If atheists deny the existence of God

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Magnanimity:

Mike_from_NJ:

You’ll find that yours is not the one and only measure as to who is and is not a prominent theist. The ones I gave have numerous followers. You dismissed Eric Hovind

If you’ll recall, I did originally ask for a “prominent theist” who advocated that atheists can’t have ’good morals.’ You gave two names. The first of which, Ravi, does not and has not advocated what you suggested. So that was incorrect. The only other name you mentioned is an uneducated creationist. Perhaps you could name an academic?

William Lane Craig?

‘…if God does not exist, then morality is just a human convention, that is to say, morality is wholly subjective and non-binding’. Can We Be Good without God? | Popular Writings | Reasonable Faith

You have to admit that “subjective morality” is self contradictory. This doesn’t mean that atheists behave immorally any more than Christians who support objective moral standards will behave morally.

He is simply making the observation that morality by nature must be pointed to something transcending the individual or group of individuals, or else it’s simply opinion, or preference, or power. (or you can simply redefine “morality” in a way that it’s never been used before and make the term meaningless)

I think it was in this thread that I was asking how we determine the objectively correct answer to any given moral problem (assuming it’s not a specific problem specifically addressed by the church).

It seems pointless in making a claim that objective morality exists if we can’t agree on how to determine it.

 

[Magnanimity]

William Lane Craig?

Yep! He would qualify. He’s a quasi-academic.

Here was Mike’s original line though.

claim that people who don’t believe in the Easter Bunny lack morals

The possible follows from the actual. Anyone with a little sense knows that this is true. So all one would really need to do to know that Mike’s claim is preposterous is to know (or even know of) one atheist who is a morally good person. And pretty much all of us do.

Craig is doing reverse reasoning. For him, the existence of “objective moral values” necessarily implies a divine law-giver. Even in the article you referenced, he writes “it would seem arrogant and ignorant to claim that those who do not share a belief in God do not often live good moral lives—indeed, embarrassingly, lives that sometimes put our own to shame.” So, I stand by my assertion that Mike’s claim is goofy and no theists of repute would advocate it.

 

[Magnanimity]

I think it was in this thread that I was asking how we determine the objectively correct answer to any given moral problem

To a large extent, I’m with the atheist philosopher Jitendra Mohanty on this one. The objectivity of moral values is a “given,” it’s a datum of my human experience (as it is of yours and everyone else’s). Moral norms are data in a similar way to how beautiful things existing in the universe are data. Or, the belief that most of us hold that living beings are “sacred” (or, if that world smacks too much of religiosity, you could say that living beings seem to possess intrinsic value/worth that inanimate matter doesn’t seem to possess).

When atheist philosopher Peter Singer (in “Famine, Affluence and Morality”) articulates a moral principle like, “if it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it” we accept this as true. We know it to be fundamentally correct, like the Golden Rule is correct and Kant’s categorical imperative is correct.

But you’re probably trying to press on something particular here—a specific moral problem. I’d only say, as Aristotle did in his work on ethics so long ago, that not all “sciences” admit of the same level of precision. It isn’t reasonable to insist that ethics or aesthetics can possibly be as precise as mathematics.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

William Lane Craig?

Yep! He would qualify. He’s a quasi-academic.

Here was Mike’s original line though.

claim that people who don’t believe in the Easter Bunny lack morals

The possible follows from the actual. Anyone with a little sense knows that this is true. So all one would really need to do to know that Mike’s claim is preposterous is to know (or even know of) one atheist who is a morally good person. And pretty much all of us do.

Craig is doing reverse reasoning. For him, the existence of “objective moral values” necessarily implies a divine law-giver. Even in the article you referenced, he writes “it would seem arrogant and ignorant to claim that those who do not share a belief in God do not often live good moral lives—indeed, embarrassingly, lives that sometimes put our own to shame.” So, I stand by my assertion that Mike’s claim is goofy and no theists of repute would advocate it.

I think that Mike’s claim is valid. But I don’t think you’d find an academic who would be so forthright. The claim is usually couched in the same terms as Craig uses. And can be expanded to Dostoyevski’s statement (or Karasamov’s) that without God anything is permitted.

Often tempered, as Craig said, with a rider that of course there are atheists who live morally correct lives. But with a subtext of ‘but what else would you expect’ if the discussion is of an immoral act performed by an atheist.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

I think it was in this thread that I was asking how we determine the objectively correct answer to any given moral problem

To a large extent…

Nothing there with which I could disagree. And much with which I do agree. Sam Harris takes the same line in The Moral Landscape that we should be able to work out that which is ‘good’. And he represents the ‘good’ by attaining a peak as opposed to living in the valleys. But…that there is more than one peak. And that the paths that we take lead us on different routes.

So you and I may be standing on equally high peaks, yours attained by following your religious beiefs and me by sticking to the secular path. But we both attain a level of morality that’s acceptable to each other. It’s just the routes that we took were different.

That’s not to say that some specific religious beliefs run counter to secular ones.

