Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Morality of atheists: where does it come from?
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor: I doubt that personwill have much by way of logical reasoning behind his message from his god. If that god is supposedly my god, I can show the thief plenty of stuff from the bible about stealing being wrong - the ten commandments being a start. That's the point: we have a coherent logical system and a standard by which actions can be judged.
What is all this insistence on "logic" about, and what does logic have to do with Christian, or any other, morality?
First Commandment: "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me."
Well, this is clearly a commandment, a statement of authority. A human confronted with an all-powerful deity who claims top-God billing and orders Human to toe the line. Is it logic that compels the human to obey here? Or is it fear?
Second Commandment: "You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments."
What logic is involved in this ban against making images? Note it's the making of images here which is forbidden, not just their worship (which in light of #1, seems a larger concern). Does this God think these beings he created in his image incapable of distinguishing between snapshots from last weekend in Polperro and golden calves? As to the rest of #2, we're back to threats and fear.
Then we have orders about keeping the Sabbath and honoring parents, and prohibitions against murder, stealing, and adultery -- these last three all fairly standard aspects of moral codes generally; there's nothing inherently Christian about them (especially as they're originally Jewish). Logical?
Maybe, in the sense that actions like these cause profound pain and trouble among humans living in close association, and it certainly makes sense to try to quell activity which arouses violent passions. Totally illogical, though, otherwise.
Have these prohibitions prevented murders? No way to know. Reduced thefts? Kept wives and husbands faithful to their spouses? How can we tell? What we do know is that these prohibitions have no magical power, even though issued by this all-powerful deity. Theists and Christians have broken all of them. So, of course, have non-Christians and atheists.
Let's skip on to Commandment # 10: "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's."
Again, I don't know how you see logic operating here. I suppose it depends on how one defines "covet," but frankly, I've seen material objects in a friend's possession that I wished I had. I've seen rooms I'd like to live in, houses I wish were mine. Of course, in this age of mass production, I can sometimes satisfy my covetousness; I can buy my own copy of a CD or book. I can shop for a similar gizmo or clothing item. But even where my covetousness must go unsatisfied, I have thus far successfully refrained from driving acquaintances from their domiciles in order to take up residence there myself. I have somehow managed not to make passes at friends' husbands (or anyone else's, for that matter). I have successfully resisted any temptation to make off with neighbors' property.
I see absolutely no logic behind this prohibition. Why be forbidden to "covet" when coveting hurts nobody? Following up on coveting, of course, is different matter. Actually trying to bed other people's spouses or swiping their belongings or driving them from their dwellings is wrong. And it's wrong not only by majority opinion, but as a matter of law and simple, basic morality: Don't hurt others. Be kind. Respect others -- the kinds of lessons we learn long before we're capable of learning the ten commandments.
-------------------- Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that. Moon: Including what? Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie. Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
A most interesting thread. quote: Originally posted by LilBuddha My reasoning is not circular. Evolution has selected for altruism since it is a species survival mechanism.
I think it is undeniable that evolution has its base in the survival instinct. It is acted upon in facial and behavioral recognition of "the other" who might be a threat. I also think the next evolutionary step was the acceptance of deferred gratification or the ability to wait for the two marshmallows instead of the single one that is first proffered; an experiment with toddlers and monkeys. The step from this to codifying the behavior (tribal or religious) is the next step.
[codefix] [ 23. November 2013, 21:26: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by no prophet: Those with religious beliefs get their morality from their religion. Follow the direction, the example, the advice.
Advice from where? The Bible? Other christians?
How do christians decide which examples to follow and which to ignore? If that decision comes from their own inate sense of what they feel is right or wrong then what makes that different from what atheists do?
-------------------- C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~ Philip Purser Hallard http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Is there a difference to how Christians and atheists behave when it comes to morality ? I don't happen to think there is any real discernible difference.
Hasn't research established that we are born with a moral code already implanted . Where does it come from ? Good question .
Or more to the point *Who* put it there ?
-------------------- Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by rolyn: Is there a difference to how Christians and atheists behave when it comes to morality ? I don't happen to think there is any real discernible difference.
On the contrary. Atheists don't do horrid things to other people and blame it on their god.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Porridge: quote: Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor: I doubt that person will have much by way of logical reasoning behind his message from his god. If that god is supposedly my god, I can show the thief plenty of stuff from the bible about stealing being wrong - the ten commandments being a start. That's the point: we have a coherent logical system and a standard by which actions can be judged.
What is all this insistence on "logic" about, and what does logic have to do with Christian, or any other, morality?
So now you're decrying logic, on a discussion board? Two alternatives occur to me: 1) This is a wind up 2) You're tacitly admitting defeat
-------------------- Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains. Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by mousethief: quote: Originally posted by rolyn: Is there a difference to how Christians and atheists behave when it comes to morality ? I don't happen to think there is any real discernible difference.
