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
Some Friggin Guy
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2003
- Messages
- 854
Actually, morality was never really a creation of religion. It's a simple matter of personal protection.
Example: This is my stuff. I do not want someone else taking my stuff that I have worked so hard for. It is safe to assume that someone else has worked just as hard for their stuff, so I will not try to take it from them without giving them something in return.
Example: This is my stuff. I do not want someone else taking my stuff that I have worked so hard for. It is safe to assume that someone else has worked just as hard for their stuff, so I will not try to take it from them without giving them something in return.
Religions morality is simply a morality of submission. Eg. obey god because in the end, he is the one with the ultimate power.
Several secular systems along the same lines can and have been devised. Eg. obey the king/dictator/whatever because he is powerful. Of course, I dont consider any of these objectively rational morality systems.
About your "protoplasm" example: I am a piece of matter, but I am alive, and therefore I most certainly care. And alot of other living things do care. Hopefully you care too.
For some introductory info on the secular morals/ethics I find most rational see:
http://www.objectivistcenter.com/objectivism/what-is-objectivism.asp
and especially their faq on ethics:
http://www.objectivistcenter.com/objectivism/faqs/wthomas_faq-ethics.asp
Several secular systems along the same lines can and have been devised. Eg. obey the king/dictator/whatever because he is powerful. Of course, I dont consider any of these objectively rational morality systems.
About your "protoplasm" example: I am a piece of matter, but I am alive, and therefore I most certainly care. And alot of other living things do care. Hopefully you care too.
For some introductory info on the secular morals/ethics I find most rational see:
http://www.objectivistcenter.com/objectivism/what-is-objectivism.asp
and especially their faq on ethics:
http://www.objectivistcenter.com/objectivism/faqs/wthomas_faq-ethics.asp
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
baggie said:
Redundant? How can you have one without the other..
Theists want to equate religion with morality, and it is obviously not so. We have millions of religious people behaving badly to illustrate this.
Not to mention God itself..
Joshua 10
8 And the LORD said unto Joshua, Fear them not: for I have delivered them into thine hand; there shall not a man of them stand before thee.
9 Joshua therefore came unto them suddenly, and went up from Gilgal all night.
10 And the LORD discomfited them before Israel, and slew them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, and chased them along the way that goeth up to Bethhoron, and smote them to Azekah, and unto Makkedah.
11 And it came to pass, as they fled from before Israel, and were in the going down to Bethhoron, that the LORD cast down great stones from heaven upon them unto Azekah, and they died: they were more which died with hailstones than they whom the children of Israel slew with the sword..
Does this sound like someone behaving ' morally ' to you ?
Of course the fundies will insist that God does not follow the same morals that we do.. If so, then how do we get our morals from God?
Michael Redman
Illuminator
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2001
- Messages
- 3,063
Doing something because you are afraid God will punish you if you don't is not moral behavior. Doing something because you believe it is the right thing to do is. I think it's more reasonable to question the morality of Christians who can't see why you would do good without the threat of God's punishment, than to question the morality of non-judeo-christian-muslim people who don't live under that threat, but nevertheless maintain stable, successful society on the basis of mutually understood moral and ethical norms.
Some Friggin Guy said:
I disagree. The morality I care about is the selfless dedication of people to others, the sacrifice of people such as the fireman in 9/11. One can argue the point from a evolutionary point of view (and I do) that these feelings are just biological adaptions, but the puzzle is then that one should then adopt a very Nietzchian approach and say that really topdog should rule as that is what happens in biology.
Diogenes, there are many replies to your arguments. I have no great liking of the OT god, but the NT version is closer to what is a western ideal. Two quick possible theological replies,
1. the OT scriptures are a mixture of god inspired stuff, legend, self-justification, poetry and history (basically your liberal anglican approach) - just ignore the self-justification stuff and legend and stick to the rest
2. Gods purpose is mysterious and works on longer timesales. Just sit back and enjoy the ride. All will be sorted out in the afterlife.
Blufire
the site you gave was interesting but equates happiness with laissez-faire capitalism - good to see some people still read Ayn Rand. It is an approach to ethics, but suffers from many possible counter arguments. E.g it sets up an axiom "To achieve happiness requires a morality of rational selfishness, one that does not give undeserved rewards to others and that does not ask them for oneself. " - but there is no proof that this is true. I might be equally happy working for a pittance with starving children all my life or being Stalin. I could equally set up many other ethical alternative axioms. But how does one decide which to go down?