 

[FiveLinden]

The undiscussed issue to do with the ‘where morality comes from if there is no god(s)’ argument is that morality is so different among those who believe in god(s). Believers support and oppose abortion, polygamy, child sacrifice, euthanasia, the burning of widows, the charging of interest, the idea of a just war, the question of whether the end can justify the means, whether lying is always wrong, whether wealth shows the moral merit of individuals…

If belief in god(s) provides a basis for morality, it is a most unstable one.

 

[Freddy]

The undiscussed issue to do with the ‘where morality comes from if there is no god(s)’ argument is that morality is so different among those who believe in god(s). Believers support and oppose abortion, polygamy, child sacrifice, euthanasia, the burning of widows, the charging of interest, the idea of a just war, the question of whether the end can justify the means, whether lying is always wrong, whether wealth shows the moral merit of individuals…

If belief in god(s) provides a basis for morality, it is a most unstable one.

The answer to the question as to whether there can be morality without God is another question: Which God?

 

[Magnanimity]

I think that Mike’s claim is valid

There just isn’t as obvious a connection between human social/moral living and particular religions. I don’t doubt that a religion that encourages caring for the poor (Christianity, Islam) could help to habituate the practitioners of that religion into forming such a character. That is certainly true. But the atheist who frequently volunteers at the soup kitchen would build a similar character toward the poor.

But Mike’s claim goes entirely too far into straw-man territory. It’s enough for me that, when challenged, his only example of a prominent theist claiming what he suggested was some obscure person. Mike is not able to cite anyone of prominence bc no one in such a position would make such an outrageous claim as Mike suggests. So it’s fundamentally an off-base criticism, as most of his Easter Bunny parody was.

As I say, morality is a human phenomenon. Whatever its connection to religion might be, there is no obvious entailment going in either direction.

But we both attain a level of morality that’s acceptable to each other.

Yes, but I’d probably press it further to say that this is just the human condition. It’s flat out what we all do, irrespective of adherence to a particular religion. Being moral is akin to valuing beauty—it’s hard for most folks to not do this. Beautiful things compel you to admire them. They arrest your attention. Similarly, that interior conscience within you compels your behavior. I think Craig would simply want to press you on the issue of the universality of human conscience—how likely would it be that you would have this internal sense of the ought, given naturalism. Not likely at all, he would say. In fact, it would be like a naturalistic miracle—like the emergence of consciousness itself.

 

[Magnanimity]

Believers support and oppose abortion, polygamy, child sacrifice, euthanasia, the burning of widows, the charging of interest, the idea of a just war, the question of whether the end can justify the means, whether lying is always wrong, whether wealth shows the moral merit of individuals…

There is no way to link any of these particularities to religious folks, anymore than I could try to successfully argue that moral disagreements are somehow entailed by atheism. There are no two people on planet Earth who ever completely agree about anything. Not about science, not religion, not morality, not politics, not any category whatsoever! That is to say that the only person that you’re ever going to completely agree with is…YOU. (And even then, you’ll change your mind as you age). But so what? What follows from this fact?

I happen to think that only one thing follows from this—that life can’t be fundamentally about “knowing all the right things,” since none of us apparently ever achieves this. But again, so what?

But perhaps more to the point—there is striking unanimity among the human race regarding fundamental moral principles (eg, justice, the dignity of human persons, protecting the innocent/vulnerable, etc). That is what may be remarkable.

 

[Freddy]

I think Craig would simply want to press you on the issue of the universality of human conscience—how likely would it be that you would have this internal sense of the ought, given naturalism. Not likely at all, he would say. In fact, it would be like a naturalistic miracle—like the emergence of consciousness itself.

It’s what worked to get us here. Reciprocal altruism plus a touch of empathy. You and I have a tendency to help others (to a certain extent) because that characteristic was one possesed by our ancestors. Those that didn’t posses it eventually fell by the wayside. Were removed from the gene pool if you like.

Society is a result of cooperation. Is based on cooperation. You help me (because that’s the sort of guy you are) and I’ll be likely to help you (if I’m that sort of guy as well). If we help someone else who doesn’t reciprocate (he’s not that sort of guy) then he gets no more help. Who is more likely to survive? Who passes on those ‘good guy’ genes?

And we call what works ‘morally good’.

 

[FiveLinden]

There is no way to link any of these particularities to religious folks, anymore than I could try to successfully argue that moral disagreements are somehow entailed by atheism.

I agree. And o theism does not lead to a specific system of morality, rendering the ‘how do atheists decide what’s moral’ question redundant.

 

[Magnanimity]

Society is a result of cooperation. Is based on cooperation. You help me (because that’s the sort of guy you are) and I’ll be likely to help you (if I’m that sort of guy as well).

That could only be an explanation of why we might help our peers, our equals. But we stand in many relations in life to include quite a few unequal relationships.

