Can Atheists Be Good Citizens?

[articulett]

'Tis fun to play dodge ball with the self important.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Therefore you HAVE no opinion on the subject ?

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

Whence do you get those ridiculous ideas ? Since when can atheists act in any way she pleases ANY MORE than a theist ?

 

[Belz...]

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.

He DOES act like a good person, doesn't he ? Doesn't that make him good ?

However, to be good or just truly, one must do the right action for the right reason.

Why ?

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."

Therefore atheists can do this, too.

An atheist cannot be a good citizen

Finally. An answer.

because good citizenship require faith in, in the case of the U.S., a set of non-scientific, non-verifiable natural laws.

Explain yourself. Why does it require this ? What's a "natural law" in your mind ? And does that mean that ANY theist fits your definition, Christian or otherwise ?

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.

Who cares ? Why would something need to be objective or universal for someone to believe in it and follow its principles ? All human laws are arbitrary.

 

[Robin]

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."

Here is what Neuhaus wrote:

"A good citizen is able to give an account, a morally compelling account, of the regime of which he is part."

It is like saying that a good worker is one who can write a good mission statement.

Or that a team of sport journalists will win the grand final. After all they can give a compelling account of the game.

As my Nan used to say, fine words butter no parsnips. A good citizen is one who performs acts of good citizenship.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

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.

I'd maintain that an evil person who acts in every way like a good person, and simply thinks evil thoughts without acting on them, is indistinguishable from a good person and may therefore be regarded as a candidate for a good citizen. (And I only say "candidate" because not every good person ios a good citizen.)

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.

Perhaps not "good" but you can be a "good citizen" of an evil country if you uphold the ideals of that country.

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.

First of all, which set of non-scientific, non-verifiable laws is it necessary to believe in to be a good citizen? You have proposed a definition for "good citizen" here, but you have left out a major part of the definition.

Secondly, there are plenty of atheists who believe in dowsing, telepathy, ESP, OOBE, UFOs, etc. All of which certainly qualify as non-scientific non-verifiable laws. You don't have to believe in God to believe in woo. Religion is just one particular type of woo.

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.

We could take a page from Thomas Paine and simplify things by considering a society composed of only two people. It is to the advantage of each to be good to the other, because human nature shows that it is more likely you will receive goodness in return. (I know there's a biological/evolutionary term for this "be-nice-to-others-so-that-your-genes-are-more-likely-to-survive idea, but I can't remember what it is). The point is, being good does not need to stem from a desire to please God. It can stem from a desire to a) have an easier life because people aren't mean to you, and b) the desire to have a good feeling about yourself because you did something good.

And in fact, I'd rather be good for the last two reasons than to please God. It seems much less...fake.

 

[Stone Island]

Here is what Neuhaus wrote:

"A good citizen is able to give an account, a morally compelling account, of the regime of which he is part."

It is like saying that a good worker is one who can write a good mission statement.

Or that a team of sport journalists will win the grand final. After all they can give a compelling account of the game.

As my Nan used to say, fine words butter no parsnips. A good citizen is one who performs acts of good citizenship.

It's quote mining if you don't turn to the question of why it's important to Neuhaus that a good citizen is one who can give a morally compelling account of the regime of which she is a part.

 

[Stone Island]

Perhaps not "good" but you can be a "good citizen" of an evil country if you uphold the ideals of that country.

Can you make a rational and morally compelling argument for an immoral or irrational regime? Remember, the wall in East Berlin wasn't meant to keep people out.

However, I think it's possible to make a pragmatic argument for a regime that may be evil or just plain bad, but is less evil or less bad than another.

 

[joobz]

It's quote mining if you don't turn to the question of why it's important to Neuhaus that a good citizen is one who can give a morally compelling account of the regime of which she is a part.

You keep asserting that line "a morally compelling reason to support...." as a prerequisite for good citizenry. Unfortunately,
1.) there is no reason to agree to this premise. It represents a fallacious change in the definition of good citizen. Citizenry is defined by actions not thoughts.
2.) Even if we accept your premise, moral justification can occur for non theistic reasons. Therefore, 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.

 

[six7s]

It's quote mining if you don't turn to the question of why it's important to Neuhaus that a good citizen is one who can give a morally compelling account of the regime of which she is a part.

In all sincerity, my reading of Neuhaus suggests that he needs to insulate himself from reality... and straw is his preferred medium

 

[bokonon]

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.

Citizenship is a state-defined state, so you're correct to say that it cannot be mere action, but the question was what constitutes "good citizenship." If that's what you intended to discuss here, I disagree with your conclusion that it cannot be mere action. Good citizenship IS mere action, where the action benefits the community of which one is a citizen.

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."

It's a false premise.

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.

Not true. I can believe in the axiomatic "All men are equal" without ceasing to be an atheist. Even if you insist that the axiom is "All men are created equal," there is no reason to assume the creator is God rather than the act of coitus.

 

[godless dave]

Perhaps not "good" but you can be a "good citizen" of an evil country if you uphold the ideals of that country.