On the contrary. Atheists don't do horrid things to other people and give credit to their god.
Fixed that.
-------------------- "Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
What I find most curious about this thread (and past threads on the same theme) is how some Christians seem deeply offended that atheists have morals. It's as if they really want atheists to be psychopaths, to justify their religious identity (some, on past threads, have gone so far as to imply that if it were not for the fear of Hell, they would be fucking everything that moves and shooting random strangers for pocket change).
Leaving that aside, I think the OP confounds two questions:
1. What is the source of the human moral sense?
2. How do atheists explain their moral beliefs?
The latter seems to expand into the claim that if you can't give a logical account of your moral beliefs, you shouldn't have morals. That seems problematic on several levels...
-------------------- When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion. - C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure: some, on past threads, have gone so far as to imply that if it were not for the fear of Hell, they would be fucking everything that moves and shooting random strangers for pocket change).
Come on now, this is just ridiculous. No one carries enough coins to pay for the bullets. Horrible ROI
-------------------- I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Timothy the Obscure: What I find most curious about this thread (and past threads on the same theme) is how some Christians seem deeply offended that atheists have morals.
Really? Who said that? I haven't seen it.
quote: The latter seems to expand into the claim that if you can't give a logical account of your moral beliefs, you shouldn't have morals. That seems problematic on several levels...
I for one am very glad that most atheists are inconsistent enough to hold a set of moral beliefs they can't justify - I'd be very afraid for my life if not. That doesn't change the fact that their morals are (according to their own beliefs) a meaningless convention without basis in anything real, though.
-------------------- Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains. Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
wishandaprayer
Shipmate
# 17673
|
Posted
Morality is continually changing, both within the "Christian" world and without. We can see this, looking back, on a macro and (relatively) micro level.
I tend towards an almost evolutionary view of morality - that it didn't necessarily evolve/select itself, but that societies with a higher sense of certain forms of morality protected and proliferated themselves. These then become more and more accepted and taught that they are the norm, while subtly changing over time to accept advances in knowledge - so where killing your own people was wrong, but killing others for the protection of the tribe was OK, that tribalism over time gets broken down till we are at the point that killing is wrong, for example.
So as to the question, where does morality come from for Atheists? The same place it comes from for everyone, it is baked into culture, and stems from the way that our ancestors found to survive. Whether that was inventing a holy book (there are many) to wave a stick at the people in their tribe to keep them from doing (or make them do) things that could affect the survival of their tribe, or whether it was putting in an authoritarian structure, this just becomes the norm within each society.
This works for me because it gives a grounding for the variation in morality we see around the world even now.
Posts: 94 | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote: I for one am very glad that most atheists are inconsistent enough to hold a set of moral beliefs they can't justify - I'd be very afraid for my life if not. That doesn't change the fact that their morals are (according to their own beliefs) a meaningless convention without basis in anything real, though.
I'm sorry, your opinion about people's morals according to their beliefs is of extremely limited value when you either don't understand their beliefs or don't engage with them.
Plenty on here have posited a biological basis for morality. What's not real about that? To spell it out - the basis of morality in this view is encoded in our DNA. Others have linked this with societal factors, which would reduce down to the ability of our brains to think, learn, reason, remember and the rest of it, coupled with the wisdom/folly of crowds. If the results of this in the area of morality do not have a basis in anything that is real, then this computer I am typing on doesn't, either.
On the point of logical justification, the biological model is an ongoing project that doesn't cover all the bases at this time. Hey ho, your logical justification relies on the existence of God, which is still an open philosophical question, the heroic efforts of IngoB notwithstanding.
-------------------- For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor: The existence of God is not a moral question, so relying on his existence in order to answer a moral question is well within the rules.
Assume God exists. Then what? What does this have to do with morality? If we have God exists and created the world therefore we should follow God's commands, I agree we have a basis for morality - but that morality is neither more nor less than Might Makes Right.
quote: The atheist explanations that have so far been given for morality are explanations of the how rather than the why. We got our morality from our parents, or found it innate within us? Great, but that doesn't make it mean anything.
Neither does an invisible sky-daddy.
quote: If morality is a byproduct of evolution, nothing can accurately be described as bad, only as abnormal.
Um... no. If morality is a byproduct of evolution, large scale immorality can be described as bad in that it is suicidal and as such self-defeating.
quote: Originally posted by Mudfrog: Atheists in the UK get their morality from the Christian culture they have been born into.
Laws, culture, ethics, etc are all based on Christianity.
