Atheists put their faith in ethical behavior

  • Thread starter Thread starter JSmitty2005
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JSmitty2005

Guest
Atheists put their faith in ethical behavior

By MELISSA FLETCHER STOELTJE
San Antonio Express-News

SAN ANTONIO – Melissa and Chanse nibble on club sandwiches and french fries at a local coffee shop. To look at them, they’re just another young couple enjoying lunch on a weekday afternoon.

She wears stylish glasses, and her thick black hair is swept up in a ponytail; the only hint of a slightly rebellious streak is the tattoo that peeks from under her shirtsleeve. He is a slight, soft-spoken man with a laid-back demeanor and a full beard.

Melissa and Chanse are young atheists. They don’t believe in God. As such, they’re part of a small but substantial minority that swims against the overtly religious mainstream of America, a spiritual tenor that has grown more strident in recent times as issues of faith increasingly become entangled with politics and public policy.

The public face of atheism in recent times has been Michael Newdow, who filed a lawsuit over his daughter’s having to repeat the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually dismissed his case, stating he did not have proper parental standing on behalf of his daughter.

The story made headlines for months. But for most atheists, it’s not headlines or scandal they desire. They simply want to go about their own lives without hassle or pressure.

Atheists, they lament, are the last minority in this nation that is fair game for bigotry. Experts who study religion in public life concur.

“Atheists are not very well-thought-of in America,” says John Green, a senior fellow with the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. “It’s still acceptable to criticize atheists in a way that’s not polite. People may harbor negative views about Jews, Catholics, Muslims and evangelicals, but they know they’re not supposed to voice those views, so they don’t. But it’s still OK to say anything bad you want about atheists.”

The overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens profess some religious faith, although far fewer attend worship services on a regular basis. The public square has become increasingly dominated by religious (specifically, Christian) rhetoric, from the “values voters” of the 2004 presidential election to hot-button cultural issues that carry a religious edge – abortion, gay rights, stem-cell research, intelligent design, the right to die.

And yet at the same time a compelling undercurrent is at work. A study done by the Graduate Center of the City University of New York found that the percentage of the population that describes itself as “nonreligious” more than doubled from 1990 to 2001, from 14.3 million to 29.4 million people. The only other group to show growth was Muslims.

“Right now, the fastest-growing religious identity in America is the nonreligious,” says Dan Barker, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), a Madison, Wis.-based group that champions church-state separation and works to educate the public on nontheism.

A study by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that 16 percent of Americans (about 35 million) consider themselves “unaffiliated” – a category that includes “unaffiliated believers,” “secularists” and atheists/agnostics.

The latter terms – atheists and agnostics – are lumped together, says Green, because they share so many similarities. But there is a subtle difference: Atheists forthrightly affirm that there is no God; agnostics simply say as humans we can never know. Together, they constitute about 3 percent of the American population.

Green says atheists/agnostics as a group tend to be well educated and politically liberal (although, he says, there are atheist Republicans). They tend to cluster in big cities on the East and West coasts. They tend to be younger, not older. They tend to be male more than female.

But what, exactly, do atheists believe in, if not in God?

In a nutshell, atheists believe in reason alone, in those things that can be arrived at through intellect and the scientific method. Concrete evidence for God, they argue, simply doesn’t exist. They don’t cotton to leaps of faith or anything that involves a supernatural being reaching into human lives. They believe you can live a happy, respectable life based on human ethics that were derived not from God handing down a tablet but from a code of rules that emerged naturally through an evolutionary process in which humans learned how to live together successfully.

dfw.com/mld/dfw/living/religion/14121950.htm
 
They believe you can live a happy, respectable life based on human ethics that were derived not from God handing down a tablet but from a code of rules that emerged naturally through an evolutionary process in which humans learned how to live together successfully.
This struck a chord with me, since our first reading today was about the Ten Commandments. In our scripture study on this reading, our priest made the point that the Ten Commandments (including and especially the Commandment to love and worship God!) were largely based on natural law, and that the fact that they needed to be literally written in stone says a lot about human nature.

The fact is that we often diverge from “rules that emerged naturally through an evolutionary process.” We like to serve our own purposes and push our own agendas. In my opinion, atheists are just out to serve their own purposes and push their own agendas (namely themselves) by denying God. They really like to take credit for being so moral and ethical—and yet most of their morals and ethics, at best, are no different or better than those already being observed by the Jews thousands of years ago or those contained in the New Testament and Church Tradition! What’s revolutionary and modern about that? But who can say for sure what kinds of things an atheist might consider moral and ethical? To my knowledge, they don’t have a standard written code. I bet they don’t even agree among themselves! :rolleyes: Call me crazy, but I only trust God and His Church to lay down the true law.

