Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

[joobz]

But, you haven't. You've said you have, you rather boringly insist upon it, but nobody has even begun to grapple with the idea of what good citizenship means. As far as I can tell, nobody has even seen the point, yet.

This is completely false.

I feel a desire to elaborate on this:


Here, we come to the exact point of how Neuhaus and Stone Island have attempted to redefine citizen to be equivilent to chistian, or better yet require being christian to be a citizen.

As everyone here has implicitly understood (even Radrook's post pages back agreed), citizenry is defined by a person's actions within a society. If they conform to that society's will, they are a good citizen. That doesn't mean the society is good. This seems to be what Neuhaus found detestable. As such, he wished to redefine good citizen to mean a person who will function in the best interests of all based upon some external code (regardless if the society adopts to that same code).

Now, the trouble is what external code do we adopt and why? For convienience, natural law and god is invoked in some shear horror show of circular reasoning. During the argument, it is claimed that this code must come from god becuase it exists and that since the code exists god must be real. Along the way, by defining citizen in terms of what a person believes, Neuhaus gets to claim that atheists are excluded from the good citizen club.

If allowed to continue, there is no reason for Neuhaus to stop at excluding atheists. By changing the standard of good citizen from from Belief in natural laws to belief in christian natural laws, we could start to exclude Jews, muslims, hindus, Buddhists,... from being good citizens. Afterall, if we assume that these axiomatic laws must have a generic divine origin (one with no proof to exist), why couldn't it have a specific divine origin (one that equally has no proof).

Stone Island and Neuhaus continually beg the question, why does this code equal the one true code. The answer is, it doesn't. There is no "one true code". It's merely an axiomatic set of standards which were used to establish the society we currently live in. These axiomatic standards work, mainly becuase empirical observation of other sets of axioms were found wanting.(theocracies, monarchies, oligarchies, ..) This doesn't mean that our current system is the one true system, but the best we've come to. Indeed, the primary principle that the USA was built upon was the notion that this system might not be the best, so they built in corrective algorithm to allow the government to adapt to changing needs. Even within the history of the US, the definition of a good citizen (formerly a white male who could own slaves and viewed women as secondary unworthy of voting rights) has changed.

There is no standard set of beliefs one must have to be a good citizen. There are standards of beliefs one must be to be a good theist. Neuhaus and stone island equate these concepts, and in so doing demonstrate a naive prejudice that must be exposed openly to prevent it from ever fostering. Our society operates on the principle of free speech. As such, I expose these prejudices and am a good citizen for doing so.

I've seen plenty of ad hominem and plenty of name calling, but no real argumentation.

I've called you an intellecual coward for avoiding direct discussion. That is not an ad-hom. I'm not saying you are wrong because you are an intellectual coward. Please note that I hold no ill will toward you and only wish for you to live up to your inellectual potential.

Start again: an atheist can act in any way she pleases, why is it anything more than arbitrary political prejudice?

Your premise is wrong and therefore this statement is meaningless. Atheism isn't the only thing that defines a person. Morality doesn't ONLY come from theism, therefore morality can come from non-theistic sources.

 

[linusrichard]

Start again: an atheist can act in any way she pleases, why is it anything more than arbitrary political prejudice?

In what meaningful sense is it true to say that "an atheist can act in any way she pleases," but not true to say that "a theist can act in any way she pleases"?

We all can act in any way we please. Are you saying there's no such thing as a good citizen? I don't think you are.

 

[Hokulele]

In what meaningful sense is it true to say that "an atheist can act in any way she pleases," but not true to say that "a theist can act in any way she pleases"?

And to make it worse, some theists feel they can act any way they please and then repent, confess, atone, purchase an indulgence, beg forgiveness, or whatever at a later time, and still be a good citizen.

 

[calebprime]

Joobz, good work here.

I couldn't find the original post--search function too slow, etc.


Posted by Joobz:


Here, we come to the exact point of how Neuhaus and Stone Island have attempted to redefine citizen to be equivilent to chistian, or better yet require being christian to be a citizen.

As everyone here has implicitly understood (even Radrook's post pages back agreed), citizenry is defined by a person's actions within a society. If they conform to that society's will, they are a good citizen. That doesn't mean the society is good. This seems to be what Neuhaus found detestable. As such, he wished to redefine good citizen to mean a person who will function in the best interests of all based upon some external code (regardless if the society adopts to that same code).

Now, the trouble is what external code do we adopt and why? For convienience, natural law and god is invoked in some shear horror show of circular reasoning. During the argument, it is claimed that this code must come from god becuase it exists and that since the code exists god must be real. Along the way, by defining citizen in terms of what a person believes, Neuhaus gets to claim that atheists are excluded from the good citizen club.

If allowed to continue, there is no reason for Neuhaus to stop at excluding atheists. By changing the standard of good citizen from from Belief in natural laws to belief in christian natural laws, we could start to exclude Jews, muslims, hindus, Buddhists,... from being good citizens. Afterall, if we assume that these axiomatic laws must have a generic divine origin (one with no proof to exist), why couldn't it have a specific divine origin (one that equally has no proof).

Stone Island and Neuhaus continually beg the question, why does this code equal the one true code. The answer is, it doesn't. There is no "one true code". It's merely an axiomatic set of standards which were used to establish the society we currently live in. These axiomatic standards work, mainly becuase empirical observation of other sets of axioms were found wanting.(theocracies, monarchies, oligarchies, ..) This doesn't mean that our current system is the one true system, but the best we've come to. Indeed, the primary principle that the USA was built upon was the notion that this system might not be the best, so they built in corrective algorithm to allow the government to adapt to changing needs. Even within the history of the US, the definition of a good citizen (formerly a white male who could own slaves and viewed women as secondary unworthy of voting rights) has changed.

There is no standard set of beliefs one must have to be a good citizen. There are standards of beliefs one must be to be a good theist. Neuhaus and stone island equate these concepts, and in so doing demonstrate a naive prejudice that must be exposed openly to prevent it from ever fostering. Our society operates on the principle of free speech. As such, I expose these prejudices and am a good citizen for doing so.

 

[Stone Island]

Let's start with one side at a time, shall we?

Joobz wrote, "There is no standard set of beliefs one must have to be a good citizen."

(I'll ignore the argument from disagreement and the argument from ignorance for a moment.)

Citizenship cannot be mere action, because, I think you'll agree, a bad or evil person can act like a good or just person and not be actually good or just. However, to be good or just truly, one must do the right action for the right reason. Following the law is necessary but not sufficient for good citizenship.

As Patton (allegedly) said, "The point of war isn't to die for your country, it's to get some other poor son-of-a-bitch to die for his!" Can you offer a morally compelling reason to justify killing for your country? Can you kill based on a set of axiomatic standards that we happen to like?

This is the premise I'm dealing with: "A good citizen is one who can present a morally compelling defense of the premises of her nation."

I'll also hold that one cannot be a good citizen of an evil or unjust nation.

An atheist cannot be a good citizen because good citizenship require faith in, in the case of the U.S., a set of non-scientific, non-verifiable natural laws. If an atheist could have faith in non-scientific, non-verifiable natural laws they would cease to be an atheist and would become something of an agnostic, because they could not reject the possibility that someone else may be right about God or gods. Remember: there is no more scientific proof for natural law than there is for God or gods. There is no more natural support for the Declaration of Independence or Constitution than there is for the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

Unless, of course, you want to say that the weakest of the negative atheists is still an atheist and not an agnostic. All, I can ask is, do atheists have a good reason for what they believe (or refuse to believe), or not? Atheists, like Articulette, who are such out of ignorance, prejudice, or merely arbitrarily aren't, I hope you agree, particularly interesting.

 

[GreyICE]

Let's start with one side at a time, shall we?

Joobz wrote, "There is no standard set of beliefs one must have to be a good citizen."

(I'll ignore the argument from disagreement and the argument from ignorance for a moment.)

Citizenship cannot be mere action, because, I think you'll agree, a bad or evil person can act like a good or just person and not be actually good or just. However, to be good or just truly, one must do the right action for the right reason. Following the law is necessary but not sufficient for good citizenship.

As Patton (allegedly) said, "The point of war isn't to die for your country, it's to get some other poor son-of-a-bitch to die for his!" Can you offer a morally compelling reason to justify killing for your country? Can you kill based on a set of axiomatic standards that we happen to like?

This is the premise I'm dealing with: "A good citizen is one who can present a morally compelling defense of the premises of her nation."

I'll also hold that one cannot be a good citizen of an evil or unjust nation.

Of course this offers a whole lot of assumptions. A morally compelling defense, for instance. I notice that you chose to ignore the possibility of an intellectually compelling defense.

If we allow for the possibility of an intellectually compelling defense, based on the best knowledge we have of the outcome of our country's actions, we seem to fit your definition. We can only be good citizens of 'good' nations because the others have no intellectually compelling defense for what they do - the Chinese government, for instance, has no real reason to oppress its country, and it is holding it back in many important ways. And yet, the entire objection to Atheism disappears. Atheists can make intellectual arguments - frequently much better than theists. Atheists who are 'good citizens' can intellectually defend the country's actions, because they understand and agree with them, and can explain them. Is this not more valuable than a flat statement of 'my country is morally good?'

An atheist cannot be a good citizen because good citizenship require faith in, in the case of the U.S., a set of non-scientific, non-verifiable natural laws. If an atheist could have faith in non-scientific, non-verifiable natural laws they would cease to be an atheist and would become something of an agnostic, because they could not reject the possibility that someone else may be right about God or gods. Remember: there is no more scientific proof for natural law than there is for God or gods. There is no more natural support for the Declaration of Independence or Constitution than there is for the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

But why do we have to have faith in these? What natural laws require us to have faith in them? We can accept the intellectual argument for certain basic principles aiding society without any faith required. Faith, here, seems like a weak substitute for reasoned thinking.

Unless, of course, you want to say that the weakest of the negative atheists is still an atheist and not an agnostic. All, I can ask is, do atheists have a good reason for what they believe (or refuse to believe), or not?

Sure. I don't believe in God for the same reason you don't believe in fairies or bigfoot. There's no compelling evidence for their existence, people have spent lots of time looking and found nothing, and all the arguments for his/hers/its/their existence and offers of evidence have proven to be fake, untestable, or placebo.

 

[KingMerv00]

Ah, now I see where you've gone wrong. You think this is a debate, when, in fact, it is (at least on my part) an attempt at a friendly and lively discussion.

A debate is a discussion where two opposing viewpoints fight it out. That is exactly what we have here.

Where do you get the impression that I'm trying to win anything? Or, to put it another way, getting you to face your prejudices, whether or not I cause you to change your mind, is win enough for me. Is a a good citizen someone who stands up for his country through action motivated by pure political prejudice (Clemenceau, who was the toughest, the hardest and perhaps the most cruel man I have ever met, who had but one love, France...) or someone who can offer a compelling moral account that speaks to something true and eternal (as the authors of the DOI and Constitution thought they were doing)?

I put "win" in quotes intentionally. There is no winning a debate...formal or otherwise. My point is that if you do not take an real stand then you are rendering yourself immune to rebuttal. In theory, you could just keep changing proxies. Until we get an opinion from you, we aren't having that lively discussion that you want.

See, by not stating my own opinion, and only "boxing the corner" of the OP's author, I may, in fact, be attempting to refine my own thinking by putting it to the test. Of course whether I agree or not is really beside the point.

See above.

By the way, look up ad hom. "You keep using that word. It do not think it means what you think it means."

Ad Hom - You are wrong because you are ugly.

Insult - You are wrong AND ugly.

 

[Foster Zygote]

No, you didn't.

I must have missed the part where you proved that atheists cannot value anything greater than themselves.

 

[linusrichard]

An atheist cannot be a good citizen because good citizenship require faith in, in the case of the U.S., a set of non-scientific, non-verifiable natural laws. If an atheist could have faith in non-scientific, non-verifiable natural laws they would cease to be an atheist and would become something of an agnostic, because they could not reject the possibility that someone else may be right about God or gods.

A shorter way of saying this would be "I don't really understand what atheism and agnosticism are."

First, let's get rid of this false contradicton between atheism and agnosticism. I don't believe in God, which makes me an atheist. I don't believe that I know no god exists, and I don't "reject the possibility that someone else may be right about God or gods," which makes me an agnostic. I am an atheist agnostic, or an agnostic atheist. No contradiction exists between the two.

If an atheist could have faith in non-scientific, non-verifiable natural laws, they would continue to be an atheist as long as they didn't believe in the existence of god or gods. This, I think, is your major mistake, and Neuhaus's.

I think it's also debatable whether the proposition that "good citizenship require faith in, in the case of the U.S., a set of non-scientific, non-verifiable natural laws" (or the two main propositions that prop up that proposition) is even true. But that's all secondary, since none of it has anything to do with atheism.

 

[joobz]

Let's start with one side at a time, shall we?

Joobz wrote, "There is no standard set of beliefs one must have to be a good citizen."

(I'll ignore the argument from disagreement and the argument from ignorance for a moment.)

There is no argument from ignorance in my post. And there is no argument from disagreement being made. My position is independant of whether moral relativism is true or false.

Citizenship cannot be mere action, because, I think you'll agree, a bad or evil person can act like a good or just person and not be actually good or just.

Yes, and you can be a bad evil person at heart and still be a good citizen.
It would be like saying, can you be a good employee and also be a bad husband? Yes, of course.

However, to be good or just truly, one must do the right action for the right reason. Following the law is necessary but not sufficient for good citizenship.

We are not talking about merely following the law. I interpret good citizenry to be active productive members of society. This is the common acceptable definition.

As Patton (allegedly) said, "The point of war isn't to die for your country, it's to get some other poor son-of-a-bitch to die for his!" Can you offer a morally compelling reason to justify killing for your country? Can you kill based on a set of axiomatic standards that we happen to like?

Yes, and yes. But, again, This is not the marker by which good citizenry is measured.

This is the premise I'm dealing with: "A good citizen is one who can present a morally compelling defense of the premises of her nation."

I disagree with that premise as it does nothing to describe citizenry and merely serves to obfuscate the issue.

I'll also hold that one cannot be a good citizen of an evil or unjust nation.

nonsense. You are attempting to redefine good citizen beyond it's general usage. Again, you may find the concept detestable, but that isn't enough reason to justify the redefinition.

Further, even if we accept your redefinition, it still doesn't exclude athiests from the good citizen club.

An atheist cannot be a good citizen because good citizenship require faith in, in the case of the U.S., a set of non-scientific, non-verifiable natural laws.

False. As already described before. If I accept your premise of good citizen definition, atheists can be good citizens because they can have faith in a set of axiomic principles derived by logical observation of historical data. Faith in principles isn't the same as belief in god.

If an atheist could have faith in non-scientific, non-verifiable natural laws they would cease to be an atheist and would become something of an agnostic, because they could not reject the possibility that someone else may be right about God or gods.

utter complete nonsense. Atheism is exactly that, a non belief in god(s). You are conflating god beliefs and a belief in axoimatic principles. This is just wrong.

Remember: there is no more scientific proof for natural law than there is for God or gods.

it need not be natural law, but axiomatic principles. Again, principles derived at by observation of historical data.

There is no more natural support for the Declaration of Independence or Constitution than there is for the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

Unless, of course, you want to say that the weakest of the negative atheists is still an atheist and not an agnostic.

unneeded, because society can beleive in axiomatic principles.

All, I can ask is, do atheists have a good reason for what they believe (or refuse to believe), or not? Atheists, like Articulette, who are such out of ignorance, prejudice, or merely arbitrarily aren't, I hope you agree, particularly interesting.

Do not-architects have a good reason for not building?
It is difficult to answer your question because it's asking for a justification of a default. Do you have reason to not believe in Harry Potter?

While I think articulett is a but gruff, I do not think she argues out of ignorance. She may, from time to time, over simplify the thiest's position. But that is no different from what you are doing now.

I'm sorry, but again you keep repeating the same mistakes. I thank you for your response and attempt to engage this discussion, but it seems that you are still repeating arguments that you have read. I would suggest starting with answering the question, Do you believe athiests can be good citizens?

And then justify your position. remember, you are allowed to be wrong. Falling is the only way to learn to ski. Being wrong is the only way to learn to learn.


I admit, I could be wrong, but I doubt in this case I am. Indeed, my willingness to put forth my own opinion on the line has helped me refine my argument and I thank you for that.