Please! I live in a largely secular society based in the values of the Enlightenment. And a lot of my morality involves analysing and explicitly rejecting the Christian roots of the culture I live in in favour of the ones we've developed since, with Christianity being mere scaffolding on the way there.
The Christian culture that believes that torture is justifiable and in infinite punishment for finite wrongs. The Christian culture that until secular society reformed it claimed "The rich man in his castle, The poor man at his gate, God made them high and lowly, And ordered their estate." The Christian culture that is the last socially respectable bastion of homophobic bigotry in Britain.
And that is the problem Christianity has in Britain right now. Morally most of it is playing catch-up when put next to secular society. Until Justin Webley launched his deserved assault on Wonga.com and Pope Francis started demonstrating poverty and simplicity could at least symbolically happen in the Vatican our large scale Christian leaders for the past 20 years had come under two headings. Trite or irrelevant (Rowan Williams) and, more commonly, actively trying to undo moral progress and make the world a worse place (George Carey, Benedict XVI, John-Paul II).
-------------------- My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Justinian: quote: Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor: If morality is a byproduct of evolution, nothing can accurately be described as bad, only as abnormal.
Um... no. If morality is a byproduct of evolution, large scale immorality can be described as bad in that it is suicidal and as such self-defeating.
Why is species extinction a bad thing? If morality is something we created then when we're gone, our moral standards will be gone too so there will be no possibility to judge our going as bad - even were there anyone left to do the judging - because there will be no such thing as 'bad' anymore.
I really don't care for any ethical system that is made up. Absolute morality requires an absolute standard. Therefore, one of three options must be true:
1) Atoms themselves have morals 2) Morality is not absolute, it is something we ourselves have defined for convenience. When we're gone, it too will be gone. It is, IMO, meaningless. 3)There is some standard external to the universe by which the universe may be judged. That last option doesn't necessarily mean that God exists, but it does mean that physical reality is not the only thing that exists. Atheism then loses its USP, which is that we only believe in the physical world we see - because if we believe in an absolute moral standard, we believe in something else too.
-------------------- Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains. Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I don't follow the logic that if morality is not absolute, it is meaningless. How does that follow?
If a particular society decides to adopt certain ethical measures, they are meaningful for that society, surely?
Here's a small example: I grew up in a community that said that grassing to the cops was way off line. Don't do it. In that community, that was very meaningful!
But we needn't infer that such ideas are absolutely or objectively based. They are subjectively based, and therefore have meaning for those subjects.
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor: Why is species extinction a bad thing? If morality is something we created then when we're gone, our moral standards will be gone too so there will be no possibility to judge our going as bad - even were there anyone left to do the judging - because there will be no such thing as 'bad' anymore.
It will be bad for us. a.k.a. "It matters to that starfish". Next question?
quote: I really don't care for any ethical system that is made up. Absolute morality requires an absolute standard.
In which case point 1 means you should utterly discard anything based on the bible - and point 2 does not work in this imperfect world.
quote: 2) Morality is not absolute, it is something we ourselves have defined for convenience. When we're gone, it too will be gone. It is, IMO, meaningless
It is only meaningless if humans ourselves are meaningless. I believe this not to be the case, and what we do in the here and now to matter.
quote: 3)There is some standard external to the universe by which the universe may be judged. That last option doesn't necessarily mean that God exists, but it does mean that physical reality is not the only thing that exists. Atheism then loses its USP, which is that we only believe in the physical world we see - because if we believe in an absolute moral standard, we believe in something else too.
We should be able to test point 3. The simple test for point 3 is that if there is a universal moral standard and multiple groups claim to be following it their outcomes should be approximately the same. And, to put it simply, they aren't. Even when they claim that it's because the bible is inerrant and they are following that they still disagree.
What this means is that because they disagree, the overwhelming majority of humans who follow such an external moral standard are not doing so - there can be a maximum of one group that is right. Furthermore that they can not convince each other that there is such an external moral standard even when they all believe one exists means that either all save one tiny group who believe in an external moral standard are lying or there is no such thing as an external moral standard that is accessible to humans.
This leads inexorably to one of three conclusions: 1) The overwhelming majority of humans are deliberate liars on the very same issue. 2) There is no objective moral standard against which the universe may be judged. 3) The objective moral standard against which the universe may be judged is for all practical purposes inaccessible to people in this world and our only practical option is to treat it as if it did not exist. [ 24. November 2013, 14:12: Message edited by: Justinian ]
-------------------- My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor: quote: Originally posted by Porridge: quote: Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor: I doubt that person will have much by way of logical reasoning behind his message from his god. If that god is supposedly my god, I can show the thief plenty of stuff from the bible about stealing being wrong - the ten commandments being a start. That's the point: we have a coherent logical system and a standard by which actions can be judged.
