Atheism

[createdtoworship]

“These, then are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.”
C. S. Lewis

 

[Ken-1122]

Dear DaneaFL,

With those distinctions in mind, here’s a simple moral argument for God’s existence which is what gradyll was arguing from. It is a tri-premise argument:

‪1.‬ If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
‪2.‬ Objective moral values and duties do exist.
‪3.‬ Therefore, God exists.

I believe some people’s moral values are objective, and others subjective. But your idea that a God is necessary in order for objective moral values to exist, but not subjective has gotten me stumped! How did you come to this conclusion? Please explain

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

Respectfully and humbly replying in response to your post, please note that I said two things: that atheism is a system of amorality, and that atheists can be moral beings. Only when they do, they are living in contradiction to their worldview.

First of all, atheism is not a system, it is just a lack of belief in God.
Second; How about people who worship a non-existent God? When they behave morally are they behaving contradictory to their beliefs also? After all, to worship something that does not exist vs worshiping nothing at all.... what's the difference?
Third; How can you say such a thing about a person when you have no idea what their beliefs and world view are? Please explain.

Ken

 

[Eudaimonist]

I have amicably and humbly responded to every post and reply here with the utmost respect, time and attention. I however, am not compelled to engage in debate with someone who is unwilling to agree to disagree.

A Nazi soldier and a Jew were in a bar one day having a philosophical discussion about whether or not Jews deserved to live in Germany as equal citizens. The Nazi soldier was surprised when the Jew expressed offense at the subject, since he believed that he was very respectful and dispassionate during the discussion.

Elioenai26, I'm afraid that you can't tell atheists that they just can't be moral without contradiction without causing some offense. You may need to be mindful of this as you discuss ideas that are offensive to atheists. You can't hide behind declarations of your intended civility. You may need to be a bit more open to what atheists are telling you. It's not an easy discussion to have with anyone.

Please reflect on this.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ken-1122]

“These, then are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it.

And that certain way varies from person to person; there is not a consensus on how we should behave.

Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.”
C. S. Lewis

Just because a person breaks the law does not mean that person is not behaving in a way they believe they should behave.

K

 

[Skavau]

Mr. Skavau, in light of the above statement, would you mind telling us what you believe objective morals find their basis in?

I consider the idea of objective morals to be often nebulous and other times as I said later on, a red herring. To my understanding, something is objectively true if its basis for being true is independent of what people think. I don't think such an observation can made on morality as it pertains entirely to preference. It is about what ought or ought not based on the consideration and concerns for others. Things can be argued to be immoral based on their impact towards others (which seems rather more relevant that claiming something is wrong due to being somehow intertwined in the foundation of the universe). This seems apparent to me whether or not a God exists or not.

Thus far I have not mentioned anything with regards to the enforcement of morality, only the source of it.

You have not. Though my response would remain similar on this. If objective morality does exist on this, how do you know that it derives from a God? What does that statement even mean?

These are very good questions, if you hold to the theistic worldview. If you do not, then these questions would be irrelevant to you and therefore cannot be used as an argument against an entity which you categorically deny as existing.

They're questions you need to answer if you're going to convince non-theists that objective morality somehow requires a deity to exist. If you cannot elaborate on the connection they apparently require then it is baseless, frankly.

For any argument to be sound, there are certain qualifications that it must meet. One of these qualifications is that the premises must be shown to be true. The premises have to have some degree of justification or warrant for us to accept them as corresponding to reality. But how much warrant? The premises surely don’t need to be known to be true with certainty (we know almost nothing to be true with certainty!). Perhaps we should say that for an argument to be a good one the premises need to be probably true in light of the evidence. Another way of putting this is that a good argument is a sound argument in which the premises are more plausible in light of the evidence than their opposites. You should compare the premise and its negation and believe whichever one is more plausibly true in light of the evidence.

