• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

On Remorse

Christian,

...the atheist philosophical position has moral gaps which are inconsistent with the good. Whether he or she knows it or not, the position leads to those inconsistencies via logical processes.
Click to expand...
I need help here, Christian. I can't see the 'moral gap' that must exist because of the "logical consequences" of atheism. That doesn't mean it's not there, just that I'm not sure how/what you are trying to say.

I'm not even sure that you can successfully establish that "the atheist position" has an agreed-upon moral starting point. Are morals relative, or absolute? Which is the atheist position? If I recall correctly, you'd be arguing that atheism equates to moral relativism, because there is no god to provide the "absolute"?

Can you provide an example in detail? Since you've started with "remorse", can you fill in the logical sequence :

Premise 1 : An atheist does not believe in god.
Premise 2 : ???
...
Premise X : ???
Conclusion : An atheist should never feel remorse.

To be honest, to establish your case I think you need to show at least 3 points :
1. That atheists *must* have moral position 'x';
2. That moral position 'x' leads to "remorse is illogical";
3. That humans must seek to eliminate emotion in favour of logic.

Good luck.
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Webster's: a deep, torturing sense of guilt felt over a wrong that one has done
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sounds like an emotional response to me. Emotional responses are not easily controlled, not influenced much by logic, religious beliefs, the lack thereof, or the price of tea in China. This particular discussion has little relevance to your position.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...the atheist philosophical position has moral gaps which are inconsistent with the good. Whether he or she knows it or not, the position leads to those inconsistencies via logical processes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Christian said:

It is not my intention to keep anybody guessing. My intention is clear, the atheist philosophical position has moral gaps which are inconsistent with the good. Whether he or she knows it or not, the position leads to those inconsistencies via logical processes.
Click to expand...

Then you have to try it once again, cause this attempt sucks...

Your main premise is wrong. You say that atheists should rationalize their emotions because they don't believe in God. Well, it's the other way around: The faith in god allows theists to rationalize their emotions.

When I feel remorse, it's because I did something wrong that could be avoided, and resulted in someone getting hurt. Those are the only situations in wich I feel remorse.
Why? I could have done something to avoid it and didn't; someone got hurt; I wish it could have happened in another way.
Nothing can erase the past, and both the glory and shame of my actions belong to me, and to me alone... no easy way out.

Now, if I were a theist, I could rationalize these feelings: It was God will; the Devil made me do it; I'll pray for forgiveness; God will reward the hurted person in the afterlife.
See? It's easy. I wouldn't hae to cope with the unwanted results of my actions, because my Big Brother in the Sky would make me fell all warm and fuzzy inside.

So, it is not logical for a theist to feel remorse, because it only means that their faith in their God forgiveness is not absolute.

And you were talking about moral gaps in atheism...:rolleyes:
 
Christian said:

3. I will accept an intellectual attack on the Christian position without thinking it is an attack on me.
Click to expand...

Two things.

1) Without meaning it to be funny, Christian, I think your statement above is hilarious. "Attack on the Christian position without thinking it is an attack on me."

2) I agree with what Megalodon said. You have it backwards.

To many atheists, any sort of Christian appeal to morality as that decreed from God is hardly principled morality at all. It requires little more than following a recipe. Real morality requires a much greater understanding of why certain actions are not condoned and others are (or, as Evildave so aptly put it, "introspective skills").

AS
 
Wild speculation on my part

Can be an evolutionary explanation? I'm going to try for one. Bear(?) in mind this is wild speculation coming from one who has struggled with declarative programming all day.

