Morality without God?

[Eleve]

Atheism doesn’t preach altruism because atheism is just the view that God doesn’t exist. There are atheistic views like secular humanism which do promote altruism and other virtues. On the flip side, there are theistic views like deism which do not promote any particular virtues (while also not ruling them out). For that matter, theism itself does not say that people should be altruistic. Theism is just the view that God exists.

Most atheists think that Ayn Rand is an idiot. You might as well say that Fred Phelps, William Paley, or Thomas Hobbes give you the “real lowdown” on theism.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Well stated.

So the question I have for atheists is: What motivates an atheist’s altruistic behavior? It cannot be empathy because, as I’ve stated, empathy is just an emotion that can lead to both benevolent and malevolent behavior.

The only way that empathy can make reasonable sense as a ground for altruism is if the value of the “other” that one is willing to empathize with and trade in one’s own life for, in some sense, exceeds the real value of one’s own existence. If the value implicit in all life is derived from the infinite value and goodness of God, then trading one’s own contingent worth for the sake of the infinite goodness that is endowed to all things by God, makes rational and altruistic sense. Thus, altruism as patriotic response or for the sake of a cause “greater than oneself,” likewise, makes sense.

However, atheistic materialism, where everything just is the random and unguided function of atomic or subatomic particles with no real purpose or ultimate meaning seems to provide a scant motive for altruism because “worth” or value simply are meaningless terms in this context. What would be a motive, altruistic or otherwise, for trading something of no worth for something identically worthless?

Of course, an atheist may attempt to “dress up” his/her case by making the observation that, therefore, only an atheist can be truly altruistic because such a person gives up their life for its own sake and their act is, therefore, a pure gift of self for no other reason except that for its own sake. Perhaps, but it is not clear that the gift of a shadowy “glow” that has no real substance or existence is much of a sacrifice after all, except in some sentimentally self-deprecating way, similar to how a slug’s existence disappearing into a puddle of salty sludge might be thought of with a tinge of pathos in memory of its existence.

Surely, a position that claims human persons are of no real substance or lasting worth cannot consistently then add, but it is a laudable and extremely praiseworthy gesture to give up one’s life for the sake of these others who have no real ultimate value and are nothing but the random actions of atoms.

 

[mymamamary]

Nope. He is illustrating how empathy can cause some to change their stance. Here we have a cog in a slaughter machine that is having second thoughts on his position because of a breif connection he’s made with another human. Something that may result in a decision to change behaviour. This thread was about morality without God. An interaction like the above could result in some on developing or adjusting their rules on morality.

But WHY???

Because he knew it was wrong.

How do we know that it’s wrong?

Because of the natural moral law, which was put in our heatrs, by none other than,…GOD!!!

 

[mymamamary]

I know that you’re not making a prima facie case for Christianity. But you were making a prima facie case for theism. I’m saying that if popularity is a prima facie case for theism, it’s also a prima facie case against Christianity.

I haven’t argued for atheism in this thread, so I don’t see how you can evaluate the strength of my reasons.

And while I can agree that it’s in some sense natural to protect one’s own interests, I don’t think that that is the only thing natural to human beings. We also have a natural inclination toward benevolence, honesty, and so on, not to mention a rational nature that allows us to evaluate actions by moral principles. People who sacrifice themselves for others are therefore acting in accordance with their nature.
Besides, you’re equivocating on the meaning of the word “natural.” It’s natural for a tree to grow and unnatural for it to suffer from Dutch elm disease. But that doesn’t mean that Dutch elm disease is supernatural. “Unnatural” and “supernatural” are not the same thing.

But why?? Why do we esteem virtue such as honesty or self-sacrifice so much? Because all good things come from GOD. Where else would this inate desire come from? Ourselves? Our wills and human nature are too wounded from original sin to do anything of the sort. Humans naturally like to kill, steal, lie etc. However, when we do something virtous, that is the SUPERnatural acting. However, we are capable as long as we co-operate with Grace, hence what St. Thomas Aquinas said “Grace perfects/builds on nature”

 

[Peter_Plato]

Atheism doesn’t preach altruism because atheism is just the view that God doesn’t exist. There are atheistic views like secular humanism which do promote altruism and other virtues. On the flip side, there are theistic views like deism which do not promote any particular virtues (while also not ruling them out). For that matter, theism itself does not say that people should be altruistic. Theism is just the view that God exists.

Most atheists think that Ayn Rand is an idiot. You might as well say that Fred Phelps, William Paley, or Thomas Hobbes give you the “real lowdown” on theism.