Your first premise that objective morality requires a deity to exist was outright assumed. I did not see any positive argument based on reasoning and/or empirical evidence for it from you at all.

A good argument will be a sound argument whose premises are more plausible than their negations. Now in order for you to show that premise one is simply "assumed" as you put it and is not plausible, the burden falls to you to provide evidence to the contrary and must be sufficient enough to warrant a relinquishing of said premise.

Uh, no. You are simply emancipating yourself from the burden of proof. Your first premise was simply asserted and not demonstrated or even argued for. There's no precedent otherwise except apparently amongst some theists to assume that objective morality is predicated on the existence of God. My argument against your first premise is simply that it is a non-sequitor. It does not follow. Why does objective morality as a concept have to be bound up in requiring the existence of a supernatural entity?

I can give a more in depth definition of objective if you would like. This will not affect the discussion in any way however.

Okay.

Theists argue objective morality proceeds from the nature of the creator, designer, architect, mind that is the cause of existence as we know it. Once again I shall reiterate, I am not arguing for the Judeo-Christian worldview at this point. I am arguing from the theisitc view, under which are many more specific beliefs.

I know you are. Otherwise I would have used "Judeo-Christian" myself rather than just 'God'. At any rate, I know that theists tend to argue this. I also know that it appears little more than white noise to atheists. How do you argue that objective morality proceeds from the nature of the creator?

Supposing that objective morality does exist - why should people accept the claim that it proceeds from the "nature of the creator"?

As a theist, I would say both apply. As an atheist, your position does not allow for there to exist such an idea as right or wrong. But I will ask you this: is genocide wrong? It is a simple question.

As an atheist all that applies is that I don't believe in a God(s). My opinion on what ought or ought not is entirely separate from atheism.

Genocide is wrong.

Lets say you are out in your neighborhood walking your dog, maybe a little dog like a puppy for instance. A young teenager comes up from behind you and hits you in the head with a baseball bat. He then takes your dog and runs away. As he runs off you can see enough of him to give a description to the police. Several days later, he is apprehended and eventually you go to his trial. After the prosecution makes its case which is airtight and solid, the judge pronounces his judgment. "Not guilty". Immediately you are indignant! Through the bandage which is wrapped around your head from the trauma sustained in the assault you yell: "But judge look what he did to me! Look! And I still don't have my dog!" The judge calmy replies: "That young man who you say assaulted you is my son and I simply don't believe he would do something like that. I know him too well. Case dismissed!"

What would your reaction to this be?

That the judge should not be judging the trial. Conflict of interest.

Would be too trivial to point out.

 

[Skavau]

Thank you for the observation. I shall endeavor to clear up any confusion regarding my reply. If you will notice, I addressed my remark towards Gadarene when he made the assertion that: "Atheists don't believe that a God exists so the first premise is not generally believed either."

Gadarene made the above statement in order to prove that premise one was false. However, he failed to understand that atheists constitute approximately 5% of the world's population. So to say that premise one is generally not believed is a claim that is shown to have no support. By definition if something is generally believed it is by a majority, not a minority.

And even if atheists were the majority, we cannot use majority adherence to a worldview to prove that it is true. For example: not too too long ago, it was generally believed that the world was flat! Of course this does not mean that the world was truly flat does it?

I know all this.

You seem to be assuming that your premise #1 is true on the basis of popular opinion though.

 

[Skavau]

The backing is the existence of objective moral values that we all recognize and adhere to and believe in.

What moral values are these that we all recognise and how do you know that they are objective?

Moral values that we all live by and expect others to live by. If objective moral values exist that are based outside of ourselves as opposed to subjective morals which depend on us, our situation, our culture, and our preferences, then it logically follows that theism is the more plausible worldview than atheism.

No it does not. This is unargued. How is it that a framework for objective morals somehow necessitates theism?

The reason for this deduction is that atheism provides no allowance for these values. Subjective morals change, can become contradictory, and might differ from person to person. Objective moral values do not.

