Do atheists "steal from God" when they make moral claims?

2PhiloVoid · Oct 16, 2019

AvisG said:
Well, THAT is an interesting choice, because I have studied the history of the doctrine of the Trinity extensively and regard it as "highly negotiable"! Indeed, the history of the doctrine shows that it was "highly negotiated." To me, it is at best an almost incomprehensible attempt to come to grips with who Jesus was. I don't "disbelieve" it, but neither can I say that I really "believe" it.

I'm not sure that what I'm talking about could be limited to certain "forms" of Christianity. I am not completely convinced that what has postured itself as Christianity since the Resurrection has much resembled anything Jesus was talking about. I'm not setting myself up as having the answers. I simply have a nagging feeling that "something is really, really wrong here" - and I would have to say that I am talking pretty much monolithically. This is why I am not longer interested in anything but "working out my own salvation with fear and trembling."

Does Christianity as it exists in the world differ from, say, Buddhism in any meaningful way that is favorable to Christianity? Do Christians differ from, say, Jews or atheists in any meaningful way that is favorable to Christians? If Christianity were on the right track, would we not expect the indwelling and fruits of the Spirit to be far more obvious to nonbelievers than they are?

I see. Alright, I won't elaborate too much here because I know that you wouldn't really want this thread to go far askew from what you've envisioned for it in your OP. Be that as it may, I'll just say that I do think the Trinity is non-negotiable, even if by that saying this I don't mean that in all necessity for a person to be saved he/she needs to regurgitate "this or that" specific formula for this bit of traditional theology.

.... ok. Enough said on that topic since this is a thread devoted to the ways in which we all may conceptualize the separate but perhaps related nature of non-Christian moral intuitions from that of Christian moral intuitions and ethical formulation.

As to your last set of questions, I would have to answer that part of the way in which we'll each address these inquiries will be in how we decided to denote both the terms "Christianity" and "Christendom." I think this act of denotation is important analytically speaking since, like the term theory, these can very quickly become murky in their use and their connotations and thereby have everyone talking past each other. So as not to usurp your thread, I'll just end by saying that I think Christianity would be better thought of as our better intuitions of what we find in New Testament Theology and Ethics rather than simply applying it to the 'mess' we find today in the world at large that also goes by the moniker, Christianity, which really might better be termed, Christendom.

Ok. There. I've said my little piece and offered an inferred rejoinder, one of a milder sort I hope.

Peace.

gaara4158 · Oct 16, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
I hear you, quatona, but......what might be helpful in this instance is for you to do something which I see some of my detractors here are apparently at great pains to do: quote something specific. So, my thoughtful friend, please provide the specific quote from me that you find to be questionable. (And I do sincerely mean to refer to you as a "thoughtful friend" since even though you and I have disagreed on some things in the past, you're one of the few non-believers here on CF who seems to genuinely take a generally balanced interest in various issues).

Peace.

As one of your regular detractors here, I think I can help, seeing as unless you're taking a sharp turn in your opinion towards nonbelievers in general I sincerely believe there's been a miscommunication.

It all started in post #32, in which renniks was challenged to give a reason to be moral that isn't ultimately self-serving. Renniks replied "Of course. To glorify God. The unselfish reason [to be] moral is because he set the standards for morality." This is what prompted Lobster Johnson's question, "And why do you care about any of that. About glorifying God or following his moral standard."

You replied:

2PhiloVoid said:
We care for reasons that approximate those that Pascal averred are typical for human beings with normal range emotions and psychologies (i.e. non-sociopathic), and these reasons represent what we should most likely care about: life after death, survival, existence, God, Jesus Christ.

The way you answered Lobster Johnson's question suggests that you thought he was asking a rhetorical question, as though he couldn't think of a single reason to care about morality or glorifying God or anything like that. If that were the case, your answer would be appropriate as long as the asker was a believer in God and his commandments, but the purpose of Lobster Johnson's line of questioning was to uncover a self-serving motivation somewhere down the line of "why's." The answer you gave provided that (so you still made his point for him) but you also managed to call anyone who didn't care about life after death, God, or Jesus Christ "abnormal" or "sociopathic." I don't think you meant to, but you just accused everyone who doesn't believe in God exactly the same way that you do of having some kind of mental disorder. Not only is that supremely insulting, it's a very peculiar use of the word "normal" and "most likely" since only a third of the world actually believes Jesus was the Christ.

gaara4158 · Oct 16, 2019

renniks said:
Um.. because he is the supreme Being and the ruler and creator of everything, and worthy of praise.

But why would you personally want to praise or glorify the ruler and creator of everything, even if he is worthy of it? Praise is not compulsory, so why would you want to do it rather than not?

