Hi Charlemagne
I suppose from an atheist’s perspective all people/groups develop their own morality and that people like us will then give it credence by placing it in the mouth of God.
There certainly are atheists, such as Alain de Botton who explore an atheistic perspective on morality and virtue, in a positive way. I think it a mistake to think, or say, that only theists can explore morality.
Except that this (your?) position presupposes the only source of ethical truth is that which is subjective to the individual making the determination and that the only difference between a theist and an atheist, regarding moral thinking, is that a theist is merely making an “error” by projecting their subjective moral thinking outwards onto God, whereas the more “sincere” atheist does no such thing.
This supposition entirely ignores the possibility that human moral thinking could
in actual fact be influenced by God (or some other external moral authority) if the individual were to make him/herself amenable to such influence.
The shortcoming of this view can be made more obvious by introducing a parallel situation.
Suppose we have two individuals.
Person A believes that truth has objective reality independent of their own thinking about what may or may not be the case. This person maintains an open mind as to the possibility that they might be wrong about any facet of their thinking.
Person B believes that truth fundamentally is equal to what they in fact think they “know,” so truth is only a “relative” reality.
Which of the two individuals can be called “lazy” or dishonest?
Would we not agree that
Person B better fits the description, since their position amounts to an a priori specification that “what is ‘true’ is merely what is determined by me to be true” and that no other truth exists? In a sense, they have proclaimed the nature of truth by personal fiat and nothing else in order to save themselves the time, trouble and possible embarrassment of actually discovering that the nature of truth might just be something other than what they think.
Regarding moral beliefs, then:
An atheist would seem to be restricted to maintaining, as their most basic moral tenet, that moral truths are “those determined by me to be true since no determiner exists “outside” of the field of my moral determinations that can possibly be more ‘authoritative’ than my own determination.”
Regarding moral thinking, then, the atheist would seem to fit the same profile as
Person B does regarding the nature of truth itself.
The theist, on the other hand, is open to the more daunting possibility that moral truth has objective reality that is discoverable and independent of their own determination. It would seem a less lazy or dishonest position for the theist to maintain since this point of view would require them to search for what is objective and “external” to their own beliefs, found in the nature of moral reality itself.
A theist has a built-in “self-critiquing” view of ethics that an atheist, fundamentally, lacks. An atheist position is “self-assuring” or “self-ratifying” by nature in that they can never find themselves in the compromised position of thinking they might be wrong. If right moral thinking is merely what they believe, how can they ever be wrong in that regard? That possibility is ruled out, in principle, and they are left with the infallibly certain self-satisfaction that they can never (also in principle) be wrong.
An honest theist makes no presupposition that moral truths are “nothing but” his/her own thinking but must be discovered and this fact obligates them regardless of their desire or will to opt out.
The atheist, claiming a right to “create” and adhere to their own ethical principles would seem to be the more “lazy” and dishonest one because they have completely absolved themselves of the need to consider that ethical reality is anything but what they determine for themselves. The atheist has, by mere doctrinal proclamation, entirely eliminated what was formerly an “open” option regarding the nature of moral truth simply because they have chosen to ignore it as a possibility.
An atheist’s moral position is only as self-critiquing as the atheist chooses to make it. S/he is accountable to no one other than their own will or desire, as they so choose.
The theist can not take such an indolent route because of the possibility that they might be making a grave error on such an important matter regarding ethical reality, since it does not lie in the scope of their own authority to define the nature of ethical truth.
Of course, the indolent route is always an open option for the theist, as well (and it often is the one chosen) but that is not so by predetermination.
I agree with you Michael, I think it’s a mistake too. It’s lazy and dishonest thinking.
See above.