Is something objectively wrong (say, murder) according to reason according to you?

Think about it, in atheism, there is no moral right and wrong. There is no moral "should and shouldn't”. Why? Because when you remove God, you remove the standard by which objective moral truth is established. In atheism morality is up for grabs.

Atheism is not a deciding factor on my morality. Atheism dictates nothing in my life. It is in fact, a consequence of my other opinions (humanism, rationalism, empiricism) that lead me to atheism - not the over way around.

The values expressed such as: do not lie, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness, etc are binding upon all and they don’t change depending on your opinion, your situation, or your personal preferences.

Actually, "do not bear false witness" or "do not lie" does change upon your situation and personal preferences. If someone is in a situation where deception would save their life or better the lives of others then that is a valid circumstance to deceive. If someone is in a situation where they are asked about something private they'd rather not share, that is a valid circumstance to deceive.

Committing theft if needed for survival of yourself or your family can be morally justified. Committing adultery is generally a douchey thing to do. I can think of no circumstance off the top of my head to justify that.

Therefore it is always wrong to lie, to steal, to commit adultery, to rape, to murder etc. Under the atheistic view, morality is formed in a subjective manner, i.e "whats good for you might not be good for me", or "what is wrong for you might not be wrong for me" etc.

You betray an understanding of morality that appears to conflate it solely in self-interest. If someone says "whats good for you might not be good for me" or "what is wrong for you might not be wrong for me" they're only talking about their own objectives. They're not considering the implications to others, which to me seems the very essence of morality. Disregard the concern for others in morality and you are left with a rather obnoxious and sanctimonious form of self-interest.

If one were to take this ideology at face value and follow it to its logical conclusion, you would be witness to what Friedrich Nietzsche speaks of when he says:
"When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet. This morality is by no means self-evident. Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole. It stands or falls with faith in God."

Condemning murder, rape, genocide, adultery, deception, theft etc are not bound by Christianity. It is trivial to condemn them outside of Christianity and for non-christian reasons.

 

[Skavau]

Possible yes. Probable, no. There are a plethora of different views on moral issues that are universal, let alone subjective.

Shouldn't that tell you something? That there are a plethora of different views on supposedly objective moral standards should inform you of their distinctly human origins and human concerns.

I never said that Mr. Ellis. I have said there are basic beliefs about morality that are binding upon all and are accepted regardless of culture, location, time etc.

They are binding as a result of what they are and the damage that they do to human society. They are intrinsically anti-social and dangerous for all of us. Things like murder and theft being permissable and/or acceptable activity make society unsafe and negate private property. Things such as rape, or grotesque rape legislation that punishes the victim are seen as beyond contemptible in modern day society as we now rightly put the concerns* of women as important as that of men.

*Because, of course the evolution of morality is all about concern of others and their welfare. Any system or justification of morality that ignores that is masquerading.

This knowledge comes from the logical deduction which states: either there is a God (some supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient, moral being) or there isn't. One is true. Both cannot be true and both cannot be false. We know this because scientist have come to the conclusion that the universe had a definite beginning at some point in the distant past. In other words, the universe was created ex nihilo. Now, if the universe came to be at some point in the distant past, then logically it stands that there was a cause for it coming into being. This cause must meet the above qualifications. This outside source as you call it is more plausibly God.

Now this is at least an attempt at justification, though it is cosmological and has nothing to do with any moral argument for God. Even if one accepts the cosmological argument that does not mean that morality is objective and derives from the "first cause".

You are correct atheism is not a system of morality. It is a system of amorality.

It is as much a system of amorality as playing golf is a system of amorality. That is to say that both are silent on morality and are so because people derive their moral opinions from sources external from them.

This is to confuse terms. A person can be moral and not believe in God. All this means is that they are living in a contradictory manner to their belief.

Or they believe that moral consideration is an emergent consequence from a social species interacting and advancing to the point of constructing an orderly and complex society. Which it is.

