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

renniks · Oct 17, 2019

Jonathan Walkerin said:
That is just silly. Like saying that believing God gives you strentgh and helps you to go on so belief is selfishness.

Your logic fails.

You were the one who said morality was all about survival. It's a problem with the whole atheistic view of morality, if you really look into it it isn't morality at all, it's just "what is best for me."

Freodin · Oct 17, 2019

renniks said:
You were the one who said morality was all about survival. It's a problem with the whole atheistic view of morality, if you really look into it it isn't morality at all, it's just "what is best for me."

So what is morality, if it is not "what is best for me"?

renniks · Oct 17, 2019

Freodin said:
So what is morality, if it is not "what is best for me"?

mo·ral·i·ty
/məˈralədē/

noun

principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.

Opposite:
immorality
- a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
  plural noun: moralities
  "a bourgeois morality"
- the extent to which an action is right or wrong.

Freodin · Oct 17, 2019

The second definition has at least some descriptive value. "Principles of conduct" makes no evaluatory statement in itself.

But the first definition just moves the question one step back. So what is "right" and "wrong"?
If "right", for example, would be "what is best for me"... then "morality" would be exactly what you denied it is.

2PhiloVoid · Oct 17, 2019

Freodin said:
So what is morality, if it is not "what is best for me"?

The term itself is a "wax-nose," one that is shaped in its denotation and connotations depending on which ethical system of thought it is found.

Freodin · Oct 17, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
The term itself is a "wax-nose," one that is shaped in its denotation and connotations depending on which ethical system of thought it is found.

Where as "ethics" is, simply put, the field of philosophy trying to deal with the concepts of "right" and "wrong".

So "morality" is that what "ethics" tries to establish, while "ethics" is the field that deals with questions of "morality".

And then we add the terms "right" and "wrong" and "good" and "evil" to the mix, spice it up with a dose of "values"... and then have a nice bowl of ideas to disagree on.

Yes, fundamentally I agree with you. And I think you used a very valuable concept here, that renniks might want to consider: "ethical system".

"What is best for me" does not constitute a "system".

grasping the after wind · Oct 17, 2019

Moral Orel said:
Ya know what's fitter than the roughest, toughest, meanest feller in the whole county? A hunerd modestly fit folk all working together. That's the basis of all morality.

A mob beating up on an individual is the basis of morality?

2PhiloVoid · Oct 17, 2019

Freodin said:
Where as "ethics" is, simply put, the field of philosophy trying to deal with the concepts of "right" and "wrong".

So "morality" is that what "ethics" tries to establish, while "ethics" is the field that deals with questions of "morality".

And then we add the terms "right" and "wrong" and "good" and "evil" to the mix, spice it up with a dose of "values"... and then have a nice bowl of ideas to disagree on.

Yes, fundamentally I agree with you. And I think you used a very valuable concept here, that renniks might want to consider: "ethical system".

"What is best for me" does not constitute a "system".

Sure. I think you make some good points here, and between us both @renniks my want to synthesize a few points into his existing understanding in regard to this whole mess we all wrangle with as human beings who share a planet together.

However, even as sensible of an individual as I've known you to be, I'll say that while I agree with you that "what is best for me" does not constitute a "system," neither does just any ethical system imply that it all boils down to "what is best for ME," hedonism not withstanding. And I would think that it is indeed a sociopath who would even attempt to boil ethics down to merely being a personal existential appraisal of his own that equates firmly and snugly with "what is best for me."

Moral Orel · Oct 17, 2019

grasping the after wind said:
A mob beating up on an individual is the basis of morality?

No. I'm not going to deny that isn't part of the outcome a lot of the time. But what I said was that "working together" is the basis of all morality.

2PhiloVoid · Oct 17, 2019

Lobster Johnson said:
Funnily enough, I never interpreted 2PhiloVoid's post as implying non-believers were sociopaths.

Thanks for the 'vote' of confidence, LJ.

I'm glad to hear someone didn't utterly misunderstand my point.