What is all this insistence on "logic" about, and what does logic have to do with Christian, or any other, morality?
So now you're decrying logic, on a discussion board? Two alternatives occur to me: 1) This is a wind up 2) You're tacitly admitting defeat
I don't decry logic at all; logic is extremely valuable in a variety of situations. What I decry is the claim that logic is what underlies morality. (Though it now occurs to me that what you're terming "logic" might actually be "consistency" or "conformity to some principle recognized by you.")
Let's take a case in point: adultery (an act I think we can both agree is wrong).
Let's define the term first, so we're clear. Let's leave aside, for the moment, the case of two adults, neither of whom is married. If we leave this potentially arguable situation out of the definition, then adultery consists of sexual congress between two individuals (let's call them John and Mary) who have vowed sexual fidelity to some other partner. Why is this wrong?
1. It betrays a trust held with the absent partner.
Do we arrive at these kinds of trusts through logic? No; they're largely emotional in nature.
2. It breaks a vow to the absent partner.
Do we make these vows out of logic? No; generally, it's powerful emotion that prompts such vows.
3. If other relationships are involved (e.g. Mary is also friends with John's wife), adultery also betrays Mary's trust with John's wife.
Are our friendships based in logic? Again, not usually; we choose our friends on the basis of mutual attraction, shared interests & values; eventually, the history of the bond itself becomes a factor.
4. Adultery threatens an existing marriage, as betrayed partners sometimes break off the marriage upon learning of the adultery.
If logic really played a role in our morality, adultery would probably be a much rarer occurrence than it is. Not being an experienced adulterer myself, I can only report on what I've seen, and it looks like lust and a craving for novelty, or the seeking of reassurance about one's sexual prowess, etc. etc., is what drives adulterers into "foreign" arms.
5. John may have children with his wife, or Mary with her husband; if so, adultery threatens the future well-being of these children.
Logic? See above.
6. In extreme cases, adultery can even threaten life, as betrayed partners' passions may be so inflamed as to attempt or carry out murder of the betraying partner, his/her lover, or both.
Passion and logic make poor roommates in a single mind.
These are just a few of the major consequences. There's no shortage of (possibly) lesser ones:
Long-term deception (if the betrayal continues for an extended period), which undermines all the relationships concerned, and also erodes self-respect and self-esteem, as well as re-defining the betrayers' moral universes. It also appears to take a toll in terms of stress.
Lying becomes a regular practice; priorities get re-arranged so that honoring responsibilities to those who trust us take a back seat to indulging the self, and so on.
In those situations where adultery never occurs, is it logic when keeps these partners faithful to their promises and their partners?
Again, I can only play observer here, but I doubt there's much role for logic. Here's what I see:
Long-term faithful partners are bound by genuine affection, not logic.
They're bound, over time, by the sheer weight of their shared history together. It can be both fun instructive to re-visit the past with someone who's experienced the same events.
They're bound by the loyalty which springs from the affection and history.
They're bound by a recognition and acceptance of their mutual responsibilities.
And on and on. If we both accept that fidelity is a moral good, and adultery is immoral, what "logic" applies when Mary rejects John's advances and instead returns home to care for her now-nearly-helpless husband George, stricken with Parkinson's?
-------------------- Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that. Moon: Including what? Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie. Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor: I for one am very glad that most atheists are inconsistent enough to hold a set of moral beliefs they can't justify - I'd be very afraid for my life if not. That doesn't change the fact that their morals are (according to their own beliefs) a meaningless convention without basis in anything real, though.
This statement is not only ridiculous, but offensive. And frightening as it comes close to the statement claimed in TtO's sbove post. It is also suspect on a logical basis. You are saying belief in a belief is more rational than belief in the demonstrable.
-------------------- I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's pretty bizarre. It also makes me wonder what 'anything real' actually means. I suppose it means that atheists are materialists, and you can't get morals from matter? Is that it?
Well, that's dodgy, since you can get thought from matter, and thought can produce morality. OK, we don't know how thought comes from matter, but it seems to in the brain.
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor: Therefore, one of three options must be true:
1) Atoms themselves have morals
This is a part/whole fallacy. Atoms don't have a lot of properties that things made of them do. You might as well argue that there cannot be coniferous trees because atoms aren't coniferous.
-------------------- This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor: I for one am very glad that most atheists are inconsistent enough to hold a set of moral beliefs they can't justify - I'd be very afraid for my life if not. That doesn't change the fact that their morals are (according to their own beliefs) a meaningless convention without basis in anything real, though.