Atheism is not simply the claim that God does not exist, it is a claim about the lack of a supernatural “character” to the cosmos, i.e., that there is nothing "super"natural to the natural order. At least to my understanding, that is the claim. To claim that atheism is simply a lack of belief in God cannot accurately reflect the position because trees and rocks likewise lack such beliefs. As a position held by a rational being, atheism must espouse a consistent belief system that is positively contrary to a theistic system and not merely a lack of belief. It would have no reason to lack a belief without a systematic set of beliefs that propose a worldview contrary to theism. The atheistic world view is necessarily a purely materialistic one to justify a “non-belief” in God.

Note that Charlie II did not claim “theism” preaches people should be altruistic, he claimed Christianity does. These are not the same.

The bottom line is that Christianity preaches altruism. Atheism preaches nothing of the sort.

Read some of atheist Ayn Rand and get the real lowdown.

 

[Eleve]

Atheism is not simply the claim that God does not exist, it is a claim about the lack of a supernatural “character” to the cosmos, i.e., that there is nothing "super"natural to the natural order. At least to my understanding, that is the claim.

Wikipedia, Merriam-Webster and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy all have it that atheism is the denial of the existence of God.

To claim that atheism is simply a lack of belief in God cannot accurately reflect the position because trees and rocks likewise lack such beliefs.

First of all, I said that atheism is the view that God does not exist, not the lack of the view that God exists. Second, ignorance is the lack of knowledge, and we don’t object to this definition by saying that trees and rocks also lack knowledge.

As a position held by a rational being, atheism must espouse a consistent belief system that is positively contrary to a theistic system and not merely a lack of belief. It would have no reason to lack a belief without a systematic set of beliefs that propose a worldview contrary to theism. The atheistic world view is necessarily a purely materialistic one to justify a “non-belief” in God.

Yes, a justified belief in atheism requires other beliefs. But that doesn’t mean that those beliefs are themselves part of the content of atheism. I believe that Lilongwe is the capital of Malawi because I believe that Wikipedia says so and because I believe that Wikipedia is reliable in this matter. But believing that “Milongwe is the capital of Malawi” is not the same thing as believing anything about Wikipedia.

And it’s just not true that atheism entails materialism. If someone believes in non-material minds, abstract mathematical objects, and God, she could give up believing in God without automatically having to give up believing in the other two. I don’t see why this is any different from how Aquinas believed in God and non-material minds but not abstract mathematical objects, or how the ancient Greeks believed in Zeus and Ares but not in Thor. You can believe in some non-material things without believing in all of them.

Note that Charlie II did not claim “theism” preaches people should be altruistic, he claimed Christianity does. These are not the same.

I know. But Christianity is the conjunction with theism and other beliefs - more specific beliefs about the nature of God, beliefs about the nature of Jesus and historical events like his crucifixion and resurrection, beliefs about sacraments, moral beliefs, and so on. Nobody thinks that theists are morally bankrupt because theism itself does not preach altruism, because we recognize that theists all hold theism in conjunction with other beliefs such as Christianity. Likewise, the fact that atheism itself does not preach altruism is no problem, because atheists hold atheism in conjunction with other beliefs.

 

[PRmerger]

PRmerger, there is not the same degree of evidence.

Fair enough.

But are you willing to acknowledge that your threshold for believing in this phantom atheistic equivalent of Kolbe is exceedingly low, while your threshold for belief in God is extremely high?

There is a term that I heard recently that seems to be apropos here: the Credulous Atheist.

This phenomenon involves non-believers who demand an impossibly high degree of evidence for God’s existence, but who, curiously, will believe some rather incredulous things, as long as it countermands the arguments for God’s existence. Or even if it’s unrelated to religion.

To wit: an atheist on this forum was credulous enough to believe that ancient Christians worshipped the prepuce of Jesus. Really. Based on, I assume, a parchment fragment of some ancient cult? I don’t really know. But it appears that his standard of evidence is really, really low here. Yet he demands a great deal of proof for Christian beliefs.

Why is that, do you suppose?

 

[PRmerger]

And no sane atheist thinks that it’s wrong to believe in things that lack certainty. What we do think is that God’s existence is substantially less likely than believers would have it. That’s the kind of “faith” that we object to - not believing in something uncertain, but believing in something more strongly than the evidence warrants

And therein lies the disconnect for me.

If there were simply one argument for God’s existence: the music of Bach, perhaps…

then I would grant you that there is some evidence for God’s existence, and while it may be compelling for some, it’s not enough to convince me.

