Towards a Common Ethic

[Sair]

Hi, everyone

I’ve been doing a lot of reading on these forums recently, and I’ve been led to wonder - what does it take to maintain a productive dialogue between atheists and theists (be they Christians or otherwise)? I know this is probably just an extension of the ‘How to Argue’ thread, but I thought I would try to deal specifically with this apparent oppositional arrangement, in part because I don’t believe the animosity I have seen and experienced is at all necessary.

A few things I have noted, just to get the debate started:

One thing is that courtesy tends to break down very rapidly in arguments between theists and atheists, especially when it comes to questions of metaphysics and a ‘first cause’. Accusations of ignorance and stupidity get thrown about with wild abandon, all seemingly based upon subjective interpretations of logic, physics and empirical evidence. The truth is that at present, we can’t actually ‘know’ either way - there is no objective proof, and no grounds for falsification, so it seems futile to pursue an argument that really just comes down to a question of whether you believe in God or not.

The other thing is that I wonder if it is possible to maintain a courteous argument on the subject of ethics, or how one ought to live. I freely admit that as an atheist, I see much to admire in Christian ethics - this may have a lot to do with the fact that I was raised as a Catholic, but nevertheless, I appreciate the good in an approach to life that considers the needs of others as commensurate with one’s own. I don’t consider this approach incompatible with atheism, although I’ve seen arguments from many Christians who are determined to label atheism as the ultimate evil, who genuinely think that there can be no morality without God, and who don’t seem to acknowledge that altruism is in all likelihood as much a part of human nature as selfishness. We are, after all, social animals. The big question here is, can there be any common ground between theist and atheist ethics?

So, what do others think? Is it possible for theists and atheists to establish any meaningful dialogue, and if so, what is required for this to take place?

 

[Leela]

I thinnk we largely do have common ethics, but we still don’t seem to be able to have productive discussions in this forum in areas where we disagree, because our ethics come from different places. Atheists seek to justify their ethics rationally, while theists appeal to faith in the Church to dictate what is right and wrong. If we could agree that moral concerns are concerns for human well-being, we could discuss what human well-being is and how to achieve it. But if one side thinks of moral concerns as concerns for human well-being, and the other thinks of morals as concerns with pleasing or not angerring gods, then there simply is no common basis for discussion. We’ll just talk past one another.

 

[JDaniel]

Hi, everyone

I’ve been doing a lot of reading on these forums recently, and I’ve been led to wonder - what does it take to maintain a productive dialogue between atheists and theists (be they Christians or otherwise)? I know this is probably just an extension of the ‘How to Argue’ thread, but I thought I would try to deal specifically with this apparent oppositional arrangement, in part because I don’t believe the animosity I have seen and experienced is at all necessary.

A few things I have noted, just to get the debate started:

One thing is that courtesy tends to break down very rapidly in arguments between theists and atheists, especially when it comes to questions of metaphysics and a ‘first cause’. Accusations of ignorance and stupidity get thrown about with wild abandon, all seemingly based upon subjective interpretations of logic, physics and empirical evidence. The truth is that at present, we can’t actually ‘know’ either way - there is no objective proof, and no grounds for falsification, so it seems futile to pursue an argument that really just comes down to a question of whether you believe in God or not.

The other thing is that I wonder if it is possible to maintain a courteous argument on the subject of ethics, or how one ought to live. I freely admit that as an atheist, I see much to admire in Christian ethics - this may have a lot to do with the fact that I was raised as a Catholic, but nevertheless, I appreciate the good in an approach to life that considers the needs of others as commensurate with one’s own. I don’t consider this approach incompatible with atheism, although I’ve seen arguments from many Christians who are determined to label atheism as the ultimate evil, who genuinely think that there can be no morality without God, and who don’t seem to acknowledge that altruism is in all likelihood as much a part of human nature as selfishness. We are, after all, social animals. The big question here is, can there be any common ground between theist and atheist ethics?

So, what do others think? Is it possible for theists and atheists to establish any meaningful dialogue, and if so, what is required for this to take place?

Hello, Sair:

First, we have to understand that this forum receives many, many seminar atheists. Seminar atheists are atheists trained to be “argumentative” and to be effective distractions on forums such as CAF. When they come here, they are not open to respectful discussion, as you will see clearly from their initial postings. They are quick to insult, and, despite their attempts to disguise the insult(s), it/they is/are there couched in flowery terms and phrases which merely seem to exhibit an aire of charity.