I also want to echo his post here, in that I don't think the notion of self-serving is automatically a bad thing. Or that it 'taints' the moral action we take if that action also serves to promote our own interests or well-being in some way.

Yep, but then we'll have to look at the additional question of "At what point on the moral spectrum can any one of us say that when we're doing something self-serving, we are truly doing so in a moral manner conducive to ourselves and to our fellow neighbor?" If anything, my point about "self-serve" is presented to show that at the least, this term is ambiguous and can have either a positive or a negatively charged meaning implied to it.

The notion that morality originated as an emergent property of group species in the cauldron of natural selection trying to find the best way to survive and thrive is not some awful prospect to me, it's pretty inspiring really.

Sure. We can all give Frans De Waal a good reading and then ponder his findings, can't we? I think the Christian point would be, "Alright, but do we want to simply read De Waal and stop there?" The Christian, or at least the Evolutionary Theistic kind (such as I) can take De Waal, or Sagan or whoever, run with them some distance and STILL be left with questions regarding the overall nature and teleology of Ethics and Morality.

Anyway, thanks for your substantive comments!

Freodin · Oct 17, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
Sure. I think you make some good points here, and between us both @renniks my want to synthesize a few points into his existing understanding in regard to this whole mess we all wrangle with as human beings who share a planet together.

However, even as sensible of an individual as I've known you to be, I'll say that while I agree with you that "what is best for me" does not constitute a "system," neither does just any ethical system imply that it all boils down to "what is best for ME," hedonism not withstanding. And I would think that it is indeed a sociopath who would even attempt to boil ethics down to merely being a personal existential appraisal of his own that equates firmly and snugly with "what is best for me."

I can only agree partially with the last sentence. The problem - as with most of the "morality" question - is the "best".
If someone was to decide or conclude that "the best for me" is being kind to others and ensuring their well-being, most would be reluctant to call such a person a "sociopath".

So the deciding factor for the "sociopathy" might be better stated as a "disregard for others".

Halbhh · Oct 17, 2019

AvisG said:
One of the favorite arguments of Christian apologists such as Dr. Frank Turek ("I Don't Have Enough Faith to be An Atheist") is that atheists are "stealing from God" because they have no objective standard (such as God's decrees) for declaring that something is moral or immoral. 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.

An atheist is going to say that the existence of God is merely believers' "personal opinion." What we believe to be His decrees are figments of our imagination. We're committing the logical fallacy of appealing to authority (in this case, an authority the atheist doesn't believe even exists) to give our moral beliefs an aura of objectivity they really don't have.

Morality does seem to have varied widely throughout history and across cultures. The Aztecs (and many other cultures) thought child sacrifice was not only moral but was the very way to please their gods. What could a Christian believer say to an Aztec except "I don't believe your gods exist and thus your understanding of what they want is just a figment of your imagination" - the very thing an atheist would say to the Christian!

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. On some issues, such as homosexuality, there is today no clear "consensus opinion of a large majority of people" and thus no basis to assert that either position is moral or immoral. A believer can assert that homosexuality is immoral, but this is according to a standard (the Bible) that the atheist and many believers in other religions simply don't recognize as authoritative.

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." It may mean that what is moral or immoral is somewhat flexible and may vary from time to time and culture to culture - but this is pretty much the way that history shows morality often fluctuates.

With extreme conduct like rape and murder that no society of which I am aware has considered to be moral, a believer is going to say that an awareness of the immorality of these things has been placed in the hearts of all humans by God. An atheist is going to say no, a revulsion toward these things has been hard-wired into us by evolution because they are contrary to the survival of the species and the harmonious relationships that foster survival. "Placed in the heart by God" is the Christian's objective standard. "Hard-wired by evolution so there will never be a consensus opinion to the contrary" is the atheist's.