You are saying it is never permissable to rape someone. I agree. This is a statement on morality once again. As an atheist, you have no ground to make such an assertion.

Yes he does. Rape is wrong because of the harm it does to the victim. Morality is all about concern of others and their welfare and an act that affects another can be argued for or against based on its impact towards others. If you take that away from morality then you don't have morality at all.

 

[Elioenai26]

A Nazi soldier and a Jew were in a bar one day having a philosophical discussion about whether or not Jews deserved to live in Germany as equal citizens. The Nazi soldier was surprised when the Jew expressed offense at the subject, since he believed that he was very respectful and dispassionate during the discussion.

Elioenai26, I'm afraid that you can't tell atheists that they just can't be moral without contradiction without causing some offense. You may need to be mindful of this as you discuss ideas that are offensive to atheists. You can't hide behind declarations of your intended civility. You may need to be a bit more open to what atheists are telling you. It's not an easy discussion to have with anyone.

Please reflect on this.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Good morning Mr. Eudaimonist. I hope you are enjoying this beautiful day wherever you are.

To address your reply, all that needs to be said is this: I never have espoused that atheists are unable to be moral creatures. Many do have a sense of morality and do live moral lives that is in some cases, far more commendable than people who do believe in God! What I have said, and I shall repeat it again, is that atheism as a worldview is amoral. This simply means that the idea of morality has no place in the atheistic worldview.

I find it quite ironic that men like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer understand more completely the logical outworkings of an atheistic worldview than many of the "enlightened thinkers" and new atheists of today. From the things that both of these men have said with regards to their atheistic worldview, they understand that amorality is living without adherence to morals. This was their justification for committing the rape and murder of young boys and women.

Am I saying all atheists are amoral. By no means. I am saying that their worldview is amoral. There are atheists who live as law abiding productive citizens. There are atheists that dont. That is my point.

 

[Elioenai26]

And that certain way varies from person to person; there is not a consensus on how we should behave.

This is the general view of atheists on morality. That there is no objective morality. All is subjective. This is in keeping with the atheistic worldview. I commend you for being brave enough to say it.

However:

In every society, no matter what its cultural underpinnings are, there is a code of "oughtness." I.e. this ought to be done or this ought not to be done. While the specifics may vary from culture to culture, in each case, those specifics are rooted in a prior set of beliefs as to what ought to be.
These in turn, are related to what they consider to be a person's essential nature and purpose.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

[/color]

This is the general view of atheists on morality. That there is no objective morality. All is subjective. This is in keeping with the atheistic worldview. I commend you for being brave enough to say it.

However:

In every society, no matter what its cultural underpinnings are, there is a code of "oughtness." I.e. this ought to be done or this ought not to be done. While the specifics may vary from culture to culture, in each case, those specifics are rooted in a prior set of beliefs as to what ought to be.
These in turn, are related to what they consider to be a person's essential nature and purpose.

No one denies that we all have an innate sense of right and wrong - we just disagree that this sense comes from anything other than biology and culture. What more proof do you need than the fact that anything and everything has, somewhere, been morally permissible. Even the Christian churches, supposed bastions of God's unwavering morality, have condoned most things.

 

[Elioenai26]

First of all, atheism is not a system, it is just a lack of belief in God.

When you say that atheism is a lack of belief in God, this is not to say, as I am sure you would agree, that you no longer have a worldview. Everyone has a worldview. A worldview is simply how you make sense of the world you live in. It is like a pair of glasses you put on through which you see the world. Being an atheist, there are certain ways you view certain topics and ideas. For example: the origin of the universe, the nature of man, the existence or non-existence of morals, death, etc. etc. You all have a specific view on these matters. When we use the word system we use it interchangeably with words like philosophy, worldview, etc. etc.

Second; How about people who worship a non-existent God? When they behave morally are they behaving contradictory to their beliefs also? After all, to worship something that does not exist vs worshiping nothing at all.... what's the difference?

