C
cho_pilo
Guest
Any takers?
Not throwing out the baby with the bathwater: why don't atheists typically reject secular values derived from religion?
- Status
A
ADouglass
Guest
The police, and the invisible police, i.e. their consciences, which seems to imply that they haven’t truly rejected God, i.e. they are still aware of the truth of Natural Law. Plus, some think that religion got a few things right. So why change it? Why don’t they subscribe to the idea that all is permissible if there is no God? They realize like Kant, that if everyone behaved as if all is permissible, then society would collapse and they would lose all their access to things like marijuana, condoms, internet, abortion, ammuniton, money, books, movies, organized sports, family, etc.
I
inocente
Guest
I’m a theist who doesn’t understand why any religion should want to claim the inside track on morality - if all people are created equal, if there is one humanity, then we’re all highly likely to agree on basic morality whether or not we happen to believe God is looking over our shoulder.
H
Hokomai
Guest
I guess the same reason why Christians, on the whole, no longer reject values which have come from secular society since the enlightenment: opposition to slavery, support for democracy, the franchise for women, abolition of legal protection for men who rape their wives, the right for workers to organise and combine, religious freedom, allowing immigration of people from non-Christian cultures, abolition of established religion etc.
I
inocente
Guest
There are a lot of Christians who see natural law as just one among many systems of ethics. There are even different versions of natural law ethics, which reach various conclusions about what is right and wrong, for example in the case of some sexual morality.
E
Eric_Peter
Guest
Hmm. I just hope you’re not indirectly saying slavery, monarchy, disenfranchise of women, legal protection for men who rape their wives, devoid of the rights for workers to organise and combine, religious slavery, forbidding immigration of people from the non-Christian cultures, establishment of religion etc comes from Christianity.
Because they’re not from Christianity.
Christianity existed only 2000 years ago.
Before Christianity was born, all these things were already all over around the world. It didn’t came from Christianity, it is already there, by the non-Christianity, or secular world.
R
Ranklyfrank
Guest
I agree with Inocente and Hokomai. And you, Eric Peter, back to the history books!
The false assumption in the thread title is that morality derives from religion. It does not. Religion, and here we have to leave the usual assumption on here that “religion” means Catholicism or Christianity, appears to coincide with morality because it materially codifies a meme which in fact stems from human nature. Now that human nature can be attributed to God or a god, but that implies a commonality of Source which in our Christian case points to being created in the image and likeness of God. So consider the Source and that the idea of the “fall” of man is as well a sadly misinterpreted idea. And if you are an atheist, there are perfectly serviceable moral paradigms that can lead to very high ethics and “moral” behavior.
But in any case, morality is based on the twin legs of survival and commonality. And that is why one sees morality applying concentrically out from the family, to the tribe, or city, ans so on to larger and larger inclusions until the level of the saint/philosopher is reached where man is Man and is inclusive of all and of Nature and of God if the person is a theist. So in that way we can have everything from blaming it on God to honor amongst thieves.
The difference with Christianity is that it takes it our of the context of you and me NOW into me after death. It does that in a way that bifurcates consequence and the mind of the one being “moral.” It is a kind of a high level consideration forced by the sanction of eternal consequence codified in a way that may not and likely isn’t even nearly accurate. In other words morality is totally covered without the necessity of attribution to a systemic paradigm by the simple ideas of reciprocity and identity.
That is why the Golden Rule precedes Christianity and is cross cultural, as is “Know Thyself.” The fact is, if you know yourself, you cease to identify the “other” as separate from your own Nature. And no one harms themselves unless they are ignorant, which is why “Gnothi Seauton” is such a critical injunction regardless of any adherence to any accident of religious affiliation. It is also the key to ecumenism of a profound kind not admissible by adamantine adherence to intellectualized dogmas.
The false assumption in the thread title is that morality derives from religion. It does not. Religion, and here we have to leave the usual assumption on here that “religion” means Catholicism or Christianity, appears to coincide with morality because it materially codifies a meme which in fact stems from human nature. Now that human nature can be attributed to God or a god, but that implies a commonality of Source which in our Christian case points to being created in the image and likeness of God. So consider the Source and that the idea of the “fall” of man is as well a sadly misinterpreted idea. And if you are an atheist, there are perfectly serviceable moral paradigms that can lead to very high ethics and “moral” behavior.
But in any case, morality is based on the twin legs of survival and commonality. And that is why one sees morality applying concentrically out from the family, to the tribe, or city, ans so on to larger and larger inclusions until the level of the saint/philosopher is reached where man is Man and is inclusive of all and of Nature and of God if the person is a theist. So in that way we can have everything from blaming it on God to honor amongst thieves.
The difference with Christianity is that it takes it our of the context of you and me NOW into me after death. It does that in a way that bifurcates consequence and the mind of the one being “moral.” It is a kind of a high level consideration forced by the sanction of eternal consequence codified in a way that may not and likely isn’t even nearly accurate. In other words morality is totally covered without the necessity of attribution to a systemic paradigm by the simple ideas of reciprocity and identity.