2PhiloVoid · Oct 16, 2019

gaara4158 said:
As one of your regular detractors here, I think I can help, seeing as unless you're taking a sharp turn in your opinion towards nonbelievers in general I sincerely believe there's been a miscommunication.

It all started in post #32, in which renniks was challenged to give a reason to be moral that isn't ultimately self-serving. Renniks replied "Of course. To glorify God. The unselfish reason [to be] moral is because he set the standards for morality." This is what prompted Lobster Johnson's question, "And why do you care about any of that. About glorifying God or following his moral standard."

You replied:

The way you answered Lobster Johnson's question suggests that you thought he was asking a rhetorical question, as though he couldn't think of a single reason to care about morality or glorifying God or anything like that. If that were the case, your answer would be appropriate as long as the asker was a believer in God and his commandments, but the purpose of Lobster Johnson's line of questioning was to uncover a self-serving motivation somewhere down the line of "why's." The answer you gave provided that (so you still made his point for him) but you also managed to call anyone who didn't care about life after death, God, or Jesus Christ "abnormal" or "sociopathic." I don't think you meant to, but you just accused everyone who doesn't believe in God exactly the same way that you do of having some kind of mental disorder. Not only is that supremely insulting, it's a very peculiar use of the word "normal" and "most likely" since only a third of the world actually believes Jesus was the Christ.

Well, Gaara. I hear you and I do empathize, and as I've stated up above, I and Pascal wouldn't say that to be an unbeliever is necessarily to be a sociopath. However, it still goes without saying that if you or any other unbeliever who, particularly as either an ex-Christian who should know better OR as an acerbic skeptic or atheist (which I don't think you qualify as being, really: So, Kudo's to you!) who just wants to spout constant polemics at all religions and utterly refuse to concede to the possibility that "any of that tripe could even remotely be true!"..................is in Pascal's estimation just one brick short of a load, not only rationally but also empathically.

Again, as I've stated elsewhere in what are attention getting terms, it's probably important for those who really want to contend more deeply and earnestly with Pascal's Wager to also take a look at and contend with Pascal's A.A.S.S. (...an acronym that for better or worse I have coined and represents Pascal's Argument Against Sociopathic Skepticsm, such as it is in Writing #194).

Some aspects of this issue will have a bearing upon the whole argument in this thread that atheists or skeptics of a certain kind really are as morally inclined as they like to claim and make out that they are. Of course, in some ways, Pascal's Argument above could be applied to Christians of all sorts too, BUT.....I think Jesus already has given the LION's share on that nuance of the issues at hand.

To end with, I do thank you for expressing how my previous statements could appear to present a particular meaning that is perhaps less than charitable. But, even though Pascal's A.A.S.S. very likely doesn't apply to you, it very well does apply to many a current, English speaking atheist and skeptic, and that I can't apologize for. And like Paul at the end of the book of Acts, some things just have to be said, and said "As they are, to the folks who it applies to, as they are!"

AvisG · Oct 16, 2019

gaara4158 said:
But why would you personally want to praise or glorify the ruler and creator of everything, even if he is worthy of it? Praise is not compulsory, so why would you want to do it rather than not?

You didn't ask me, but: If praise were compulsory, I don't think it would qualify as praise. In my case, I praise God in thankfulness for his creation, for the gift of life, for the opportunity to experience what I have experienced - good and bad. I praise God because I want to, because I feel motivated to, not because I think he demands it. To folks who suggest that God is some sort of egomaniac because he wants to be glorified and craves praise, I offer that he knows these things are for our benefit. We thank, praise, worship and glorify God because it fosters a closer relationship with him, not because it feeds his ego.

public hermit · Oct 16, 2019

AvisG said:
When they assert moral claims they are just "voicing personal opinions."

Even as a believer, this argument doesn't seem to me to hold water.

David Hume, who was an atheist (or agnostic at best), asserted that morality was simply one's feeling or sentiment.

"So that when you pronounce any action or character to be vicious, you mean nothing, but that from the constitution of your nature you have a feeling or sentiment of blame from the contemplation of it." A Treatise of Human Nature, Book three

I do think there is some cogency that the atheist who makes moral claims is functioning off "borrowed capital." If the atheist has been raised in a predominately Christian context, then it is likely that borrowed capital came from Christianity. This would not be an appeal to authority, but simply a recognition that context influences morality.

AvisG said:
It seems to me an atheist is going to say that "the consensus opinion of a large majority of people within the culture" is the objective standard for morality.