But if atheists' morality is a meaningless convention, then there is no more reason for them to commit acts which theists would consider to be immoral, than for them to perform moral actions. But you are implying that if atheists were consistent with their philosophy, then they would act in an immoral way. In other words, you are implying that their philosophy actually does affirm a definite moral position, which is actually contrary to your idea of morality. Otherwise there is no logic to what you are saying. Why would you be afraid for your life, if this were not the case?
An atheist who, for reasons known only to himself, decides to be a thoroughly decent person, who values the lives of others, has also decided to reject the opposite behaviour. Now why would he change his decision, just because his morality is rooted in something personal, rather than in an external lawgiver? In fact, he is not being inconsistent with his philosophy, because he is following the moral decision that he has made.
Your comment reveals what I suspected: that Christians who ask atheists where they get their morality from, are often really suggesting that, because they apparently pluck their morality out of thin air, it follows that they must be immoral.
You claim to value logic. Well logic has driven me to discern the subtext of your position. Do feel free to retract it... [ 24. November 2013, 18:48: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
-------------------- You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
Having done a sort-of anatomy of atheist sources of morality, let's do a sort-of anatomy of Christian sources of morality.
1) God infallibly knows what is in our enlightened self-interest and tells us it. (Little to choose over the atheist version.)
2) Divine Command theory. Good means doing what God wants and evil means otherwise. (Many objections to this fail. That God might alter his opinions is usually specifically ruled out. It's not clear what ground you have to object to a 'might is right' philosophy when the might isn't merely a human ruler writ large, but the ominpotent creator. Besides, claiming that morality is evolved so that societies that aren't moral die out is equally 'might is right' if you think about it. One can object to it as a Nobodaddy theory of morality, but only if one has some alternative theory from which to do so. No - the real objection is that a finite promulgated law cannot cover all cases, and reliance on the Holy Spirit to inform us of cases not covered is epistemically dodgy. Attempts to work from the spirit of the law rather than the letter turn the theory into either 1 or 3.)
3. Beatification, or divine eudaimonia. The point of ethics is to fit us for heaven or the beatific vision or theosis, etc, or being ethical is being fit for heaven. (I think this has an advantage over the family of secular eudaimonia theories. I would.)
-------------------- we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Grokesx: ... Hey ho, your logical justification relies on the existence of God, which is still an open philosophical question, the heroic efforts of IngoB notwithstanding.
There must be very few serious theists, yet alone Christians, who would categorise 'the existence of God' as a 'philosophical question' whether open or closed. God either is, or is not. That is not a philosophical question. It's a factual one.
If he is, it obviously immediately becomes important to know what he is like and to do whatever one can to find out.
-------------------- Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Dafyd: Besides, claiming that morality is evolved so that societies that aren't moral die out is equally 'might is right' if you think about it.
Not really. It's more 'right is functional'.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
@Enoch
Philosophical questions are factual questions addressed in a systematic way. Which may or may not be the way most theists address the question of the existence of God, but Dinghy Sailor is making a philosophical claim:
quote: That's the point: we have a coherent logical system and a standard by which actions can be judged.
which relies on God's existence - namely the standard by which actions can be judged. All I'm saying is that as this has not been successfully justified philosophically to everyone's satisfaction (I am assuming he doesn't think it has been established scientifically, and if he is relying on the more usual reasons people have for being Christian - culture, personal experience, scripture etc then he is mistaken in referring to a "logical system"), we don't have to take his shit about atheist morality seriously.
-------------------- For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I can't really see any difference between a morality for theists, and one for atheists. What is supposed to be the difference? That the former ultimately is derived from God? And the latter is a subjective view or something like that? But the former is a subjective view.
It sounds like trying to define a morality into existence by fiat - well, you can do that, but it seems flimsy to me. It's true because I say so.
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dinghy Sailor
Ship's Jibsheet
# 8507
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl: I don't follow the logic that if morality is not absolute, it is meaningless. How does that follow?
If a particular society decides to adopt certain ethical measures, they are meaningful for that society, surely?
Here's a small example: I grew up in a community that said that grassing to the cops was way off line. Don't do it. In that community, that was very meaningful!
Was your community's convention basic, or was it based on some deeper moral law? If your community had decided to replace their omerta convention with one that said it was a good thing to torture babies, then would that have been okay in your view? If not then the latter option applies: the omerta was based on something deeper - I posit something absolute.
quote: Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical: Your comment reveals what I suspected: that Christians who ask atheists where they get their morality from, are often really suggesting that, because they apparently pluck their morality out of thin air, it follows that they must be immoral.
You claim to value logic. Well logic has driven me to discern the subtext of your position. Do feel free to retract it...
No, I'm saying that most atheists are moral people, in spite of their morality not being grounded on anything meaningful. That's the point. If I thought atheists were all kiddie-killers or something, that would be ridiculous.