That is why the Golden Rule precedes Christianity and is cross cultural, as is “Know Thyself.” The fact is, if you know yourself, you cease to identify the “other” as separate from your own Nature. And no one harms themselves unless they are ignorant, which is why “Gnothi Seauton” is such a critical injunction regardless of any adherence to any accident of religious affiliation. It is also the key to ecumenism of a profound kind not admissible by adamantine adherence to intellectualized dogmas.
J
Joan1969
Guest
I would point out that most atheists are rejecting the moral code with respect to all areas where modern man is actually tempted. In other words, we are currently tempted by abortion for economic reasons (it is expensive to raise children in modern countries, and there are no real economic benefits to enjoy). Notice that almost all atheists either approve or at least tolerate abortion. There are practically no atheists in the pro-life movement; it seems to be all Christians.
Sexual morality is another area where either atheists, or professed religious believers who take their moral cues form non-religious people, will often give into the temptations and opportunities that modern life affords. While some atheists may be very conventional in their personal sexual behavior, I don’t see any evidence that there is a significant number who will actually advocate chastity.
Racial discrimination is no longer tempting to people in developed nations. In the past, atheists were at least as prone as religious people to extreme racism. Now that it is not attractive (we desire all members of our society to be educated for economic reasons), secularists find it convenient to reject the racism promoted by irreligious predecesors and to start pointing fingers at Christians.
Ranklyfrank, I would like to follow your argument but I find it too technical for this particular forum. Perhaps you could re-state some of your arguments using more conventional terminology?
God Bless,
Joan
Sexual morality is another area where either atheists, or professed religious believers who take their moral cues form non-religious people, will often give into the temptations and opportunities that modern life affords. While some atheists may be very conventional in their personal sexual behavior, I don’t see any evidence that there is a significant number who will actually advocate chastity.
Racial discrimination is no longer tempting to people in developed nations. In the past, atheists were at least as prone as religious people to extreme racism. Now that it is not attractive (we desire all members of our society to be educated for economic reasons), secularists find it convenient to reject the racism promoted by irreligious predecesors and to start pointing fingers at Christians.
Ranklyfrank, I would like to follow your argument but I find it too technical for this particular forum. Perhaps you could re-state some of your arguments using more conventional terminology?
God Bless,
Joan
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Perhaps the biggest reason is that, its virtually impossible to tell just what values are really from a particular religion.
For instance, a prohibition against murder is almost universal among stable societies (though how murder is defined differs) so the idea that murder/bad is specifically Christian is obviously false.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Being non-Christian is not (necessarily) the same thing as being secular.
Both communists and Muslims are non-Christian, but anyone who says that Islam is inherently secular obviously knows nothing about either Islam or secularism.
B
beafedor
Guest
What about Averroes?
D
danserr
Guest
I’m afraid I’m with Eric Peter on this one. Many of those “secular” values that Hokonai lists are not from the so-called Enlightenment at all. It was the English Evangelicals who abolished the slave trade, it was the “enlightened” deists, who supported it. And the worst of slavery was purely a creation of the modern world. Similar, Rodney Stark in The Rise of Christianity has shown that one of the reasons that women were so prominent among the earliest converts to Christianity was the it was actually positive for them, especially in it’s opposition to Infanticide (infant exposure, abortion, and adultery. The Didache, (in Early Christian writings for instance, an early Christian text, brags about how wonderful Christians are compared to romans, because the Christians do not share their neighbors’ beds, abort their children, or expose them after they are born. This is to say nothing about how successful democracy has been in establishing itself in Christian countries and unsuccessful it has been in non-Christian parts of the world (The East).
The issue is not how we know moral values, but that without God, those values have no objective basis. So the OP wants to know, why do those who reject God, generally keep Christian moral values.
One other note, I’d try to write more clearly, without the jargon. Clarity is always preferable.
No, I believe the assumption of the thread is, or at least should be, not that morality derives from religion, but that morality derives from God. Christianity does not invent morality, nor does it claim to. It says that the moral law comes from God and that it’s demands are absolute, that is, binding on all people. So when you say
; the reason is does so is that God obviously predates Christianity and the golden rule is one of his commands to mankind. One need not be a Christian to know morality, Christianity itself teaches that God’s law is written on the hearts of all men.
The issue, therefore, is not “can we construct a moral system without reference to God.” Of course we can. The point is that such a system, if God does not exist, would be simply a matter of social convention (like driving on the right or left side of the road). It would have no objective basis. A society might as soon decide that proper morality involved the extermination of the Jews. And if memory serves me correctly, one society recently did that.
The issue is not how we know moral values, but that without God, those values have no objective basis. So the OP wants to know, why do those who reject God, generally keep Christian moral values.
- Not all do. Nietzsche, for instance, recognized that the end of Christianity would usher in an age of nihilism, the destruction of all meaning and value in life.
- The problem is that Nietzsche assumed atheism was true. And if it was, I would agree with him. The real reason skeptics reject God, but not morality, is that though they deny it, God does exist and his law is written on their hearts. As CS Lewis said, They are better than their principles.
be careful to speak clearly. If the other is not separate from one’s own nature, then neither “the other” nor “oneself” really exist as individuals. And, of course, loving someone else required that you be able to accept them as not yourself. I don’t think you really meant this, of course.