And the whole believing only in human reason and science thing is very arrogant, isn’t it? Does human reason make the cosmos turn? Does human reason tell plants when to bud and bloom? Did humans teach animals their instincts? Did humans invent the atoms and energy that make up our own bodies? Do humans make 2 cells grow into a human being? Can science even come close to telling why these things happen?

I am all for science, but science can only go so far… there is always, sooner or later, territory where science and reason cannot go. Sooner or later it all leads back to something inexplicable, mysterious, miraculous, and completely other-than-human—but something nonetheless (since nothing can come from nothing). So, atheists do have to believe in something more than human reason and science, don’t they? I wonder how many of them think things through that far…
 
Atheists put their trust in themselves and their fellow man for the obvious reason that they have nothing higher to put their trust into.

Most of humanity is very much like me; we’re a bunch of goofball clodhoppers who can’t get out of our own way. I once tried to smuggle some Irish whiskey into the US from Europe. The customs official pulled the ornate bottle out of my suitcase and asked me what it was. I said, “Holy water.” He popped off the cork and took a sniff of it, put the cork back in and said, “Thats Irish Whiskey!” I said, “Heavens to Cana, another miracle!” He didn’t believe me… must have been an atheist.

God is perfect love, mercy, wisdom and righteousness; but I cannot prove that to an atheist. Most people are self-serving, arrogant, and so mean spirited that they would’nt light your cigarette if their arse was on fire; and we prove our fallen nature all the time.

God or man. Who would you rather put your faith in?

Thal59
 
Unexpected Dawn:
And the whole believing only in human reason and science thing is very arrogant, isn’t it? Does human reason make the cosmos turn? Does human reason tell plants when to bud and bloom? Did humans teach animals their instincts? Did humans invent the atoms and energy that make up our own bodies? Do humans make 2 cells grow into a human being? Can science even come close to telling why these things happen?
Dear Unexpected Dawn,

First off, i want to say i respect all religions, but see science as the most truthful, even if it may not be right.

As someone who does have some knowledge about atheists, it isn’t human reason that makes the “cosmos turn.” It’s the simple, but all the same complex, interactions between atoms themselves and gravity. It’s microscopic atoms that form the universe and everything in it. Plants blooming, animal insticts, and cells dividing are all explained in science actually. If you look at DNA and RNA’s properties you find that actually mutate quite easily- an example is AIDS, HIV, and the new bird flu. This allows new, for better as well as worse, organisms to arise from simpler ones. And if you find me arrogant, isn’t beliving that only you are right and no one else is too?

Feel free to comment, as “debates fuel the fire of democracy.”
 
40.png
Ezequel:
And if you find me arrogant, isn’t beliving that only you are right and no one else is too?
Accepting contradictory views to be “right” or true would not be arrogance but downright stupidity. :rolleyes:
 
I’m not saying other, “contradictory” views are right and that that is arrogant, i’m saying that beliving that only your views are right to be arrogant.

Diagram

I’m right and no on else is= arrogance.

I have room for other views= not having arrogance.
 
40.png
Ezequel:
I’m right and no on else is= arrogance.
Sorry, bud. Arrogance is “the act or habit of arrogating, or making undue claims in an overbearing manner; that species of pride which consists in exorbitant claims of rank, dignity, estimation, or power, or which exalts the worth or importance of the person to an undue degree; proud contempt of others; lordliness; haughtiness; self-assumption; presumption.”

Are you suggesting that it’s good to be “open-minded” and bad to be “narrow-minded”?
 
Just a thought…

Athiests believe in human reason, alone.

Protestants believe in faith, alone.

Catholics believe in a far deeper existential relationship with God that combines both faith and reason…and a good many other things.
 
40.png
Ezequel:
I’m not saying other, “contradictory” views are right and that that is arrogant, i’m saying that beliving that only your views are right to be arrogant.

Diagram

I’m right and no on else is= arrogance.

I have room for other views= not having arrogance.
Aren’t you being arrogant in asserting this?

I happen to believe that there is only one truth, and that Catholocism is it.

Do you agree with me? If not, then you must be arrogant…
 
40.png
Lazerlike42:
Aren’t you being arrogant in asserting this?

I happen to believe that there is only one truth, and that Catholocism is it.

Do you agree with me? If not, then you must be arrogant…
Because arrogance is “A strong feeling of proud self-importance that is expressed by treating other people with contempt or disregard,”(from the dictionary on Word) i belive that no i’m not being arrogant because i don’t have this feelling of proud self-importance that is expressed by treating other people with contempt or disregard. I don’t feel that i am disregarding other people’s views as well. No only that, but “Do you agree with me? If not, then you must be arrogant” is a fallacy, type comlex question.
 