Humans are social creatures. They build societies. A society without rules and a population abiding those rules is more susceptible to disaster than one who has rules and a controlled population. Therefore, lawful (say, the Romans) societies have triumphed over less organized societies (like the Mongolian Horde).
In order for a person to thrive in a lawful society, the person must either be inclined to abide by the local norms, or find a way to live on the fringes of it. Clearly (I would think...) there can only be a minority of the non-lawabiding in a structured society, thus the majority must be willing to abide the laws of the land.
People who feel remorse when they do something 'wrong' will be less inclined to do so again. This because remorse is an unpleasant emotion, and one would seek to minimize it. Doing things that cause remorse will be subjected to conditioning; one would be conditioned not to do such things.
People who feel much remorse when doing that which is considered bad, fits in with it's society better than those who do not, at least in general. Those who fit in with their society are more likely to receive aid in times of trouble, and are more likely to find a mate. Those who do not fit in with society will benefit less from the benefits of organized life.
Therefore, the capability for remorse is a trait that is favored in humans, and most humans will be capable of such, regardeless of religious belif.

Those who do not feel remorse may act freer than those who do. The remorseless can break any law and any moral directive, and might that way gain some advantage that the remorseful may not. I guess that is why remorselessness is a trait that keeps popping up.

Anyway, this is all speculation, and I'm going to bed now.
 
The basic question of this thread is based on a fallacy. We have been through this before, and the question has been answered again here by other posters, but allow me to sum up:

Morality as a whole, including remorse, is not a product of religion, it is the other way around. Human beings started to build societies and build moral standards long before monotheistic religions existed.

Christian, you mentioned criminals feeling remorse, but still reverting: Exactly! Fear of punishment, be it secular or divine, has only limited effect on human behaviour. As Pogo suggested, the ability to live in a society is an evolutionary trait. For humans to have any advantage of your powerful brains, we need to live in large groups, to have the opportunity to raise our young (which takes several times longer than for any other animal), to hunt and build in cooperation, etc.etc.

This ability to fit into a social group cannot be rule-driven, because that way it could not have evolved. The ability to make and obey rules must neccessarily come AFTER the instigation of social groups. Thus the ability and will to conform to social rules must be basically an instinctive human trait. It is, of course, much strengthened by social conditioning and by rules.

In conclusion, atheists are moral (and feel remorse) for the exact same reasons as religious people: It is a deep rooted human trait to feel responsibility for your society and its rules. The idea that God watches over us and keeps account is just an explanation invented comparatively late in the history of man (none of the known monotheist religions are more than a few thousand years old). It was no doubt invented partly to keep people on the moral track, but religion is not the cause of morality, it is an effect of it.

Hans
 
I'm going to try to stay focused and only deal with those posters that are actually dealing with the issues I'm presenting.

If I start addressing the strawmen, missdirections and general noise then, the whole discussion will lead nowhere. I apologize to those I don't address.

Loki, you got it right. You know exactly what I'm trying to do.
I'm trying to build a case based on premises. Now, I see that you want the whole thing alll at once. Fine

Loki wrote:
I need help here, Christian. I can't see the 'moral gap' that must exist because of the "logical consequences" of atheism. That doesn't mean it's not there, just that I'm not sure how/what you are trying to say.

I believe it is there.

I'm not even sure that you can successfully establish that "the atheist position" has an agreed-upon moral starting point. Are morals relative, or absolute?

This is how I see it. If atheism is true then other things must be true. For example, if atheism is correct, than creationism or design is false.

I don't think we need a moral starting point or to figure out if morals are relative or absolute.

Let me give an example I think you will relate to. Remember you tried to show me that because of the Christian position it was logical for Christians to kill their young. Well, I will be doing something along that thought process.

Which is the atheist position? If I recall correctly, you'd be arguing that atheism equates to moral relativism, because there is no god to provide the "absolute"?

I see no inconsistency with the syllogism to be presented.

Can you provide an example in detail? Since you've started with "remorse", can you fill in the logical sequence :

Premise 1 : An atheist does not believe in god.
Premise 2 : ???
...
Premise X : ???
Conclusion : An atheist should never feel remorse.

To me remorse is the first building block to another syllogism. But sure:

You can do it for me which my thought process (you are better at it).

To me, the atheist best strategy is not to feel remorse. It is a waste of emotion, energy and most importantly time. You see, the most precious thing an atheist has is time. So, the best strategy is to waste as little of it as possible.

It is my contention that because there is absolutely nothing that can be done about the past, remorse is useless and unnecessary.
There is no need to feel guilty and not feeling guilty wont be an impediment to do whatever is necessary to remedy, rectify or correct anything for the future.