An atheist would not say that he worships a non-existent God. Nor would he be able to soundly give a defense for any moral objectives.

How can you say such a thing about a person when you have no idea what their beliefs and world view are? Please explain.

Atheists who understand their position say this. It is the logical conclusion of their beliefs. Ask Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens or Sam Harris, who are well known atheists. They will try to convince you that morals are simply a by-product of evolutionary processes or give some other theory as to why humans possess an inherent sense of "oughtness."

 

[quatona]

What I have said, and I shall repeat it again, is that atheism as a worldview is amoral. This simply means that the idea of morality has no place in the atheistic worldview.

What also has been said and apparently needs to be repeated is: atheism isn´t a worldview, in the first place. It is the refusal to accept one single claim. Insofar you are correct: atheism is amoral (since it neither makes any moral statements itself nor can any moral prescriptions be directly deduced from atheism). The same is true for every other single pov that doesn´t have morality for its subject.
However, this doesn´t pose the problem you are trying to establish. Atheists simply deduce their moral stances from other views they hold. Just like you can´t directly deduce any moral prescripts from being a plumber, yet a plumber can get his moral stances from something else than being a plumber.

 

[quatona]

Atheists who understand their position say this.

Hang on there - I just want to make sure I get this:
Are you saying that I don´t understand my own position, and that you are here to tell me what my position is?

 

[Elioenai26]

Insofar you are correct: atheism is amoral (since it neither makes any moral statements itself nor can any moral prescriptions be directly deduced from atheism).

This, we agree on.

The same is true for every other single pov that doesn´t have morality for its subject.

So you admit atheism is a view? Albeit, one of many, correct?

It is also worth mentioning that theism in no way states that it's subject is morality. Morality is one of the aspects that theism affirms, but it is not its subject.

However, this doesn´t pose the problem you are trying to establish. Atheists simply deduce their moral stances from other views they hold.

Once again you are stating that atheists have views, views about life, views about the world, correct?

Just like you can´t directly deduce any moral prescripts from being a plumber, yet a plumber can get his moral stances from something else than being a plumber.

Equating an atheist with a plumber is to make a category mistake. An atheist is one who holds specifically to the belief in the non-existence of God, a plumber is one who may hold to any belief. A plumber may be an atheist, a theist, an anti-theist, a deist, a Christian, etc. etc.

 

[Elioenai26]

Hang on there - I just want to make sure I get this:
Are you saying that I don´t understand my own position, and that you are here to tell me what my position is?

I never said that, no.

 

[quatona]

So you admit atheism is a view? Albeit, one of many, correct?

Why sure.

It is also worth mentioning that theism in no way states that it's subject is morality. Morality is one of the aspects that theism affirms, but it is not its subject.

No, theism is just as amoral as atheism is.
Not until a theist believes God to be the author of a certain set of moral prescriptions. Theism doesn´t make such a statement.

Once again you are stating that atheists have views, views about life, views about the world, correct?

Why sure. And - except for one view - these views are not part of their atheism.

Equating an atheist with a plumber is to make a category mistake.

No, it is not. Please look up "category error". Besides, I wasn´t equating them - I was just pointing out one communality.

An atheist is one who holds specifically to the belief in the non-existence of God, a plumber is one who may hold to any belief. A plumber may be an atheist, a theist, an anti-theist, a deist, a Christian, etc. etc.

Way to miss the point. I´ll repeat it for you: Both atheism and the art of plumbing make no statements about morality, yet do not preclude the person from having a consistent moral view.

 

[quatona]

I never said that, no.

Well, yes, you did, several times.
I´m glad to hear, though, that this statement of yours was meant to communicate something else. Now I am wondering what this might be.

 

[madaz]

An atheist is one who holds specifically to the belief in the non-existence of God,

Not true.

An Atheist is one who rejects the belief in the existence of deities.