Only Atheists Have The Capacity To Be Truly Moral?

[Rob Lister]

Well, IMHO, the point is that atheists and theists choose their morals in essentially the same way. The theist just calls it divine authority.

Hans

Not being much of a bible person I need some help here. Christians follow the teaching of Jesus specifically over the word of the old testiment (loosely put but you get my drift). What did he say regarding morality that a western-democracy christian cannot base morals upon?

 

[Darat]

Not being much of a bible person I need some help here. Christians follow the teaching of Jesus specifically over the word of the old testiment (loosely put but you get my drift). What did he say regarding morality that a western-democracy christian cannot base morals upon?

Perhaps these two passages for a start?

Matthew 10:34-37: Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Luke 14:26: If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple.

Now of course people will interpret them differently but then that's religion for you...

 

[Rob Lister]

Perhaps these two passages for a start?

Matthew 10:34-37: Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.' Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Luke 14:26: If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters--yes, even his own life--he cannot be my disciple.

Now of course people will interpret them differently but then that's religion for you...

I interpret nothing in those passages that specifically regard morality but even if I did, I see nothing in those passages that a western-democracy christian cannot follow.

I was thinking more along the lines of "love thy neighbor" or "the sabbath is for you" or "turn the other cheek" or something along those lines.

 

[Yahweh]

Not being much of a bible person I need some help here. Christians follow the teaching of Jesus specifically over the word of the old testiment (loosely put but you get my drift). What did he say regarding morality that a western-democracy christian cannot base morals upon?

He didnt really say anything actually.

According to A Companion to Ethics, in the article "Christian Ethics" by Ronald Preston (p 96-97):

It is significant that Jesus did not give a precise ruling on detailed ethical issues. When asked whether tribute should be given to Caesar (Matt 22:25 ff) he said that what was due to God should be rendered to God and what was due to Caesar should be rendered to him, without saying which is which. This had continually to be be worked out in varying circumstances. Education is a key area.

When asked by two brothers to divide an estate he refused (Luke 12:14). There is truth in Robinson's contention (An Atheists Values, 1964, p. 149): "Jesus says nothing on any social questions except divorce, all ascriptions of political doctrine to him are false. He does not pronounce about war, capital punishment, gambling, justice, the administration of law, the distribution of goods, socialism, equality of income, equality of sex, equality of color, equality of opportunity, tyrrany, freedom, slavery, self-determination or contraception. There is nothing Christian about being for any of these things nor about being against them if we mean by 'Christian' what Jesus taught according to the synoptic gospels."

Some have thought that the passage in the Sermon on the Mount concerning 'turning the other cheek' is an injunction to pacifism as a political technique (Matt. 5:39 ff), but this is to ignore its literary character as well as the nature of Jesus' ethical teachings. It occurs along with the command to pluck out an eye or cut off a hand rather than fall into evil, and also to give your cloak as well to anyone who asks for your coat (and thus be naked, for only two garment were worn). Like paradox, hyperbole is a way of giving concreteness to abstract ideas. The passage is neither for nor against pacifism as a political technique; Robinson is right.

 

[Darat]

I interpret nothing in those passages that specifically regard morality but even if I did, I see nothing in those passages that a western-democracy christian cannot follow.

I was thinking more along the lines of "love thy neighbor" or "the sabbath is for you" or "turn the other cheek" or something along those lines.

I mustn’t quite understand your question; can you elaborate on it a bit? Are you asking did he say something like "kill all the non-believers"?

 

[Rob Lister]

I mustn’t quite understand your question; can you elaborate on it a bit? Are you asking did he say something like "kill all the non-believers"?

Ah! I see where the confusion may be: I quoted the wrong post (yours) when I first asked the question. I should have quoted H3LL. He said,

In a modern western democracy, the believer cannot base morals on the word of god.

This was the very first assertion on which his argument was based. I didn't understand it, so I asked,

Christians follow the teaching of Jesus specifically over the word of the old testiment (loosely put but you get my drift). What did he say regarding morality that a western-democracy christian cannot base morals upon?

I know of nothing (but I'm admitted ignorant of all aspects of his teachings) that precludes a christian from basing their morals on the word of their god, Jesus.

 

[Jyera]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Jyera
Only Atheists Have The Capacity To Be Truly Moral?

I ask....
1. "Atheists, take me to your leader."
Likely outcome. There is no recognised leader for the Atheists.
Therefore Atheists as a group have No "Capacity", no group, no persuasive power.