To be honest, to establish your case I think you need to show at least 3 points :
1. That atheists *must* have moral position 'x';
2. That moral position 'x' leads to "remorse is illogical";
3. That humans must seek to eliminate emotion in favour of logic.

1. Atheist have it in their best interest to make the best use of their time. There is no no more of it.
2. Remorse is an illogical feeling to have because it solves nothing, it contributes nothing and it wastes what is precious to atheists.
3. From the atheist position, they should advocate eliminating remorse in their lives because it is illogical to feel it.

Fishbob wrote:
Sounds like an emotional response to me. Emotional responses are not easily controlled, not influenced much by logic, religious beliefs, the lack thereof, or the price of tea in China. This particular discussion has little relevance to your position.

Emotional responses can be controlled and are controlled constantly. It's just a matter of habit. We make countless mistakes and we have adjusted our thinking to feel remorse only on certain of them.

If it is illogical to feel a certain emotion, it is our best interest to eliminate that emotion from our life. It is illogical to fear green monsters under the bed. So, using logic, one can rid oneself of that fear.

It is illogical to feel remorse, then one can rid oneself of that guilt.

PogoPedant wrote:
Can be an evolutionary explanation? I'm going to try for one. Bear(?) in mind this is wild speculation coming from one who has struggled with declarative programming all day...


Ok, if this is so, then you would have to explain why we feel remorse with some mistakes and not with others.

Two, if it is only a social conformity then, one can easely see it as that and move on.

Three, if it is an emotional response, it can be modified.
 
Hans, your response needs addressing:

Hans wrote:
In conclusion, atheists are moral (and feel remorse) for the exact same reasons as religious people: It is a deep rooted human trait to feel responsibility for your society and its rules.

There is no logical connection between responsibility and remorse. You can have a deep rooted sense of responsibility without the need for remorse.
 
Quote from Christian:
1. Atheist have it in their best interest to make the best use of their time. There is no no more of it.
2. Remorse is an illogical feeling to have because it solves nothing, it contributes nothing and it wastes what is precious to atheists.
3. From the atheist position, they should advocate eliminating remorse in their lives because it is illogical to feel it.
End Quote

There seems to be some sort of wierd assumptions about being an atheist here, like they are VULCANs or something. Atheism is the premise that there is no god.
Atheist have it in thier best interest to make the best use of thier time: and so? Like those who believe in god don't?
Why assume that time is precious to atheists, I can love my family , walk the dog , enjoy life, feel sad , all without the need for a god.

Remorse is a human emotion, most humans can feel remorse, therefore most atheists can feel remorse. ( I haven't met other animals obbsessed with religion so I don't know if cats are atheists)

Christian: I enjoy this topic a lot. I feel that you don't have to believe in god to have morals or emotions.
I fail to see the thrust of your point, please make it based on something other than 'atheists would be wasting thier time to feel remorse'.

I believe that remorse is a human quality that has nothing to do with belief in god.(And please do not refer me to your previous posts I have read them, I don't see your point.)

Peace
dancing David
 
Another thought--the logical progression from atheist to remorseless, even if watertight (which, so far, it ain't), only would prove that atheists should not feel remorse. I've seen proofs that say we should not kill (if we're being rational), and yet we do. There are any number of instances where people don't do what they should. Why the burden on atheists?

(related topic--can christians be altruistic? If you do good only to go to heaven or avoid hell, isn't that self-serving, and thus not altruistic?

Just thought, if we don't have to feel remorse, we also don't have to help others--and yet we do, without the promise of a reward in the afterlife. Damned helpful atheists...)
 
Dancing David wrote:
There seems to be some sort of wierd assumptions about being an atheist here, like they are VULCANs or something. Atheism is the premise that there is no god.

Why wierd assumption? Atheist are rational people who do not believe in pink unicorns or the tooth fairy. They don't believe there is a God watching over our actions. So, to atheists it is completely irrational to fear punishment from a non-existent being.

