Do christians really have lower moral standards than others

[TEPO]

Here’s a debate between secular humanist Zuckerman and Christian professor Marshall if anyone has the patience for it. I don’t think I do.

youtube.com/watch?v=u_QDJ7DOD_Y

 

[Ender]

Um… no. Just as you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts, I don’t agree that you are entitled to your own rules of logic.

It is not a question of using either different facts or rules of logic, it is that neither facts nor logic can resolve certain questions. I suspect that in many cases what you believe to be a logical conclusion is in fact merely a rational one based on your own personal inclinations.

Naturally, just agreeing on the rules of logic and the premises does not guarantee that we will agree on the subsequent development of the argument now, but at least we have a common ground to build on. With enough time, enough clarity in stating the argument, and assuming that neither of us are insane, we could eventually come to agreement.

I disagree; we have no hope of agreement on this subject. Not because either of us is illogical but because our positions are based on unprovable axioms. My point is simply this: the axiom from which an atheist starts precludes the possibility that morality ( as it is commonly understood) can exist. You can certainly create a code that holds “these behaviors are useful, productive, and beneficial while those are useless, wasteful, and harmful” but that is not a moral code.

Does your understanding of morality allow you to determine at the moment an act is committed whether it is good or bad or is it also determined by the outcome?

Ender

 

[Captain_America]

Any time you measure a small self-selected group against a much larger population, you will find dissimilarities.

The study may well be true. Those who identify as atheists may well be more educated and more moral.

The hidden question here is. . . would these qualities continue to characterize self-identified atheists if the sample became larger?

Probably not. The group would likely come more and more to resemble what we currently have. But I doubt we’ll ever factually know the answer to this.

(For my two cents, I think it’s a shame that people equate Kantian individualism with higher morality. This is a gross mistake.)

 

[Captain_America]

There is another aspect that I haven’t seen covered yet. Studies have shown that those who are most vocally against something have a larger tendency to carve out exceptions for themselves. (I call it the thief is more paranoid about theft effect). I don’t know how the study identified religious people, but if it was by self-identification I can see this ‘effect’ having a large affect.

Christ spent a good part of his life rallying against hypocrites. It should not be surprising that they exist in our midst. Certainly, I see a lot of hypocrites on this board. In particular are those who spit venom against pornography while making excuses to not take care of the poor.

Some of this is due to what I call conservative amnesia. Like the Pharisees, some conservatives have defended the faith so fiercely on every detail (no matter how small) that they have forgotten what they are really fighting for. (Don’t get me wrong, I admire the Pharisees as I admire conservatives; it is quite evident to me that Jesus was of the tradition of the Pharisees.) But the risk that these conservatives take is that the lesser good can sometimes supersede the greater good which can lead to a greater evil than if they had done nothing.

This is humorous to me. I know pro-lifers who help out at soup kitchens; any proof that this kind of disparity that’s suggested, the hypocrisy, is a genuine thing, or is it just a shocking selective instance?

Here’s a bit of hypocrisy: the “liberals” who “are fine” with abortion but who would never consider doing it themselves. One can make arguments both ways, and both are equally tendentious.

 

[NekoNecro]

Here’s a bit of hypocrisy: the “liberals” who “are fine” with abortion but who would never consider doing it themselves. One can make arguments both ways, and both are equally tendentious.

Not really, I can’t imagine that I’d ever want to get an abortion, but I’ve read reports of young women who’ve hung themselves rather than give birth because they couldn’t bear the thought of it.

I’d never consider doing it, but I’d leave the option open for others. Not everything is black and white, and no two situations are ever the same.

