Where do atheists get their morality from?

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

Vinny old sock, I think we may need to agree to differ.

By all means continue your with recalitrant attitude and ignorant drivel.

I will say nothing furthers as I bask in the warm glow of superiority which comes from being right and the realistation that one's opponent is a stuffwit.




If you're not rational you don't belong in the atheist fold.

Sorry if I hurt your feelings, alright? I just have a think about ignorant schmucks taking their two-bit beliefs and turning atheism from the smart, reasonable alternative into the intellectual custard that your beliefs represent. I strongly believe that atheists need to be educated on topics like ethics and morality. Moral theories, consequentialism and deontology, the foundations of ethics, the realism/anti-realism paradigm, and other things that make for serious discourse on ethics for the atheist.

It's this kind of discussion that trickles down and gives the less-academic atheist a chance to understand what they believe about morality, and how best to think about it in the context of atheism. If that makes you scoff, then really I can't say any more.

[greneknight]

And if you don't like rape, murder and child abuse, you should be concerned that atheism allows for the legitimization of these crimes. Sam Harris was concerned enough. Dawkins himself now feels the same way. So why are you trying to escape the problem by playing word-games?

I don't get it at all. Atheism doesn't allow for the legitimization of these crimes any more than science does. The way I see it is atheism has nothing to say about crimes. Neither does meteorology have anything to say about these crimes, but so what? You're not going to check with the weatherman before you step out? I don't see the relevance at all. And I'm not even an atheist.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

If that makes you scoff, then really I can't say any more.

Ah,you're just saying that. I think you lie through your teeth.

[genkaus]

I think you have the basic idea right, though your conclusion is one I disagree with. Christians can't measure up to to the example set by Jesus Christ in the New Testament. That standard is impossible and is regarded well even by those in other regions, and by some atheist too.

Exactly my point. The game is rigged against you from the start. Set up an impossible standard to determine what is good and declare everyone who falls short as evil. The Christian morality doesn't tell you how to be good, it tells you that you are evil and there is nothing you can do about it.

I suspect you may agree that serving other people is a worthwhile cause, but perhaps I'm wrong.

You're wrong.

---

Weren't you the one who was telling me that we learn our morality from authority figures, our parents and elders? Or did I hallucinate that?

There I was talking about what is and here I'm talking about what should be. Growing up we do accept moral concepts from authority figures - the same way we receive a lot of other education form them - because we don't have the capacity to figure it out ourselves. But once we grow up, we are capable of looking over it ourselves and making that judgment.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

And if you don't like rape, murder and child abuse, you should be concerned that atheism allows for the legitimization of these crimes. Sam Harris was concerned enough. Dawkins himself now feels the same way. So why are you trying to escape the problem by playing word-games?

I don't get it at all. Atheism doesn't allow for the legitimization of these crimes any more than science does. The way I see it is atheism has nothing to say about crimes. Neither does meteorology have anything to say about these crimes, but so what? You're not going to check with the weatherman before you step out? I don't see the relevance at all. And I'm not even an atheist.

This is a good question.

And I'm surprised it's coming from a theist. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, seeing as I've come across two or three Christians here, and they all seem to be relatively thoughtful and intelligent. We'll see as time passes.

Your contention seems to be that atheism does not inform ethics or morality. Atheism is atheism and ethics is ethics right?

Well it's more complicated than that. Positions in one field of knowledge can and often do have profound implications on other fields.

Consider naturalism. This would be a scientific position, right? (Well, technically it's a metaphysical position) Well consider how much, and how pointedly, naturalism responds to theological claims: about spirits, powers, miracles etc. A clear example of how a position in one field is profoundly relevant to a position in another.

Let's try another example: The theistic concept of god as all-good. This is a well-accepted property of most standard god-concepts. And at least in theology, Christians take it to be unquestionable. Now consider what this theological concept of an all-good, omniscient God has to say about ethics. If this concept is real, it profoundly effects our perspective of ethics. All of a sudden, we would turn to the gods for authority. Forget about gods being real- if one merely believed the theological proposition that God existed, their own ethical approach would be profoundly influenced.

Consider how medicine would change based on whether God did or didn't exist. How law would change. How economics would change... Does it seem at all plausible to say there is no connection between atheism and other beliefs then? Of course not. Our position on the matter truly has a lot to say about a lot of subjects. Most of all, morality.

Which is why we can never escape the problem of prescriptive moral relativism as an atheist. We must accept it, or work to change it.

Now just because you're a theist doesn't mean you are given a free-pass. You've surely taken plenty of flak for being a Christian (which I presume you might be). In fact, I'm surprised that you are a Christian at all. I suppose now would not be the best time to convert you to atheism, though. What, after pointing out that the status quo of atheism promotes rape apologetics and all....

[genkaus]

Yours is not a rational position, it is a semantic one. A rational position is one where one considers the proposition "A God doesn't exist", and accordingly all the rational consequences of the position, be they epistemic, ethical, skeptical, whatever.

Your position is not rational, it's strictly semantic. Or definitional. "Atheism means no belief in God and that's that!" It's a convenient position to hold, burden-of-proof-wise. But flip the situation and consider the theist: "I'm a Christian theist. All I believe is that Jesus is God. Don't tell me about any problems in my worldview. I don't care nor am I interested. I'm a Christian and that's that." If a Christian said that, you wouldn't smile and nod and neither would I.

So when you say something of the sort, I bring my paddle out to give you a right spanking too.

A rational consideration of atheism takes into account not only the propositional truth of atheism, but also the outcomes that such a belief has on other, related beliefs. There is no other way to go about it. We're not debating dictionary definitions, we are debating worldviews. And atheism, being a position on the existence of God, is a worldview. And rational atheism, taking into consideration the worldview that is derived from it, has a serious moral problem.

And if you don't like rape, murder and child abuse, you should be concerned that atheism allows for the legitimization of these crimes. Sam Harris was concerned enough. Dawkins himself now feels the same way. So why are you trying to escape the problem by playing word-games?

The mistake you make is assuming that every part of a person's worldview is derived from his atheism, i.e., the proposition that god doesn't exist. The only rational epistemic or ethical consequences of that would be "god doesn't give any knowledge" and "god doesn't provide any morals". Atheism itself is usually a consequence of some other worldview which would entail its own morality which need not be connected to atheism at all.

Your error is to putting all the atheists in the same categorical worldview and assuming that since their worldview derives from their atheism (and not vice-versa), the same moral problems apply to all of them. I guess this is the result of theistic worldview often being derived in its entirety form the existence of god and you being incapable of imagining anything different for atheists.

The correct answer would be that atheism doesn't say shit about rape, murder or child-abuse being right or wrong. That doesn't mean the world view that atheist subscribes to doesn't have its own rules regarding it.

[ib.me.ub]

What, after pointing out that the status quo of atheism promotes rape apologetics and all....

lol, may be for you

[greneknight]

I don't get it at all. Atheism doesn't allow for the legitimization of these crimes any more than science does. The way I see it is atheism has nothing to say about crimes. Neither does meteorology have anything to say about these crimes, but so what? You're not going to check with the weatherman before you step out? I don't see the relevance at all. And I'm not even an atheist.

This is a good question.

And I'm surprised it's coming from a theist. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, seeing as I've come across two or three Christians here, and they all seem to be relatively thoughtful and intelligent. We'll see as time passes.

Your contention seems to be that atheism does not inform ethics or morality. Atheism is atheism and ethics is ethics right?

Well it's more complicated than that. Positions in one field of knowledge can and often do have profound implications on other fields.

Consider naturalism. This would be a scientific position, right? (Well, technically it's a metaphysical position) Well consider how much, and how pointedly, naturalism responds to theological claims: about spirits, powers, miracles etc. A clear example of how a position in one field is profoundly relevant to a position in another.

Let's try another example: The theistic concept of god as all-good. This is a well-accepted property of most standard god-concepts. And at least in theology, Christians take it to be unquestionable. Now consider what this theological concept of an all-good, omniscient God has to say about ethics. If this concept is real, it profoundly effects our perspective of ethics. All of a sudden, we would turn to the gods for authority. Forget about gods being real- if one merely believed the theological proposition that God existed, their own ethical approach would be profoundly influenced.

Consider how medicine would change based on whether God did or didn't exist. How law would change. How economics would change... Does it seem at all plausible to say there is no connection between atheism and other beliefs then? Of course not. Our position on the matter truly has a lot to say about a lot of subjects. Most of all, morality.

Which is why we can never escape the problem of prescriptive moral relativism as an atheist. We must accept it, or work to change it.

Now just because you're a theist doesn't mean you are given a free-pass. You've surely taken plenty of flak for being a Christian (which I presume you might be). In fact, I'm surprised that you are a Christian at all. I suppose now would not be the best time to convert you to atheism, though. What, after pointing out that the status quo of atheism promotes rape apologetics and all....

Sorry, but I think you are confused. You are saying that those who believe in God will have their ethics profoundly influenced. But it doesn't work that way. Most God believers (I'm thinking of fundamentalists) can be very nasty if you aren't in the same camp. That's not sound ethics at all. The non-fundamentalists are more like atheists. We get our ethics from our basic human decency. Everyone has that. Atheists have it just as much as a Christian but I honestly think for a Christian, he has to undo a lot of the bad things in religion like in our holy book. If you're in a benign religion like my church, the vicar will clean up the message for you. But you need someone to "purify" the ethics for you. Otherwise you can be pretty wicked if you follow the Bible totally. And it's not a safe bet that you will always have a benign vicar to do that. What if a fundy vicar takes over? There is not much stability in one's ethics if one is a Christian because much depends on interpretation and stuff like that. I think it's safer to depend on the basic human decency without getting ourselves polluted by ancient texts, which religion tends to do.

You said, consider how medicine would change depending on whether God existed. I don't understand that part but I think God and religion are more an impediment to progress of medicine and science than anything.

[Vincenzo Vinny G.]

This is a good question.

And I'm surprised it's coming from a theist. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised, seeing as I've come across two or three Christians here, and they all seem to be relatively thoughtful and intelligent. We'll see as time passes.

Your contention seems to be that atheism does not inform ethics or morality. Atheism is atheism and ethics is ethics right?

Well it's more complicated than that. Positions in one field of knowledge can and often do have profound implications on other fields.

Consider naturalism. This would be a scientific position, right? (Well, technically it's a metaphysical position) Well consider how much, and how pointedly, naturalism responds to theological claims: about spirits, powers, miracles etc. A clear example of how a position in one field is profoundly relevant to a position in another.

Let's try another example: The theistic concept of god as all-good. This is a well-accepted property of most standard god-concepts. And at least in theology, Christians take it to be unquestionable. Now consider what this theological concept of an all-good, omniscient God has to say about ethics. If this concept is real, it profoundly effects our perspective of ethics. All of a sudden, we would turn to the gods for authority. Forget about gods being real- if one merely believed the theological proposition that God existed, their own ethical approach would be profoundly influenced.

Consider how medicine would change based on whether God did or didn't exist. How law would change. How economics would change... Does it seem at all plausible to say there is no connection between atheism and other beliefs then? Of course not. Our position on the matter truly has a lot to say about a lot of subjects. Most of all, morality.

Which is why we can never escape the problem of prescriptive moral relativism as an atheist. We must accept it, or work to change it.

Now just because you're a theist doesn't mean you are given a free-pass. You've surely taken plenty of flak for being a Christian (which I presume you might be). In fact, I'm surprised that you are a Christian at all. I suppose now would not be the best time to convert you to atheism, though. What, after pointing out that the status quo of atheism promotes rape apologetics and all....

Sorry, but I think you are confused. You are saying that those who believe in God will have their ethics profoundly influenced. But it doesn't work that way. Most God believers (I'm thinking of fundamentalists) can be very nasty if you aren't in the same camp. That's not sound ethics at all. The non-fundamentalists are more like atheists. We get our ethics from our basic human decency. Everyone has that. Atheists have it just as much as a Christian but I honestly think for a Christian, he has to undo a lot of the bad things in religion like in our holy book. If you're in a benign religion like my church, the vicar will clean up the message for you. But you need someone to "purify" the ethics for you. Otherwise you can be pretty wicked if you follow the Bible totally. And it's not a safe bet that you will always have a benign vicar to do that. What if a fundy vicar takes over? There is not much stability in one's ethics if one is a Christian because much depends on interpretation and stuff like that. I think it's safer to depend on the basic human decency without getting ourselves polluted by ancient texts, which religion tends to do.

You said, consider how medicine would change depending on whether God existed. I don't understand that part but I think God and religion are more an impediment to progress of medicine and science than anything.

Sure, god-believers can be nasty. So what? We're not dealing with behavior, we're dealing with whether our moral values are rational. This is where you are confused.

There are good and bad Christians out there. Just like there are good and bad atheists out there. The question is not whether they are good or bad- it's whether there is any legitimate reason, as an atheist, to believe that an act is universally right or wrong. If you are an atheist, your morality undoubtedly IS informed by atheism, and very likely towards ethical subjectivism or relativism. The question is, how good is relativism if it can justify theft and abuse of others?

The solution is to mitigate the relativism of the morality, so as to keep some acts, such as killing babies, universally wrong. If we can't find a way to do that, atheism will forever remain untenable for people who are concerned with having a rational moral standard.

[greneknight]

Sorry, but I think you are confused. You are saying that those who believe in God will have their ethics profoundly influenced. But it doesn't work that way. Most God believers (I'm thinking of fundamentalists) can be very nasty if you aren't in the same camp. That's not sound ethics at all. The non-fundamentalists are more like atheists. We get our ethics from our basic human decency. Everyone has that. Atheists have it just as much as a Christian but I honestly think for a Christian, he has to undo a lot of the bad things in religion like in our holy book. If you're in a benign religion like my church, the vicar will clean up the message for you. But you need someone to "purify" the ethics for you. Otherwise you can be pretty wicked if you follow the Bible totally. And it's not a safe bet that you will always have a benign vicar to do that. What if a fundy vicar takes over? There is not much stability in one's ethics if one is a Christian because much depends on interpretation and stuff like that. I think it's safer to depend on the basic human decency without getting ourselves polluted by ancient texts, which religion tends to do.

You said, consider how medicine would change depending on whether God existed. I don't understand that part but I think God and religion are more an impediment to progress of medicine and science than anything.

Sure, god-believers can be nasty. So what? We're not dealing with behavior, we're dealing with whether our moral values are rational. This is where you are confused.

There are good and bad Christians out there. Just like there are good and bad atheists out there. The question is not whether they are good or bad- it's whether there is any legitimate reason, as an atheist, to believe that an act is universally right or wrong. If you are an atheist, your morality undoubtedly IS informed by atheism, and very likely towards ethical subjectivism or relativism. The question is, how good is relativism if it can justify theft and abuse of others?

The solution is to mitigate the relativism of the morality, so as to keep some acts, such as killing babies, universally wrong. If we can't find a way to do that, atheism will forever remain untenable for people who are concerned with having a rational moral standard.

OK, I think I follow you now. You are saying that never mind the fact that Santa Claus doesn't exist. But boys who believe in Santa will behave themselves because they want presents. So those who don't believe in Santa need to clean up their act because they might not behave well.

Like I've said, I don't think it works that way. A lot depends on upbringing. If parents teach their kids to be honourable, their kids will grow up ethical. Religion is neither here nor there. Religious people say the same thing as atheists - that killing babies is wrong. But it's not absolute. There may a situation where someone might kill his baby and it can be justifiable to both religious people and atheists. I can't think of one right now but I'm sure there can be. You draw an artificial line between religious people and atheists and you think religious people might be more ethical but I don't agree. I have met Dawkins and I think he is an honourable man. I would trust him ethically as I would trust my vicar. No difference at all. I think it's the upbringing. If a child is brought up to be honourable, he can be depended on to do the ethical thing and it doesn't matter if he's a Christian or an atheist.

True, atheists may talk of relativism (not sure I know the meaning) and Christians will talk about how immutable God's morality is (which we know is rubbish because it changes with time) but in reality, both will probably have the same idea of morality that comes from our basic human decency and not from some religion. I'm speaking of the average Church of England Christian.