Not the case with Christians, for example, Christians fear and respect this imaginary being. Once the belief in a god is taken away, the fear of punishment is too. There is nothing misterious or weird about the assumption. Atheist don't need to be VULCAN not to fear.

Ok, on remorse. To atheists, it should be exactly the same thing as fear of punishment from a imaginary being. It is a totally unnecessary feeling. Once an atheist understands that feeling guilty after the fact is illogical, (just as fear of punishment from an imaginary deity) then, they should adjust their behavior accordingly.

Atheist have it in thier best interest to make the best use of thier time: and so? Like those who believe in god don't?

Well, to atheist, time *is* more important than to those who believe in God. (in a God that has set up an afterlife). Simple logic would dictate that if there is nothing after death, the time I have now is very much precious. Those who believe in the after life might have another value for time on earth.

Why assume that time is precious to atheists, I can love my family , walk the dog , enjoy life, feel sad , all without the need for a god.

I think it is a fair assumption. It is precious because it is all you have. Once it is gone, it's over. It would be illogical not to make the best of it. Unless, of course, you put little value on your life and the lives of others, which is obviously not the case. Secular humanism puts a very high value on human life. This literally translates to high value of human time.

Remorse is a human emotion, most humans can feel remorse, therefore most atheists can feel remorse. ( I haven't met other animals obbsessed with religion so I don't know if cats are atheists)

Yes, you can also fear the punishment of an imaginary being. It does not mean you have to feel it.

Christian: I enjoy this topic a lot. I feel that you don't have to believe in god to have morals or emotions.

Thank you. All I'm doing here is a mental exercise. This is the reason I come here. I'm glad you see that way. Yes, I agree, you don't have to believe in god to have moral or emotions.

I fail to see the thrust of your point, please make it based on something other than 'atheists would be wasting thier time to feel remorse'.

Please understand that I'm making a progression here. I'm surprised I'm have a hard time getting people to agree that remorse for atheists is unnecessary. If that hurdle can't be passed, I doubt I'll get anywhere.

I believe that remorse is a human quality that has nothing to do with belief in god.

Do you see the connection now?

Mercutio wrote:
Another thought--the logical progression from atheist to remorseless, even if watertight (which, so far, it ain't), only would prove that atheists should not feel remorse.

Ok, that is all I want to get at on this point. Atheist should not feel remorse.

Why the burden on atheists?

Because atheist have decided there is no god based on a rational conclusion. This presupposes that atheist will not hold beliefs that are contrary to rational thought. For atheists, it is irrational to believe in god, thus, no reason to do it.

Then, I say, well then discard all irrational beliefs and emotions from yourself. Why would you stop only on the existence of a deity. Why not on all irrational beliefs and emotions.

It is irrational to feel remorse. It must be discarded. Unless you can show why it is rational to feel guilty about a past event.

(related topic--can christians be altruistic? If you do good only to go to heaven or avoid hell, isn't that self-serving, and thus not altruistic?

Sound perfect for another thread.

Just thought, if we don't have to feel remorse, we also don't have to help others--and yet we do, without the promise of a reward in the afterlife. Damned helpful atheists...)

You can perfectly help others without having to feel remorse. Countless volunteers that had nothing to do with a said tragedy help others without even the slightest feeling of remorse.
 
Greetings Christian.

I hope you and all are well and happy there.

I am as you know Buddhist and so will speak from my position as a Buddhist and what you would call an atheist.

First allow me to comment on a assault in on any form on the beliefs of another, I don’t see the reason for this ever it is of no gain and leads only to separation of beings and not in any way a bringing together. It is this illusion that there is a “us and them’ that is the cause of great anger, hate and suffering. I understand you said this is not a personal attack on anyone but on there beliefs yet you as an intelligent man know what one holds dear, a belief becomes a personal thing. There are some examples here for you becoming upset in some form over something rude/unkind that has been said about your beliefs what you hold dear. I don’t believe the attacks here of anywhere on Christian beliefs or Muslim or Hindu or Atheist or Buddhist etc are ever helpful or can be found any gain from them and many times come from a base of ego, I know every time I have done such a thing it was from my silly ego. Just what I believe.

