Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

[Stone Island]

Atheism, theism and natural law are metaphysical claims. Unless atheism is merely an expression of arbitrary preference in line with a preference for ice cream, it is a claim about the nature of the universe that must be justified. The same goes for theism and natural law naturally. An atheist qua atheist cannot consistently reject the claims of theism as unjustified and accept the claims of natural law as justified.

Obviously people are consistently inconsistent and believe and act in all sorts of ways, no matter how much they violate their otherwise strongly held principles.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Atheism, theism and natural law are metaphysical claims.

False, amusingly, so.

Athiesm is merely the lack of belief in god(s.) It is not a metaphysical claim, it's a restraint from making a claim.

Unless atheism is merely an expression of arbitrary preference in line with a preference for ice cream, it is a claim about the nature of the universe that must be justified.

You're forgetting where the burden of proof lies. I no more need to justify my atheism than I need to justify my aleprechaunism.

The same goes for theism and natural law naturally. An atheist qua atheist cannot consistently reject the claims of theism as unjustified and accept the claims of natural law as justified.

If by "natural law" you mean the physical laws of the universe, I see no conflict between atheism and accepting what science has to offer. I do, however, see a conflict between accepting non-scientific claims based on faith and accepting science.

 

[Stone Island]

False. In fact, an argument could be made that atheists can be better citizens, becuase they have no loyalties to churches, religions, popes, priests, pastors, or gods to interfere with their being good citizens.

Any theist who puts his or her god/religion/church/prophet/pope above citizenship has divided loyalties and cannot, then, be a 'good citizen.'

That makes about as much sense as the assertation that atheists can't be good citizens ...

Play that line of thought out for a bit. It seems to me that if what you're saying is true, then any loyalties or associations that are to any entity other than the state are cause for inability to be a good citizen.

What other loyalties do we have?

To our families.
To our children.
To our parents.
To our clubs.
To our sports teams.
To our communities.
To our states.

In the Republic Socrates talks about a community of women and children so that man's loyalty to his family will be instead directed at the state.

Did you ever read Bowling Alone by Putnam or the study it was based on? If I remember correctly, it argued that people who were less active in their communities, who had weaker ties to groups, communities, churches, family, etc..., were less likely to be active civic participants. Unfortunately, I don't have the data here in front of me, but I do remember that his hypothesis was fairly well supported.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Theism is a social construct. Natural law is a social construct.

I can however choose to value some rights as if they were naturally given to everyone, and try to follow them to best of my ability. I can also choose to believe in some supernatural entity, but I don’t. I find that to be unnecessary and ludicrous.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

In the Republic Socrates talks about a community of women and children so that man's loyalty to his family will be instead directed at the state.

And in Dorothy and Wizard of Oz there's a community of people made of wood who live in a magically lighted cavern underground.

Citing a fictitious civilization nets nothing.

 

[joobz]

Atheism, theism and natural law are metaphysical claims. Unless atheism is merely an expression of arbitrary preference in line with a preference for ice cream, it is a claim about the nature of the universe that must be justified. The same goes for theism and natural law naturally. An atheist qua atheist cannot consistently reject the claims of theism as unjustified and accept the claims of natural law as justified.

Obviously people are consistently inconsistent and believe and act in all sorts of ways, no matter how much they violate their otherwise strongly held principles.

To put it another way, because someone is willing to beleive in one, unrelated unsubstantiated story, then they can believe in any kind of unsubstantiated story. And since we need to believe in a unsubstantiated story for our government's charter to be valid, you can't be a good citizen if you don't believe in some unrelated unsubstantiated story.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

To put it another way, because someone is willing to beleive in one, unrelated unsubstantiated story, then they can believe in any kind of unsubstantiated story. And since we need to believe in a unsubstantiated story for our government's charter to be valid, you can't be a good citizen if you don't believe in some unrelated unsubstantiated story.

If that's a fair summary, I still think it's incorrect. The assumption that we have natural rights might be - and I think is - a fiction. But, by building a society around that fictions everyone benefits. I don't have to believe that everyone really does have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to devote my energies to ensuring those rights are protected in perpetuity. Stone Island has failed to show that you must believe theistic lies in order to accept the ground rules of a society.

 

[Stone Island]

And in Dorothy and Wizard of Oz there's a community of people made of wood who live in a magically lighted cavern underground.

Citing a fictitious civilization nets nothing.

I'm sorry, but I don't really understand what it is you're trying to say. cgordon made a point that a theist's ties to her religion might cause her to be less tied or loyal to her country. I pointed out that someone much, much smarter than any of us here had already thought of that and put it in its strongest possible form, to the point where even families were sacrificed in the cause of loyalty to the state. I don't suppose we have to take cgordon's point quite that far, but it is, I think, instructive when we do. It raises the question of where to draw the line, right?