What I do think is that if atheists (almost?) universally desire to hold to higher standards than their philosophy demands, that is an indicator that their philosophy is inadequate.
-------------------- Preach Christ, because this old humanity has used up all hopes and expectations, but in Christ hope lives and remains. Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Posts: 2821 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor: No, I'm saying that most atheists are moral people, in spite of their morality not being grounded on anything meaningful.
Why, exactly, are we supposed to consider you an expert on what all atheists consider "meaningful"?
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor: I posit something absolute.
Odd given this absolute is universally shared across the groups which share the same source. quote: Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
What I do think is that if atheists (almost?) universally desire to hold to higher standards than their philosophy demands, that is an indicator that their philosophy is inadequate.
So, Christians holding a lower moral standard than their philosophy demands, this is adequate? [ 25. November 2013, 01:11: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
-------------------- I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor: ]No, I'm saying that most atheists are moral people, in spite of their morality not being grounded on anything meaningful.
There are two logical conclusions I can draw from this.
1: You do not consider people to be meaningful. 2: A grounding of morality that you consider meaningful is neither necessary nor sufficient for moral behaviour if people behave morally without it.
My personal extrapolations are as follows:
1: If you don't consider people meaningful your morality isn't one I can be bothered with. 2: If something is neither necessary nor sufficient then it is entirely unnecessary. In the case of an absolute morality, I consider inhuman standards to be actively morally harmful.
-------------------- My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor: No, I'm saying that most atheists are moral people, in spite of their morality not being grounded on anything meaningful.
Give us an example of a morality that is grounded on something meaningful. Explain the necessary connection between the "meaningfulness" and the morality.
quote: Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor: If I thought atheists were all kiddie-killers or something, that would be ridiculous.
If thinking that all atheists are kiddie-killers is ridiculous, what is thinking that all atheists have the same philosophy -- that is, the philosophy which you claim is inadequate to the demands of said atheists' moral standards (whatever the hell that means)?
Personally, I don't know many atheists, so I don't get to sit around cleaning the spark plugs of our collective Universal Atheist Philosophy much, or ruing the day when our Universal Atheist Moral Standards over-reached our pathetically inadequate philosophy, whatever that may be.
But please tell me the important and apparently vast differences between the following:
A: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. B: Be fair and kind to others. Insofar as you're able, avoid hurting them or yourself.
A: Love your neighbor as yourself. B: Take responsibility for making your own way in the world; where and as you can, also take responsibility for those who are challenged in doing this.
A: Thou shalt not steal. B: Respect others' possessions.
A: Thou shalt not kill. B: Avoid violence, except as a last resort in defense of your own life.
A: Do not bear false witness. B: Tell the truth, with kindness and generosity.
A: Thou shalt not commit adultery. B: Respect others' relationships, boundaries, and feelings.
I am a mid-life adult. These are my moral principles (though not all of them). They have been derived from my upbringing, from hard life lessons, from observation and experience, and from practice. While I don't believe in The Great Super Know-It-All, I do realize that there is more to the universe than I will ever know or understand, and such glimpses of our universe as I've been afforded fill me with awe. I am glad to be here, and my wish is to use my little time between birth and death for the benefit of those I love.
-------------------- Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that. Moon: Including what? Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie. Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
quote: I for one am very glad that most atheists are inconsistent enough to hold a set of moral beliefs they can't justify - I'd be very afraid for my life if not. That doesn't change the fact that their morals are (according to their own beliefs) a meaningless convention without basis in anything real, though.
Saying that atheists' morality is not based on anything real doesn't amount to an appeal to logic so much as an appeal to authority. You're essentially making the claim that morals are empty conventions unless you can cite a big bossman who has declared "Because I said so." I don't see much logic in that.
-------------------- When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion. - C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor: quote: Originally posted by quetzalcoatl: I don't follow the logic that if morality is not absolute, it is meaningless. How does that follow?
If a particular society decides to adopt certain ethical measures, they are meaningful for that society, surely?
Here's a small example: I grew up in a community that said that grassing to the cops was way off line. Don't do it. In that community, that was very meaningful!
Was your community's convention basic, or was it based on some deeper moral law? If your community had decided to replace their omerta convention with one that said it was a good thing to torture babies, then would that have been okay in your view? If not then the latter option applies: the omerta was based on something deeper - I posit something absolute.
quote: Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical: Your comment reveals what I suspected: that Christians who ask atheists where they get their morality from, are often really suggesting that, because they apparently pluck their morality out of thin air, it follows that they must be immoral.
You claim to value logic. Well logic has driven me to discern the subtext of your position. Do feel free to retract it...
No, I'm saying that most atheists are moral people, in spite of their morality not being grounded on anything meaningful. That's the point. If I thought atheists were all kiddie-killers or something, that would be ridiculous.