Usually consensus is not considered an objective standard for morality. Consensus is simply intersubjective agreement. Correct me if I am mistaken, but an objective standard is objective precisely because it is not subjective.

AvisG said:
It doesn't seem to me fair or logical to maintain that the atheist's standard of "the consensus opinion of a large majority of people within the culture" is any less objective than "God's decrees."

In one sense I agree with you. God's decrees are understood to be objective by virtue of a subjective faith. In that sense they should both be considered subjective. However, assuming the reality of a God who gives decrees, then the standard of God would be objective. Of course, how does one establish the reality of such a God in a way that all can see the objectivity? Not going to happen. So, I agree with you on this point, but for a different reason.

AvisG said:
It has often been said that the discipline of apologetics exists to keep believers from defecting to the camp of unbelievers, as opposed to actually convincing unbelievers, and that's been the feeling I've increasingly had.

I agree. Apologetics does little more than make an argument. A defense is good, but reason can never replace faith. No matter how many arguments one has, we can never bypass the need for daily faith in a loving God. If my faith is based on reasoned arguments, it can always be toppled by reasoned arguments.

AvisG · Oct 16, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
So as not to usurp your thread, I'll just end by saying that I think Christianity would be better thought of as our better intuitions of what we find in New Testament Theology and Ethics rather than simply applying it to the 'mess' we find today in the world at large that also goes by the moniker, Christianity, which really might better be termed, Christendom,

That I certainly agree with. My sense is that what Jesus hoped to achieve with the Great Commission was something far simpler and far, far more radical than what has evolved.

gaara4158 · Oct 16, 2019

AvisG said:
You didn't ask me, but: If praise were compulsory, I don't think it would qualify as praise. In my case, I praise God in thankfulness for his creation, for the gift of life, for the opportunity to experience what I have experienced - good and bad. I praise God because I want to, because I feel motivated to, not because I think he demands it. To folks who suggest that God is some sort of egomaniac because he wants to be glorified and craves praise, I offer that he knows these things are for our benefit. We thank, praise, worship and glorify God because it fosters a closer relationship with him, not because it feeds his ego.

That's as fair a reason as any. So do you agree with Lobster Johnson that ultimately, the basis of your motivation to be moral is self-serving?

AvisG · Oct 16, 2019

public hermit said:
David Hume, who was an atheist (or agnostic at best), asserted that morality was simply one's feeling or sentiment.

Another philosopher - I can't recall who (Locke?) - suggested there are really no genuinely altruistic actions.

I have a stepdaughter in Russia whom I regularly surprise with fairly substantial gifts of money (by Russian standards) via Western Union. Because I don't really know her that well, she has concluded that I am simply the most wonderfully generous person who ever lived. Yet I know that the inner satisfaction I derive from doing this (hey, I guess I am pretty wonderfully generous!), her constant over-the-top praise and my wife's similar reaction far outweigh anything I could buy with the money. So is my act of giving highly virtuous or mostly selfish? I've tried to think of things I might do anonymously that would reflect real virtue, but it always comes down to "No, it's impossible to avoid the selfish self-satisfaction that would taint the act."

Usually consensus is not considered an objective standard for morality. Consensus is simply intersubjective agreement. Correct me if I am mistaken, but an objective standard is objective precisely because it is not subjective.

I didn't communicate very well what I was trying to say, but the notion was that "the consensus of a large majority of the people in a culture" becomes an objective standard in the sense that we can say what the consensus is and whether an individual's opinion is consistent or inconsistent with it. So the "moral code" is at least not entirely subjective.

This is the problem with abortion, homosexuality and other hot-button issues, which may well have moral dimensions. There is no clear consensus - on some, the split is close to 50-50. So it becomes impossible to say that one position is moral or immoral unless you do have some sort of higher authority which a large majority recognizes as authoritative.

I agree. Apologetics does little more than make an argument. A defense is good, but reason can never replace faith. No matter how many arguments one has, we can never bypass the need for daily faith in a loving God. If my faith is based on reasoned arguments, it can always be toppled by reasoned arguments.

Right. You may know that Karl Barth, surely one of the premier theologians of the twentieth century, had almost complete disdain for apologetics for that reason, at least as a way to lead nonbelievers to faith.

To pick on poor Frank Turek again, he practically screams at the beginning of every weekly radio program "Do you know why people are so easily talked out of Christianity? BECAUSE THEY'VE NEVER BEEN TALKED INTO IT!!!" I always say to the radio, "People aren't talked into faith, Frank."

jayem · Oct 16, 2019

gaara4158 said:
That's as fair a reason as any. So do you agree with Lobster Johnson that ultimately, the basis of your motivation to be moral is self-serving?