Can you make a rational and morally compelling argument for an immoral or irrational regime? Remember, the wall in East Berlin wasn't meant to keep people out.

How is that relevant to what NobbyNobs said?

A "good Nazi" would be someone who is good at being a Nazi, someone who advances Nazi ideals. They would be good at being evil. Being good at being a Nazi would not require them to make a rational or morally compelling argument for the Nazi regime.

 

[Achán hiNidráne]

Given his most recent postings, I suspect that Stone Island worships two Gods: the capricious, vengeful, and authoritarian entity called "Yahweh," and the equally capricious, vengeful, and authoritarian deity called "America" worshiped by Republican politicians, right-wing radio show hosts, and rednecks who post "Remember 9-11" bumper stickers on their rusted-out pick-up trucks.

If so, and Stone Island really wants to define "good citizenship" by how much we worship the state and the ideology on which it's based upon, then I'm glad that I'm not going to be counted among their jingoistic ranks.

 

[Stone Island]

2.) Even if we accept your premise, moral justification can occur for non theistic reasons. Therefore, 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.

Except what you're not understanding is that the kind of justification necessary to make a morally compelling case for the United States as a natural law republic is the same kind of justification necessary for the existence of God, i.e., non-empirically-verifiable.

If the case for God is, as one might say, is not-proved, not meaningful, or not true, then the case for natural law and natural rights is likely not-proved, not-meaningful, or not true as well.

I can make up any sort of axiomatic principles I want. The question, can I make an argument for their truth?

 

[Stone Island]

Given his most recent postings, I suspect that Stone Island worships two Gods: the capricious, vengeful, and authoritarian entity called "Yahweh," and the equally capricious, vengeful, and authoritarian deity called "America" worshiped by Republican politicians, right-wing radio show hosts, and rednecks who post "Remember 9-11" bumper stickers on their rusted-out pick-up trucks.

If so, and Stone Island really wants to define "good citizenship" by how much we worship the state and the ideology on which it's based upon, then I'm glad that I'm not going to be counted among their jingoistic ranks.

**plonk**

 

[Foster Zygote]

Except what you're not understanding is that the kind of justification necessary to make a morally compelling case for the United States as a natural law republic is the same kind of justification necessary for the existence of God, i.e., non-empirically-verifiable.

If the case for God is, as one might say, is not-proved, not meaningful, or not true, then the case for natural law and natural rights is likely not-proved, not-meaningful, or not true as well.

I can make up any sort of axiomatic principles I want. The question, can I make an argument for their truth?

Please reference mention of "natural law" in the United States Constitution.

 

[joobz]

Except what you're not understanding is that the kind of justification necessary to make a morally compelling case for the United States as a natural law republic is the same kind of justification necessary for the existence of God, i.e., non-empirically-verifiable.

To this, I will defer to FZ's repeated explanation of America NOT being a natural law republic but a Constitutional republic.

I can make up any sort of axiomatic principles I want. The question, can I make an argument for their truth?

yes, you can. See the establishment of thermodynamics via 4 postulates as one example of axiomatically derived "truth".

Besides this example, I have already explained that I can support the axiom "all men are equal" as a founding principle of society. We can use past historical evidence of non-equality based societies as a tool to justify the principle. again, Faith in principles is different from faith in god.

 

[Stone Island]

Please reference mention of "natural law" in the United States Constitution.

Well, there's the more perfect Union, which leads one to believe that there was a less perfect Union, which gets one wondering about when the Union was created, which leads one back to the DOI.

But, also, there is Article I: "the legislative powers herein granted shall be vested" which gives one an indication that there are legislative powers not granted herein, especially when compared to the vesting language of Article II. Of course, knowing Amendments 9 and 10, we know that some of those legislative powers were probably understood as being given or retained by the states, but some were also given or retained by the people themselves.

 

[Robin]

It's quote mining if you don't turn to the question of why it's important to Neuhaus that a good citizen is one who can give a morally compelling account of the regime of which she is a part.

Neuhaus does not state why, he merely asserts it as an axiom, with no justification.

As for my previous question:

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?

Will you go for for a fourth evasion?

 

[Stone Island]

Besides this example, I have already explained that I can support the axiom "all men are equal" as a founding principle of society. We can use past historical evidence of non-equality based societies as a tool to justify the principle. again, Faith in principles is different from faith in god.

Except, empirically, we know that all men are not equal, being born quite differently, into many different circumstances. Your axiom is arbitrary.

And again, the empirical or anthropological investigation and evaluation of what happened with different societies that had differing considerations concerning their founding principles is, in the end, an evaluation based on the acceptance of a definition of the good, which, I hasten to add, is purely arbitrary without some sort of standard.

Even your empirical evaluation rests on axiomatic standard. Can you make a morally compelling case for that standard that is consistent?

 

[Stone Island]

Neuhaus does not state why, he merely asserts it as an axiom, with no justification.

If you won't read the article...?