What I do think is that if atheists (almost?) universally desire to hold to higher standards than their philosophy demands, that is an indicator that their philosophy is inadequate.
One problem I have with this is that the words you use, such as 'deeper', 'absolute', 'meaningful', 'higher', appear very fuzzy. In fact, it all strikes me as gobbledygook.
What on earth are you trying to say?
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
What I am hearing from Dinghy Sailor is Christians are horrible people without constant threat would murder people and take their dosh. And atheists should be doing that very thing. Not tarring all Christians with this brush, mind, and I do not believe you lot to be worse than atheists.
-------------------- I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, atheists should be murdering people because their philosophy is - errm, what would that be? That everything is made up of atoms, and atoms, as we know, are frightfully amoral little buggers, just whizzing around without a care in the world, not even saying 'excuse me', when they bump into each other.
I often slag off people like Dawkins for using straw men, but this stuff is like the Wicker Man.
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Crœsos: quote: Originally posted by Dafyd: Besides, claiming that morality is evolved so that societies that aren't moral die out is equally 'might is right' if you think about it.
Not really. It's more 'right is functional'.
Same difference.
-------------------- we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Dafyd: quote: Originally posted by Crœsos: quote: Originally posted by Dafyd: Besides, claiming that morality is evolved so that societies that aren't moral die out is equally 'might is right' if you think about it.
Not really. It's more 'right is functional'.
Same difference.
If and only if you discount people as being valuable.
-------------------- My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Justinian: If and only if you discount people as being valuable.
There's a word for treating people as valuable: 'slave trading'.
-------------------- we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
In reading this thread I thought of something else - personal morality and judgement.
I have done things in the past that as a Christian I know are forgiven. I don't beat myself up about those things, they were done when I was not a Christian. God's grace has washed those things all away.
I have a number of atheists close to me and I find that they have a much harder time letting go of mistakes they've made in the past. Things that are both within Christian and secular settings considered to be wrong, for the sake of clarity. They think they can't be forgiven or that they don't deserve to forgive themselves. And in some cases this has the effect of "self-fulfilling prophecy" where they get stuck in a loop continuing to behave in that way because they don't feel they can move past it, so why bother.
Without Christianity there is no reason to forgive either yourself or people who have wronged you. It is rational to protect yourself from any potential future offense. It is not rational to forgive your brother 7 times or 77 times. So in my view atheist morality seems to be more judgemental and less forgiving of those who make mistakes.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Dafyd: quote: Originally posted by Crœsos: quote: Originally posted by Dafyd: Besides, claiming that morality is evolved so that societies that aren't moral die out is equally 'might is right' if you think about it.
Not really. It's more 'right is functional'.
Same difference.
No. "Might makes right" = "Do what I/we say or get beaten up or exiled (or whatever)."
"Right is functional" = "What moral system keeps the peace best for most of us? Let's stick with that."
As to valuing people, c'mon. You know perfectly well we're talking about being considerate of others and their feelings and priorities.
-------------------- Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that. Moon: Including what? Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie. Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by seekingsister: So in my view atheist morality seems to be more judgemental and less forgiving of those who make mistakes.
You know, I'm simply fascinated, in an annoyed sort of way, about the expertise displayed by confessed theists on this thread about "atheist philosophy" and "atheist morality."
Has it not occurred to anyone that atheists might be individuals? That they might form their views without subscribing to materialism, or Dawkins, or any of the other current loudmouths who claim the title "atheist?"
I do wish people would stop telling me what I believe, particularly in areas where I simply don't know yet. Am I not allowed to be at least as ignorant of the end results of a life-long process as Christians and other theists frequently are?
Being an atheist is rather like being a Protestant: you could belong to any one of -- what are we up to now, 256 denominations? -- or none of them, and still consider yourself Protestant, while vehemently disagreeing with all the other Protestants.
The fact that a particular atheist doesn't believe in God tells you only one thing: s/he doesn't believe in God. I defy you to deduce from that anything at all about any one individual atheist's ability to forgive him/herself or others, or how judgmental s/he might be.
-------------------- Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that. Moon: Including what? Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie. Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Dafyd: quote: Originally posted by Justinian: If and only if you discount people as being valuable.
There's a word for treating people as valuable: 'slave trading'.
That's two words.
-------------------- Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Porridge: You know, I'm simply fascinated, in an annoyed sort of way, about the expertise displayed by confessed theists on this thread about "atheist philosophy" and "atheist morality."
It is impossible to speak about this subject in anything but general and opinionated terms. I'm not sure what you'd prefer. I did mention specific people in my life from whom I've drawn the conclusion presented.