40.png
Ezequel:
As someone who does have some knowledge about atheists, it isn’t human reason that makes the “cosmos turn.” It’s the simple, but all the same complex, interactions between atoms themselves and gravity. It’s microscopic atoms that form the universe and everything in it.
Well, sad to say, I’ve met atheists who really do think that the human mind (particularly their own individual human mind) is the only real and trustworthy force in the universe. That may be an extreme example, and maybe they give atheism a bad name, but they’re out there and very vocal. Gosh, that phrase in the article, “atheists believe in reason alone” brought back all kinds of conversations I’ve had over the years. Reason alone. Nearly all of us possess reason, but is that all there is to us? Heck, we don’t even know all there is to know about ourselves!

I understand that everything is formed of atoms, but did these microscopic atoms just come into existence by themselves? I find it much more logical to believe in God. That’s what my reason tells me. And I assure you, I have used my reason to arrive at my beliefs; I haven’t always been a Catholic, or particularly religious.
Plants blooming, animal insticts, and cells dividing are all explained in science actually. If you look at DNA and RNA’s properties you find that actually mutate quite easily- an example is AIDS, HIV, and the new bird flu. This allows new, for better as well as worse, organisms to arise from simpler ones.
Does science really explain these things, or does science observe, describe, and propose explanations for these phenomena? Does science really get at the underlying cause of these things? What causes DNA and RNA to mutate? What caused DNA and RNA to form to begin with? For every scientific reason, there are still questions upon questions. Things that cannot be observed, described, or explained. Like I said, I have nothing against science. I think it is a very noble and worthwhile endeavor, but it’s not a replacement for faith.
And if you find me arrogant, isn’t beliving that only you are right and no one else is too?
Well, my comments were never aimed at you personally, since you obviously just joined the forums (welcome, btw). But I do find atheism arrogant, and unfortunately, all the atheists I’ve ever met have expressed that very sentiment you described–“I’m right and no one else.” Including more than one of my teachers and professors (what great times those were, ha). That’s one reason why these atheists’ claims that they are so moral and ethical really give me a laugh.

I don’t consider myself as an individual to be the only right person on Earth. But I do believe that worshipping God is right, I do believe that Christianity is right, and I do believe that Catholicism in particular is right–if I didn’t believe these things, I’d be awfully half-hearted in my faith, and I think that would be worse than having no faith at all. In any case, there are millions of other people on the planet who have arrived at the same conclusions I have, so I don’t see how I’m being arrogant. :confused:
Feel free to comment, as “debates fuel the fire of democracy.”
Indeed they do. I’m a librarian, you don’t have to tell me. 👍 And that said, if you have any books or articles that you feel give a fair and complete discussion of atheism, feel free to refer me to them, since, as you probably have gathered, all my opinions are pretty much based on personal run-ins with atheists, or at least people who called themselves atheists (it’s awfully trendy to do so, these days :rolleyes:)
 
If the human mind is nothing more than a random biological mass of neurons and dendrites, then why should one trust it for anything?
 
40.png
Lazerlike42:
If the human mind is nothing more than a random biological mass of neurons and dendrites, then why should one trust it for anything?
As we can see, the way the human mind works it isn’t a random mass of neurons, but rather has devoped, through mutations- and from that who knows, to what it is now.
 
Unexpected Dawn:
all my opinions are pretty much based on personal run-ins with atheists, or at least people who called themselves atheists
If we ever run into each other, we should definetly have a discussion.
 
40.png
Ezequel:
As we can see, the way the human mind works it isn’t a random mass of neurons, but rather has devoped, through mutations- and from that who knows, to what it is now.
But you say that they are not random based on what your mind, informed by the minds of other people, tells you. There is a missing link in the chain here. If the mind is simply a biological Mass that evolved completely naturally, what basis is there to say that the mind is trustworthy?

Allow me to provide an example. If the mind has simply evolved on its own, so to speak, that would be something like a computer which was programmed by leaving the keyboard out in a hailstorm. Natural selection, you say, and survival of the fittest. This then, would be as though a man placed thousands of keyboards for thousands of computers in the storm, and all except one were destroyed by the programming that was (name removed by moderator)ut. Simply because this one computer was not destroyed by its programming does not ensure that it could, say, perform arithmetic properly. Should our minds exclusively be the result of this process of evolution, then it would be sure that they are suited to survival, but not that they are accurate at reasoning.
 
