punishment and reward such can not be considered as motivation for an act without renderring the intention to be merely prudent instead of moral.

Best,
Leela

 

[o_mlly]

…"How do we get them to evolve? By fosterring that empathy by what ever means we have. And we have a lot of means at our disposal. Perhaps indeed when we ask our children “how would you feel if someone did that to you” they have simply never felt that way. …
Best,
Leela

Do you believe the moral concepts in Matthew 5:39-44 are universal?

If so, do you believe that by " fostering that empathy" we can evolve to these moral concepts?

If not, then there is a significant gap between Christian and atheist notions of morality. The former claims its authority from that which transcends humanity; the latter hopes, I think, to pull itself up by its own bootstraps.

 

[Leela]

Do you believe the moral concepts in Matthew 5:39-44 are universal?

They are universal in the sense that they can be read as excluding no one from the circle of moral concern, but they are not universal in the sense that everyone already believes them or that there is any assurance that everyone will someday come to bleieve them.

If so, do you believe that by " fostering that empathy" we can evolve to these moral concepts?

If not, then there is a significant gap between Christian and atheist notions of morality. The former claims its authority from that which transcends humanity; the latter hopes, I think, to pull itself up by its own bootstraps.

I am sure that there are some differences between my conception of morality and yours, but if the atheists are right on the question of divine revellation of morality, then these moral concepts indeed were already evolved rather than revealled. If there is in fact nothing divine about morality then, just like in every other human endeavor such as mathematics and music, some people have a greater natural propensity for excellence.

To our question, “can we evolve these moral concepts?” the answer is that we already have. These moral concepts, if we are to believe the Bible account while still accepting the atheistic view of the supernatural for the sake of argument, really were articulated by Jesus of Nazareth at some time in history. Likewise, some version of the ethics of the reciprocity evolved in many many other parts of the world without any divine revellation as well.

If there is something to know about morality, then some people understand it better than others. Just as there are people with extraordinary talent for music and mathematics, there are likely moral geniouses. Jesus may have been a moral genius in the same way that Gandhi and MLK were as also were other people in different traditions around the world. They had a particularly strong ability to empathize and could also exhort others to experience empathy of a sort that they hadn’t previously experienced. In short, if there is nothing supernatural about morality then we already have come a long way and it seems entirely reasonable to hope for more. It seems to me what is most important here is that we agree on what “more” is. We would both like to see a world where people better understand he needs of others and better take those needs into account in heir interpersnal dealings and public policy.

Best,
Leela

 

[Tenofovir]

The misconception stems from the notion that morality requires a law giver.

Let me jump in. My first post. Thank you for the opportunity .

That is very good but Western society (and therefore the whole world) has permeated with Christian ideas. How many of these have rubbed off on you and formed your system of morality? Your parents were no doubt a contributor to how you see morality - treat others as you yourself would like to be treated. Your parents took this from their parents and they from theirs.

Atheists don’t see moral concerns as having anything to do with pleasing or displeasing deities.

That is only part of it. As explained already, and for some reason many atheists fail to grasp it this is not the only issue. Other reasons can be feeling gratefulness to God or
aspiring to follow in Christ’s footsteps - where He is an example of how to live one’s life - less selfishly, more lovingly, with less violence, less prejudice, etc. Christians believe that if someone as great as God created them and other people (including non-Christians and atheists) then there is an additional reason to love (respect) those people (everyone else in this world). This all in addition to any instinctive feelings for children or altruistic feelings we all (atheist and not) may have. The one does not exclude the other.

We think that moral concerns are concerns for the well-being of others.

Not speaking about you personally but perhaps that only works out well when we are comfortably well off? In times of war, for example, or famine, would the same still hold?
Would you give your last meal to someone else?

We love our children as much as you love yours.

Suppose your son was in competition with your neighbour’s son for something very important - an opportunity of a lifetime. Suppose you could get rid off your neighbour’s son without anyone noticing and the authorities prosecuting you. In such a case, would you not do it? Would your son not matter more to you than a neighbour or even a stranger’s son?
Perhaps you knew your son was better and he would contribute more to society in the long term - perhaps doing away with that competitor in a humane and painless way would be the way to go? A Christian may (and not necessarily would) have thought along these lines - that other guy is also a child of God, if I kill him besides the fact that he and his parents will suffer - I will have committed a grave sin in front of God. Also despite the sin, this God, he made me and him, and now I do this in return? And so on - different people may think differently but along similar lines.

Like you, we want to leave the world a better place for having been in it for a brief time.

So did Mao, Pol pot, Hitler, Stalin etc. They all meant well. They wanted to build strong egalitarian societies and each one thought they were doing the right thing but because they had no ‘old fashioned’ or ‘sentimental’ ideas such as Christianity (even the basics thereof) they could do what they thought was right. Marx believed that genocide was unavoidable as inferior races who were not able to accept the Communist utopia had to go and be exterminated. His followers, Hitler himself read and admired Marx were following on this ideology. Many great thinkers such as Bernard Shaw himself wanted to gas the idle and unproductive in the 30s and when asked about the human suffering in post-revolutionary Russia a famous leftists said that “you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs”. Even if we looked at the functionaries of these regimes, the guys who gasses, bayoneted or shot human beings - they did what they did because they often believed it to be right. The notion of God was forbidden, and it was thrown out by their masters and these people had no concept to cling on. Where these people all inhuman without consciences? No. Most of them had wives, children and families and they were caring parents.