But there’s tomes and tomes and tomes of arguments that have been presented by intellectual giants to prove God’s existence by reason alone.

Not to mention the multitude of inexplicable events which speak to one’s heart that are evidence for God’s existence.

Not to mention the subjective experiences of every Believer, which ought not be discounted, but I understand if you don’t find them convincing.

So, yes, I find atheists to be unreasonable when they declare evidence for God to be less than compelling.

 

[PRmerger]

There’s no prima facie evidence for the existence of God? The vast majority of people throughout world history have held a common belief in a divine being. What’s more likely - that the vast majority of people from all walks of life throughout world history are wrong, or that atheists are right? There’s plenty of prima facie evidence for the existence of God, apparently you hold theists to a different standard.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Wikipedia, Merriam-Webster and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy all have it that atheism is the denial of the existence of God.

Note that “denial,” as a philosophical act, entails having at least one adequate reason to engage in denial. It cannot be a denial “just 'cause.” Neither can an active “denial” of the existence of God be based upon a lack of evidence, which is not sufficient reason for denial, only for an agnostic: “I haven’t a clue.”

So the question remains, on what rational basis is a positive “denial” of the existence of God made? A denial of the existence of God means that the person making the denial is claiming that God does not exist, this is different from a simple lack of belief, as you note below.

First of all, I said that atheism is the view that God does not exist, not the lack of the view that God exists. Second, ignorance is the lack of knowledge, and we don’t object to this definition by saying that trees and rocks also lack knowledge.
…

And it’s just not true that atheism entails materialism. If someone believes in non-material minds, abstract mathematical objects, and God, she could give up believing in God without automatically having to give up believing in the other two. I don’t see why this is any different from how Aquinas believed in God and non-material minds but not abstract mathematical objects, or how the ancient Greeks believed in Zeus and Ares but not in Thor. You can believe in some non-material things without believing in all of them.

Perhaps, but it seems to me that if your reasons for denying the existence of some non-material things, in principle, precludes the existence of those other non-material things that you wish to hold on to, then you are either being inconsistent in the application of reasons or simply engaging in some form of self-delusion.

Could you provide a sufficient reason for your denial of the existence of God that does not also commit you to atheistic materialism and the denial of the existence of other non-material minds? We need to agree that minds as “emergent phenomena” are really not “non-material,” except in some figurative sense, correct?

 

[PRmerger]

The vast majority of people throughout history have not been Christians. Is this prima facie evidence that Christianity is wrong?

But it’s almost universal, in all cultures, throughout all of history, that people have held a common belief in a divine being.

That, in itself, is prima facie evidence for the existence of God.

And this segues rather nicely with my current point regarding the curious inconsistency among non-Believers.

This practically universal belief in a divine being is not enough for you to call it prima facie evidence…

But the fact that atheists exist and that “people sacrifice themselves for others” is enough to prove that this PAK exists.

Curious, this double standard.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

What would there be in the philosophies of atheists like Ayn Rand, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Madalyn Murray O’Hair, etc. that it would seem incongruous with their lives to expect them to volunteer with the thousands of Christians who have assisted Mother Teresa in Calcutta?

Certainly not a spirit of altruism.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

So it seems we agree - empathy, as an emotion, is wholly unqualified as a source for morality, since one’s empathy can result in both “evil” and “righteous” behavior.

It’s an intrinsic motivator that can result in some one deciding to engage in behaviour that can be found to be moral. No, this isn’t 100% reliable. Unfortunately, I can’t think of anything that is. Similarly guns and threats can also motivate some one to do things that may be considered more moral or less moral (ex: a person changes their mind on robbing a place because of the presence of armed guards, or a person is motivated to participate in a crime to avoid some threat).

Some of this this is also where the “objects of concern” com into play (see #116) which can be influence by in-group/out-group lines(see #100). The example that you gave involves heave in-group/out-group lines being drawn along ethnicity. A lot of these in-group/out-group lines are learned. On a related note, I’ve had conversations with people that are vegetarians because of moral concerns. After seeing how animals raised for food were treated they concluded it was not moral to support the unnecessary harm and painful treatment being imposed on those animals (so non-human metazoans could be said to be included in their objects of concern)

But WHY???

Because he knew it was wrong.

Not necessarily. Emotions can be contagious. If your emotional state is entangled with some one else s then some times you can make yourself feel better by making another person feel better; by reducing their grief you might reduce your own. Some one acting from this may be motivated to perform actions that we find to be more moral, making sure not to cause harm, trying to make some one else happy, feeling some level of remorse when pain actions result in the pain for an object of concern.