As to the point of your thread here allow me to post JUST what I believe and or am thinking about it for what it is worth.

Why would an atheist feel remorse? What would be the practical reason? I don't find any justification for an atheist to feel remorse about anything?
Click to expand...


Why not. What is a practical reason? Compassion, love. I believe that a true the truest form of love and compassion is one that 1- seeks nothing in return, i.e. no reward. Also if remorse or an act of love or compassion to another living thing etc that is done to please a God, or out of fear of a God or in worship of a God I would find as empty and not moral. Such an act if done for any other then the needs of that being to be helped etc is not from compassion.

For that reasons an act of compassion or love from one who is say a materialist atheist is the highest form of morality.

You ask
Can someone tell me why an atheist would be justified to feel remorse?
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you mean by feeling justified in feeling remorse? If one only finds it necessary to feel remorse I find that sad and if necessary to feel compassion because of a God from fear or from the desire for some personal benefit etc more so sad.

Just what I believe.
 
Christian

Several errors:

1. Can theists do anything about the past? I haven't seen any theology that says God will change the past for you. This would imply that your argument shows theists have as little use for remorse as atheists.

2. Time is as precious to theists as it is to athiests. We know this for a fact, having read my Seatbelts thread. :) If time were indeed valued differently by Xians, they would all commit suicide instantly - since they are in effect merely wasting time here on Earth that could be spent in Heaven.

3. You make the argument that intellectually there is no value in remorse. That might be true, but it certainly wouldn't mean athiests don't feel it. Athiests are just as likely to feel an emotion for non-rational reasons as anyone else. Athiesm does not mean a person who is unflinchingly rational, it just means a person who doesn't believe in God. (Dancing David and Mercutio make this point.)

4. If we break remorse into its components of regret and guilt, then it becomes a little clearer. Nobody should feel regret. There is nothing you can do with regret. You should live your life without regrets. On the other hand, if you don't feel guilt, you are a nutcase. The role of guilt is to induce you to amend your mistakes and prevent you from repeating them. This is why an important part of guilt is redemption: the idea that you can do something to make it right, pay your debts, and once again be free. (I think this is what Hans was getting at.)

Your argument for why people should not feel remorse actually makes a lot of sense if you substitute the word "regret." However, it has nothing to do with "sorrow over harming someone."

The Golden Rule provides plenty of reason to feel sorrowful: if you make other people suffer, you will almost certainly be made to suffer by someone else. Also, by making other people suffer, you treat their happiness as unimportant to you, and consequently you can't complain when other people dismiss your happiness as unimportant. We treat others as valuable because we want to be treated as valuable.

If I define "remorse" as "useless guilt," then it becomes obvious that remorse is to be avoided, but there are no gaps in atheistic moral logic. But if you define "remorse" as "actual feelings of sorrow for having done wrong," then it is obvious that atheists should and do feel remorse.

Guilt does solve somthing, it does contribute something. But as I said, a necessary component of guilt is the idea of redemption. Remorse does not include that component, and hence I would agree that it is a useless emotion. Sitting around feeling terrible over what you cannot change is a waste of this life. Whether God has another one lined up for you or not doesn't change that. Indeed, if Xians were somehow allowed to waste life on Earth because they had a infinite eternity to look forward to, we would expect them to be as careless with other people's lives as they were with their own. Why, wars, murder, even torture would seem pretty unimportant, given that this life doesn't matter enough not to be wasted.

***

Your premise that athiests should feel differently based on what they believe seems amazingly similar to my Seatbelts thread, wherein I argued that Xians should act differently based on what they believe. I got a fair number of Xians arguing that their beliefs could be in direct contradiction to their actions and expectations, and that did not invalidate the sincerity of their beliefs. So presumably they would argue that just because they are Xian doesn't mean they do or don't feel a particular way.

I agree with you that there should be some kind of relationship between what you believe and what you do. I'm just telling you that Xians would reject your argument, as they have rejected mine.
 
