Atheism more moral?

[Caramel]

Another…

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. (Albert Einstein, 1954)

So what? I don’t believe in a personal God either. And I am (or was) a scientist and can see the beauty of God in science. God created the universe we look at through eyes of science as much as He created Einstein or you or me. I also have unbounded admiration for the structure of the world…

Another…

…Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms.
(Albert Einstein, Obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955)

I bet he’s discarded that belief now.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

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.

can’t…resist…butting…in…

Thing is, if the complete and entirety of everything was created by God, and that God is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, it’s reasonable to believe that that God knows an awful lot more about morality than we do. Part of the belief is that those punishments and rewards are essentially what we do to ourselves, by taking ourselves closer to, or further from, God, and the practical implications and results of actions, taken in a moral light, are in accordance with Gods will - so ultimately, moral action is in accordance with God.

Of course, then you may say, “but you don’t need to believe in God to be moral”, but then the fruit of that faith and it’s effect on our culture ultimately feeds very heavily into our moral cultures, and I find it fairly questionable that a materialistic interpretation of the world would arrive at moral thought and behaviour without that understanding. Certainly I’ve not encountered an atheist yet who can present something in materialistic thought which can be seen as a source of moral inclination - yourself included, I’m afraid

 

[MindOverMatter2]

In one of my classes on religion and violence we read an article by slavoj zizek if you want to read it here it is…

nytimes.com/2006/03/12/opinion/12zizek.html?pagewanted=print

any ways in the article he talks about how if you are an atheist you do things because they are the right thing to do

What!!! Surely people are aware that there is no such thing as the right thing to do if there is no God? Its meaningless. If we know of good, as an objective fact about how we ought to be, than ones acceptance of such a view, implicates the fact that the ground of all potential reality is fundamentally and objectively good, and that potential actions of potential beings are measured by a timeless transcendent good or lawgiver; which is precisely what we think God is.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

If you want to know what a society is like where religion is persecuted and driven underground, try living in a country like the Soviet Union under Stalin or China under Mao or Germany under Hitler.

And if the world is so bad with religion, why would it be better without it?

Since the world has never been entirely without religion, what proof is there that it *would be *better without it?

There is none. Whereas we have plenty of proof that religion does make good and law abiding citizens.

Those who fail to live their religion will always be cited as proof that religion is harmful. Just the opposite. All that proves is that not all people are as religious as they should be. Not even some popes and bishops and priests.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

Surely you are not implying that the universal truth of the moral precepts of Matthew 5:39-44 are dependent on a believing community. Do you believe human beings invent moral laws or discover them? If the former, then each to his own and there is really no need for further discussion. Did the mentality of “If it feels good, do it” serve us well as a society since the 1960’s?

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.

Epistemologically, we cannot say subjectively that unknown moral concepts are “already evolved.” We can say objectively that moral law exists whether we know it or not.

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.

Right reason and revelation will never lead us to different truths. That others have by natural reason come to discover some of the natural laws is not evidence that either those discovers were not themseleves participating in God’s revelation or that revelation does not exist.

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

I think your recurring premise that moral laws are emotional (based on empathy) rather than rational is flawed. To be ruled by our emotions is to be enslaved by them. Moral laws do not have their basis in feeling – its too fleeting in its duration, too disprese in its application and too etheral to provide concrete direction. Reason, on the other hand, offers a firmer foundation for atheists and theists to argue about the nature of moral law.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*Reason, on the other hand, offers a firmer foundation for atheists and theists to argue about the nature of moral law. *

Since reason is the first methodology of atheists (or so they claim) one would think there would indeed be grounds for discussion.

On the other hand, I have reasoned interminably with atheists about the moral law and gotten absolutely nowhere with any of them. They simply refuse to admit that atheism provides no moral glue (consensus) by which a society can live in peace and harmony.

There is in the approach of reason (sometimes on both sides) a kind of selfish pride that will not give in. You can prove a point on morals (for example homosexuality or abortion) with absolutely pure logic that just never gets across because the desire to permit a certain kind of sinfulness exceeds the desire for truth.