My point was about the Christian core belief about forgiveness, which does not exist in any form or rational atheism I have come across.
It is NOT rational to be endlessly forgiving or forgivable. [ 25. November 2013, 12:42: Message edited by: seekingsister ]
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
MrsBeaky
Shipmate
# 17663
|
Posted
Do we define morality in terms of the right/ wrong dualism which always leads to Law (deemed necessary so that we can live in communities) or do we view morality as a set of behaviours emanating from principles such as the golden rule?
Depending on the community you live in, the "law" varies. As an extreme example, we could look at FGM. Here in Kenya the practice is outlawed but is still taking place in several communities where it is deemed "right" and has been practised for centuries without any questioning of the morality. I don't want to get sidetracked into a discussion of FGM itself but it is only as the people in these communities have begun to recognise a different way of viewing their lives together (including the issue of informed consent)that the morality of such a practice has begun to be reconsidered.
If you read obituaries they often talk of things like "moral fibre", usually when describing people who had a strong moral compass and who worked on behalf of others.
I do wonder whether all morality, regardless of our faith positions, comes from within us, us being both individual and corporate and corporate being wider than just our people: i.e. right from the core of our beings. There is also the place of conscience in all of this which always points me back to the fact that we need each other to balance over and under developed senses of morality. Then of course we have all the other influences in our lives including faith which contribute to our own morality.
As a Christian, I believe that humanity bears the image of God and so ultimately all morality flows from that. My atheist friends would disagree with that statement but the irony is that what flows from within us looks remarkably similar most of the time!
-------------------- "It is better to be kind than right."
http://davidandlizacooke.wordpress.com
Posts: 693 | From: UK/ Kenya | Registered: Apr 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
I am interested in this thread because it contains arguments I have had within myself. I regard my present position as a recovering Christian and a becoming humanist. I have no use for the place of atheism which I regard as a negative non-belief, mainly expressed in putting down any religious belief. Humanism is quote: from the Random House Dictionary; a person having a strong interest in or concern for human welfare, values, and dignity
All humans (and many animals) have some sort of moral code and that arises from the primitive fight or flight reaction but tempered with tribal or community values. So any code OF morality is better than none but must be tested by experience and accommodation.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Dafyd: quote: Originally posted by Justinian: If and only if you discount people as being valuable.
There's a word for treating people as valuable: 'slave trading'.
Tell me, do you enjoy making straw man arguments? Can you just not help it? Or are you simply trying to be funny and failing?
-------------------- My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote: Originally posted by Porridge: quote: Originally posted by seekingsister: So in my view atheist morality seems to be more judgemental and less forgiving of those who make mistakes.
You know, I'm simply fascinated, in an annoyed sort of way, about the expertise displayed by confessed theists on this thread about "atheist philosophy" and "atheist morality."
Has it not occurred to anyone that atheists might be individuals? That they might form their views without subscribing to materialism, or Dawkins, or any of the other current loudmouths who claim the title "atheist?"
I do wish people would stop telling me what I believe, particularly in areas where I simply don't know yet. Am I not allowed to be at least as ignorant of the end results of a life-long process as Christians and other theists frequently are?
Being an atheist is rather like being a Protestant: you could belong to any one of -- what are we up to now, 256 denominations? -- or none of them, and still consider yourself Protestant, while vehemently disagreeing with all the other Protestants.
The fact that a particular atheist doesn't believe in God tells you only one thing: s/he doesn't believe in God. I defy you to deduce from that anything at all about any one individual atheist's ability to forgive him/herself or others, or how judgmental s/he might be.
Yes, I must say, I've found this thread rather staggering in the uninformed remarks being made about atheism. I am used to getting annoyed at atheists who are uninformed about theism, but now I can see, that there is an equal and opposite reaction!
I know atheists who are Buddhists, one or two who are Hindus, some Jewish atheists, and also people who admire Sartre, not forgetting my friend the shaman in deepest Norfolk, and of course, people who do very little philosophizing at all.
Then we get the anecdotes - well, I know a few Christians who became psychotic and had to be sectioned! In fact, I used to visit one guy who was translating the gospels into his entirely private language, which is to be released to the cosmos at some future date.
So in my view Christians are a load of mad bastards who should be locked up. (*Sarcasm alert*).
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
seekingsister
Shipmate
# 17707
|
Posted
For those accusing me of smearing atheists, please show me an atheist/rationalist philosophy that emphasizes unconditional forgiveness.
Posts: 1371 | From: London | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I know some Buddhists who are atheists, who are staggeringly giving and forgiving. Not at liberty really to release any conversations with them, but I will look for published stuff.
Atheism is not monolithic - that is the point. They share only thing - not having a belief in God.
-------------------- I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|