2. "Is there a Atheist handbook to the definition of Truly Moral?"
Or something close?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I see no reason why a person is required to belong to a hierachical group with written rules to have morals.

Please explain.

I am agreeable that the possibility exists, that a person can be moral, despite not belongin to a group and not having written rule.

But what I'm pointing out, is that
(1) "Truly Moral" needs defining.
And we should insist all major proponent of "Truly Moral", to put it down on record. Else anyone can say any thing any time and change it at will.

(2) Leader of moral group help to define morals, and judge people using it. If Atheist do not have it's own leader, then it is likely that the group and it's individuals depends on other group's definition of moral.

A group of people is needed to determine the definition of moral.

Without leader/s, Atheist group thus have no power (no capacity) to assert the definition of "Truly Moral".

Very often individual can assert their discovery of the true meaning of being moral. But few are original and few has power enough to assert it onto others.

 

[stamenflicker]

Gah, there is way too much here to respond to. As to the OT, I am reminded of the movie I, Robot. It's fun little tale, but buried in there were the three moral laws-- that the robot creator said were "perfect." At first glance, they seem just that and they are basically an extension of H3LL's morality or ethics.

The problem comes when a person has to chose what is or isn't harmful to someone else, what to do when one person's moral law conflicts with his neighbors, ad nauesem. If everyone thought the same, valued the same things, had the same feelings from an event as their neighbor, sure a simple moral principal would work. But in the real world, morals don't gel like that-- even if they are the exact same word for word moral principal.

So like in the movie, who decides?

The Shivo case is a good example. The husband is in pain knowing his wife is suffering in a way that she wouldn't want to suffer (his story); the parents are suffering at the thought of not being able to hold their daughter or brush her hair-- experience that basic human contact from their own flesh and blood. Either way you choose someone is in pain, and Terry can't really decide for herself. So who decides?

Ethics and morals are messy. Period. It doesn't matter if you are fundi or a cherry-picker, or an atheist, at some point some where your moral code will generate conflict.

As to the rest of the post, there is a lot to cut and paste. But let me start with the idea of Christian morality. Most Christians I know believe that according to the gospel of John, "the Holy Spirit will lead and guide you into all truth." And also from John, "the Spirit is like the winds, it blows where it wishes. You hardly know where it is coming from or where it is going."

Jesus contradicted himself on numerous occasions. Asking one man to sell all his possessions and give them to the poor and asking another man to give only 1/3. Clearly, the men were different coming from different expectations and circumstances. Paul speaks of ethics regarding drinking or eating meat sacrificed to idols by basically saying, "Hey if it makes you feel guilty then don't do it." This is situational ethics at it's simplist. What is good or right for one person, may in fact not be wholly good for everyone. What is the situation ought to be the first question we ask, not what "law" or "moral principal" am I going to hard core obey.

As to Jesus and the sword quote that is so overplayed and so misunderstood. Shortly after saying this, two of the disciples say, "Here are two swords, Lord." And Jesus replies, "That's plenty." He is indicating pretty plainly that he is not talking about literal swords and literal fighting, but rather the division that naturally comes from believing anything. Is there any more divisive talk around the family dinner table or at a bar in a group of people than either a)politics or b) religion? Followers of Jesus were expelled from the synagogues. Jesus is basically saying, be ready to go all the way with this thing, because I'm making some claims here that are going to piss off your family if you believe them.

My 2 cents,

Flick

 

[H3LL]

A group of people is needed to determine the definition of moral.

I don't see why. I suspect that the morals of whether slavery or the inquisition were right or wrong started with individuals.

Without leader/s, Atheist group thus have no power (no capacity) to assert the definition of "Truly Moral".

Very often individual can assert their discovery of the true meaning of being moral. But few are original and few has power enough to assert it onto others.

I feel this is 'cart before the horse' thinking. History is awash with individuals that challenged existing moral frameworks inflicted upon the populace and the group came later as did the title 'leader'.

I don't need a leader or a set of written rules for me to decide if something is moral or not.

Quite the opposite, the existence of a group, a leader and rules would make me sceptical that there is a hidden agenda, as has been the case so often before, as with xians.

To be concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action is within the ability of most people. My assertion is that an atheist is better placed to make better judgment as the reasons and evidence for that judgment must be placed in the real world for all to see, examine and decide. Appealing to a metaphysical source makes that impossible.

 

[Atlas]

... As an atheist my moral judgment is based on the premise that "if it hurts or inconveniences another human it is wrong" and then make a judgemental based on the answer. ...