 

[danharte]

Here’s a debate between secular humanist Zuckerman and Christian professor Marshall if anyone has the patience for it. I don’t think I do.

youtube.com/watch?v=u_QDJ7DOD_Y

I have to admit, I very much enjoyed this debate between Zuckerman & Marshall & its helped me a great deal to see where Zuckerman is coming from.
The one point Zuckerman failed take into consideration when talking about, i think it was the treatise of independence & its secular non mention of God, is that Christian values were already instilled in the treatise indirectly due to the influence of Christianity already established in society.
I think its imperative to remember the words of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn when asked to account for the great tragedies that occurred under the communist regime when he said
“Over a half century ago, while I was still a child, I recall hearing a number of old people offer the following explanation for the great disasters that had befallen Russia: 'Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened." Less it happens again in some way shape or form

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No, it is more than that. In many, if not most, western countries Catholics make up a greater percentage of the prison population than they do of the general population. So Catholics actually do break the law more than the average.

Being incarcerated correlates with many things besides lower moral standards. It also correlates with poverty. So you could also say that Catholics may be statistically poorer than atheists, which is not surprising, since knowing the ways of the world and how to work them to best advantage does not get top billing in a Catholic’s list of priorities. Saints Peter and Paul were both in prison, and being a Catholic was illegal for the first 300 years. I know that ancient Rome is not the same thing as modern western countries, but the point is still worth making. On the other hand, atheists tend to be from the more highly secularly-educated class, whose accomplishments in life are more likely to lead them to a self-sufficient view that has no need of God. It is not the least bit surprising that such people manage to stay out of prison more successfully than the general population. This does not mean that atheists cannot also be moral, but it does offer an alternate view of the statistics you are citing.

 

[DrTaffy]

This really is interesting. But the report is from Northern Ireland, which has a unique history of Protestant vs. Catholic violence. I don’t think it’s applicable to the world as a whole.

But similar results are found elsewhere in the world.

And yes, we can speculate about possible other causes. My gut reaction is that the race one you suggest would be so easily checked by the statistics that it would already be well established as the explanation, if true, but I may well be wrong. Equally, maybe Catholics just proselytise a lot in prisons. Or maybe it is something as trivial and banal as prisoners putting themselves down as ‘Catholic’ in order to be let out for free wine and a cracker once a week, or because it guarantees that they have fish&chips rather than suspicious meatloaf on Fridays (assuming Catholics still eschew meat on Fridays?)

So beyond noting the odd statistic, and how it reflects on the allegation that atheists lack morals, I have not pursued the matter.

But the cynic in me does feel that if the statistics were the other way around (Catholics under-represented in prison and atheists over-represented) a lot of people here on CAF would be presenting this as hard proof of atheist immorality!

 

[DrTaffy]

I disagree; we have no hope of agreement on this subject. Not because either of us is illogical but because our positions are based on unprovable axioms.

Only if you insist on including unprovable axioms that we do not share. My assertion is that all you need are simple axioms that any sane person would agree to.

My point is simply this: the axiom from which an atheist starts precludes the possibility that morality ( as it is commonly understood) can exist.

How, exactly? What is it about “morality ( as it is commonly understood)” that is precluded by one of the things I mentioned and necessary for a basic secular moral code? (Note that “There is no God” was not an axiom)?

 

[Ender]

Only if you insist on including unprovable axioms that we do not share. My assertion is that all you need are simple axioms that any sane person would agree to.

An axiom is by its nature unprovable, but I would be quite interested in hearing what your basis for morality is. I think your assertion that any sane person would accept your axioms implies that they are unprovable. People accept facts; what they differ on is what those facts imply.

How, exactly? What is it about “morality ( as it is commonly understood)” that is precluded by one of the things I mentioned and necessary for a basic secular moral code?

We can start if you will define what you mean by morality.

(Note that “There is no God” was not an axiom)?

Really? What is it then? It cannot be considered a fact as it cannot be proven, so how do you define this assertion?

Ender

 

[DrTaffy]

An axiom is by its nature unprovable,

No - an axiom is what you cite at the start of an argument without proving it, but that does not mean that it is not provable. Take the example of lemmas in maths, which are proven elsewhere, but then just cited thereafter as axioms.

but I would be quite interested in hearing what your basis for morality is.