 

[mymamamary]

It’s an intrinsic motivator that can result in some one deciding to engage in behaviour that can be found to be moral. No, this isn’t 100% reliable. Unfortunately, I can’t think of anything that is. Similarly guns and threats can also motivate some one to do things that may be considered more moral or less moral (ex: a person changes their mind on robbing a place because of the presence of armed guards, or a person is motivated to participate in a crime to avoid some threat).

Some of this this is also where the “objects of concern” com into play (see #116) which can be influence by in-group/out-group lines(see #100). The example that you gave involves heave in-group/out-group lines being drawn along ethnicity. A lot of these in-group/out-group lines are learned. On a related note, I’ve had conversations with people that are vegetarians because of moral concerns. After seeing how animals raised for food were treated they concluded it was not moral to support the unnecessary harm and painful treatment being imposed on those animals (so non-human metazoans could be said to be included in their objects of concern)

Not necessarily. Emotions can be contagious. If your emotional state is entangled with some one else s then some times you can make yourself feel better by making another person feel better; by reducing their grief you might reduce your own. Some one acting from this may be motivated to perform actions that we find to be more moral, making sure not to cause harm, trying to make some one else happy, feeling some level of remorse when pain actions result in the pain for an object of concern.

Emotions can be contagious however we cannot reduce morality to things such as emotion. What about the other times when we don’t feel gratified yet choose to do the right thing? That is too natural. We aren’t animals to respond to our passions and emotions and to judge right and wrong based on those things.

 

[mymamamary]

What would there be in the philosophies of atheists like Ayn Rand, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Madalyn Murray O’Hair, etc. that it would seem incongruous with their lives to expect them to volunteer with the thousands of Christians who have assisted Mother Teresa in Calcutta?

Certainly not a spirit of altruism.

Amen

 

[Bradski]

I think that this Kolbe example is clouding the waters. It seems to be to come down to: fulfil the requirements that PR has outlined and we will accept that an atheist can sacrifice himself for others. That is, one can be moral without a recourse to a deity. Except that the requirements (as laid out in such detail by PR) are such that they preclude anyone who actually is an atheist from being able to do so. Apparently courage, heroism, altruism are not enough. Or even the act itself.

And please note: we are not talking about altruism, or heroism, or giving one’s life for another. We are talking about sacrificial love. No atheist can do this.

So why can’t an atheist do this? Because…

…this is a purely Christian behavior because it requires supernatural love, not just natural love.

So we’re being asked to give an example of someone who, by definition, does not believe in the supernatural, but can still show an example of supernatural love. As Eleve pointed out:

Sure, if self-sacrifice requires “supernatural love,” and if “supernatural love” requires theism, then it will turn out that there are no such atheists.

So if we give an example of an atheist who gives his life for someone (and as has been pointed out, there is no doubt that it has happened), then it doesn’t count because …he is not a Christian. Joseph Heller would hug himself with delight at that.

And to stretch the point, it’s then being used as a comparison with belief in God. That is, if we can’t prove that an atheist who believes in the supernatural exists, then we must accept a theists belief in God.

I just hope that you never object to a Believer making faith-based assertions of her own. You now realize that you live your life based on faith in something with no evidence.

I don’t think that any atheist here has objected to you having a belief based on faith. It is, after all, the requirement for belief: that you have faith. It’s the same with any religion and any given god. But I don’t have faith in something without evidence because, by the definitions to which you have set, I am saying that it doesn’t exist.

 

[mymamamary]

I think that this Kolbe example is clouding the waters. It seems to be to come down to: fulfil the requirements that PR has outlined and we will accept that an atheist can sacrifice himself for others. That is, one can be moral without a recourse to a deity. Except that the requirements (as laid out in such detail by PR) are such that they preclude anyone who actually is an atheist from being able to do so. Apparently courage, heroism, altruism are not enough. Or even the act itself.

So why can’t an atheist do this? Because…

So we’re being asked to give an example of someone who, by definition, does not believe in the supernatural, but can still show an example of supernatural love. As Eleve pointed out:

So if we give an example of an atheist who gives his life for someone (and as has been pointed out, there is no doubt that it has happened), then it doesn’t count because …he is not a Christian. Joseph Heller would hug himself with delight at that.

And to stretch the point, it’s then being used as a comparison with belief in God. That is, if we can’t prove that an atheist who believes in the supernatural exists, then we must accept a theists belief in God.

