HOW IS AN ATHEIST CONSCIENCE FORMED?

[Lisa_N]

Carl:

The point I was trying to make, and apparently I haven’t made it clearly enough, is that the conscience of an atheist inescapably is fashioned at least in part by the natural law and by the Golden Rule, both of which are distinctly CAtholic beliefs promulgated for many centuries. Atheists are not born into a moral vacuum. They absorb this Judeo-Christian heritage from childhood onward even when they are not aware of it. They absorb it even when they are aware of it and are fighting it. The atheists in these forums are absorbing concepts distinctly Christian, even as they oppose and try to logically dismantle them.

If they are not careful, they may be reformed. They may become the very thing they oppose.

Deo gratias!

Carl those are interesting points and as I read through the thread I see a pattern of agreement regarding being “hardwired” with a conscious. We believe God imprints it on our hearts and atheists try to find another source. So far nothing more compelling than my mom’s old “because I said so” from that side.

You are right that regardless of upbringing, we do absorb ethics and morals from the community. I certainly remember being taught “the Golden Rule” in primary school. When kids got rowdy or picked on weaker kids the playground supervisor would shake her finger and say “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” Certainly not framed as Biblical but that is the source nonetheless. So regardless of parental objections I did get a smattering of Biblical teaching on the playground. Thank heavens the ACLU wasn’t on site to be sure the playground supervisor didn’t quote scripture!

Lisa N

 

[Lisa_N]

wolpertinger:

That’s perhaps because philosophy is not the place to look for answers? Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate is a better starting point.

This is a huge book. Maybe you would like to drill down to something more specific?

Lisa N

 

[Benadam]

*the conscience of an atheist inescapably is fashioned at least in part by the natural law *

it’s not just shaped by the natural law that is already it’s shape.

I think the trick is to prove that that law inherent in our psyches is from above and not below. There is no animal that manifests behaviour that indicates a conscience. That is physical evidence that it didn’t come from below. Can there be found any evidence that it didn’t come from above? If another lower order of animal has been observed manifesting behaviour that be identified as reason or intellect there is a case.

 

[wolpertinger]

Benadam:

There is no animal that manifests behaviour that indicates a conscience.

Have you ever had a dog?

 

[Lisa_N]

*the conscience of an atheist inescapably is fashioned at least in part by the natural law *

it’s not just shaped by the natural law that is already it’s shape.

I think the trick is to prove that that law inherent in our psyches is from above and not below. There is no animal that manifests behaviour that indicates a conscience. That is physical evidence that it didn’t come from below. Can there be found any evidence that it didn’t come from above? If another lower order of animal has been observed manifesting behaviour that be identified as reason or intellect there is a case.

I think a lot of atheists use a form of Darwinism, believing that genetically those humanoids who cooperated with each other were more likely to stay in the gene pool. The problem with that theory, standing on its own, is that there are a number of species that work together—bees and ants among others—and no one has advanced the theory that they have a conscious.

I do think animals reason within their own scope of capacity. If you grow up on a farm you see some pretty interesting and unique behavior as animals solve problems. However, you don’t see a lot of compassion or helping of the weaker critters (unless it’s a parent offspring situation). No real altruism in the animal kingdom. Further one thing that I think differentiates us is the understanding and creation of beauty…in art, music, etc. You just don’t see animals engaged in artwork, chimp paintings notwithstanding.

Lisa N

 

[Carl]

Lisa,

I have a dog who has torn many pages from a volume of Nietzsche. Doesn’t that mean my dog has a conscience?

 

[Benadam]

Lisa N:

I think a lot of atheists use a form of Darwinism, believing that genetically those humanoids who cooperated with each other were more likely to stay in the gene pool. The problem with that theory, standing on its own, is that there are a number of species that work together—bees and ants among others—and no one has advanced the theory that they have a conscious.

I do think animals reason within their own scope of capacity. If you grow up on a farm you see some pretty interesting and unique behavior as animals solve problems. However, you don’t see a lot of compassion or helping of the weaker critters (unless it’s a parent offspring situation). No real altruism in the animal kingdom. Further one thing that I think differentiates us is the understanding and creation of beauty…in art, music, etc. You just don’t see animals engaged in artwork, chimp paintings notwithstanding.