This wasn't addressed to me, but I completely agree. As a non-theist, I obviously don't believe in any kind of divine reward or punishment. But I do believe that what goes around comes around. And I want my current life--which is the only one I'll ever have--to be as happy and pleasant as possible. If I act like a jerk, treating people contemptuously without regard for their feelings or well-being, the chances are pretty good that I'll eventually be treated the same way. So it's clearly in my own self-interest not to be a jerk. And this isn't any profound ethical philosophizing. It's just common sense.

AvisG · Oct 16, 2019

gaara4158 said:
That's as fair a reason as any. So do you agree with Lobster Johnson that ultimately, the basis of your motivation to be moral is self-serving?

I discuss this to some extent in my response to public hermit immediately below your post. I think it is impossible to avoid the self-serving aspect - even if that aspect is "God is really going to be happy with me for doing THIS!" How could this aspect ever NOT be present? How could it not be present in an atheist, for that matter? "Hey, I'm a pretty great person for doing this moral act when I could have done otherwise."

If I am a strong believer, I may do things that by nature I don't want to do (or not do things that by nature I do want to do) simply because I believe that God has commanded them. But even here, I derive the satisfaction of knowing that "I'm such a strong believer that I'm acting contrary to my nature by placing God's commands above my own wants."

The question would be whether the taint of this self-serving aspect robs the act of all its moral value.

This may be what the Bible is suggesting when it says that even our best deeds are like "filthy rags" to God. It obviously isn't that they disgust him - in fact, I'm sure they please him - but that they are inevitably tainted by self-interest and fall far short of his standard of perfect holiness.

2PhiloVoid · Oct 16, 2019

AvisG said:
I discuss this to some extent in my response to public hermit immediately below your post. I think it is impossible to avoid the self-serving aspect - even if that aspect is "God is really going to be happy with me for doing THIS!" How could this aspect ever NOT be present? How could it not be present in an atheist, for that matter? "Hey, I'm a pretty great person for doing this moral act when I could have done otherwise."

If I am a strong believer, I may do things that by nature I don't want to do (or not do things that by nature I do want to do) simply because I believe that God has commanded them. But even here, I derive the satisfaction of knowing that "I'm such a strong believer that I'm acting contrary to my nature by placing God's commands above my own wants."

The question would be whether the taint of this self-serving aspect robs the act of all its moral value.

This may be what the Bible is suggesting when it says that even our best deeds are like "filthy rags" to God. It obviously isn't that they disgust him - in fact, I'm sure they please him - but that they are inevitably tainted by self-interest and fall far short of his standard of perfect holiness.

Gee Whiz! With the way everyone talks around here by asking , "But, is it 'self-serving'?"..........I should feel guilty every time I bring up a spoon full of Fruity Pebbles to my anxiously waiting mouth. :dontcare:

It also seems to me that this kind of talk just seems to make an ambiguous term like "self-serving" into a full-bodied equivocation with other, less vague terms like "Selfish" and "Self-centered" and "Self-absorbed." Let's maybe leave the possibility that at least one 'self' term is actually expressing a more functional and practical use in our language.

Frankly, I'm kind of tired of hearing "self-serve" being used in a pejorative way and it is this kind of analytic reification that Pascal seems to at least partially address in setting out the healthy mindedness of wanting to find an antidote to death.

renniks · Oct 16, 2019

jayem said:
It would work as well if one sincerely followed the teachings and principles of the Buddha, or Socrates, or the Humanist Manifestos I, II, and III. (And maybe better in some ways.) Christianity has no exclusive claim to righteousness.

Which kind of makes the point, that people have instilled, god-given consciences.

AvisG · Oct 16, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
Gee Whiz! With the way everyone talks around here by asking , "But, is it 'self-serving'?"..........I should feel guilty every time I bring up a spoon full of Fruity Pebbles to my anxiously waiting mouth.

It also seems to me that this kind of talk just seems to make an ambiguous term like "self-serving" into a full-bodied equivocation with other, less vague terms like "Selfish" and "Self-centered" and "Self-absorbed." Let's maybe leave the possibility that at least one 'self' term is actually expressing a more functional and practical use in our language.

Frankly, I'm kind of tired of hearing "self-serve" being used in a pejorative way and it is this kind of analytic reification that Pascal seems to at least partially address in setting out the healthy mindedness of wanting to find an antidote to death.

Right, you can make yourself almost insane by worrying about this sort of thing. I have occasionally enjoyed using it as a thought exercise ("What, if anything, could I do that would be purely virtuous?"), but it doesn't really concern me. The fact that an act is pretty obviously virtuous or moral should not be tainted by my knowing that it is virtuous or moral and being pleased by this knowledge. Certainly there are plenty of virtuous and moral acts that are motivated primarily by the individual's higher instincts or desire to do God's will. What I do find off-putting is the pretty obvious false humility that characterizes many good deed doers.