There is no possible way that my children could ever repay me for all the good and love that I have and will show to them over the course of their lives. And no parent would even encourage a child to do that—to repay. The most we could hope for our children is that they perhaps find someway to pay it forward. As in, they try to be very good and loving toward their own children. Or if they don’t have children of their own, they find someway to mentor or volunteer or participate in the greater good of society, to pay it forward.

So, I think reciprocal altruism is only a thing between equals. But when anyone in a power position is altruistic toward someone less powerful than them, I don’t see a way for reciprocity. And anyway, that is not why you helped that old lady in need to cross the street. There is in fact zero expectation on your part that she, or anyone else who might have seen you, or anyone who might hear you relay the story later, would think to themselves that Freddy did a good deed for someone in society and we are therefore in a kind of debt relation to him to try to pay some goodness back to him in the spirit of reciprocity.

And then there is the darker side of things. Like examples of parents who, through no apparent fault of their own, have children who grow up to be real dirtbags. These children turn out to be shockingly selfish, unable to hold a job, unable to have real friends, in and out of jail, unable to have any sort of stable family… But the parents of these children continue to love them nonetheless. One would think that on a survivalist reading of history, these folks would have been weeded out of existence. But selfish and unstable folks are common enough. These examples go to show that humans are meant for flourishing and thriving. “Survivalist“ explanations of human activity tend to be woefully reductive and inadequate. It can’t account for why we actually behave as we do.

 

[Freddy]

“Survivalist“ explanations of human activity tend to be woefully reductive and inadequate. It can’t account for why we actually behave as we do.

You could say that we control the environment these days (no global warning arguments please!) so these evolutionary benefits are more socially dependent. But the original instinct to help is still there. And if we are seen to be honest or helpful or generous then our social standing generally rises. And we receive some benefits from that. We’re not doing it to consciously gain an advantage - although one can certainly do that. You may do something like help an old lady and make sure everyone knows it.

Even if no-one finds out there is some self satisfaction in having ‘done the right thing’. Some people would argue that there is nothing as a truly selfless altruistic act.

 

[Magnanimity]

Some people would argue that there is nothing as a truly selfless altruistic act.

I think there is some truth in that belief. Because humans are necessarily communal and relational, there is always some degree of seeing one’s self in the other (and the other in yourself). But once again, even this move of seeing yourself and the other in some way entangled extends well beyond where a survivalist motif can get to.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Some people would argue that there is nothing as a truly selfless altruistic act.

I think there is some truth in that belief. Because humans are necessarily communal and relational, there is always some degree of seeing one’s self in the other (and the other in yourself). But once again, even this move of seeing yourself and the other in some way entangled extends well beyond where a survivalist motif can get to.

I think it’s common that people recognise that we have developed as a species and that as a social species we have developed societies and have learned to determine what is right and what will allow us to live together in those societies. So that morality emerged from that: ‘This is what we must do’.

But it was some years ago that I realised that I had it the wrong way around. That we emerged as a species and formed societies because some of us had characteristics (endowed by a lucky roll of tbe evolutionary dice) that prompted that social grouping. And that those characteristics became fixed, to a certain extent, in societies.

So that we haven’t moved towards a more moral understanding of how we should act. We are here because of an inbuilt sense of what has helped us reach this point. And whatever it was that helped we have described as being good.

This might be a difficult concept with which to agree, especially for a Christian, but imagine if our species relied on inter familial reproduction to survive. That genetics was such that it was beneficial. It would mean that those who had a preference for reproduction outside the family would be at a survival disadvantage. And those that had a preference for reproduction within the family would have the advantage.

It’s likely that the latter group would survive and flourish and that the characteristics of that group would become the norm. So that incest would be the norm. We’d probably think that having sex with someone outside the family unit would be…unatural.

Jesus didn’t tell us to follow the Golden Rule simply because He had decided it was the way to act. He was reminding us that following it got us to where we are now. And not to forget it.

 

[IWantGod]

then why do they talk about him so much?

I’m amazed at the people I interact with who claim to be atheist, but they love talking about “well if there was a god then why does X happen”?

So if God is so irrelevant why discuss Him? Any why bother trying to convince others - with the same enthusiasm of an evangelist - that He doesn’t?

God is a threat.

 

[Freddy]

JohnStrachan:

then why do they talk about him so much?

I’m amazed at the people I interact with who claim to be atheist, but they love talking about “well if there was a god then why does X happen”?

So if God is so irrelevant why discuss Him? Any why bother trying to convince others - with the same enthusiasm of an evangelist - that He doesn’t?

God is a threat.

That’s like saying that I think vampires are a threat.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

That’s like saying that I think vampires are a threat.

If people’s belief in vampires drove them to advocate for driving wood stakes through suspect vampires.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

That’s like saying that I think vampires are a threat.

If people’s belief in vampires drove them to advocate for driving wood stakes through suspect vampires.

True that. Vampires aren’t a theat. But belief in vampires…well, that’s another matter.

 

[ChocolateCake]

And why are religious people so obsessed with what atheists say/think??