morality for atheists?

[Michael Redman]

I'm in Nyarlathotep's camp. Certain moral rules are rational, and that's why we see them across all cultures. It isn't hard to figure them out, and it isn't surprising that we see them everywhere. We do better with them then without. Evolution is the ultimate utilitarian. Adopt behavioral norms that slow you down, and you disappear. Figure out how to cooperate for the common good, and prosper. We're the ones that mutated (and/or learned) cooperation-based moral rules, and we're the ones that survived.

Christians who question whether non-christains would have morals seem to ignore the fact that the moral rules they were given from their book are essentially the same rules all society relies on, and always has. Most people have always understood, due to socialization and reason, why the rules are necessary, and beneficial. Anyone who doesn't see this, and follows the rules only because the God's reward/punishment potential, is, in my opinion, a sociopath. Doesn't anyone who feels nonbelievers don't have a basis for morality necessarily believe that it is only the reward/punishment potential of their god that gives them morality? That's kind of scary, if you ask me.

 

[elliotfc]

Here is my question. Why doesn't the application of religion result in more consistent morality?

Because there are thousands of different religions.

The morality of the religious (like that of atheists) runs the entire spectrum of behaviour from saint like to evil. The simple answer is that religion is a human creation to help control a population.

Sure it's a human creation. What ideas DON'T help to control a population?

Morality and ethics (or lack of) are a human condition. Religion has nothing to do with it.

If religion has nothing to do with morality why do religions discuss and explain morality? Why do most people associate religion and morality? All religions provide moral codes so you're completely wrong. Anyhow religion is also a human condition. You yourself buy into beliefs and engage in rituals, you yourself have faith in a picture of the past that you will never see.

Religion is not magic and people will behave however they want to regardless of what they say they believe.

I agree with you competely on this point.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

The question still remains; " Why do we need a God in order to establish the criteria for moral behaviour ? "

I don't know on what level to answer this question.

From a theistic point of view, you need a God because God exists.

From an atheistic point of view, you don't need a God.

As a theist I can perfectly understand that people who say they don't need a God can deduce moral behavior. As a theist I can do the same, but understand that my deducing is itself a gift from God. As a theist I can't escape God. As an atheist I don't think you can completely escape God either, even though you doubt the existence of God.

And if we do, how is that information communicated to us?

Variety of ways. We all have a conscience, ideas that help us to guide our behavior. Also, God became a human being (Jesus) and communicated many things. God inspires us continually in our creative pursuits, and you can become more and more able to connect with God through prayer and introspection.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

But surely you do not pretend that there are not millions, if not billions of people past and present, who do not hold that the Old Testament is a factual chronicle of the adventures of God and his chosen beople, acting under the direction of same God?

Surely not.

And the question here is ; ' How do those people justify the questioning of how people who do not believe in that God, or any God, get their sense of morality?'

It starts with their belief in the existence of God. And anyone who says that God does not exist has severed the branch that connects them to God, and shouldn't be taken seriously.

That's one way of looking at it. I'm just speculating here, I don't really know.

Alternatively they could imagine that atheists/agnostics/heretics are just out and out misguided and don't know any better when it comes to where morality comes from.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Re: Speaking as an (unapologetically) liberal Christian...

Originally posted by Bullwinkle
A person's religion (or lack thereof) does not make one a "moral person". One's fundamental beliefs -- and how one acts upon those beliefs -- makes one a moral person.

True. The problem is we all have different moralities in that we emphasize different things, etc.

For example you've went ad hominem on several people in your post Bullwinkle. That is fine with your morality, but not fine in my morality. But I don't think we have radically different moralities at all.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

I find the common arguments against utilitarianism a bit short sighted. They often look only at the effects on the people directly involved and not on the effects of society as a whole. It is those effects that would prevent me from, for example, killing one healthy person to provide translplant material to 10 sick people (a very common argument I have heard against utilitarianism).

So in this case you would oppose the killing of one healthy person because that would fundamentally destabilize, or cause problems, in an ordered world?