Lisa N

I agree one would think the arts is evidence eneogh oy! I don’t doubt cooperation ‘within’ species could accomplish remarkable things aliens with spacecraft?..anyway even then are they moral agents? are they self determining? can a liedwop from the planet zalcetron choose his own path? or is a liedwop is a liedwop is a liedwop? Maybe without the fredom of determination that makes us a species in of ourselves we would be warp engines ahead of them lidwops that can’t help but have a singlemindedness in purpose.

in regards of the arts, I have a theory that the height of achievment of the powers of the animal soul will exhibit behaviours that simulate intellect and reason. God has operated this way throughout the orders of His creatures. The order just higher have a commonality with the one lower that links them together and to God at the same time. One objection to this I’ve encountered is that we share the emotional powers of soul with animals and that is our link, like the intellect is with the angelic order. The objection is rooted in appearances and the prejudice that a human looking form means a human consciousness. There is a breath of difference between them but it’s the breath of God. So the evidence surrounding early hominids and what is enterpreted automatically as the dawn of human consciousness isn’t necessarily true for me. I expect there to be an age where the mortal soul is manifesting it’s height and it’s visible expression of God’s mystery which is unity and oneness, and I expect it to mask any division we expect to see in regards of God made visible by the earth and His mysterious lifting up of the earth. That reality is not subject to observation as Christ Himself said, yet I think He was saying it’s self evident.

For me the intellect or the powers that distinguish our souls as human, is the dynamic force behind the lifting up of the lower forms of animal, so of course the point where the kiss of love becomes evident where the mortal soul meets immortality,it is veiled in that ‘knowing’ which is a union of likeness. In us the animal powers are lifted up and meet their end in the image of God. This mystery is pointed to in Genesis when Adam, in naming the animals had to ‘know’ them as well, and in that doing so he was seeking a helping companion.

If an animal could imagine an existence that didn’t include the self , that would be convincing evidence that the animals had the faculties to turn natural law into the tool of conscience. But then you’d see Carl’s dog bowing down to pray for forgiveness after tearing the pages out of his book.

 

[Benadam]

wolpertinger:

Have you ever had a dog?

well of course! The coolest dog I ever had was an African Besenji. That dog had an uncanny understanding of what he could get away with. Within the fence of my yard he was as obedient as a dog could be, outside of the fence he wasn’t gonna obey untill he was ready to come back. One time I decided to play with his head. When he was ready to come back I looked at him sternly and he stopped and sat down about 30 yards in front of me. Like he read my mind. Anyway, I said Come here!..he comes and stands in front of me… I say sit…he sits, then I do something he never saw before, I walked away 30 yards or so and said come!..he comes and we repeat the process 4 or 5 times, finally I walked away and turned around and he’s not sitting like I had commanded…he’s standing there looking at me with a look that said…aha! I get it now… he stared at me for 10 15 seconds considering his options swung around in an exxagerated fashion and took off for another day.

 

[Lisa_N]

Carl:

Lisa,

I have a dog who has torn many pages from a volume of Nietzsche. Doesn’t that mean my dog has a conscience?

No he was probably just protecting you from a corrupting influence!
Lisa N

 

[AnAtheist]

WhatIf:

I’d like for you to consider this. If Remington creates a pistol and someone commits a crime with it, did Remington create crime? No. Here is another example, you may have a baby (your wife?) and it may grow up and murder someone. So did you create a murderer? I don’t think so and you certainly didn’t create murder.

Yes, I know that argument, but we were not talking about some manufacturer or parents, we are talking about the guy who has created the whole universe (in your example, not only the revovler, but the manufacturer and the murderer).
If I create an object and then light on it, who is responsible for the shadow? When I build a fence, who created the enclosure? Me, the fence, the flock in it?
Christians solve that problem (aka theodicy problem) with the Free Will. And that is one of the inconsistencies of Christianity. Christians usually claim, that God is the ultimate cause for existence (prima causa), yet they also claim there are a bazillion of primae causae every day due to Free Will.

In the presence of an omnipotent and omniscient entity, there cannot be anything like Free Will; Calvinists are quite right about that. I cannot choose A, when God already knows that I will choose B. Or, more accurately, I do not make decisions out of nothing, a lifetime of experiences leads to certain decisions in certain circumstances. An omni-x entity that creates the universe deliberately (because it knows) in way that I must come to the conclusion, that B is my choice, leaves no Free Will to choose A.