To put it another way, because someone is willing to beleive in one, unrelated unsubstantiated story, then they can believe in any kind of unsubstantiated story. And since we need to believe in a unsubstantiated story for our government's charter to be valid, you can't be a good citizen if you don't believe in some unrelated unsubstantiated story.

Do we live in a world where theistic claims make sense or not? (Actually two questions: are religious claims meaningful, i.e., do they have truth value, and, if so, are they true?) Neuhaus argues that while there was a tradition of atheism that accepted that religious claims had truth value, even if they in the end found that value to be false, modern atheism denies the meaningfulness of religious language. If religious claims are meaningful but false, then natural rights claims may be meaningful but true. If religious claims are meaningless, and thus neither true nor false, then natural law claims are meaningless as well. That's why an atheist can't be a good citizen, because the philosophy that justifies the very moral/political foundation of her country is, to her, nothing more than possibly salutary, altogether unsubstantiated woo.

Maybe an atheist could be a good citizen of some other sort of country, maybe one founded on a principle of utilitarianism or something. But they can't be a good citizen of a natural rights republic because they reject as unsubstantiated the transcendent truth of natural rights.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I'm sorry, but I don't really understand what it is you're trying to say. cgordon made a point that a theist's ties to her religion might cause her to be less tied or loyal to her country. I pointed out that someone much, much smarter than any of us here had already thought of that and put it in its strongest possible form, to the point where even families were sacrificed in the cause of loyalty to the state. I don't suppose we have to take cgordon's point quite that far, but it is, I think, instructive when we do. It raises the question of where to draw the line, right?

No, it doesn't. Firstly, you cited Plato's Republic, which means nothing. We're talking about reality, not fiction. Secondly, even if we accept your assertion that theists tend to be better citizens, it fails to support the premise that atheists cannot be good citizens. If you're really trying to argue the former then you are moving the goalposts.

 

[Stone Island]

Firstly, you cited Plato's Republic, which means nothing.

What do you mean, "means nothing"?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

What do you mean, "means nothing"?

It's not an experiment, or research. It's not science, it's fiction. If you can cite Plato's Republic, I can cite The Wizard of Oz.

 

[joobz]

Do we live in a world where theistic claims make sense or not? (Actually two questions: are religious claims meaningful, i.e., do they have truth value, and, if so, are they true?) Neuhaus argues that while there was a tradition of atheism that accepted that religious claims had truth value, even if they in the end found that value to be false, modern atheism denies the meaningfulness of religious language. If religious claims are meaningful but false, then natural rights claims may be meaningful but true. If religious claims are meaningless, and thus neither true nor false, then natural law claims are meaningless as well. That's why an atheist can't be a good citizen, because the philosophy that justifies the very moral/political foundation of her country is, to her, nothing more than possibly salutary, altogether unsubstantiated woo.

you've simply reaffirmed my summary.

Maybe an atheist could be a good citizen of some other sort of country, maybe one founded on a principle of utilitarianism or something. But they can't be a good citizen of a natural rights republic because they reject as unsubstantiated the transcendent truth of natural rights.

This is such a shift of argument, that you are indeed contradicting your original premise that of "atheists can't be good citizens in ANY government."

check to page one, and you'll see multiple people having said, "It depends on the government." But, you (or neuhaus) were contending that actions weren't important but a belief in the state principles (i'm paraphrasing here). And you attributed saying that atheists can't believe in something more than themselves(e.g., the state principles) and therefore can't be good citizens. Foster Zygote (among others) proved this assertion wrong and now you admit that atheists can indeed believe in something more than themselves.

You've admited then that atheists can believe in something more than themselves (although you are only permitting utalitarianism for now) and are therefore capable of being good citizens of some government form. As such, your original claim, "atheists can't be good citizens" was proven false.


We now need to address your most recent assertion, that atheist can't be good citizens in a natural law republic. I do not have time right now to take this over, but suffice to say that I think this is also false for the simple reason that belief in axiomatic governing principles does not require belief in a god. But I can expand upon this alter.

So, shall we admit that this is where we currently stand in the argument?

 

[joobz]

If that's a fair summary, I still think it's incorrect. The assumption that we have natural rights might be - and I think is - a fiction. But, by building a society around that fictions everyone benefits. I don't have to believe that everyone really does have an inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to devote my energies to ensuring those rights are protected in perpetuity. Stone Island has failed to show that you must believe theistic lies in order to accept the ground rules of a society.

I too think it's incorrect. I thought by displaying it in those general terms would better display the error in reasoning.

we can accept axioms to live by without needing to believe these axioms came from a magical source.

 

[six7s]

So, shall we admit that this is where we currently stand in the argument?

I think the following pic illustrates where we stand...

​

It seems to me that the OP has been influenced by fables that assign undue (i.e. > 0) importance to some nebulous and artificial constructs that are ambiguously labelled 'citizenship' that are, by some apparently circular reasoning, accessible only to those who accept, promote and can give a 'morally compelling account' of the nebulous and artificial constructs that are ambiguously labelled 'citizenship'... repeat × 2, rinse...