This and the 10 commandments fail for me in that they are stated in the negative. Flick alludes to the dilemma that is often faced.

If I were to have this as my moral imperative and came upon a man about to rape a woman I could decide that hurting or inconveniencing the rapist was morally wrong and that my finest moral choice would be to walk away.

Each of us decides situationally what our lessons mean. We all cherry pick. Religionists may formulate actual positive moral imperatives despite reading the Bible. Atheists can grow up to be Stalin.

I would say that the moral man makes life nurturing choices.

I still thought the right (life nurturing) thing to do in the Shivo case was pull the plug. (Actually, that's not entirely true. Starvation was not as moral as euthanasia.) Abortion can be the life nurturing choice. But I find the idea of a million a year revolting.

 

[H3LL]

Just to clarify, as I've muddied the waters a little:

I do not see how vengence, irrational persecution, vindictiveness, petulance, hypocracy, trickery, obfuscation, misinformation and wanton murder fit into any moral judgment.

When I do I wil conceed that biblical sources for moral judgment are appropriate. Until then, an atheist and/or atheist methods are better placed to judge and the judgment easier to evaluate.

Abrahamic theist have an insolvable conundrum with which it is impossible to make a valid moral judgment.

But I'm biased. Show me otherwise.

 

[H3LL]

Re: Re: Only Atheists Have The Capacity To Be Truly Moral?

If I were to have this as my moral imperative and came upon a man about to rape a woman I could decide that hurting or inconveniencing the rapist was morally wrong and that my finest moral choice would be to walk away.

Too much focus on action although you missed a judgment on your action of walking away. There is also the choices raised by inaction. Not assisting the woman. Choices are hard, I never said they weren't.

As you have chosen to be specific, I notice that you avoid a similar scenario that may be biblically sanctioned.

If the woman was an accused adulterer and the man were men about to perform a stoning and you followed your biblical teaching, how is that going to effect your moral judgment?

You are forced to be complicit in the stoning or discard your theistic belief and teaching...an atheist approach.

 

[Atlas]

Re: Re: Re: Only Atheists Have The Capacity To Be Truly Moral?

...If the woman was an accused adulterer and the man were men about to perform a stoning and you followed your biblical teaching, how is that going to effect your moral judgment?

You are forced to be complicit in the stoning or discard your theistic belief and teaching...an atheist approach.

Well, if I have the NT providing guidance I might try the "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" line. But unless I could do it wth a moralistic voice it might not stop anybody.

You happened to pick an example that has Jesus giving us a clear example of what to do. A good life nuturing solution and nobody got hurt.

 

[H3LL]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Only Atheists Have The Capacity To Be Truly Moral?

Well, if I have the NT providing guidance I might try the "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone" line. But unless I could do it wth a moralistic voice it might not stop anybody.

You happened to pick an example that has Jesus giving us a clear example of what to do. A good life nuturing solution and nobody got hurt.

Yup!

Coffee or strawberry cream is not for you. You prefer the hard centres.

My focus was on the act of stoning regardless of target.

It's a good job I didn't say a child as in Mark and Matthew Jesus cites Exodus as correct.

For me, I consider stoning someone to death morally wrong. Jesus can't decide and the NT is little help.

All I get on the subject from the NT and/or Jesus is that adulterous women are more worthy of protection than children.

IMHO morally bankrupt.

 

[stamenflicker]

H3LL,

Abrahamic theist have an insolvable conundrum with which it is impossible to make a valid moral judgment.

I would say that the Abrahamic theist has conflicting examples from which to draw. And some of them are down right nasty examples from which to base a morality. But remember religion was in its infancy-- humanity moral code was in its infancy. People still slept with their daughters, treated women as property, butchered children and the like. It wasn't just the Abrahamic theists, it was humanity. To embrace an hardcore opinion on religious morality from narratives 5,000 years old is about as sensible as basing a science or philosophy or similarly aged words. They were doing their best for what they knew of the world, no matter what the discipline.

It's not impossible to make a valid moral judgment here and now, one just has to move through texts, counter-balance opposing texts, contextualize the situation, and yes, maybe even move outside the texts.

A person can't understand the oddities of human nature through Shakespeare alone, but he can get a damn good idea of it. Most of us don't throw away Shakespeare because he can't paint a complete picture of humanity, rather we see him as tool for understanding. I suppose, even for a atheist or agnostic, I don't understand why the Bible or Koran or Tao Te Ching isn't read in a similar light.