 

[godless dave]

My thought is that if religious language is meaningless then natural law and "rights" language is meaningless too, probably for the same reason (assuming I understand Martin's argument).

Who says religious language is meaningless?

Citizenship cannot be mere action, because, I think you'll agree, a bad or evil person can act like a good or just person and not be actually good or just.

No, I don't agree with that at all. Why did you assume joobz would agree with it? There are entire schools of thought that determine whether a person is good, bad, just, or evil based entirely on their actions.

This is the premise I'm dealing with: "A good citizen is one who can present a morally compelling defense of the premises of her nation."

I would agree that that is one small part of being a good citizen, certainly not the only or most important part.

An atheist cannot be a good citizen because good citizenship require faith in, in the case of the U.S., a set of non-scientific, non-verifiable natural laws.

Except as various posters have argued for the past 18 pages, good citizenship of the US does not require such faith.

I'll leave aside your completely unwarranted and puzzling assumption that all atheists are incapable of having faith in non-scientific, non-verifiable things. I am one of those atheists who meets your narrow definition of atheist. Fortunately for me, I can make a morally compelling case for the premises of liberty, human rights, and accountable government without resorting to natural law or any other such hocus pocus. Or as joobz said:

If I accept your premise of good citizen definition, atheists can be good citizens because they can have faith in a set of axiomic principles derived by logical observation of historical data. Faith in principles isn't the same as belief in god.

 

[Foster Zygote]

An atheist cannot be a good citizen because good citizenship require faith in, in the case of the U.S., a set of non-scientific, non-verifiable natural laws.

Oddly enough, one of the logical errors that you claim we have never shown you is related to the fact that the above is an assumption. One that you have repeatedly failed to justify. The whole of your argument is based on the assumption that the Declaration of Independence established the United States of America. As has been shown from the outset, this is a highly questionable assertion. However the case that the Constitution established the United States is quite strong, and nowhere does the Constitution mention gods or natural law.

 

[Safe-Keeper]

I'll also hold that one cannot be a good citizen of an evil or unjust nation.

Was Sophie Scholl a bad citizen?

 

[JoeEllison]

However the case that the Constitution established the United States is quite strong, and nowhere does the Constitution mention gods or natural law.

It does mention "no religious test" though... SHOCKING!!!

 

[KingMerv00]

It does mention "no religious test" though... SHOCKING!!!

That can't be right...why would the founding fathers allow bad citizens to run for office?

 

[Hokulele]

That can't be right...why would the founding fathers allow bad citizens to run for office?

Maybe the founding fathers were bad citizens. I know their legal government at the time of the writing of the Declaration of Independence didn't think so highly of them.

 

[KingMerv00]

Maybe the founding fathers were bad citizens. I know their legal government at the time of the writing of the Declaration of Independence didn't think so highly of them.

Nah, they were Tory spies trying to stop the revolution before it began by infesting the nascent government with atheist scum...and then starting a revolution......diabolical.

 

[Robin]

No, you didn't.

I've tried to be as helpful as possible.

Failing to give your own opinion on the question you posed.

Not even providing reasons why you should not give your opinion.

Simply ignoring repeated requests to do so.

Obviously an entirely new and unfamiliar usage of the word "helpful".

 

[Robin]

But, you haven't. You've said you have, you rather boringly insist upon it, but nobody has even begun to grapple with the idea of what good citizenship means. As far as I can tell, nobody has even seen the point, yet.

You mean apart from the many posts that discuss what good citizenship means, that you have somehow missed?

I've seen plenty of ad hominem and plenty of name calling, but no real argumentation.

The best advice I can put at this stage is "open your eyes"

Start again: an atheist can act in any way she pleases, why is it anything more than arbitrary political prejudice?

Really, you want us toe present all the arguments again because you are just to lazy to have read them when they were presented in the first place?

And what guarantee do we have that you will read them this time round?

 

[Robin]

And isn't it wonderfully ironic that Stone Island states grandly that he hasn't seen any argumentation right after he has ignored my question for the second time:

My thought is that if religious language is meaningless then natural law and "rights" language is meaningless too, probably for the same reason (assuming I understand Martin's argument).

So in other words the article you cited in the OP is also meaningless for the same reason. Yes?

Go for a third time Stone?