One other note, I’d try to write more clearly, without the jargon. Clarity is always preferable.
L
lampstand
Guest
You never seem to hear atheists talk about the religious people who do good things, such as feed the poor. 
They object to most things that the Church does, uh, except for stuff like that… 
They object to most things that the Church does, uh, except for stuff like that…
K
Kaninchen
Guest
I’d have thought that, if one doesn’t believe in God, one would suppose that ‘religious morality’ was a projection/particular form of codification of the social behaviours that evolved with the species - with an admixture of the kinds of rules that made bronze age farming cultures (particularly in the Middle East) work.
H
Hokomai
Guest
My point here was not to say that these things inevitably derive from Christianity, but to point out that in my view Christianity itself is not the origin of all values which are now supported by Christians. Christians are of course able, within their own belief system, to believe that the development of these values had its origin in God, who may use anything he wishes to bring a Church of sinners to a deeper understanding of what His will is.
I think that for Catholics a reading of the 19th century Syllabus of Errors from time to time will help put some of this in context papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm See in particular # 78, which endorses restrictions on religious freedom in "Catholic’ countries. The most important thing, however, given the conditions of the 19th century, is the errors which were not condemned.
A
ADouglass
Guest
Definition of religion: voluntary subjection of oneself to God. source: newadvent.org/cathen/12738a.htm
Some people get confused about what religion actually is, it is not necessarily what one group of peope think it is.
Some people get confused about what religion actually is, it is not necessarily what one group of peope think it is.
K
kbwall
Guest
Some people just don’t believe in harming other people. It’s not that hard of a concept to grasp.
It’s two philosophies that strawmen each other, and both are equally annoying. Many Christians don’t see why atheists don’t go beserk and kill everybody. It’s because they just have natural love for other people, they simply don’t believe in a God. Many atheists see this and think some Christians are sociopaths on a leash and behave only to appease their God. But it’s not, it’s simply love for God means love for others and wishing well on others.
It’s two philosophies that strawmen each other, and both are equally annoying. Many Christians don’t see why atheists don’t go beserk and kill everybody. It’s because they just have natural love for other people, they simply don’t believe in a God. Many atheists see this and think some Christians are sociopaths on a leash and behave only to appease their God. But it’s not, it’s simply love for God means love for others and wishing well on others.
S
sprite59
Guest
Since the question is not clear (no examples, no definition of terms, etc.), one can only take a stab at what is meant and attempt to shed some indirect light thereunto:
No reasonable person can deny that T. Aquinas reasons well. His five proofs stand. So,
atheists consciously decide to reject them out of pride, much as the devil and his angels
decided - at the moment of trial - to opt out of worshiping anyone outside themselves.
Thus they were cast into a hell of their own making. Due to their angelic nature, their decision was irrevocable. The sorrow they experience is for their punishment and not out of contrition.
Unlike the evil angels, atheists can reverse their decision and opt to worship God. They
have limited time to do this. The bell tolls at the moment of their death - out of time guys 'n gals.
You rejected Him. He will respect your decision and forever deprive you of His love.
I will pray for you and, should you convert, please pray for me.
On another note, I believe that atheists must be moral people to reach ‘respectability
and a seeming credibility’. They must, therefore, know and observe the moral law writ-
ten in everyone’s heart (by the God they reject). Often, they respect and observe it bet-
ter than many, many believers. I respect those atheists, but they are not credible.
I stop here. Prayers all around,
sprite59
No reasonable person can deny that T. Aquinas reasons well. His five proofs stand. So,
atheists consciously decide to reject them out of pride, much as the devil and his angels
decided - at the moment of trial - to opt out of worshiping anyone outside themselves.
Thus they were cast into a hell of their own making. Due to their angelic nature, their decision was irrevocable. The sorrow they experience is for their punishment and not out of contrition.
Unlike the evil angels, atheists can reverse their decision and opt to worship God. They
have limited time to do this. The bell tolls at the moment of their death - out of time guys 'n gals.
You rejected Him. He will respect your decision and forever deprive you of His love.
I will pray for you and, should you convert, please pray for me.
On another note, I believe that atheists must be moral people to reach ‘respectability
and a seeming credibility’. They must, therefore, know and observe the moral law writ-
ten in everyone’s heart (by the God they reject). Often, they respect and observe it bet-
ter than many, many believers. I respect those atheists, but they are not credible.
I stop here. Prayers all around,
sprite59
R
Ranklyfrank
Guest
St Thomas’ proofs work * if you already believe, and wish to accept them despite their shortcomings.* I am a theist and don’t accept them. And the “God” that most atheist reject is the anthropomorphic invention of religions, not necessarily the actual God.
A
ADouglass
Guest
What is the actual God that they accept then? Or are they simply agnostic about gods other than the “anthropomorphic” ones. Don’t they know it doesn’t make sense to claim to be atheist when more honest terms like agnostic or doubter exist?
- Status