I think atheism is fundamentally not rational in spite of its pretensions, and can never be rational. Yet atheists and theists can agree on some moral principles, not because of reasoning them out, but on the basis of the natural law, which is more intuitive than rational. We are all born with it. But some of us somehow manage to evade it by clever subterfuges.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Tenofovir

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.

This is an excellent point. Most moral values inherited by Western Civilization come directly from the Judeo-Christian tradition. The moral glue of our society has begun to soften in modern times as the dictatorship of relativism makes every man his own arbiter of right and wrong.

 

[Leela]

Tenofovir

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.

This is an excellent point. Most moral values inherited by Western Civilization come directly from the Judeo-Christian tradition. The moral glue of our society has begun to soften in modern times as the dictatorship of relativism makes every man his own arbiter of right and wrong.

The thing with these sorts of arguments is that when an idea is a good idea, it doesn’t really matter who thought of it and what other bad beliefs the person who thought of it may or may not have held. The fact that algebra is a good idea couldn’t possibly make Islam true by association. If a Hindu physicist makes a breakthough that every subsequent physicist makes use of, that wouldn’t mean that they re now all doing “Hindu physics” or that we ought to start wearing dots on our foreheads. If the Oracle of Delphi was the first to say that killing people for no good reason is wrong, that wouldn’t make Zeus and more credible.

If the claim “you should do unto others…” is actually true (and I think it is), it is simply a truth. It is one more thing that human beings have come to know about the world. If it is really true and not just a matter of provincial agreement, it isn’t a “Christian truth.” Truths don’t come in such religious or cultural varieties. Truth is truth.

If the claim “you should do unto others…” is actually true, then it doesn’t matter who first said it. (It wasn’t Jesus or the “Judeo-Christian tradition” who first articulated the ethics of reciprocity anyway.) There is no Irish genetic theory or Polish geometry or Catholic astronomy. When something we actually know something, such knowledge transcends such regional and cultural traditions.

 

[Leela]

Surely you are not implying that the universal truth of the moral precepts of Matthew 5:39-44 are dependent on a believing community. Do you believe human beings invent moral laws or discover them?

We invent ideas and find out whether or not they work. Moral inquiry is no different from sceintific inquiry in that regard.

Epistemologically, we cannot say subjectively that unknown moral concepts are “already evolved.” We can say objectively that moral law exists whether we know it or not.

Concepts don’t exist until they are thought of by human beings.

I think your recurring premise that moral laws are emotional (based on empathy) rather than rational is flawed. To be ruled by our emotions is to be enslaved by them. Moral laws do not have their basis in feeling – its too fleeting in its duration, too disprese in its application and too etheral to provide concrete direction. Reason, on the other hand, offers a firmer foundation for atheists and theists to argue about the nature of moral law.

No, not feeling. And reason is no transcendent foundation. Reason is just the habits of mind we’ve learned for moving from premises to conclusions in ways that lead to successful action.

I don’t think we should look to any other foundation for morality than what behaviors, intentions, and uses of attention actually do contribute to the wellbeing of conscious creatures.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

*If the claim “you should do unto others…” is actually true (and I think it is), it is simply a truth. It is one more thing that human beings have come to know about the world. If it is really true and not just a matter of provincial agreement, it isn’t a “Christian truth.” Truths don’t come in such religious or cultural varieties. Truth is truth. *

You only say this because you are not a Christian. It is a Christian truth because Christ said it and Christ is God. We have no reason to doubt God’s truth. The atheist can doubt if he chooses.

Because an atheist does not believe in God, nor in Christ as God, the atheist is free to say this is not true. He can say, if he so chooses, “Do unto others before they do it unto you.” No Christian can say that and be a Christian. So it is Christ’s truth altogether. He made it the most famous truth in the world. Even most of the atheists living today learned it from Christ. Or they learned it from others who learned it from Christ.

We ignore that truth at our peril.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Concepts don’t exist until they are thought of by human beings.

Yes. Not all concepts are based on things that can be seen, tasted, smelled, or touched. When Democritus imagined the atom, a thing of which nothing smaller could exist, he had a true concept without being able to prove it.

Likewise, when we think of God, we may well have a true concept without being able to see God, taste God, smell God, or touch God.

It took the science of physics nearly two thousand years to find the atom. Even now the atom is still a mystery.

It will take each of us about seventy plus years to find God. Even then, God will be a mystery.

 

[o_mlly]

We invent ideas and find out whether or not they work. Moral inquiry is no different from sceintific inquiry in that regard.

Really? We “invented” gravity, electricty, anti-biotics, DNA, etc.? We are merely plagarizing if we claim to invent when we merely discover and take credit for what already exists as if we created it. Newton’s “laws” are not his laws. As for applications of existing systems, we are the world’s greatest borrowers of existing know-how. Examine any tool from pliers to a neural net computer and you’ll find the basic elements are merely adaptaions of the mechanical or neurological systems of the human body or other natural systems already in existence.

Concepts don’t exist until they are thought of by human beings.

True. But concepts – simple apprhension, neither true or false, are not what we are discussing. We are, I think, discussing judgements – moral laws. A judgement claims a relationship between a subject and its predicate. And an argument defends that judgement.

No, not feeling. And reason is no transcendent foundation. Reason is just the habits of mind we’ve learned for moving from premises to conclusions in ways that lead to successful action.

I did not claim reason as transcendent but merely superior to emotion in arguing for one’s judgement. For instance, if you make the judgement that you enjoyed a partiular movie , I cannot argue with your feeling. But if you claim everyone ought to enjoy the same movie, then you must appeal to reason to obtain others’ agreement.

I don’t think we should look to any other foundation for morality than what behaviors, intentions, and uses of attention actually do contribute to the wellbeing of conscious creatures.

Well, that is a judgement and, therefore arguable. And I would argue against it. It refutes any exceptionalism for the human being among conscious creatures. We could start a new thread on that topic.

 

[Leela]

Really? We “invented” gravity, electricty, anti-biotics, DNA, etc.? We are merely plagarizing if we claim to invent when we merely discover and take credit for what already exists as if we created it. Newton’s “laws” are not his laws.

Yep, we invent concepts like gravity, electricity, etc. Science is our human project to try to get consensus on a coherent description of reality that best enables us to predict and control our environment. Newton’s gravity is a good example to make my point. Newton suggested we think of gravity as a “force” (another concept invented by human beings to predict and control their environment) and showed that by conceiving of the behavior of objects with mass (another of those concepts) as following laws that govern their behavior through a force acting upon them we can make accurate predictions. Concepts built on concepts built on concepts all created to serve specific human purposes. Later Einstein’s physics did away with this notion of gravity. Gravity as a force is unneeded to predict the behavior of objects with mass (another concept which was to get revised by Einstein) because he could make even better predictions that Newton could by thinking of space as curved and warped by objects with mass. In Einsteinian physics, there is no such thing as gravity–or at least when Einstein talked about gravity, he was not talking about what Newton was talking about.

If you don’t believe me, take it from Einstein:

“Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility or the meaning of such a comparison. But he certainly believes that, as his knowledge increases, his picture of reality will become simpler and simpler and will explain a wider and wider range of his sensuous impressions. He may also believe in the existence of the ideal limit of knowledge and that it is approached by the human mind. He may call this ideal limit the objective truth.”
The Evolution of Physics (1938)

 

[o_mlly]

Yep, we invent concepts like gravity, electricity, etc. Science is our human project to try to get consensus on a coherent description of reality that best enables us to predict and control our environment. Newton’s gravity is a good example to make my point. Newton suggested we think of gravity as a “force” (another concept invented by human beings to predict and control their environment) and showed that by conceiving of the behavior of objects with mass (another of those concepts) as following laws that govern their behavior through a force acting upon them we can make accurate predictions. Concepts built on concepts built on concepts all created to serve specific human purposes. Later Einstein’s physics did away with this notion of gravity. Gravity as a force is unneeded to predict the behavior of objects with mass (another concept which was to get revised by Einstein) because he could make even better predictions that Newton could by thinking of space as curved and warped by objects with mass. In Einsteinian physics, there is no such thing as gravity–or at least when Einstein talked about gravity, he was not talking about what Newton was talking about.

If you don’t believe me, take it from Einstein:

“Physical concepts are free creations of the human mind, and are not, however it may seem, uniquely determined by the external world. In our endeavor to understand reality we are somewhat like a man trying to understand the mechanism of a closed watch. He sees the face and the moving hands, even hears its ticking, but he has no way of opening the case. If he is ingenious he may form some picture of a mechanism which could be responsible for all the things he observes, but he may never be quite sure his picture is the only one which could explain his observations. He will never be able to compare his picture with the real mechanism and he cannot even imagine the possibility or the meaning of such a comparison. But he certainly believes that, as his knowledge increases, his picture of reality will become simpler and simpler and will explain a wider and wider range of his sensuous impressions. He may also believe in the existence of the ideal limit of knowledge and that it is approached by the human mind. He may call this ideal limit the objective truth.”
The Evolution of Physics (1938)

I believe you are still confusing concepts with judgments. I can conceive a notion I call “God.” I can also conceive the notion of “person.” Likewise Einstein conceives the notions of “energy” and “matter.” Newton conceives a notion he calls “gravity.” No argument can be made against the author of any concept. The concepts are merely words with definitions to eliminate ambiguity.

Judgments, however, relate concepts to reality. I judge God is a being with three persons. Einstein judges energy and matter are relative. Newton’s concept, gravity, did not gain him notice. Rather what gives him a place in history is his judgment that gravity is a the natural force of attraction between any two bodies, which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

You might read your quote from Einstein more closely for he disagrees with you. He acknowledges reality is independent of the way he may think (a rational activity) about it. He says nothing about his feelings (an emotional activity) about reality. And, finally, he admits the ideal knowledge is objective truth, not subjective feeling.

 

[Leela]

Even most of the atheists living today learned it from Christ. Or they learned it from others who learned it from Christ.

This just makes me wonder where Jesus of Nazareth and who ever first told him learned it. It is no more a “Christian truth” than a Hebrew truth (Tobit 4:15,Sirach 31:15,Leviticus 19:34 Leviticus 19:18 ) or a truth from any particular part of the ancient world. Perhaps the Hebrews got it from the ancient Egyptians.

Considerring it shows up in ancient Greece, Hinduism, and Confuscianism it is not surprising that the Hebrews would evolve this ethic. The development of this moral knowledge is no more a mystery than the development of knowledge of fermentation for making alcoholic beverages. Why would someone take me seriously if I did to them what I say should not be done to me? I wouldn’t need any divine revellation to find out that doing to others what I wouldn’t want done to myself is a bad idea and that treating others as human beings deserving of the same consideration that I would like to receive is a good idea.

Moral knowledge is no particular group’s posession any more than knowledge that clothes and fires keep us warm on cold nights is the possession of some religion.

 

[Leela]

I believe you are still confusing concepts with judgments. I can conceive a notion I call “God.” I can also conceive the notion of “person.” Likewise Einstein conceives the notions of “energy” and “matter.” Newton conceives a notion he calls “gravity.” No argument can be made against the author of any concept. The concepts are merely words with definitions to eliminate ambiguity.

Judgments, however, relate concepts to reality. I judge God is a being with three persons. Einstein judges energy and matter are relative. Newton’s concept, gravity, did not gain him notice. Rather what gives him a place in history is his judgment that gravity is a the natural force of attraction between any two bodies, which is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

You want to say that these concepts represent something that is there independent of humanity. That is a common sense notion, but there is no way to weed out the human contribution from some nonhuman aspect of our concepts. “We carve out everything,” James states, “just as we carve out constellations, to serve our human purposes."

think

(a rational activity) about it. He says nothing about his feelings (an emotional activity) about reality. And, finally, he admits the ideal knowledge is objective truth, not subjective feeling.

The “feelings” bit is your thing. I never promoted any view that our emotions should dominate our rational activity.

And it is you who has Einstein wrong on objective truth as something independent of what anyone thinks. For Einstein, objective truth is the concept of supposing that there is an “ideal limit of knowledge and that it is approached by the human mind. He may call this ideal limit the objective truth.” His “objective truth” is the limit of human thought, not the absence of the human contribution to concepts.

As a goal of inquiry such a notion of “objective truth” is even only tangentially relevent. That is why “He [the scientist] may have” it, and he may not. An increase in knowledge–scientific progress–is defined as creating a better “picture of reality” where progress in creating better pictures means making ones that are “simpler and simpler and will explain a wider and wider range of his sensuous impressions.” A scientist measures her progress in this way rather than as getting “closer to the truth.” “Closer to the truth” could only serve as means for measuring rogress if we knew what the truth was in advance of inquiry, and if we knew that we would not need to inquire to begin with. The practical goal of inquiry then is only ever to create new better beliefs and to assuage our doubts about existing beliefs rather than to successfully uncover some pre-existing Truth imagined as transcending human practice.

best,
Leela

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

This just makes me wonder where Jesus of Nazareth and who ever first told him learned it. It is no more a “Christian truth” than a Hebrew truth (Tobit 4:15,Sirach 31:15,Leviticus 19:34 Leviticus 19:18 ) or a truth from any particular part of the ancient world. Perhaps the Hebrews got it from the ancient Egyptians.

Christ got it from the Hebrews? I thought Christ was a Hebrew! And the Hebrews got it from God.

Perhaps the Hebrews got it from the Egyptians?

Is that the best you can do? Perhaps?

All truth comes from God. That you don’t recognize Christ as God does not make that point any the less valid.

Again, Christ down through history has carried that message (“Do unto others”) through the Church to all nations. This truth is at the center of all Christian ethics. There is no comparable institution on earth that has pondered and promoted this truth with such fierce and constant loyalty.

If you can find one, please name it.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Leela

The practical goal of inquiry then is only ever to create new better beliefs and to assuage our doubts about existing beliefs rather than to successfully uncover some pre-existing Truth imagined as transcending human practice.

You are certainly not in Plato’s camp!

Leela, all things exist in two ways: in potency, or in act … because all things are products of the mind of God.

If a thing cannot possibly exist, it does not exist either in potency or in act … period. For example, a square circle cannot exist in potency or in act. But Newton’s Laws as concepts existed in potency before they existed in act. When they were discovered, they were discovered as laws that already existed, even though we did not yet know them as concepts. They were concepts waiting to be found, concepts in potentia.

So all truths exist as possible or as actual. They exist either as known or as yet to be known.

 

[Leela]

Leela

This just makes me wonder where Jesus of Nazareth and who ever first told him learned it. It is no more a “Christian truth” than a Hebrew truth (Tobit 4:15,Sirach 31:15,Leviticus 19:34 Leviticus 19:18 ) or a truth from any particular part of the ancient world. Perhaps the Hebrews got it from the ancient Egyptians.

Christ got it from the Hebrews? I thought Christ was a Hebrew! And the Hebrews got it from God.

Perhaps the Hebrews got it from the Egyptians?

Is that the best you can do? Perhaps?

All truth comes from God. That you don’t recognize Christ as God does not make that point any the less valid.

Again, Christ down through history has carried that message (“Do unto others”) through the Church to all nations. This truth is at the center of all Christian ethics. There is no comparable institution on earth that has pondered and promoted this truth with such fierce and constant loyalty.

If you can find one, please name it.

I don’t know what organization has promoted “do unto others…” the most throughout history, but what ever that organization is, it does not possess any truth that is not available to anyone else who is not part of that organization. That organization does not know anything that cannot be learned in the course of ordinary experience.

Why would you think that someone could not learn “do unto others…” in the course of ordinary experience? Why would it require some divine revellation for someone to come to know this truth? Is it not part of what you would consider “natural law”–laws that are not the property of any particular religious tradition? Once again, it seems to me that you are getting your own religion wrong. According to Catholicism, moral truths require no divine special revellation.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

“The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery – even if mixed with fear – that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds: it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity. In this sense, and only this sense, I am a deeply religious man… I am satisfied with the mystery of life’s eternity and with a knowledge, a sense, of the marvelous structure of existence – as well as the humble attempt to understand even a tiny portion of the Reason that manifests itself in nature.” Albert Einstein, “The world As I See It”

That says it all. Einstein’s God was Reason. Christians can agree that God’s Reason permeates the universe and is waiting to be fathomed. But it already exists. It does not have to be invented!