Be careful with those Fruity Pebbles, however. There is good reason for the old saying that the path to Hell is paved with Fruity Pebbles.

renniks · Oct 16, 2019

gaara4158 said:
But why would you personally want to praise or glorify the ruler and creator of everything, even if he is worthy of it? Praise is not compulsory, so why would you want to do it rather than not?

Because only a fool wouldn't praise the one who created him and all mankind and gave them everything. Would you praise an artist for beautiful painting? This is like that only magnified infinitely.

AvisG · Oct 16, 2019

renniks said:
Which kind of makes the point, that people have instilled, god-given consciences.

See what you did there? People do have consciences, but even most Buddhists would disagree that they are God-given. I don't disagree with you, but many people with highly developed moral sensibilities would. "Common secular or scientific views regard the capacity for conscience as probably genetically determined, with its subject probably learned or imprinted as part of a culture." Conscience - Wikipedia

quatona · Oct 16, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
I hear you, quatona, but......what might be helpful in this instance is for you to do something which I see some of my detractors here are apparently at great pains to do: quote something specific.So, my thoughtful friend, please provide the specific quote from me that you find to be questionable. (And I do sincerely mean to refer to you as a "thoughtful friend" since even though you and I have disagreed on some things in the past, you're one of the few non-believers here on CF who seems to genuinely take a generally balanced interest in various issues).

Yes, we always had good and thoughtful conversations, and I would like to keep it that way.

It seems to me like you are sorting things out with garaa quite fine. I think I understand how you didn´t mean to call unbelievers "sociopaths".
Anyway, I , an unbeliever, "care for reasons that are typical for human beings with normal range emotions and psychologies (i.e. non-sociopathic)", and these reasons have absolutely nothing to do with life after death, Gods in general or Jesus in particular.

gaara4158 · Oct 16, 2019

AvisG said:
I discuss this to some extent in my response to public hermit immediately below your post. I think it is impossible to avoid the self-serving aspect - even if that aspect is "God is really going to be happy with me for doing THIS!" How could this aspect ever NOT be present? How could it not be present in an atheist, for that matter? "Hey, I'm a pretty great person for doing this moral act when I could have done otherwise."

If I am a strong believer, I may do things that by nature I don't want to do (or not do things that by nature I do want to do) simply because I believe that God has commanded them. But even here, I derive the satisfaction of knowing that "I'm such a strong believer that I'm acting contrary to my nature by placing God's commands above my own wants."

The question would be whether the taint of this self-serving aspect robs the act of all its moral value.

This may be what the Bible is suggesting when it says that even our best deeds are like "filthy rags" to God. It obviously isn't that they disgust him - in fact, I'm sure they please him - but that they are inevitably tainted by self-interest and fall far short of his standard of perfect holiness.

Oh, I agree with you that we can’t really strip the psychology of motivation of its self-serving aspect. The point of this tangent was to show how renniks’s criticism of evolutionary explanations for the development of morality as “self-serving” falls flat, since his is the same way.

You bring up a more interesting question, though, when you ask whether this robs moral acts of all moral value. There are users here who would say that it does, and further that that’s reason enough to reconsider the notion that all motivations are self-serving. Personally I don’t think so. Intent plays a role in how morally commendable an individual is for committing a moral act, but doing something moral is always good no matter how selfish the motivation.

renniks · Oct 16, 2019

AvisG said:
See what you did there? People do have consciences, but even most Buddhists would disagree that they are God-given. I don't disagree with you, but many people with highly developed moral sensibilities would. "Common secular or scientific views regard the capacity for conscience as probably genetically determined, with its subject probably learned or imprinted as part of a culture." Conscience - Wikipedia

Well, they are entitled to thier illogical opinion.

gaara4158 · Oct 16, 2019

renniks said:
Because only a fool wouldn't praise the one who created him and all mankind and gave them everything. Would you praise an artist for beautiful painting? This is like that only magnified infinitely.

What is foolish about not praising one’s creator?

Do atheists "steal from God" when they make moral claims?

Get my point, Shelob??

Gen Alpha Dad

Gen Alpha Dad

Get my point, Shelob??

Active Member

social troglodyte

Active Member

Gen Alpha Dad

Active Member

Naturalist

Active Member

Get my point, Shelob??

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

"God"? What do you mean??

Gen Alpha Dad

Well-Known Member

Gen Alpha Dad

Similar threads