Flick

 

[Rob Lister]

H3LL, I would say that the Abrahamic theist . . . snip . . . Flick

What a great thread you turned this into. I shall bookmark this thread and nominate you for July.

 

[Z]

from my perspective:

Deists, who believe there is a God, but that God is irrelevant as regards human events, certainly can be just as moral as atheists, and in exactly the same way.

Wiccans believe in the Divine in many forms; but their only moral imperitive is 'An it harm none, do what thou will' - which is much like your own concepts on the atheist view of morality.

What about agnostics? How does an agnostic stand up on the moral scale?

If what you meant was, that atheists generally have greater capacity for universal morality than Abrahamists, I suggest you state it that way.

 

[Atlas]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Only Atheists Have The Capacity To Be Truly Moral?

... My focus was on the act of stoning regardless of target. ...
For me, I consider stoning someone to death morally wrong. ...
IMHO morally bankrupt.

I have never been against the death penalty for heinous crimes. If the person is dangerous and destructive to the fabric of society I think it is a moral act the protect society from the malignant and the extinguishment of that life shows that we value life. Society discriminates that value. There is precious life worth protection and there is the malignant. We cut the cancer out and kill it. It matters little if the malignancy is one individual or another nation. That which threatens the lives of you and yours can morally be fought to the death.

Stoning is participatory, everyone gets their shot. But it probably informs the mind differently than an execution by lethal injection behind closed doors by the state.

If Saddam was sentenced to be stoned by the Kurds he gassed I would not rise in moral outrage. Likewise this John Couey guy, the Florida man who confessed to the kidnapping, assaulting and killing 9-year-old Jessica Lunsford, and then burying her alive. This is malignant. Maintaining this life at state expense serves no moral purpose. If we can view abortion with societal toleration I think we can embrace capital punishment for monsters. Stoning is punishment at its harshest but I do not think electrocution, hanging, or lethal injection is always to be preferred. We are killing with extreme prejudice.

My own words here are strange to write. 30 years ago when nearing the end of my enlistment I toyed with registering myself as a conscientious objector. It was during the VietNam war and I was fortunate enough not to be sent into that theater. I wanted though to make a statement and go on record even though it would be, for me, a moot exercise. As time went by I had become a pacifist. Killing was always wrong. I don't feel that way anymore.

 

[RandFan]

As an atheist my moral judgment is based on the premise that "if it hurts or inconveniences another human it is wrong" and then make a judgemental based on the answer.

Why do you assume that this basis for morality is shared by all atheists? Stalin, Mao and others who were atheist believed that society was more important than the individual and therefore it was ok to hurt or inconvenience another human being so long as it was for the good of society. From that we got gulags, genocide, killing fields, loss of freedom, purges, forced labor, to name a few of the atrocities and death on such a massive scale that it is truly incomprehensible to fathom. The numbers range from a low of 40,000,000 to a high of 260,000,000.

Communist Democide

 

[severin]

My four penny worth (as we say over here).

Social animals have evolved what can be seen as proto-morals, based largely on reciprocal altruism. This can be seen in a range of creatures, from the great apes to vampire bats, among others.

Human morality is the next evolutionary step. We are mostly law abiding because we don't want to live in a society where there is no law. The legal system codifies social interaction. As in any animal society, there will be lawabiders and cheats who try to profit from breaking the rules. As in any animal society, there are punishments for those who are caught, because no system is perfect - that's human (and other animal) nature.

Look at the laws of early societies and they all have common elements - the value of human life, the value of property/territory. Punishments and values assigned to these vary but, as with animals, these are the main concerns. As we have developed civilization, we have expanded, elaborated and refined our laws. Different societies still have different interpretations of these relative values - the death penalty, for example, does not exist in the UK.

There was a programme on UK TV recently where a huge poll asked people to rewrite the 10 commandments. The one that received the most votes was basically - do as you would be done by.

Religion just takes the proto-morals that were many millenia in the making and codifies them, adding a layer of supernatural rewards and punishments. Then there are the laws that were practical in the society that invented them and given a moral veneer to enforce them - not eating pork in a desert climate, for example.

The laws that we have internalized are called morals. The ones that helped us survive long enough to pass on our genes are ingrained in us from childhood for good survival reasons. So in a sense, these morals are not relative, they are solid, practical and universal with only the application of them varying.

Moral judgements can be very clear cut or they can be confusing. The threat of the aforementioned supernatural punishment/reward just muddies the water.

As an atheist, I don't need a religion to tell me what is right or wrong and I strongly resent those believers who tell me that my morals are appropriated from theirs.