Besides, afaik the Jews believ(ed) exactly that, that God created evil too. Any Jews here to confirm or correct that statement?
Oh, and the bible says so too, read Iesaja 45:7.

 

[Carl]

I agree with Chesterton. I never cease to be amazed at the zeal of atheists who demand to be free of the commandments, and who at the same time deny the existence of free will.

 

[buffalo]

AnAtheist:

Yes, I know that argument, but we were not talking about some manufacturer or parents, we are talking about the guy who has created the whole universe (in your example, not only the revovler, but the manufacturer and the murderer).
If I create an object and then light on it, who is responsible for the shadow? When I build a fence, who created the enclosure? Me, the fence, the flock in it?
Christians solve that problem (aka theodicy problem) with the Free Will. And that is one of the inconsistencies of Christianity. Christians usually claim, that God is the ultimate cause for existence (prima causa), yet they also claim there are a bazillion of primae causae every day due to Free Will.

In the presence of an omnipotent and omniscient entity, there cannot be anything like Free Will; Calvinists are quite right about that. I cannot choose A, when God already knows that I will choose B. Or, more accurately, I do not make decisions out of nothing, a lifetime of experiences leads to certain decisions in certain circumstances. An omni-x entity that creates the universe deliberately (because it knows) in way that I must come to the conclusion, that B is my choice, leaves no Free Will to choose A.

Besides, afaik the Jews believ(ed) exactly that, that God created evil too. Any Jews here to confirm or correct that statement?
Oh, and the bible says so too, read Iesaja 45:7.

In the absence of God, how would the first atheists agree upon what is evil? (assuming they were the very first without any societal values to influence them)

 

[Benadam]

AnAtheist:

Yes, I know that argument, but we were not talking about some manufacturer or parents, we are talking about the guy who has created the whole universe (in your example, not only the revovler, but the manufacturer and the murderer).
If I create an object and then light on it, who is responsible for the shadow? When I build a fence, who created the enclosure? Me, the fence, the flock in it?

**the object lighted analogy works except it’s void of the possibility of an act to make it practical. If someone traps **
someone in the fence is it my responsibility because I built it?

Christians solve that problem (aka theodicy problem) with the Free
ill. And that is one of the inconsistencies of Christianity. Christians usually claim, that God is the ultimate cause for existence (prima causa), yet they also claim there are a bazillion of primae causae every day due to Free Will.

freewill given by God is a freedom required by love. it’s not a sterile ability to choose but a freedom such as a husband and wife give one another so their unity doesn’t stifle fulfllment and growth as a person.

In the presence of an omnipotent and omniscient entity, there cannot be anything like Free Will; Calvinists are quite right about that. I cannot choose A, when God already knows that I will choose B. Or, more accurately, I do not make decisions out of nothing, a lifetime of experiences leads to certain decisions in certain circumstances. An omni-x entity that creates the universe deliberately (because it knows) in way that I must come to the conclusion, that B is my choice, leaves no Free Will to choose A.

If you knew all there is to know, if you had a population of man on your desk and you knew exactly how these people would act and you let them do what they want, maybe enfluence here and there to prod them into what’s good for them. Have you hindered their free will at all?

Besides, afaik the Jews believ(ed) exactly that, that God created evil too. Any Jews here to confirm or correct that statement?
Oh, and the bible says so too, read Iesaja 45:7.

How can something that doesn’t exist create something ?

besides you misunderstand evil and good. Good is that which fulfills. an existence can be fulfilling without the presence of evil. Evil is that which lacks good. so, that which lacks God is evil. Now any artist can tell you that an artist can only create out of what he is. If evil is that which lacks God it follows that God can’t create that which lacks himself. If everthing you did was good, whatever you wanted or thought was good… then how could you will or do or make anything evil?

 

[WhatIf]

See this thread

I am not denying any of these that you’ve listed:

1. the creation of the entire universe in the beginning of time by God
2. the special creation of the fiirst man
3. the formation of the first woman from the first man by God
4. the unity of the human race
5. the initial happiness of our first parents in the state of original justice.;

I agree with all of it, but none of it is an argument against evolution. Here is paragragh 337 from the Catholic Catechism to explain what I meant by fundamentalists sometimes being wrong.