I have a hunch that the OP wants/needs to believe that we need some stamp of approval in a fairytale passport, issued by some self-important and imaginary clerical worker, in order to gain access to some mythical land of milk and honey

Whereas in the RealWorld™ bridging the 'divide' is unnecessary, simply because it doesn't exist... so we can stand (and walk, run etc.) anywhere we damn well please

 

[Stone Island]

you've simply reaffirmed my summary.

This is such a shift of argument, that you are indeed contradicting your original premise that of "atheists can't be good citizens in ANY government."

check to page one, and you'll see multiple people having said, "It depends on the government." But, you (or neuhaus) were contending that actions weren't important but a belief in the state principles (i'm paraphrasing here). And you attributed saying that atheists can't believe in something more than themselves(e.g., the state principles) and therefore can't be good citizens. Foster Zygote (among others) proved this assertion wrong and now you admit that atheists can indeed believe in something more than themselves.

You've admited then that atheists can believe in something more than themselves (although you are only permitting utalitarianism for now) and are therefore capable of being good citizens of some government form. As such, your original claim, "atheists can't be good citizens" was proven false.


We now need to address your most recent assertion, that atheist can't be good citizens in a natural law republic. I do not have time right now to take this over, but suffice to say that I think this is also false for the simple reason that belief in axiomatic governing principles does not require belief in a god. But I can expand upon this alter.

So, shall we admit that this is where we currently stand in the argument?

Joobz,

Actions aren't sufficient. The important question is whether those actions are justified or arbitrary.

Any particular atheist can believe any number of things, the real question is atheist qua atheist. Can an atheist qua atheist justify any particular fishing they do in the murky water of values (to steal Heidegger's metaphor).

I suppose that I am trying to avoid a discussion of any particular individual's psychology; we're all hypocrites in one way or another. That's why I refused to comment on those examples and wanted to avoid a discussion of my opinion. It's the larger question of what's meaningful and true that interests me more.

Can atheists have a justified, true belief in something more than themselves?

And I do see your point, though it raises the question: can any kind of government, other than a natural rights republic, be seen to be good? One cannot, as I said before, be a good citizen of a country that isn't itself good. Is a utilitarian form of government good in the common use of the word?

Does a belief in a natural rights republic require the kind of belief that, like belief in a God or gods, an atheist must reject? I think so.

By the by, from a utilitarian point of view, countries that are more religious tend to have citizens who are happier and wealthier. I can site the studies. Obviously, someone is going to scream "correlation isn't causation" which is fair, but that's social science for you.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Joobz,

Actions aren't sufficient. The important question is whether those actions are justified or arbitrary.

Any particular atheist can believe any number of things, the real question is atheist qua atheist. Can an atheist qua atheist justify any particular fishing they do in the murky water of values (to steal Heidegger's metaphor).

This is one of the most absurd displays of the refusal to think a proposition through I have ever read. Let us assume that there is a God, this god is interested in human affairs, and all morals and value stem from his will.

How does that make those values any less arbitrary than the values we make ourselves? You have merely transfered the responsability for devising values to a magical being. The values remain the product of a decision.

This is entirely seperate from the fact that theists, who may indeed believe that god makes values, choose which god to believe in from a vast smorgasboard, and even within religions, there are intense debates over whether god is offended more by this or that thing.

All values are abritrary.

 

[Stone Island]

I too think it's incorrect. I thought by displaying it in those general terms would better display the error in reasoning.

we can accept axioms to live by without needing to believe these axioms came from a magical source.

Except that natural rights aren't axioms, or they aren't meant to be axioms, they're supposed to be true, real, and operative.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

Except that natural rights aren't axioms, or they aren't meant to be axioms, they're supposed to be true, real, and operative.

Are they? According to whom? Anyone who says that must attempt to back it up logically, and there is no evidence that there are are universal and immutable natural rights.

Rights are a social construct.

 

[Stone Island]

This is one of the most absurd displays of the refusal to think a proposition through I have ever read. Let us assume that there is a God, this god is interested in human affairs, and all morals and value stem from his will.

How does that make those values any less arbitrary than the values we make ourselves? You have merely transfered the responsability for devising values to a magical being. The values remain the product of a decision.

This is entirely seperate from the fact that theists, who may indeed believe that god makes values, choose which god to believe in from a vast smorgasboard, and even within religions, there are intense debates over whether god is offended more by this or that thing.

All values are abritrary.

You keep misunderstanding the argument.

Natural rights aren't supposed to be values in that sense, they're supposed to be true (see the Euthyphro by Plato for more information on this argument), transcendent, and imperative.

How is "natural rights" talk more meaningful, i.e., less arbitrary, than "God or gods" talk?

 

[Foster Zygote]

Except that natural rights aren't axioms, or they aren't meant to be axioms, they're supposed to be true, real, and operative.

Weren't the gods of Olympus meant to be true, real, and operative?