I believe you have come here on your own accord, to converse, discuss and try to seek either truth or, at least, cordial disagreeing conclusions. But, you have to ask yourself to be honest as to your motives. It is difficult for us to judge. As time goes on, the true colors of the breed of atheist we are talking to tend to show up. As soon as they are found out, most disappear, as though they never existed.

In the mean time, they have left their legacy. Their legacy consists of at the most, outright anger and outburst, and at the least, a disdaining shortness to others. The Catholics here, for the most part, love to engage in thoughtful, courteous dialogue. You have to admit that you have seen much of that. You will see “heated” debates between Catholics herein. But, it is (usually) always courteous and charitable. That’s all we expect and, in turn, we are bound to return it. Let me say further, that we are more bound to be charitable because of our Faith than we are by the powers of the moderators.

The second problem is from the nature of this type of forum. Rarely does anyone read earlier posts and threads that deal precisely with the subject one contemplates to discuss. Instead, a few are read but for no other purpose than to provide a “jumping in” spot. Having to constantly repeat the same answers to the same questions can, and does, become frustrating for everyone involved. I suggest that newbies spend some time reviewing current threads as well as earlier threads that indicate subjects that the new member might want to discuss.

We have heard all of the arguments proposed by the atheists before, probably many times over. I must admit that it becomes hard to respond in a cordial manner, on a subject, especially when there is a thread 300 posts long thread just slightly down the first page of a forum. I would suggest that more time be taken to read some of those posts. I spent days reading old threads before jumping in headlong

A third problem stems from the implication that science is that which is in possession of the only truth, or, if not the only truth, that it is possession of the only ways that truth can be arrived at. There are many ways truth can be arrived at. Inductive logic, deductive logic, preponderance of external, non-scientific evidence, historical evidence, and, for us the Magisterium and the Pope. All we ask is that they not be disrespected or insulted. Argue the points you wish without disparagement of either. And while we’re on the subject, disrespect, insult and disparagement of a Catholic Saint should be avoided.

The third axiom would be then, stick to debate. Word statements in such a way that they are not purely argumentative. Purely argumentative statements are generally overruled in courts of law as they serve no purpose, with the exception of riling up the other side, and the judge.

But, as you and I know, the odds against this happening are huge.

jd

 

[Spock]

So, what do others think? Is it possible for theists and atheists to establish any meaningful dialogue, and if so, what is required for this to take place?

I am beginning to doubt it. I also started a thread about this, and the prognosis is not good. The starting point is just too different. Indeed there are lots of agreements, for example, the idea that murder is not kosher can be easily agreed upon. However, the believers would assert (actually did assert) that vanton murder (even genocide) is moral IF God orders it.

However, when it comes to more contentious issues, like sex, contraception or abortion, there is absolutely no common ground. The swords are raised, and virtual “blood” starts to flow out of the USB ports. Actually, this is too bad. But I see no resolution. There is a very similar type of antagonism when market liberals clash with socialists.

 

[Sideline]

One of the biggest problems that I’ve seen on this and other boards where atheists and theists are conversing, is that people seem to think they are smarter than anyone who disagrees with them. On these forums I’ve seen people argue that believing in God, evolution, Jesus, a heliocentric solar system, sola scriptura, the Catholic Church, the scientific method, aliens, and that Barack Obama is an American Citizen means that you a raving imbecile.

The idea that we have many similar ideas about ethics does seem to suggest that there is room for common ground for atheists and theists to have discussions, but that does not seem to be the case in reality. Most people seem to think that their ethics are rationally derived, while people who disagree with them are simply basing their ethics on emotion. Atheists tend to think they are being rational, while theists are basing their ethics on a desire to please God. Theists tend to believe that they are being rational, while atheists are basing their ethics on their selfish desires.

Sadly, it seems the only way for atheists and theists to have a fruitful discussion seems to be to talk about something that has nothing to do with religion.

 

[severntofall]

The thing that drives non-believers the craziest is when believers quote their scriptures as if it somehow proves their point. If you are going to quote scripture in an effort to “prove” your point (e.g. we know that god created the universe cause the book of Genesis says…) then explain how the bible is an authoritative text on the topic. It would be like us quoting Nietzsche to prove that god didn’t exist. That gets us nowhere. Catholics are normally pretty good about being able to explain the logic behind their points, but protestants are typically content to just quote the bible.