337 God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine “work”, concluded by the “rest” of the seventh day. 204 On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation, 205 permitting us to “recognize the inner nature, the value and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God.” 206

Notice it says symbolic, so who knows how long it took for God’s work of creating to be complete. So, I think some people don’t view Genesis as symbolic and instead think of it as literally explaining that it only too 6 days for God to create everything. Of course he could, but I don’t think he did and the Catholic Church even says it is a symbolic 6 days, so you are free to think evolution doesn’t occur and I am free to think it does and we can both be Catholics that are not going against Church Teachings. An Atheist needs to realize this. It is a basic step to understanding the Bible for some people because it means that they can have an understanding of God’s creation that doesn’t have to be one that says everything was created in 6 days. We don’t have to agree on this and we can both be “good” Catholics.

I don’t want to change your mind on how the world was created. It misses the whole point of our religion to argue this detail. It is not part of our faith to say we know exactly HOW God created everything. If a person believes that evolution is a process of living things, that is fine just as long as they realize that God created the evolutionary process. Look at paragraph 338 of the catechism
338 Nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history are rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun. 207

This is what an Atheist needs to come to believe. He does not have to believe it took 6 days or man was made out of clay or that Eve was literally created from a rib of Adam. If you find that in the catechism anywhere, let me know, please. There is symbolic language in there, but it does no harm to anyone if they want to think it took only 6 days for everything. God did create everything and it was good. He created Man for good and man chose to sin and the wages of this is death. Jesus offered himself as the “sacrificial lamb” as ransom for our sins (to pay for our sins) and by accepting Jesus and following Him, we are saved from the punishment that we deserve for our sins which would be to die, die as in no eternal life. We can have eternal life though because God gave His Son to save us. We need to believe in a triune God. This is hard for an atheist to understand, but not impossible, when the time is right. God, the Father, God, the Son, and God the holy spirit. An atheist may have trouble understanding how we believe in one God and talk about Him in so many ways. It takes a while to understand a the Triune God belief.

Also, why should an atheist pick up the Bible and read it, if the very first book sounds so ridiculous. Many don’t realize that there are so many forms of writing in the the Bible. So much symbolic language. They should continue to search for the very beginning of how something came from nothing and they may find that they believe that God created something from nothing and then the something evolved.

 

[buffalo]

WhatIf:

See this thread

I am not denying any of these that you’ve listed:

1. the creation of the entire universe in the beginning of time by God
2. the special creation of the fiirst man
3. the formation of the first woman from the first man by God
4. the unity of the human race
5. the initial happiness of our first parents in the state of original justice.;

I agree with all of it, but none of it is an argument against evolution. Here is paragragh 337 from the Catholic Catechism to explain what I meant by fundamentalists sometimes being wrong.

337 God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine “work”, concluded by the “rest” of the seventh day. 204 On the subject of creation, the sacred text teaches the truths revealed by God for our salvation, 205 permitting us to “recognize the inner nature, the value and the ordering of the whole of creation to the praise of God.” 206

Notice it says symbolic, so who knows how long it took for God’s work of creating to be complete. So, I think some people don’t view Genesis as symbolic and instead think of it as literally explaining that it only too 6 days for God to create everything. Of course he could, but I don’t think he did and the Catholic Church even says it is a symbolic 6 days, so you are free to think evolution doesn’t occur and I am free to think it does and we can both be Catholics that are not going against Church Teachings. An Atheist needs to realize this. It is a basic step to understanding the Bible for some people because it means that they can have an understanding of God’s creation that doesn’t have to be one that says everything was created in 6 days. We don’t have to agree on this and we can both be “good” Catholics.

I don’t want to change your mind on how the world was created. It misses the whole point of our religion to argue this detail. It is not part of our faith to say we know exactly HOW God created everything. If a person believes that evolution is a process of living things, that is fine just as long as they realize that God created the evolutionary process. Look at paragraph 338 of the catechism
338 Nothing exists that does not owe its existence to God the Creator. The world began when God’s word drew it out of nothingness; all existent beings, all of nature, and all human history are rooted in this primordial event, the very genesis by which the world was constituted and time begun. 207

This is what an Atheist needs to come to believe. He does not have to believe it took 6 days or man was made out of clay or that Eve was literally created from a rib of Adam. If you find that in the catechism anywhere, let me know, please. There is symbolic language in there, but it does no harm to anyone if they want to think it took only 6 days for everything. God did create everything and it was good. He created Man for good and man chose to sin and the wages of this is death. Jesus offered himself as the “sacrificial lamb” as ransom for our sins (to pay for our sins) and by accepting Jesus and following Him, we are saved from the punishment that we deserve for our sins which would be to die, die as in no eternal life. We can have eternal life though because God gave His Son to save us. We need to believe in a triune God. This is hard for an atheist to understand, but not impossible, when the time is right. God, the Father, God, the Son, and God the holy spirit. An atheist may have trouble understanding how we believe in one God and talk about Him in so many ways. It takes a while to understand a the Triune God belief.