Already covered in post #20: “the laws of logic, the concept of benefit and harm, and the golden rule” - at least the basis for a minimal, secular morality on which we should all be able to agree.

And again, actually explaining how you do that is not a reasonable goal for a post on a forum such as this. This is one subject on which you really need to go read a full book.

I think your assertion that any sane person would accept your axioms implies that they are unprovable.

What?

Surely if anything, something that is provable would intrinsically be accepted by any sane person?

But are you saying that you, personally, reject “the laws of logic, the concept of benefit and harm, and the golden rule” or not?

DrTaffy;12007547:

How, exactly? What is it about “morality ( as it is commonly understood)” that is precluded by one of the things I mentioned and necessary for a basic secular

moral code?

We can start if you will define what you mean by morality.

Um - that was your meaning of ‘morality’ there. What is it about what you mean by ‘morality’ that is precluded by my basic secular moral framework?

(Note that “There is no God” was not

an axiom)?

Really? What is it then?

It is irrelevant to this discussion, as noone is asserting it in order to derive any kind of moral code.

Just accepting “the laws of logic, the concept of benefit and harm, and the golden rule” does not require asserting whether or not there is a God.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No - an axiom is what you cite at the start of an argument without proving it, but that does not mean that it is not provable. Take the example of lemmas in maths, which are proven elsewhere, but then just cited thereafter as axioms.

Lemmas are not axioms. Ever. If you use the word Axiom to describe a lemma you are misusing the word. Lemmas are intermediate theorems whose main purpose is, as you say, to help to prove the real theorem you were trying to prove. But axioms are not provable. In fact you can have contradictory axioms, as in Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Surely if anything, something that is provable would intrinsically be accepted by any sane person?

Not really. If a statement is provable, that means it’s truth is based on a proof. And someone who has not seen the proof would have no reason to accept it. If something is universally accepted without waiting to see a proof, then it is functionally an axiom - that is, unprovable.

 

[Ender]

Already covered in post #20: “the laws of logic, the concept of benefit and harm, and the golden rule” - at least the basis for a minimal, secular morality on which we should all be able to agree.

I don’t agree. I accept the laws of logic but there is no logical reason I should accept either the concept of benefit and harm or the golden rule.

Surely if anything, something that is provable would intrinsically be accepted by any sane person?

Prove that it is logically necessary to accept the golden rule or that I should ever commit an act that is not in my own best interest.

Ender

 

[Kamaduck]

But similar results are found elsewhere in the world.

I’ll look them up.

And yes, we can speculate about possible other causes. My gut reaction is that the race one you suggest would be so easily checked by the statistics that it would already be well established as the explanation, if true, but I may well be wrong. Equally, maybe Catholics just proselytise a lot in prisons. Or maybe it is something as trivial and banal as prisoners putting themselves down as ‘Catholic’ in order to be let out for free wine and a cracker once a week, or because it guarantees that they have fish&chips rather than suspicious meatloaf on Fridays (assuming Catholics still eschew meat on Fridays?)

Could be any of those things. I’d need to see evidence that a given study accounted for race before accepting that race was not a factor. I don’t see any such evidence in the article by Zuckerman, meaning race could still be a significant factor in the findings he cites. I suppose I should look up every individual study he cites, but I don’t have time for that right now. Maybe later.

And yes, we still avoid meat on Fridays.

So beyond noting the odd statistic, and how it reflects on the allegation that atheists lack morals, I have not pursued the matter.

Well, I don’t really think they do. I think that most atheists accept the natural law in most matters- but the moral laws they sometimes don’t follow are the ones that the culture as a whole disagrees with, so we’re not going to see studies about them.