Michael Redman said:
The problem is that Hitler thought it "right" to get rid of the jews and the slavs. In terms of more achieving more room and recourses for the germanic people he was right. We still need a rational system to say to Hitler that you are ethically wrong.
most christians I know are "moral" not because of fear of punishment, but because they want to follow (their view of) gods example because they love him. It is more how you would want your children to follow your example, through respect and love rather than fear.
Why are you moral? What is right and wrong? I suspect that there are no real answers
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
baggie said:
I'ts kind of like pornography, we know it when we see it...
I fail to understand how God or a belief in it, changes the mix in a beneficial way, when you can demonstrate that people behave pretty much the same way, with or without God.
And even God himself demonstrates behaviour that any idiot would find immoral..
UnrepentantSinner
A post by Alan Smithee
The morality argument is the absolute worst - and oddly enough, most proven false - by plain old atheists (as opposed to enforced atheist societies like the Soviet Union). One can use the most rudimentary of logic to validate the Golden, Silver and Brass rule.
The simple fact is that humans are social creatures, not solitary brutes living as they please. If you act s***y within your society, either society sanctions you, or you wind up with a s***y society and no sane person I know wants either. This is an unescapable fact that those who foolishly proffer the morality argument seem to ignore.
What is truly disturbing are theists who claim they'd run amok if they thought there was no deity. My only reaction to them is that if your belief in a god is the only thing controlling you... I'm suggesting you start medication now.
The simple fact is that humans are social creatures, not solitary brutes living as they please. If you act s***y within your society, either society sanctions you, or you wind up with a s***y society and no sane person I know wants either. This is an unescapable fact that those who foolishly proffer the morality argument seem to ignore.
What is truly disturbing are theists who claim they'd run amok if they thought there was no deity. My only reaction to them is that if your belief in a god is the only thing controlling you... I'm suggesting you start medication now.
Bluefire said:
I have not read the site very thoroughly so my reply may have been a little glib (and it is 20 years since I tried to read Rand). I called it an axiom as it seems to be the main basis of where Rand was coming from - please correct me if I am wrong. (the word axiom may not be 100% correct but I think you get my drift). The postulate is a forceful one and one that has merits. My problem with it is that is seems to lead naturally on to Laissez-faire capitalism (politics and ethics are closely intertwined, ones ethics usually determines ones politics, and political actions lead to ethical consequences). It is this part of it that I find worrying.
Yes. Objectivist ethics leads naturally to laissez-faire capitalism.
So am I correct in assuming that you're reasoning is somewhere along the lines :
1.) Objectivist ethics leads to capitalist politics
2.) I dont want capitalist politics
3.) Therefore I dont want Objectivist ethics
?
So am I correct in assuming that you're reasoning is somewhere along the lines :
1.) Objectivist ethics leads to capitalist politics
2.) I dont want capitalist politics
3.) Therefore I dont want Objectivist ethics
?
baggie said:
Hi baggie.
All humans, atheists or non-atheists, cannot escape the need to either find intellectual fulfillment or meaning in life (short of suicide that is). This desire has to be reflected in some sort of ideal, whether the ideal is evolutionary survival or theistic morality.
I don't think any atheist or agnostic would agree that we are "just chunks of protoplasm". We are living creatures capable of creating and understanding things like truth, love and beauty. All we know is inherently meaningful. Meaning exists because our thinking minds exist. And I've never met an atheist or agnostic who didn't care about other person's feelings. It's the most natural thing in the world to do. You have to be a complete sociopath to not care about feelings.
The question could be "why should an atheist/agnositic" care about feelings? And the obvious answer is "because they are human".
Theoretically, definitely. The problem for proving this is that the world we live in is indelibly effected and reflective of the history and presence of religion. However, if we take 100 people at a young age, drop them on an island etc etc etc I think it very likely that those people could devise a meaningful ethical system independent of religion. The idea of natural law and conformation to ideals of moral behavior have been defended by even the most religious of philosophers. Morality cannot be something that is inherently foreign to human understanding, that would be preposterous. The idea that morality may be connected to God is an innovative idea, but outside the scope of what is under consideration.
