Moral progress from Biblical morality v Atheism

[Alyosha1984]

In atheism, there is no argument against killing innocents besides a variation on “I would prefer that would not happen”. I can come up with arguments that I would prefer it not to happen, but I have no way to argue that my preference NOT TO KILL is “right” and someone else’s preference TO KILL is “wrong.” That’s because there is no objective right or wrong in atheism.

Without God, objectivity is relative…there is no objective morality. That is atheist philosophy 101. Even atheist philosophers like Bertrand Russell agree with this.

 

[Alyosha1984]

Absolutely I grant them a huge amount of influence. And beware a vocal 3% minority. The Bolsheviks did not represent a very large swatch of Russian society but look at what they did to their country.

 

[Freddy]

Absolutely I grant them a huge amount of influence. And beware a vocal 3% minority. The Bolsheviks did not represent a very large swatch of Russian society but look at what they did to their country.

That absolute morality doesn’t exist doesn’t mean that we can’t agree on what is right wrong. If the only reason anyone could give not to murder innocents was ‘God has told me it’s wrong’ then we’re in a lot of trouble. What if I tell you that God wants me to do something you consider wrong? How do we tell if you’re right or I am?

And it would be helpful if you could name some of these atheists that have such influence. That actually affect the way we live our lives. That would be interesting to discuss.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

And you are suggesting that you’d not be able to come up with an argument against (for example) a terrorist wanting to kill innocent people if you couldn’t base the argument on the existence of God?

Any argument would be based on preconceptions.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

And you are suggesting that you’d not be able to come up with an argument against (for example) a terrorist wanting to kill innocent people if you couldn’t base the argument on the existence of God?

Any argument would be based on preconceptions.

Sorry, I’m not sure what you mean. Could you clarify?

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Sorry, I’m not sure what you mean. Could you clarify?

It would just be based on opinions which don’t hold weight.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Sorry, I’m not sure what you mean. Could you clarify?

It would just be based on opinions which don’t hold weight.

So the argument would only be: ‘In my opinion it’s wrong’? Well, yeah. Not a lot of weight there. But the obvious question would then be: ‘Why is it wrong in your opinion?’.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

But the obvious question would then be: ‘ Why is it wrong in your opinion?’.

The why is just an extension of an opinion. If there is order it would be because of power.

 

[FiveLinden]

Hi. Atheist here. I’m an atheist because I see no evidence leading me to conclude there is a god(s). That’s it. There’s no more to it. My atheism does not lead me to moral decisions, political views or to my opinions on the best way to organise societies, any more than my lack of belief in unicorns leads me to those things.

And to the OP’s list of things Christianity achieved such as ‘ending slavery’ - well, there were Christians involved on both sides of that debate. I can’t immediately think of any atheists or agnostics of the time that supported slavery. Can you?

And here’s a value I hold dear that comes straight from the Enlightenment and not from religion: tolerance.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

But the obvious question would then be: ‘ Why is it wrong in your opinion?’.

The why is just an extension of an opinion.

It could be. But it shouldn’t be. It should be based on the facts of the matter.

In my opinion, the guy next door to you shouldn’t take your lawn mower. In my opinion, he shouldn’t beat his wife. In my opinion, he shouldn’t assault your daughter.

Now there’s three things we can agree on. But just offering an opinion isn’t good enough to carry the argument. Because he and I might be of the opinion that he could beat his wife. Does that tyen make it right? Naturally not.

So we’d need to offer some solid reasons why we hold the opinions we have. We need to look at the facts of the matter. And, as I said, if the only argument you have is that God says it’s not right then we’re in trouble. Not least because my god may say it is ok. Or we have the same God and He tells me something different to you. Then who decides?

 

[Hume]

Those societies are mostly secular (allowing freedom of religion), not atheistic, quite the difference.

Well, no. As one of those dreaded “atheists” I don’t care what religion you choose. thus I advocate for the freedom of religion.

It only becomes a problem when you try to force me to live under your religious code.

What the religious should do instead is get me to convert so I then voluntarily submit your your religious views.

Atheism is unnatural to the human experience, while religion comes naturally. So we disagree, and that’s fine.