I don’t think that any atheist here has objected to you having a belief based on faith. It is, after all, the requirement for belief: that you have faith. It’s the same with any religion and any given god. But I don’t have faith in something without evidence because, by the definitions to which you have set**, I am saying that it doesn’t exist./**QUOTE]

However since this is an indefinte and subjective statement, then You are also claiming Faith.

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t think that any atheist here has objected to you having a belief based on faith.

Before I respond further, could you clarify what you mean by “here”?

Do you mean on this thread? Or on the CAFs? Or in general, as in here on this planet?

 

[Eleve]

Wow, a lot to respond to.

But are you willing to acknowledge that your threshold for believing in this phantom atheistic equivalent of Kolbe is exceedingly low, while your threshold for belief in God is extremely high?

No, I wouldn’t say that. Maybe my threshold for believing in God is higher, because belief in God is very consequential while belief in a self-sacrificing atheist hardly seems to mean anything at all (in the same way that believing water is necessary for survival, say, is more consequential than believing that there is at least one red bicycle in Cuba). But I don’t think the bar I set is terribly high. I don’t think that there is more evidence for the existence of God than there is for the existence of a self-sacrificing atheist. (With a caveat: when I say “more evidence,” I really mean something like “stronger evidence.” If I have a thousand pieces of evidence for something but I can find a thousand problems with that evidence, I would say that isn’t very strong evidence. In contrast, if I want to know what’s on the menu at a restaurant I only need to look once).
"Peter Plato:

Could you provide a sufficient reason for your denial of the existence of God that does not also commit you to atheistic materialism and the denial of the existence of other non-material minds?

I don’t want to turn this into an argument about the merits of specific arguments against the existence of God, because this thread isn’t about the existence of God and because threads about atheism are against forum rules. But it’s hard for me to see how the argument from evil or the argument from divine hiddenness would commit someone to materialism. For that matter, there are arguments against the classical conception of God that can even be made by theists. For example, William Lane Craig thinks that divine simplicity is incoherent. But he still believes in angels, souls, the Trinity, and so on. So if WLC can deny the existence of all kinds of immaterial objects while denying the God of classical theism, why can’t someone deny more generally the God of theism while affirming various immaterial objects? If WLC can take the God of classical theism and peel away divine simplicity without having to throw out everything else immaterial, why can’t someone peel away a bit more? Or if they can’t, why is it that they can’t peel away that layer, but they can peel away the Divine Simplicity layer?

But it’s almost universal, in all cultures, throughout all of history, that people have held a common belief in a divine being.

That, in itself, is prima facie evidence for the existence of God.

And this segues rather nicely with my current point regarding the curious inconsistency among non-Believers.

This practically universal belief in a divine being is not enough for you to call it prima facie evidence…

But the fact that atheists exist and that “people sacrifice themselves for others” is enough to prove that this PAK exists.

Curious, this double standard.

I can’t for the life of me see how that’s a double standard. First of all, those are different kinds of evidence: on the one hand, you’re citing evidence that lots of people believe something as evidence that it’s true; on the other hand, I’m citing the fact that there are two considerably-sized sets of people as evidence that there’s probably some overlap. We both agree that, for a claim like “Jesus wasn’t God,” the fact that most people believe it is not good evidence. So why is it different for the claim “There is a divine being”?

Second, I imagine you do this sort of thing all the time and I don’t think either one of us find it very suspicious. If three people came into work and mentioned a terrible traffic accident on the way there, you would not hesitate to believe them. But you could meet a thousand Muslims and you wouldn’t decide that Islam is correct, just because they all think so. Is this an improper double standard? I don’t think so. I think you’d be balancing things like the significance of the claim, the likelihood that the individual people are knowledgeable about the claim, and the likelihood that they’re being truthful. And I think you’re too quick to cry “Double standard!” just because my calculation comes out differently from yours.

 

[stewstew03]

…on the one hand, you’re citing evidence that lots of people believe something as evidence that it’s true

PR can certainly defend herself, but I will say that this is completely untrue - you are twisting words/arguments to suit your purposes.

…on the other hand, I’m citing the fact that there are two considerably-sized sets of people as evidence that there’s probably some overlap. We both agree that, for a claim like “Jesus wasn’t God,” the fact that most people believe it is not good evidence. So why is it different for the claim “There is a divine being”?

Eleve, you were the one who brought up prima facie evidence (for the existence of self-sacrificing atheists). The point is, you conveniently ignored the prima facie evidence for the existence of God. No one but you is claiming that prima facie evidence is enough to confidently believe something exists, except when you decide its not enough to confidently believe something exists.