Christian:
1. Atheist have it in their best interest to make the best use of their time. There is no no more of it.
Click to expand...
And all Christians should not care for their young as they will then go straight to heaven.
2. Remorse is an illogical feeling to have because it solves nothing, it contributes nothing and it wastes what is precious to atheists.
Click to expand...
This is what is known as "an assertion". How do you know that it contributes nothing? As others have already pointed out, most people (athiest or otherwise) have the ability to have this feeling, which indicates that it is an evolutionary advantage (or at least, not a disadvantage). People who don't seem to have this ability, are usually referred to as "repeat offenders".

Reasons for why remorse could be an evolutionary advantage have been given. Your only response (that I have read) is that "strong feelings of responsibility" should be sufficient to cover any advantage from feeling remorse. Perhaps and perhaps not. Perhaps it is an evolutionary disadvatage to always have strong feelings of responsibility to a society. Perhaps those who are so inclined will find themselves generally screwed by other members of society. Hence, remorse, being a feeling after the fact, is more advantages because you get to do the "bad" deed, but you are somewhat punished for it afterwards. You are not punished, however, to the degree that you can't procreate.

Thus, remorse may be a compromise, where you get one chance at screwing some member of the flock, but then feel bad about it afterwards.
3. From the atheist position, they should advocate eliminating remorse in their lives because it is illogical to feel it.
Click to expand...
Don't all people wish to eliminate remorse from their lives? I think they do, and this is where the positive feedback loop comes into the picture. Once you have tried feeling remorsefull, you really don't want to try it again. Hence you try to analyze why you felt it the first time and then readjust your behaviour to avoid it. A bit like "once bitten, twice shy".
 
Christian
Unless you can show why it is rational to feel guilty about a past event.
Click to expand...
Because this is the way you prevent yourself from repeating the past event, and how you motivate yourself to make amends.

Human beings are motivated by emotion: it is the mechanism by which we make ourselves act, the strings on the puppet. Athiests are no less emotional than theists, and even rationalists must be emotionally motivated. What the rationalist does is not avoid emotion, but rather, construct the emotions that will lead to the desired goal.

Guilt is one way to make yourself do what you have decided you should be doing. Thus, it is perfectly rational. I drink a lot of milk. I decided that I should switch to non-fat milk instead of whole milk, for health reasons. After much cajoling and practice, I now can barely stand the taste of whole milk, and I actually enjoy the taste of non-fat. This is an example of me using emotion to get myself to do what I want. Weight-lifting is another simple example. It hurts to pump iron, but we like it. Mind you, weight-lifters don't actually enjoy lifting heavy things: it's not like they spend their spare time lifting heavy boxes for fun. They only enjoy lifting heavy things in the gym, because those weights have an emotional attachment.
 
Quote from Christian:
Please understand that I'm making a progression here. I'm surprised I'm have a hard time getting people to agree that remorse for atheists is unnecessary. If that hurdle can't be passed, I doubt I'll get anywhere.
End Quote

Again you are basing the train of logic on some assumption tha atheists are totaly rational, what if I don't believe in god for some irrational reason , like I think burritos are the sole source of divinity. I would still be an atheist and still not subject to the logic of 'atheist must be rational'.

If your trying to make a progression then you might just want to skip the dance and get on with your point. Then we can discuss your point.

It seems that you are saying the only reason to feel remorese is that you believe in god. The individual can benefit from remorese and still not believe in God.

Peace
dancing David
PS Time and life are precious for all. Remember if there i a heaven it could be an assembly line and you'll be working.
 
christian wrote, first quoting me:
"Mercutio wrote:
Another thought--the logical progression from atheist to remorseless, even if watertight (which, so far, it ain't), only would prove that atheists should not feel remorse.

Ok, that is all I want to get at on this point. Atheist should not feel remorse."


Um, did you miss the if clause? Did you understand the difference between should and do? I was not ceding the point, I was pointing out the irrelevance of the point.
 
Isn't this whole discussion rather silly anyway? It looks like Christian telling the atheists what they should and shouldn't do without an understanding of atheism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom