In my life I have noticed that there is a moral difference between being an atheist and being a Christian. I can think of at few examples of situations where as an atheist I would have acted in a more immoral way (because no one would know, and I can definitely get away with it) whereas now I wouldn't (partly because all things are seen, but mostly because I want to be like Jesus).
My experience probably doesn't directly translate over to others, and the stuff I've noticed is fairly small change stuff (although I've probably been nudged to do the right thing on bigger stuff).
But why can't an atheist feel nudged to do the right thing using an entirely scientific argument that assumes god does not exist?
Why do religions exist? Answer because they work in a survival of the fittest sense. Religion generally teaches 'Love thy neighbour'. Why is this policy the best policy in a survival of the fittest sense?
A policy of deviant behaviour when you can get away with it seems likely to be superior. But is it? I think this can be explained away as people who believe in what they are doing achieve far more than people who are depressed or feel they have no purpose. Hence an atheist can decide that they need a purpose in life and to achieve it they need to believe in what they are doing. It is appropriate to learn from religion though they do not believe in God.
Atheists never seem to think that something is immoral, convert to Christianity and then discover that it was moral after all.
Here is one thing the Bible claims is moral behaviour. Or is it?
Is it really moral behaviour to give all your money to the poor for example?
Of course, Christians don't HAVE to give all their money to the poor, but that is a different point. Is it morally correct to give all your money to the poor?
This contradicts atheism, so atheism must be false.
I once heard somebody arguing for the existence of an absolute morality in a way that didn't require a god to have dictated it. His thesis, as I recall, was basically that the behaviour of sentient minds in the presence of an absolute morality is analogous to that of iron filings in the presence of a magnetic field: morality pervades the universe in such a way that sentient minds can attune to it, and this is why most people's basic morality agrees on things like rape and the Nazis - like the iron filings, most people's internal moral senses end up pointing in basically the same direction. But, of course, local friction and crowding effects mean that not all the filings point in exactly the same direction, and a few point way off the mark - and so it is with people, where we see a lot of lively discussion around areas less clear-cut than rape and Nazism, and a few people are rapists and/or Nazis regardless of the prevailing force. I think his suggestion was that the general
( ... )
Then I'd want to know how that absolute morality, and the relation between it and minds, fits into that person's overall ontology. To say that moral realism is incompatible with atheism, if atheism is just defined as not-theism, is a stronger claim than to say that it's incompatible with the kind of reductive materialism that Dawkins espouses. Dawkins himself seems to agree that his worldview won't support moral realism.
Of course, it's possible to respond by saying that moral realism is false. But then I wish people who think this wouldn't intermittently make comments which seem to presuppose that moral realism is actually true, e.g. by saying that there are things which, morally, we should or shouldn't do, or comparing their moral views with those of other people in a way which suggests some standard external to both.
I'm not sure how denying moral realism stops someone from saying there are things which we should or should not do.
I agree that people who deny moral realism can't compare their moral views to those of other people using an external standard, but they can appeal to more general principles which they might share with those other people. For example, a vegetarian might argue with someone who's happy to eat meat but recognises that causing unnecessary suffering is bad, saying that eating meat is actually causing such suffering.
Why should you do some things and not do other things?
If you say you should be moral because God will punish you if you are immoral, the question naturally arises, why should I care whether or not I get punished?
If the answer is that being punished is bad for your well-being, we at last get to some common ground on the subject of morals.
We can then say that things like rape, murder, torture etc are bad for the well-being of humanity in general and individuals in particular.
If the Christian response to that is why should he care about the well-being of humanity in general and individuals in particular, then he is open to the same question of why should he care about whether or not humanity goes to Hell.
So atheists can be moral for exactly the very same reasons that Christians can be moral - they are concerned about the well-being of humanity in general and individuals in particular.
Rather at risk of having the same flaw as Pascal's Wager I'd have thought - even if you accepted that without religion there was no morality it'd still leave the question “which religion?”
If you accepts that absolute morality exists and that this requires there to be a God (and you're right), it gets you a step closer to the truth. It would rule out atheism so further time spent on investigating the problem could be spent more profitably.
That it doesn't demonstrate which God is the correct one is not a flaw, as that was not the purpose of the argument. From there you can look at other arguments and evidence to determine which God you think is the correct one.
1. Show that there is an absolute morality. (IMO, you have already failed, because there is such variety in morality from culture to culture and time to time.) 2. Show that absolute morality requires at least one god 3. Show which gods these are
All these seems more than a little ridiculous. The desirability of an absolute morality hasn't even been demonstrated, not to mention the strange assumption that a supernatural being somehow fits into the mix.
Those aren't my tasks. I'm responding to 'Rather at risk of having the same flaw as Pascal's Wager I'd have thought - even if you accepted that without religion there was no morality it'd still leave the question “which religion?”'.
To break down paragraph 3: 1) Atheism means that morality is personal opinion 2) More than one person shares moral position X 3) Therefore (1) is wrong
I can't see how (2) contradicts (1) in the slightest. Just because multiple people share a given moral position (rape is wrong) that doesn't make it objective - it just makes it a shared value.
Justin Brierley and rapestevencarrworkNovember 27 2008, 19:34:46 UTC
Justin Brierley said that rape was absolutely morally wrong, and would be , even if he belonged to a specied that had evolved to believe that rape was right.
The Bible agrees, and says rape is wrong. At least, the rape of a virgin is wrong.
Deuteronomy 22 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Absolute morality or Biblical morality? The choice is clear.
Comments 24
My experience probably doesn't directly translate over to others, and the stuff I've noticed is fairly small change stuff (although I've probably been nudged to do the right thing on bigger stuff).
Reply
Why do religions exist? Answer because they work in a survival of the fittest sense. Religion generally teaches 'Love thy neighbour'. Why is this policy the best policy in a survival of the fittest sense?
A policy of deviant behaviour when you can get away with it seems likely to be superior. But is it? I think this can be explained away as people who believe in what they are doing achieve far more than people who are depressed or feel they have no purpose. Hence an atheist can decide that they need a purpose in life and to achieve it they need to believe in what they are doing. It is appropriate to learn from religion though they do not believe in God.
Reply
Reply
Atheists never seem to think that something is immoral, convert to Christianity and then discover that it was moral after all.
Here is one thing the Bible claims is moral behaviour. Or is it?
Is it really moral behaviour to give all your money to the poor for example?
Of course, Christians don't HAVE to give all their money to the poor, but that is a different point. Is it morally correct to give all your money to the poor?
Reply
I once heard somebody arguing for the existence of an absolute morality in a way that didn't require a god to have dictated it. His thesis, as I recall, was basically that the behaviour of sentient minds in the presence of an absolute morality is analogous to that of iron filings in the presence of a magnetic field: morality pervades the universe in such a way that sentient minds can attune to it, and this is why most people's basic morality agrees on things like rape and the Nazis - like the iron filings, most people's internal moral senses end up pointing in basically the same direction. But, of course, local friction and crowding effects mean that not all the filings point in exactly the same direction, and a few point way off the mark - and so it is with people, where we see a lot of lively discussion around areas less clear-cut than rape and Nazism, and a few people are rapists and/or Nazis regardless of the prevailing force. I think his suggestion was that the general ( ... )
Reply
Of course, it's possible to respond by saying that moral realism is false. But then I wish people who think this wouldn't intermittently make comments which seem to presuppose that moral realism is actually true, e.g. by saying that there are things which, morally, we should or shouldn't do, or comparing their moral views with those of other people in a way which suggests some standard external to both.
Reply
I agree that people who deny moral realism can't compare their moral views to those of other people using an external standard, but they can appeal to more general principles which they might share with those other people. For example, a vegetarian might argue with someone who's happy to eat meat but recognises that causing unnecessary suffering is bad, saying that eating meat is actually causing such suffering.
Reply
If you say you should be moral because God will punish you if you are immoral, the question naturally arises, why should I care whether or not I get punished?
If the answer is that being punished is bad for your well-being, we at last get to some common ground on the subject of morals.
We can then say that things like rape, murder, torture etc are bad for the well-being of humanity in general and individuals in particular.
If the Christian response to that is why should he care about the well-being of humanity in general and individuals in particular, then he is open to the same question of why should he care about whether or not humanity goes to Hell.
So atheists can be moral for exactly the very same reasons that Christians can be moral - they are concerned about the well-being of humanity in general and individuals in particular.
Reply
Reply
If you accepts that absolute morality exists and that this requires there to be a God (and you're right), it gets you a step closer to the truth. It would rule out atheism so further time spent on investigating the problem could be spent more profitably.
That it doesn't demonstrate which God is the correct one is not a flaw, as that was not the purpose of the argument. From there you can look at other arguments and evidence to determine which God you think is the correct one.
Reply
1. Show that there is an absolute morality. (IMO, you have already failed, because there is such variety in morality from culture to culture and time to time.)
2. Show that absolute morality requires at least one god
3. Show which gods these are
All these seems more than a little ridiculous. The desirability of an absolute morality hasn't even been demonstrated, not to mention the strange assumption that a supernatural being somehow fits into the mix.
Reply
Reply
1) Atheism means that morality is personal opinion
2) More than one person shares moral position X
3) Therefore (1) is wrong
I can't see how (2) contradicts (1) in the slightest. Just because multiple people share a given moral position (rape is wrong) that doesn't make it objective - it just makes it a shared value.
Reply
The Bible agrees, and says rape is wrong. At least, the rape of a virgin is wrong.
Deuteronomy 22
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.
Absolute morality or Biblical morality? The choice is clear.
Reply
Leave a comment