I’ll agree, here. Aboriginal humans had some sort of religious structure without exception.

This, of course, doesn’t mean there’s a god. Religion is just an extremely useful nest for authority over things we need but don’t seem to have in physical reality - like law and order.

“Because the chief said so!” isn’t nearly as compliance-inducing as “Thus Spake Jupiter from On High!” And at the time, we didn’t really have the resources to ascertain that Jupiter probably isn’t real. So it worked.

 

[Alyosha1984]

You still misunderstand my point, I am speaking of the philosophy, not the people practicing the philosophy. Just as Christians can be bad, Atheists can be good. That does NOT speak to the morality of Christianity or Atheism.

There is a set of clear, strong, unambiguous arguments in the Bible to refute chattel slavery in the American South. All men being created in God’s image, no qualifiers by race/ethnicity on the 10 Commandments, etc., etc. Even the Biblical laws (e.g. Exodus 21) on treatment of slaves/indentured servants were violated in the American South.

So even though many in the South claimed the mantle of Christianity, the arguments were BS and everyone knew it.

The idea that all of these ideas come from the Enlightenment just is false, plain and simple. The whole root of tolerance, even from those Enlightenment thinkers which you quote, still arises from the Biblical idea all men created in God’s image.

Without reference to God, on what rational basis can you argue that all humans should be tolerated? And how much toleration would you accept? is Child Sacrifice tolerable?

 

[Alyosha1984]

That absolute morality doesn’t exist doesn’t mean that we can’t agree on what is right wrong.

Without absolute morality, nothing is “right” or “wrong”, we just think it’s right or wrong. You and I might agree on what’s right and wrong, but I bet we don’t agree with the Iranian ayatollahs, North Korean dictator, or even hardened criminals in the West.

Without reference to God, what basis have we tell them they are wrong? It is just presumptive on our part. As the postmodernists would say, our morality is just part of the “oppressive racist patriarchy used to further white supremacy.” And why are the postmodernists wrong? Without God, they aren’t wrong, we just think they are wrong. This is a big difference.

If the only reason anyone could give not to murder innocents was ‘God has told me it’s wrong’ then we’re in a lot of trouble.

If that’s the only reason, and no good people are around to enforce justice, then sure, we’re in trouble. But conversely, what if there is no just God, and people are the only reason not to murder innocents? They tried that in Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia, and are trying it today in North Korea and China. It was truly horrible.

Wouldn’t it have been nice if Stalin or Hitler had been afraid of eternal hellfire? There was nothing else they had to be afraid of. Stalin died of illness in his late age. The world would have been an enormously better place if they had genuine fear of God. So, too, the world would be better if more criminals had fear of God, because guess what – a solid fraction of murderers even in USA aren’t caught and aren’t punished.

What if I tell you that God wants me to do something you consider wrong? How do we tell if you’re right or I am?

Now you are actually into substantive argument. What is the absolute morality? I believe it’s the law of the Torah and of Christ, but for that I can give you no bulletproof rational basis, except that I hope so because the only other laws which exist are horrifying (Islam, postmodernism, communism). And atheism presents no laws at all, so it offers absolutely no morality, so it is fully compatible without everything horrifying.

And it would be helpful if you could name some of these atheists that have such influence. That actually affect the way we live our lives. That would be interesting to discuss.

Stalin was a quite influential atheist. Today, Christopher Hitchens, Dawkins, Sam Harris, Sean Carroll, are all highly influential. 1/3 of college students have no religions affiliation. Atheism is not some small movement.

 

[Freddy]

Now you are actually into substantive argument. What is the absolute morality? I believe it’s the law of the Torah and of Christ, but for that I can give you no bulletproof rational basis, except that I hope so because the only other laws which exist are horrifying (Islam, postmodernism, communism). And atheism presents no laws at all, so it offers absolutely no morality, so it is fully compatible without everything horrifying.

Freddy:

And it would be helpful if you could name some of these atheists that have such influence. That actually affect the way we live our lives. That would be interesting to discuss.

Stalin was a quite influential atheist. Today, Christopher Hitchens, Dawkins, Sam Harris, Sean Carroll, are all highly influential. 1/3 of college students have no religions affiliation. Atheism is not some small movement.

Well, I think the law of Christ is the basis for morality as well. I guess we’re on the same page if you consider it to be the Golden Rule. We can devise a system of morality from that whatever our belief system is. Plus throw in a sprinking of empathy and we’re almost there.

And you’re right. Atheism offers nothing. It’s simply a non belief in God (or gods to be specific). So I would reject any law just on the basis that it was divinely ordained. You’d need a better argument than that. Well, you’d need an argument, period. Because ‘God told me’ is not an argument in any case.

And as regards influential atheists, Hitch is unfortunately dead and I literally don’t personally know anyone, apart from me, who has read anything he has written. Dawkins is an agnostic although probably a smidgen more influential than Hitch. But again, I’m the only person I know who has read him (and mostly his scientific work). And Harris might have some influence as he’s got a podcast, but influential in a general sense? Never. And ask a hundred people who Carrol is and I’d be surprised if you got one that even said he was a physicist let alone some guy who wrote on book on The Big Picture (not a bad read I must say).

And non affiliated doesn’t equate to atheism. Just means no affiliation to a recognised religion.

So no, that 3% carries no real weight. You’re obviously aware of the people you mentioned so probably you grant them more influence than the general population would accept.

 

[Alyosha1984]

Because ‘God told me’ is not an argument in any case.

But what other rational argument is there that an objective morality exists?

If you believe objective morality exists, you must believe that God granted it. Where else could it come from?

Seriously…I would like to know.

 

[FiveLinden]

Without reference to God, on what rational basis can you argue that all humans should be tolerated? And how much toleration would you accept? is Child Sacrifice tolerable?

With the greatest respect your comments tend somewhat to the hyperbolic. You also misrepresent me. I did not say ‘all humans should be tolerated’ and I think you mean ‘all human actions should be tolerated’.

I disagree that the idea of tolerance came about as a result of Biblical ideas. If it did it took a couple of millenniums for Christians to realise it. There is nothing in the teaching of Jesus that promotes tolerate of different beliefs. Different social status, yes. Health status, yes. Ethnicity, probably yes. But ideas? no.

Speaking as an atheist I am opposed to the sacrifice of children not only because I think children should be accorded the same rights and dignity as other members of society but also because there is, of course, in my view, no one to whom such a sacrifice could be made. I recall that in the Bible it was thought acceptable for a man to prepare his son for sacrifice on the basis that he was certain God had told him to do so.

 

[FiveLinden]

But what other rational argument is there that an objective morality exists

Not sure about @Freddy but as an unbeliever I don’t spend my time wondering about whether objective morality exists. Morality of any sort only exists when people agree to it. And yes, people sometimes agree to mutually exclusive moralities. I argue for what I think is right on the basis of observation of what brings the greatest good and the greatest happiness in different situations. Yes, I think the end certainly can justify the means.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Because ‘God told me’ is not an argument in any case.

But what other rational argument is there that an objective morality exists?

If you believe objective morality exists, you must believe that God granted it. Where else could it come from?

Seriously…I would like to know.

I don’t believe it exists. If something is objectively wrong then how do we find that out? Would you say that in your opinion God has made it clear? To who? To you? Or someone else?

 

[EricPH]

But what other rational argument is there that an objective morality exists?

Jesus said that all the law of God hangs on the two greatest commandments. If you can challenge these two commandments and find something morally greater, then God’s law will fall apart.

 

[stoplooklisten]

Well, I think the law of Christ is the basis for morality as well

If we believe in God’s love for humanity, then we should act on that belief by showing our own love for humanity and our own love for God. If we believe in the gospel’s offer of pardon / forgiveness / mercy for humanity, then we should show our own pardon / forgiveness / mercy for humanity who trespasses against us. As the Lord’s prayer states: Forgive us our trespasses / debts as we forgive those who trespass against us / are indebted to us. It is the will of God that we show love and mercy to others. Sin is acting contrary to the will of God. Faith “works by love” (Galatians 5:6) and expresses itself in love for neighbor and love for God.