I oppose utilitarianism because I don't think people can agree on what is good for people. Some utilitarians would ban certain books while others would not. Some utilitarians would give their internal organs away while others would not. Which utilitarians are right and which are wrong? Depends on your morality I guess...

-Elliot

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: morality for atheists?

If you're looking for a mechanistic explanation I can't give you one. All I know is that just about every human has a notion of morality and that the notion is not radically different from culture to culture. You might have a mechanistic explanation for that fact but you cannot prove it any more or less than I can prove mine. The default answer is the evolved, or that it was necessary for survival. That answer can be used to explain everything, and so can God.

Ocams Razor..

Out of curiosity, if there were no *God behaving badly* moments in the Bible, would you have a different opinion of a religion in particular or a religion in general?

-Elliot

I only refer to the Bible when people use it to defend their beliefs.

My opinion of religion is that it offers no solutions that cannot be obtained without it, ( as in ' Ocams Razor, above ) and in the meantime, consumes resources that might better be utilized without all the trappings of religion.

I wouldn't have such a problem with religion if it weren't for the behavior of supposedly religious people.

As far as Christianity is concerned, it seems to me that 2,000 years is long enough to make any worthwhile point that you have to offer..

 

[elliotfc]

Evolution is the ultimate utilitarian. Adopt behavioral norms that slow you down, and you disappear. Figure out how to cooperate for the common good, and prosper. We're the ones that mutated (and/or learned) cooperation-based moral rules, and we're the ones that survived.

Than how do you explain the fact that religious people/nations reproduce at a muchmuchmuch higher rate than people/nations that believe in evolution? Keep your eyes on Japan and Western Europe. Those societies are approaching a population distribution that is absolutely unheard of in world history. Thankfully in the US we have Catholic Latinos who'll keep us populated.

Evolution is the ultimate EMBRACER of traits. Traits don't want to disappear, they'll stick around and pop up if the situation calls for them. Let's see how those people who don't believe in evolution compete with those who do. In our society basically everyone survives unless they have health problems. If you don't embrace the morals, you learn to play with them and even exploit them.

Anyone who doesn't see this, and follows the rules only because the God's reward/punishment potential, is, in my opinion, a sociopath.

I'm glad that would only be your opinion. Sociopaths are judged to be sociopaths because of their behaviors in society, and not their beliefs.

Doesn't anyone who feels nonbelievers don't have a basis for morality necessarily believe that it is only the reward/punishment potential of their god that gives them morality?

No, not necessarily. It's just that they feel the basis is misguided and incomplete, kind of like believing in ice cubes but ignoring the things that cause ice cubes to come into being.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: morality for atheists?

My opinion of religion is that it offers no solutions that cannot be obtained without it, ( as in ' Ocams Razor, above ) and in the meantime, consumes resources that might better be utilized without all the trappings of religion.

That's fine. You're a good guy Diogenes, I don't mean that condescendingly. Personally I don't see how using Occam's Razor as a litmus test is superior to using Jesus as a litmus test, but it gets the job done; I may not believe as you do but again, you're a good guy.

As for your opinion on religion, it's definitely complex and tied up with money and all that. All I know for certain is what I see in my own church. I go to over 100 funerals a year, almost that many weddings, I don't know how many baptisms. People approach religion in such monumental life events. That's got to mean something, even if you don't like religion.

I wouldn't have such a problem with religion if it weren't for the behavior of supposedly religious people.

They say that the greatest ideas can be twisted to defend the greatest evils, right? Something like that?

Religion appeals to a part of us that is primal and essential. Because of that it will follow that great evil can come out of it. But that's the story of creation. God creates creative beings and some of them do evil. Does that make the act of creation evil? Not necessarily, particularly if you are a created being and think that thought.

As far as Christianity is concerned, it seems to me that 2,000 years is long enough to make any worthwhile point that you have to offer..