I don’t know of any part of the bible that compares the social habits of other animal to humans, but for animals to survive and create offspring, trust is something that must arise naturally for a species to exist. But with so many humans with so many different beliefs and goals, for a human to trust a completly different human is a rare thing,
 
40.png
Ezequel:
I don’t know of any part of the bible that compares the social habits of other animal to humans, but for animals to survive and create offspring, trust is something that must arise naturally for a species to exist. But with so many humans with so many different beliefs and goals, for a human to trust a completly different human is a rare thing,
“Do not be scared by the word authority. Believing things on authority only means believing them because you have been told them by someone you think trustworthy. Ninety-nine per cent of the things you believe are believed on authority. I believe there is such a place as New York. I have not seen it myself. I could not prove by abstract reasoning that there must be such a place. I believe it because reliable people have told me so. The ordinary man believes in the Solar System, atoms, evolution, and the circulation of the blood on authority - because the scientists say so. Every historical statement in the world is believed on authority. None of us has seen the Norman Conquest or the defeat of the Armada. None of us could prove them by pure logic as you prove a thing in mathematics. We believe them simply because people who did see them have left writings that tell us about them: in fact, on authority. A man who jibbed at authority in other things as some people do in religion would have to be content to know nothing all his life.” - C.S. Lewis
 
Lazerlike42 said:
“Do not be scared by the word authority. Believing things on authority only means believing them because you have been told them by someone you think trustworthy. Ninety-nine per cent of the things you believe are believed on authority. I believe there is such a place as New York. I have not seen it myself. I could not prove by abstract reasoning that there must be such a place. I believe it because reliable people have told me so. The ordinary man believes in the Solar System, atoms, evolution, and the circulation of the blood on authority - because the scientists say so. Every historical statement in the world is believed on authority. None of us has seen the Norman Conquest or the defeat of the Armada. None of us could prove them by pure logic as you prove a thing in mathematics. We believe them simply because people who did see them have left writings that tell us about them: in fact, on authority. A man who jibbed at authority in other things as some people do in religion would have to be content to know nothing all his life.” - C.S. Lewis

That is true, but it is a shallow observation. It does not explain “why” one should believe in an authority, and even more importantly, “how” does one become an authority in the first place?

A scientific authority is not self-proclaimed, and it can prove with objective experiments what it argues for. If the experiments prove it wrong, it will cease to be an authority. To believe in such an authority is just a convenient epistemological shortcut, a way to save time. If one wishes to affirm the validity of the autority’s claim, one can do so without applying to authority at all. That is why people “trust” scientific authorities.

The religious authority cannot prove what it claims with objective experiments. It must be accepted on blind faith. It is not a shortcut.
 
40.png
JSmitty2005:
They believe you can live a happy, respectable life based on human ethics that were derived not from God handing down a tablet but from a code of rules that emerged naturally through an evolutionary process in which humans learned how to live together successfully.
I really wonder about this evolutionary argument. If ethical behavior is evolutionary, why do we have such a hard time living ethically? I mean, “evolutionary” equates to “natural” (part of our nature), doesn’t it? Animals (including people) don’t have a hard time doing what is natural to them, do they? So why are we always so tempted to do “unnatural” (i.e. sinful) things, if evolution has built a code of behavior into our genes?

Furthermore, I’m not convinced that behaving ethically will cause one to have the most surviving offspring (as postulated by natural selection). Wouldn’t men who took whatever they wanted, be it (many) women, or food, or property, end up having the most offspring? No, I’m not at all convinced that evolution can account for the accepted norms of ethical behavior, nor can it account for the fact that we all fail at these norms, probably more often than we hold to them.
 
40.png
VociMike:
I really wonder about this evolutionary argument. If ethical behavior is evolutionary, why do we have such a hard time living ethically? I mean, “evolutionary” equates to “natural” (part of our nature), doesn’t it? Animals (including people) don’t have a hard time doing what is natural to them, do they? So why are we always so tempted to do “unnatural” (i.e. sinful) things, if evolution has built a code of behavior into our genes?

Furthermore, I’m not convinced that behaving ethically will cause one to have the most surviving offspring (as postulated by natural selection). Wouldn’t men who took whatever they wanted, be it (many) women, or food, or property, end up having the most offspring? No, I’m not at all convinced that evolution can account for the accepted norms of ethical behavior, nor can it account for the fact that we all fail at these norms, probably more often than we hold to them.
If ethical behavior has a survival value, then we should see more of it as time goes on. Instead, we see that the last century (the 20th) was the bloodiest in history. This century may well surpass it.

Clearly, ethics is something beyond man. Without God, no one can arrive at an ethical system of behavior

Now there will be those who point to this athiest or that as a refutation of this – but find me an athiest who grew up in a vacuum, without the influence of a pre-existing society to shape his ideas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top