Also, why should an atheist pick up the Bible and read it, if the very first book sounds so ridiculous. Many don’t realize that there are so many forms of writing in the the Bible. So much symbolic language. They should continue to search for the very beginning of how something came from nothing and they may find that they believe that God created something from nothing and then the something evolved.
Items 2 and 3 have to be reconciled with evolution.

1. the special creation of the fiirst man
2. the formation of the first woman from the first man by God

 

[Carl]

buffalo has raised an interesting question which might help to get this forum back on track.

In the absence of God, how would the first atheists agree upon what is evil? (assuming they were the very first without any societal values to influence them)

This is a brilliant question. Now I wonder if an atheist can come up with a brilliant answer. Remember, hypothetically, God and all religions have been removed from history. Everyone is atheist. How would the conscience of each person be formed and who would be the final authority on right and wrong?

 

[Lisa_N]

AnAtheist:

In the presence of an omnipotent and omniscient entity, there cannot be anything like Free Will; Calvinists are quite right about that. I cannot choose A, when God already knows that I will choose B. Or, more accurately, I do not make decisions out of nothing, a lifetime of experiences leads to certain decisions in certain circumstances. An omni-x entity that creates the universe deliberately (because it knows) in way that I must come to the conclusion, that B is my choice, leaves no Free Will to choose A.

Iesaja 45:7.

AnAtheist I think your statement is contradictory. You say “I cannot choose A when God knows I will choose B.” That God KNOWS what you will choose does not mean he CONTROLLED that choice. That is the whole essence of free will. God may know that you will choose B but in fact that is the point, you have free will to make the choice. You could have used your free will to choose A but didn’t. God may know in advance what you will do, but God isn’t a “Master Puppeteer” directing your every move.

Also realize that you cannot confine God to our own linear understanding of time. That’s also what you seem to be saying that God “predicts” the future but in fact for God the past, present and future may all be the same.
Lisa N

 

[WhatIf]

buffalo:

Items 2 and 3 have to be reconciled with evolution.

1. the special creation of the fiirst man
2. the formation of the first woman from the first man by God

I am not sure why. Couldn’t one believe that God created man as a special creature using evolution? Has evolution claimed that the male was not first. I’m not sure about some of the specifics of common evolutionary beliefs. I don’t see the problem with believing in #2 and #3 and also evolution.

 

[WhatIf]

Carl:

buffalo has raised an interesting question which might help to get this forum back on track.

In the absence of God, how would the first atheists agree upon what is evil? (assuming they were the very first without any societal values to influence them)

This is a brilliant question. Now I wonder if an atheist can come up with a brilliant answer. Remember, hypothetically, God and all religions have been removed from history. Everyone is atheist. How would the conscience of each person be formed and who would be the final authority on right and wrong?

That is a good question, but it seems to me that in the presence of God, man still could not agree upon what is evil? Look at us now with various denominations. Catholics believe artificial birth control is an intrinsic evil, but do Protestants agree or all other Christians?

I’m not an atheist, but I would assume they would not determine what is evil because evil is of the devil and atheists don’t believe in the devil, but to know what is right or wrong is an important question and I would think that it would have a lot to do with survival of the fittest. The strongest, smartest, most fertile would enforce what they determine to be their rule of law. Just my two cents on it.

 

[Benadam]

WhatIf:

That is a good question, but it seems to me that in the presence of God, man still could not agree upon what is evil? Look at us now with various denominations. Catholics believe artificial birth control is an intrinsic evil, but do Protestants agree or all other Christians?

I’m not an atheist, but I would assume they would not determine what is evil because evil is of the devil and atheists don’t believe in the devil, but to know what is right or wrong is an important question and I would think that it would have a lot to do with survival of the fittest. The strongest, smartest, most fertile would enforce what they determine to be their rule of law. Just my two cents on it.

what would be the premise that establishes good or evil if there was no God? where would the concept of evil enter into the consciousness?