I doubt there are very many respected studies that argue that atheists are less moral because, say, they are more likely to support abortion, but I would argue that abortion is intrinsically immoral. So that’s a problem- we’re not all working with the same ideas of morality in the first place, which is part of why we disagree. We could show that atheists are less likely to go to prison, or that religious people are more likely to give money to charity. But neither of those things prove superior morality overall, and it’s difficult to agree on anything that would prove it when we may disagree on a lot of important moral issues. It doesn’t mean it’s impossible, but it can be difficult to find enough common ground to make a workable “secular morality”.

But the cynic in me does feel that if the statistics were the other way around (Catholics under-represented in prison and atheists over-represented) a lot of people here on CAF would be presenting this as hard proof of atheist immorality!

I’m sure some would, but that’s not much different than what other atheists are doing now, given that the first page of results I get for “prison population by religion” are all articles discussing the very small percent of atheist inmates. You may need to send me links to the high percentages of Catholic inmates in countries other than Northern Ireland.

Even so, I think I’ll stand by my assertion that prison statistics are not a terribly accurate indication of a group’s overall morality. They don’t even match crime statistics all the time, because whether or not someone goes to prison is decided by a collection of fallible humans, and their decision is based not only on the evidence itself, but also on the prejudices they bring into the courtroom.

 

[jimmy]

I would be very hesitant to believe this. The secular philosophy has far lower standards and it is very clear. If you compare the catholic ethics to secular ethics you can’t even question it. Catholic moral theology opposes premarital sex, abortion, contraception, embrionic stem cell research, euthanasia, and etc. secular society supports all of these things.

Social justice is different than justice. According to ‘social justice’ Donald Sterling should get banned from the nba because of a conversation he had in his own home, and a CEO should be fired because he donated money to a group that opposed ‘gay marriage.’ Social justice is mob rule, and it is according to the latest fad.

 

[estesbob]

Having read an interesting yet worrying report by Phil Zuckerman, a professor of sociology.
I’m trying to get to grips with the evidence that shows a higher intellectual & moral standard of non religious people.
The conclusions his data provides are quite Compelling & im having a great deal of trouble finding ways to challenge it.
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks

Based on who’s definition of what is moral and who’s definition of what is intellectual?

 

[epan]

Having read an interesting yet worrying report by Phil Zuckerman, a professor of sociology.
I’m trying to get to grips with the evidence that shows a higher intellectual & moral standard of non religious people.
The conclusions his data provides are quite Compelling & im having a great deal of trouble finding ways to challenge it.
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks

In business dealings, I have found professed Christians to have lower moral standards than those who keep their religion to themselves, and also lower moral standards than Muslims or Hindis.

In fact, the only people that I have done business with, who were clearly unethical in their practices were the ones who most loudly professed their high Christian moral standards. I have been cheated twice by such people. I have sued them on each occasion and won easily.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

In business dealings, I have found professed Christians to have lower moral standards than those who keep their religion to themselves, and also lower moral standards than Muslims or Hindis.

In fact, the only people that I have done business with, who were clearly unethical in their practices were the ones who most loudly professed their high Christian moral standards. I have been cheated twice by such people. I have sued them on each occasion and won easily.

Personal anecdotes do not make the best argument for such a general conclusion as is being proposed. Besides, your anecdotes seem to say more about loudness than about Christianity.

 

[epan]

Having read an interesting yet worrying report by Phil Zuckerman, a professor of sociology.
I’m trying to get to grips with the evidence that shows a higher intellectual & moral standard of non religious people.
The conclusions his data provides are quite Compelling & im having a great deal of trouble finding ways to challenge it.
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks

Personal anecdotes do not make the best argument for such a general conclusion as is being proposed. Besides, your anecdotes seem to say more about loudness than about Christianity.

No doubt, you are able to base all of your personal judgements and decisions in life on well done scientific studies, and you have the expertise to evaluate the methodology and results of all of those studies.

I, on the other hand, am not so clever. I base my decisions and perceptions on my own personal life experiences.