 

[Swan]

I thinnk we largely do have common ethics, but we still don’t seem to be able to have productive discussions in this forum in areas where we disagree, because our ethics come from different places. Atheists seek to justify their ethics rationally, while theists appeal to faith in the Church to dictate what is right and wrong. If we could agree that moral concerns are concerns for human well-being, we could discuss what human well-being is and how to achieve it. But if one side thinks of moral concerns as concerns for human well-being, and the other thinks of morals as concerns with pleasing or not angerring gods, then there simply is no common basis for discussion. We’ll just talk past one another.

Excellent points.

I think about this issue a lot and therein rests my motivation for coming to CAF. In the interest of full disclosure, I’m a former Christian (both Catholic and Protestant) who is now an agnostic. I’m also a progressive/liberal. I live in Los Angeles and am involved in social justice work and many of the social justice folks I work with are either agnostic or atheist (some are Buddhists, some liberal Christians). They are good folks doing valuable work - many in the trenches, fighting for social justice. Yet Christians, especially the more convervative ones, generally have no use for us. They tend to disregard our genuine care and action for social justice because our values don’t come from the Bible or the RCC. I find this a huge obstacle because I’m pretty sure that if, say, an agnostic and a Catholic were working/volunteering side-by-side in a homeless shelter that, without the issue of religion coming up, these two folks could find a lot of common ground (don’t ask, don’t tell). Yet, should religion become a topic, alienation could result regardless of the common goal/values both are working toward.

There is a really good essay/editorial on this very subject that I’m going to link to below and that I recommend for anyone truly conerned about this issue. It’s called:

"Reaching out to Conservative Christians: A Time for Healing Old Wounds"

truthout.org/031009R

Very thougth provoking - here are a couple of paragraphs from the first section:

*If I had to pick one word to describe the political discourse around religion in the US, I’d say that it is toxic. Conservative Christians paint liberals as godless and devoid of morality. We tend to paint Conservative Christians as radical hate-mongers completely devoid of compassion. We each see the other through our own worldview. And we tend to focus on the negative.

Last year I had a conversation with my brother, an intensely religious person who considers himself to be a fundamentalist. It was one of those heart-to-heart talks intended to get to know each other after years of growing apart. I was a bit surprised to discover that my brother actually believed that I had no morality because I don’t believe in God. I pleasantly discovered that he is strongly motivated by his concern for the suffering of children in sub-Saharan Africa, where he does missionary work. Through the conversation, we learned as much about ourselves as we did about each other. *

 

[Sair]

I thinnk we largely do have common ethics, but we still don’t seem to be able to have productive discussions in this forum in areas where we disagree, because our ethics come from different places. Atheists seek to justify their ethics rationally, while theists appeal to faith in the Church to dictate what is right and wrong. If we could agree that moral concerns are concerns for human well-being, we could discuss what human well-being is and how to achieve it. But if one side thinks of moral concerns as concerns for human well-being, and the other thinks of morals as concerns with pleasing or not angerring gods, then there simply is no common basis for discussion. We’ll just talk past one another.

Sadly, the talking at each other, rather than to each other, seems to be pretty standard practice. There is always going to be someone who takes a questioning of their faith - or lack of faith - as a personal attack, and, of course, there are many posters who follow through and actually do level personal attacks. When it comes to issues of ethics, I think I’ve now officially lost count of the number of times I have been called immoral, wrong, or just out-and-out evil because I’ve disagreed with some aspect of what someone else has decided is their definition of goodness.

I have decided, after some initial trepidation, that it’s best just to lay all my cards on the table and declare my atheism up-front, before launching into any argument. It’s now up on my personal information - though not in the section labelled ‘Religion’! That said, once I’ve made it clear that my opinions are formed from an atheistic perspective, many will then attempt to argue that the Catholic/Christian approach to the issue is actually formed on completely rational, rather than religious, grounds, and - in tones ranging from condescending sympathy to open antagonism - that I’m a bit stupid or ignorant to think otherwise.

I wonder why it is that so many people seem to be afraid of the words, “I believe”. Is it because they don’t want to have a bunch of people dismissing their thoughts because “well, that’s just your opinion”? It’s unfortunate that many people don’t seem to want to state unequivocally, “Here’s my opinion, here are the reasons I hold it, and this is how I act upon it…and it works for me.” There is room in the world for a plurality of views, at least to some extent. Of course I realise that there are issues that many people see as completely black and white, such as abortion. But aside from these kinds of issues that will always generate heated debate, surely it’s better to simply live and let live, and be thankful for the fact that we’re not all the same.

 

[Sair]

The idea that we have many similar ideas about ethics does seem to suggest that there is room for common ground for atheists and theists to have discussions, but that does not seem to be the case in reality. Most people seem to think that their ethics are rationally derived, while people who disagree with them are simply basing their ethics on emotion. Atheists tend to think they are being rational, while theists are basing their ethics on a desire to please God. Theists tend to believe that they are being rational, while atheists are basing their ethics on their selfish desires.