That pretty much somes up the culture of every culture that has ever existed. There are always individuals who will follow their own morality and ignore conventional morality. Society must deal with those people as they will.
An atheist can be a moral relativist, or a moral absolutist. Usually they manage to be both, in different things.
No, humans have never been cultural relativists, so I think we'll be alright. There may be a contemporary movement that appears to be relativistic in many traditionally non-relativistic moral principles, but they have their own absolutist moral guidelines that they follow. We all can comprehend the notion that you shouldn't kill other people for no reason. When people kill other people, you'll notice that they tend to have what they consider excellent reasons for doing so, or some excuse or other. I don't think that any culture can possibly exist if people killed each other with no need to explain.
-Elliot
UnrepentantSinner said:
excuse my ignorance - what is the Golden, Silver and Brass rule?
The social argument is interesting, but seems to offer no guidance on ethical behaviour. E.g. the "social" thing to do during Nazi Gemany would have been to oppress the Jews - I mean everyone else in society seemed to be doing it. If I had turned round then and loudly pronounced this to be wrong I would have been a s***y troublemaker (but an ethical one)
Some Friggin Guy said:
What does the example have to do with personal protection?
The example has everything to do with fairness and empathy.
We all probably would define religion differently. I define it as rituals and beliefs shared by a community. As long as there have been communities of people there have been religions.
-Elliot
Bluefire said:
On the contrary it is liberating to be free from submitting to either your own pride or the folly of the world.
See, choice is dependent on obedience. You cannot avoid obedience. You have to be obedient to something. You mock those who would be obedient to God, when you are obedient to other things.
But submission is a great word to use, even if it is a loaded word.
What do you base your objectivly rational morality standards on? If you feel your will is more powerful than someone else's, you'd follow your own will I reckon. In the end we all capitulate to some form of power or another.
-Elliot
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
baggie said:
Re: Re: morality for atheists?
I guess some theists do.
Religion is so much more than morality. Take Christianity for example. It didn't come up with any radically new moral ideas. It maybe said them in different ways, or highlighted certain ones over others.
Atheists behave badly. So do theists. People behave badly.
I think it was Gandhi who said that if every Christian acted like a Christian the whole world would be Christian. That was just Gandhi's opinion. But it indicates that people cannot separate the behavior of individuals from the ideals of individuals.
If someone gives a class a calculus test and the majority of the class fails the test, do you attack calculus? No, it's better to attack the teacher of calculus, or the students for not studying.
Of course most theists do not take the Bible literally, as you apparently do.
Not exactly sure, but we've always had them. You hold people such as theists to a certain standard and they fail to meet that standard. Where did you get the idea of that standard from?
-Elliot
Diogenes said:
I guess some theists do.
Religion is so much more than morality. Take Christianity for example. It didn't come up with any radically new moral ideas. It maybe said them in different ways, or highlighted certain ones over others.
Atheists behave badly. So do theists. People behave badly.
I think it was Gandhi who said that if every Christian acted like a Christian the whole world would be Christian. That was just Gandhi's opinion. But it indicates that people cannot separate the behavior of individuals from the ideals of individuals.
If someone gives a class a calculus test and the majority of the class fails the test, do you attack calculus? No, it's better to attack the teacher of calculus, or the students for not studying.
Of course most theists do not take the Bible literally, as you apparently do.
Not exactly sure, but we've always had them. You hold people such as theists to a certain standard and they fail to meet that standard. Where did you get the idea of that standard from?
-Elliot
Bluefire said:
put laisse-faire in there and that probably sums it up. It seems to me the only real judge of a ethic stance is what it leads to in practice (behavoural ethics? great idea - get it away from these philosophers, BF Skinner would be proud of me)
elliotfc
"And I've never met an atheist or agnostic who didn't care about other person's feelings"
that is true, but if we can explain these feelings by recourse to sociobiology, why not be sociopaths if nobody catches us?
Possible answers
1. We would not be really happy
we may be, but then your ethical system is "whatever makes you truely happy"
2. It is not good for society
Trouble is that what is good for society may not be good for the individual. Hitler was "good" for german society in some ways (he stopped the endless left-right battles plaguing their society(not in a nice way mind you) and got people working)
I sure there are other reasons why I should not be a sociopath?