Some people get the point, and others don't. Christ himself said that he would be rejected, and the gospels show what that rejection process is like. You can't force anybody to do anything.

-Elliot

 

[Michael Redman]

Than how do you explain the fact that religious people/nations reproduce at a muchmuchmuch higher rate than people/nations that believe in evolution?

Extremely localized, extremely recent cultural trends that obviously have nothing to do with this discussion.

In our society basically everyone survives unless they have health problems.

That may be true now, but it certainly isn't indicative of how we got to this point.

Sociopaths are judged to be sociopaths because of their behaviors in society, and not their beliefs.

No. Sociopaths are mentally ill, regardless of their behavior. Sociopaths are people who do not feel the need to be a part of society, and therefore lack the evolutionary trait that has allowed society to succeed and prosper.

No, not necessarily. It's just that they feel the basis is misguided and incomplete,

Then they are clearly wrong. Almost the entirety of humanity has functioned just fine without the commandments of the judeo-christian god. Anyone who thinks this underpinning of judeo-christian morality is necessary for success and happiness must necessarily ignore almost all of human experience.

kind of like believing in ice cubes but ignoring the things that cause ice cubes to come into being.
-Elliot

The believers are the ones ignoring why the rules came into being. They pretend that somehow society before the rulegiving didn't have these rules. Of course, it did. We didn't get our morality from religion. We needed it to get to the point where we could form society, and invent religion, to begin with.

 

[elliotfc]

Hi Michael.

Extremely localized, extremely recent cultural trends that obviously have nothing to do with this discussion.

This was in regards to mentioning birth rates.

This is my particular focus of study, so I do know a few things about this subject. That's probably one reason I brought it up. The other reason is that anytime the word Evolution is mentioned you have to consider fertility, likelihood of fertility, rate of fertility, etc.

As for extremely localized, you do the research. As for extremely recent, you don't know what you are talking about.

Spend sometime in nationmaster, I'm definitely not making stuff up when it comes to birth rates. And you don't need to be a scholar or anything to figure out what the deal is in each country.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/peo_bir_rat

No. Sociopaths are mentally ill, regardless of their behavior. Sociopaths are people who do not feel the need to be a part of society, and therefore lack the evolutionary trait that has allowed society to succeed and prosper.

???

People who believe in a God who punishes and rewards are able to do just fine in society. I think. How many such persons (people who think of a God who punishes/rewards) do you think there are in this country or world?

Here is a definition of sociopath
http://www.9types.com/wwwboard/messages/18332.html

Since the idea that God punishes/rewards is very old, it must have some evolutionary benefit, or, the idea has some sort of staying power.

Sociopaths...lack the evolutionary trait...

Well, that would depend on the number of offspring that they have, and how well their offspring are able to do in the world.

Almost the entirety of humanity has functioned just fine without the commandments of the judeo-christian god.

And much more of the entirety of humanity has been able to function without the evolutionist interpretation of morality. What's your point?

I never said that God introcued radically new moral ideas to his Judeo-Christian believing types.

Anyone who thinks this underpinning of judeo-christian morality is necessary for success and happiness must necessarily ignore almost all of human experience.

Depends where you think success and happiness lie. If you think they are earthly ideals, you are right in that Judeo-Christians reject (not ignore) that ideal. Or at least they are supposed to.

The believers are the ones ignoring why the rules came into being.

Are you speaking as someone who observed the rules as they came into being? Dogma dogma dogma.

They pretend that somehow society before the rulegiving didn't have these rules. Of course, it did.

It has most of them, in certain forms, and in peculiar perspectives.

We didn't get our morality from religion. We needed it to get to the point where we could form society, and invent religion, to begin with.

You can only speak for yourself. As far as I am concerned, as long as there have been societies there have been religions. I can't prove that, but I've never seen a society that didn't have a religion. I'm just making an educated opinion. If there have been societies without religion maybe one day we'll be able to prove that, somehow. Not sure how.

-Elliot

 

[Michael Redman]

As for extremely recent, you don't know what you are talking about.

As we are talking about evolution here, the trends you are talking about are so recent as to not be worth considering. For how many hundreds of generations has this trend held? None? Dozens of generations? No? 10 generations? No. Extremely recent, and irrelevant, then.

Since the idea that God punishes/rewards is very old, it must have some evolutionary benefit, or, the idea has some sort of staying power.

Only if there has been some significant evolution happening since the time the idea of god became widepread. I don't know that that's true.

And much more of the entirety of humanity has been able to function without the evolutionist interpretation of morality. What's your point?

That judeo-christian theology isn't necessary for successful society.

I never said that God introcued radically new moral ideas to his Judeo-Christian believing types.

You may not have, but it's the premise of those who pose the question of how people without judeo-christian beliefs can have morality. This question is the reason for this thread.

You can only speak for yourself. As far as I am concerned, as long as there have been societies there have been religions. I can't prove that, but I've never seen a society that didn't have a religion. I'm just making an educated opinion. If there have been societies without religion maybe one day we'll be able to prove that, somehow. Not sure how.

Do you think it's possible that religion predated language? I find it hard to believe. And before you can spend enough time with other people to develop language, you have to have some basic rules of conduct, otherwise no one's going to hang around long enough to make up words, and teach them to others. In fact, other primates have community rules. A simplistic kind of morality. Other community animals have rules as well. They may not be aware of them, but they follow them, or suffer. It seems pretty likely that the rules came first, and religion later.

 

[Ossai]

elliotfc

As a theist I can't escape God. As an atheist I don't think you can completely escape God either, even though you doubt the existence of God.

You're assuming the existence, atheist don't make the assumption to begin with because there is no need for it.

Variety of ways. We all have a conscience, ideas that help us to guide our behavior. Also, God became a human being (Jesus) and communicated many things. God inspires us continually in our creative pursuits, and you can become more and more able to connect with God through prayer and introspection.

No, not everyone has a conscience. A consciousness is a learned response else everyone would have the same conscious guidelines. From simple observation of multiple cultures that assumption is proven false.

Than how do you explain the fact that religious people/nations reproduce at a muchmuchmuch higher rate than people/nations that believe in evolution?

Your question is a fallacy of exclusion. Look at the other variables. Does the religion deny the woman / couple the right of birth control either actively or passively? Does the religion promote large families? What is the overall quality of life? How developed are the countries?

Personally I don't see how using Occam's Razor as a litmus test is superior to using Jesus as a litmus test, but it gets the job done; I may not believe as you do but again, you're a good guy.

Which version of Jesus?

Religion appeals to a part of us that is primal and essential.

Fear!

"The oldest and strongest emotion of mankind is fear, and the oldest and strongest kind of fear is fear of the unknown. " - H. P. Lovecraft

Ossai

 

[Yahzi]

One of his attacks on atheism is that it makes morality and ethics redundant.

That's absurd. It's actually God that makes morality redundant, because anything he does is good by executive fiat.

Morality is as objective as mathematics. It is simply the law of reprociticity, otherwise known as the Golden Rule. Self-consciousness + social existance = if I don't want to be smacked on the back of the head, I shouldn't smack others on the back of the head.

Everything else follows.

 

[Yahzi]

Since the idea that God punishes/rewards is very old, it must have some evolutionary benefit, or, the idea has some sort of staying power.

Sociopaths...lack the evolutionary trait...

Both sociopaths and priests are evolutionarly stable strategys.

I'm hoping that advanced technology will deny sociopaths the anonymity they require to flourish, thus changing the environment and ending this particular line of undesirable genetics.

I have much dimmer hopes that we'll be able to get rid of priests.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Ubermensch would and must scoff at people who succumb to believing the slavish morality, which would include religion.

-Elliot

Since I scoff at the concept of Ubermensch, then what a hypothetical person would do is meaningless. I personally don't think that religion constitutes an inherently slavish morality, though if someone adhered to a sufficiently legalistic one, it could be.

I don't think that they've really thought through that statement, if it has in fact been made. I'm sure it has been made, just never seen it made by a theist.

Please, don't accuse me of telling tales out of school. If I had not had Christians in particular tell me this in chatrooms and heard them say it on Christian talk shows, I would not have said there are theists who say this. I try not to create straw men, and such a attribution without first hand experience would be such.

 

[Rockon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: morality for atheists?

My opinion of religion is that it offers no solutions that cannot be obtained without it, ( as in ' Ocams Razor, above ) and in the meantime, consumes resources that might better be utilized without all the trappings of religion.

You know, I've seen this statement made in a variety of threads in this forum. Just once I'd like to see it put to the test. Has anyone actually heard of any research done that actually measured the value of religion?

It may be true that religion is unnecessary, but then again, it might not. Considering how fact oriented we skeptics are supposed to be, I'm constantly amazed by the amount of opinion thrown around here about the evils of religion. No need to remind me about the Inquisition and the Crusades. I'm perfectly aware of the horrible things that religious fervor can cause. I'm also perfectly aware of the horrible things done in the absence of religion. Who the heck knows which is worse? Alternatively, there are beautiful things done every day in the absence of religion. There are also beautiful things done every day *because* of religion. Who the heck knows which is better?

It's funny. So much of the skeptical movement presents a philosophy that we need to accept truthful ideas even if they are not to our liking. Isn't it possible that the world may actually be better off with religion? Like it or not?

Tim

 

[triadboy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: morality for atheists?

You know, I've seen this statement made in a variety of threads in this forum. Just once I'd like to see it put to the test. Has anyone actually heard of any research done that actually measured the value of religion?

It may be true that religion is unnecessary, but then again, it might not. Considering how fact oriented we skeptics are supposed to be, I'm constantly amazed by the amount of opinion thrown around here about the evils of religion. No need to remind me about the Inquisition and the Crusades. I'm perfectly aware of the horrible things that religious fervor can cause. I'm also perfectly aware of the horrible things done in the absence of religion. Who the heck knows which is worse? Alternatively, there are beautiful things done every day in the absence of religion. There are also beautiful things done every day *because* of religion. Who the heck knows which is better?

It's funny. So much of the skeptical movement presents a philosophy that we need to accept truthful ideas even if they are not to our liking. Isn't it possible that the world may actually be better off with religion? Like it or not?

Tim

no

 

[Yahweh]

I am pretty agnostic but I was reading "Does God believe in Atheists" by John Blanchard. Pretty awful book, but there were a few bits in there that made me wonder. One of his attacks on atheism is that it makes morality and ethics redundant. E.g. if we are just chunks of protoplasm floating in a meaningless universe who cares if a few chunks throw a few million other chunks into the gas chamber? (of course the million chunks care, but who cares about their feelings). Of course the previous bit is not a proof of theism, but it is it possible for an atheist to devise a meaningful ethical system? Any system would have to be open to the charge that "it is just your opinion, I am going to follow my own ethics", which actually pretty much sums up modern culture. Are we doomed to cultural relativism, or can we find at least some absolute principles? Any thoughts welcome

I hate hate hate the people who say "all Atheists are immmoral".

Just a crashcourse through Ethical Philosophy:

Atheists are moral just like everyone else.

Morality developes through society, not through religion.

Morality existed long before religion.

Its absurd to believe Atheists dont have a sentiment for life that everyone has, thats why we wouldnt want to "throw everyone in a gas chamber". To believe that we have no sentiment for life would be a demonstration of unfathomable thickheadedness... no, no, no, I'm being euphemistic, its not thickheadedness, its a form of prejudice (to deny its a form of prejudice would itself be a demonstration of thickheadedness).

Kitties are adorable.

Morals dont exist concretely, they are abstract ideas but nonetheless very important.

There you go, that was your 90 second tutorial through Ethics as brought to you by Yahweh.

 

[Rockon]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: morality for atheists?

no

Prove it.

Tim