Now, I can appreciate the irony inherent in this statement, but my honest opinion is that ethics are always subjectively derived. People will inevitably (although they may not always realise it) rationalise what they want to believe - I catch myself doing it at times - and will even interpret the same evidence in opposite ways as it suits their respective mindsets. It really depends upon what one’s personal life experiences have been, and what one has learned from them, as to what evidence and what interpretations one finds convincing.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Several points:

First, I think if you want to see real hostility at a website between Christians and atheists, go to an atheist website. They are not famous for courtesy to Christian visitors, and the vitriol shared among them about Christians is bitter in the extreme. I’ve never seen at CAF that kind of vitriol.

Second, I’ve talked with many Catholics in a ministry to evangelize atheists, and they generally agree that many atheists carry a real chip on their shoulders. Any argument that begins politely, as I think JDaniel pointed out, can end poorly. It may well be that sometimes the Catholic loses his cool, but if so, it is not likely to be without some kind of provocation. We are only human … and regret our sins.

Third, I think many agnostics and atheists learn to argue their cause by reading the most famous hate-mongering antagonists of Christianity … people like Voltaire, Thomas Paine, Hume, Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell, Clarence Darrow, H.L. Mencken, Einstein, and today’s darling, Richard Dawkins. All of these writers have the same things in common, a seething contempt for traditional religion and an abundance of arguments to prove their case. My guess is that many of the agnostics/atheists visiting CAF are imbued with that that same contempt and those same arguments. Having read all of the writers listed above, I recognize their influence on their disciples here when I see it. What our non-Catholic and anti-Catholic visitors need to remember is that they are guests, and welcome guests; but the hosts will not, as they should not, abide any attempt by the guests to take over the house and abuse the hosts. Keeping that in mind should go a long way toward maintaining peaceful exchanges.

Finally, I would like to see an instance where a Catholic misbehaved in this forum without overt or subtle provocation. I think on balance we have treated our visitors well when they treated us well, but sometimes badly when they first treated us the same. Mea culpa.

Sair, thank you for introducing this thread.

 

[Spock]

I wonder why it is that so many people seem to be afraid of the words, “I believe”. Is it because they don’t want to have a bunch of people dismissing their thoughts because “well, that’s just your opinion”?

So true! I have a sneaky suspicion that it stems from the fact that people value “knowledge” over “beliefs” and deep inside they know that “reason” is superior to “faith”. This is why there are innumerable threads about the half-baked “proofs” for God’s existence.

It’s unfortunate that many people don’t seem to want to state unequivocally, “Here’s my opinion, here are the reasons I hold it, and this is how I act upon it…and it works for me.”

If only it would be the case! But many believers want to have their personal convictions to be taken over into the legislative arena, and want opposing views to be illegal. Remember Bush Sr., who declared (as president!) that atheists should not be considered patriots and maybe not even citizens. Fortunately such extremists are just a minority, but they are sure loud.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Spock

*So true! I have a sneaky suspicion that it stems from the fact that people value “knowledge” over “beliefs” and deep inside they know that “reason” is superior to “faith”. This is why there are innumerable threads about the half-baked “proofs” for God’s existence. *

Another example of contemptuous language toward the hosts?

Did it ever occur to you that the “innumberable threads” exist not because we need to prove anything to ourselves, but because we need to prove it to you?

We try to bring to your attention that Reason is not averse to God, even though it is a “half-baked” approach to God.

 

[JDaniel]

Now, I can appreciate the irony inherent in this statement, but my honest opinion is that ethics are always subjectively derived. People will inevitably (although they may not always realise it) rationalise what they want to believe - I catch myself doing it at times - and will even interpret the same evidence in opposite ways as it suits their respective mindsets. It really depends upon what one’s personal life experiences have been, and what one has learned from them, as to what evidence and what interpretations one finds convincing.

Sair, welcome again! It must have been dark in that closet!

Do you realize that you have just put your finger on the problem? Without a moral standard, all we have is 6 billion opinions. Yet we don’t. We have several formal codes of ethics and morality and we have even codified them into sets of laws. Someplace along the way, men sat down and came to agreements - and, they did so rather easily, in my estimation. And, the rest of us tacitly agree with them. Thus, it can’t be merely 6 billion opinions.