Also, your comments about what an atheist can do to an old person ought to be compared to what a Catholic bishop can do to effect the lives of victims of sexual abuse. All humans are capable of evil.

This is very true. Everyone is capable of doing evil. Catholics did evil to - and still do. The clergy still perpetrate evil but that evil is not per direction of the teaching of Christ. Just because someone wears a robe does not make them good. We’re not arguing that.

Without God, or belief in God, and some fixed knowledge that there is something greater than the hype, lies and cynicism of politics, peoples’ minds can be filled so much easier with lies, especially in stressful situations - such as war, revolution, famine, natural disaster when society breaks down and life becomes survival of the fittest.

I recently watched a Soviet era film from 1985 - in it the SS are exterminating Belorussian
civilians. Upon capture by partisans the partisan leader asks the leading SS fanatic why he wanted to kill the children and spare the adults - his reply was that ‘it’ (problem of other races taking up space from Germany) starts with the children. Many Germans, Japanese, Cambodians, and others did this in real life in WW2. Despite instinctive feelings towards their own (genetics, upbringing, neurotransmitter levels in their brains) they could dehumanise the Jews, Slavs and Chinese and perform on them
incredible cruelty in the name of a greater good. Now that greater good wasn’t just to make an atheist state (atheism can’t be blamed for that) but what we can blame atheism for is that without belief in God these people would find it easier (or even possible) to do what they did. If these people were strong Christians, they would have rejected the rhetoric of their leaders and never signed on to do what they did.

Thanks for the opportunity .
Best, T.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

I think you are conflating arguments that have been made. If you say that there is no biological basis for altruism it is easy to point out that that is false, but there is also a biological basis for promiscuity, homosexuality, and even rape. What biological study can do is tell us that certain behaviors such as altruism, homosexuality, and rape are entirely “natural.” What it can’t do is tell us that altruism is good and rape is bad.

It is easy to point out it is false, but unlikely you can totally prove it. Evidence, theory, belief. It’s in all of us, it’s just that some of can recognise it more . Of course, there are also different concepts of natural - I’m guessing you’re using a materialistic, biological one…

Biological drives are not at all equivalent to moral imperatives. I have never heard of anyone who would say otherwise.

I don’t think that we need a reason to be concerned for the well-being of others…

I’m pretty sure a couple of people *have * said it on this thread…anyway, are you implying intuitive morality, then? Or, otherwise, no we don’t need reason to care for others, at least, not neccesarily, but do we need it to care for them in a more responsible way than, say, we care for our favourite shoes?

I agree. If we are going to make a useful distinction between prudence and morality–behavior motivated by carrots and sticks and behavior motivated by our concerns for others–then we need to take such intentions into account.

But note then that demanding a reason to be self-less beyond the fact that we have concerns for others is self defeating. If there were such incentives and rewards for motivating a selfless act, it would not be selfless. This is why divine punishments and rewards are not only irrelevant to the moral intentions of atheists but also to the moral intentions of Catholics. Even if you believe in divine punishment and reward such can not be considered as motivation for an act without renderring the intention to be merely prudent instead of moral.

Best,
Leela

Thing is, if we knew for sure that God exists, the Christian God (and/or the God of most other major faiths), you’d have a point. But since we don’t, and we realise it’s an issue of faith and belief, then I’d say it is morality and our willingness and desire for it that leads us to deepen that faith - and self interest and pride that takes us away from it.

 

[Betterave]

No, I’ll need you to explain. If I thought it was a non sequitur I wouldn’t have said it.

Okay, here’s what you said:

A: I’ve distinguished between moral action as motivated only by the belief that what you are doing is the right thing to do and prudent action as motivated by carrots and sticks. B: In making use of this distinction, one who believes in the rewards and punishment of a supernatural entity must set this belief aside to be able to act morally, since if the act in question is done out of a desire to seek favor with or deny the wrath of such a being it is merely prudent and not moral. To act morally, one must do what is right as though there were no God to offer punishments and rewards.

B does not follow from A. (Pretty simple, no?) Prudent does not mean immoral. You presume a false dichotomy, namely: moral or prudent; but not both. Understand?

As I said before, you can, if you want, reduce all morality to a sort of prudence, but I think a distinction between moral intentions (sympathy) and prudential intentions (reward/punishment) is one worth making and one our moral intuitions support. In other words, we generally think that intentions (and not just consequences) matter in morality as well as in considering legal guilt and innocence. Do you have any reason why we ought to stop caring about intentions?

Do you have any reason for asking me this question? Are you getting the point I’m trying to make, that your presentation of morality-as-sympathy grounds morality in prudence (i.e., your position seems confused and hypocritical)?

 

[Leela]

your

presentation of morality-as-sympathy grounds morality in prudence (i.e., your position seems confused and hypocritical)?

I understand completely that what is moral may often coincide with what is prudent, but we were talking about moral deliberation. If such deliberation is to be moral it must set asside considerations of punishments and rewards or it would be a consideration of prudence instead of morality.