Granted there has been some trial and error and some despots had to be overthrown, but, the generalities of men found ways to give expression to a relative few ethical “standards”. Thank God we do not live under anarchy.

jd

 

[Oreoracle]

We have heard all of the arguments proposed by the atheists before, probably many times over. I must admit that it becomes hard to respond in a cordial manner, on a subject, especially when there is a thread 300 posts long thread just slightly down the first page of a forum.

You’re talking about me, aren’t you!

One of the things that bothers me about debating with Christians is their language. I’m not talking about profane comments, but terms. Common virtues are used differently by Christians (For example, Socrates hit on many of the virtues Christians speak of, before Christians spoke of them. His take on them, however, was drastically different, and no virtue was dependent on the existence of a god.). Christians also tend to use “objective” as though it means “consistent” and “subjective” as though it means “variable”.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

(For example, Socrates hit on many of the virtues Christians speak of, before Christians spoke of them.)

Really? What virtues are you talking about? Surely not love, which was the real centerpiece both of Judaism and Christianity (Judaism predates Socrates by many centuries) and Christianity continues the tradition of the first commandment to love God and one another.

 

[JDaniel]

So true! I have a sneaky suspicion that it stems from the fact that people value “knowledge” over “beliefs” and deep inside they know that “reason” is superior to “faith”. This is why there are innumerable threads about the half-baked “proofs” for God’s existence.

Spock, you just keep on digging your own grave. Your arrogance precedes you.

If only it would be the case! But many believers want to have their personal convictions to be taken over into the legislative arena, and want opposing views to be illegal. Remember Bush Sr., who declared (as president!) that atheists should not be considered patriots and maybe not even citizens. Fortunately such extremists are just a minority, but they are sure loud.

And, it is certainly amazing that someone who howls so much against those who prefer “beliefs” to “knowledge”, is immersed in “beliefs” so deeply himself. It would appear that your George Bush “declaration” is most likely false, and, if not false, deeply suspect:
freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=189743

jd

 

[Charlemagne_II]

SAIR

… but my honest opinion is that ethics are always subjectively derived. People will inevitably (although they may not always realise it) rationalise what they want to believe - I catch myself doing it at times - and will even interpret the same evidence in opposite ways as it suits their respective mindsets. It really depends upon what one’s personal life experiences have been, and what one has learned from them, as to what evidence and what interpretations one finds convincing.

Always subjectively derived? Would it be subjectively or objectively bad to start a nuclear war that resulted in the annihilation of the human race?

I would agree that many values are subjectively arrived at. We sometimes want things to be so that are not necessarily so. There may be someone who believes it is good to rape a woman and then kill her. There might be some way that reason supplies an excuse by offering a lie, as the serpent lied to Eve.

It’s true, the Catholic Church does teach that truth and right can be objectively found. But when unaided reason is given a license to practice, all bets are off.

 

[Spock]

Another example of contemptuous language toward the hosts?

No, not toward the “hosts” in general, but definitely toward some of them. Respect has to be earned, it is not the default position.

Did it ever occur to you that the “innumberable threads” exist not because we need to prove anything to ourselves, but because we need to prove it to you?

We try to bring to your attention that Reason is not averse to God, even though it is a “half-baked” approach to God.

If reason is insufficient in this case, then why try to employ it? Your argument supports my position.

 

[Spock]

Spock, you just keep on digging your own grave. Your arrogance precedes you.

You don’t realize that I stopped responding to you, no matter how “taunting” you are?

 

[JDaniel]

You’re talking about me, aren’t you!

You should be so lucky! Actually, no, I wasn’t meaning you. I like you and your skills.

One of the things that bothers me about debating with Christians is their language. I’m not talking about profane comments, but terms. Common virtues are used differently by Christians (For example, Socrates hit on many of the virtues Christians speak of, before Christians spoke of them. His take on them, however, was drastically different, and no virtue was dependent on the existence of a god.). Christians also tend to use “objective” as though it means “consistent” and “subjective” as though it means “variable”.

But, Socrates did refer it to a “standard” which he said derives from the desire, in men, for the goal of “happiness”. As you may be aware, some of his followers misunderstood what he was teaching and took them to extremes. Aristippus took it to mean, that “pleasure” was the chief means to happiness, hence, Hedonism. And Antisthenes, who misunderstood in the other direction and taught that “virtue” was the chief means to happiness, hence Stoicism.

Now, Socrates, not being a stupid man, knew that somewhere in the middle of pleasure and virtue, was the norm of “ethics”. Where did this underlying idea come from? Why was it that he knew that the extremes of Aristippus and Antisthenes would lead to corruption?

jd