It would be - and is - comforting to think that morality is forever fixed by God's decrees. But there is nothing in logic or experience that requires morality to be forever fixed. It doesn't seem to me to be fair or logical to assert that atheists are "stealing from God" when they make moral claims. They are simply using a different standard with which we happen to disagree. Both "God's decrees" and "the consensus opinion of a large majority of people within the culture" are external to the individual, so it cannot be said in the latter case that moral claims are mere personal opinions.

Turek is a glib apologist who makes his living touring college campuses. I listen to him (and similar apologists) regularly, but I often have the nagging feeling "there is something fundamentally wrong with that argument." 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. (Nothing wrong with keeping believers from defecting, of course.)

Any thoughts are welcome.

Fortunately we don't rely on apologists at all if we want to have a good outcome tho.

One thing I like to remind us of, especially in other contexts: we don't follow men, not apologists, not preachers, not bishops, not even 'saints' like Paul (Paul said helpfully: 'One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, “I follow Cephas [Peter]”; still another, “I follow Christ.” Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?' (1 Cor 1)).

So, the best any apologist could ever do (if they do at all) is have accurate paraphrasing of Christ, and accurate (if they do) conveying of what He said.

Obviously this isn't necessarily the rule. But we don't rely on men for our guidance, if we are going the way that leads to Life.

2PhiloVoid · Oct 17, 2019

Freodin said:
I can only agree partially with the last sentence. The problem - as with most of the "morality" question - is the "best".
If someone was to decide or conclude that "the best for me" is being kind to others and ensuring their well-being, most would be reluctant to call such a person a "sociopath".

So the deciding factor for the "sociopathy" might be better states as a "disregard for others".

Right. I can agree with this, but my point is, in conjunction with what others here have already pointed out, and in conjunction with my "wax-nose" analogy, there can be times in the overall praxis of one's ethical system that what is equated even with some form of "doing good on behalf of others," this notion can still be too simplistic and must be scrutinized much more deeply. Otherwise, we can just say, "Hey, those Muslims who brought about 9/11, well............don't blame them because they were just acting on what they thought were the best interests of not only themselves, but also for their own community."

It will also help for us to deliberate what a "disregard for others" happens to really be, and what it amounts to as a moral concept within each independent Ethical system. For instance, when we are all flying on an airplane in the U.S., the stewardesses who demonstrate the placement of Oxygen masks upon our faces in case an actual emergency takes place mid-flight also typically make it clear that we adults should place our oxygen masks ON FIRST, even as "self-serving" as it may sound, before we attempt to place an oxygen mask on another passenger, even if that passenger is our own beloved child.

And why do they say this?

Moral Orel · Oct 17, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
Yeah, I understand that. As I mentioned to another poster here earlier, I'm referencing Martha Stout, here, so it's not like I'm completely coming out of La-La Land.

You are completely coming out of La-La-Land. A kid who doesn't work hard in school because he just isn't concerned about his future career choices, even though he should be, can still be the kindest fellow you'll ever meet. The two things aren't intermingled.

2PhiloVoid said:
BINGO! So, since there is an etymological complication in all of this, it kind of seems like you're "begging the question" on some of this, at least to some moderate extent. Moreover, I don't think you've honestly engaged what Pascal has said in writing #194--in total--so I don't think you're in any place to evaluate just how well I have or have not parsed the meaning of his writing in my application.

Whatever the actual "mind scoop" of various atheists is when they approach Ethics and Morality, on my part, I'm going with some approximation of Pascal's estimation about them, an estimation that I'm not really seeing being engaged ANYWHERE here on CF, and personally, with all of the ongoing cat-calling that goes on against Pascal's Wager, I've grown just a tinsy-winsy sick of it. So, you atheists kind of need to either put up or shut up. I'm not sure how anyone (like Pascal) can take some of you guys very seriously when you won't even engage the materials and sources that are pointed out to you by which we Christians defend our faith.

So, if you don't like what Pascal said, then engage it, analyze it, and fully refute it.

Don't give me the "You guys won't engage!" line. You just dropped our last conversation and (supposedly) put me on your informal ignore list.

2PhiloVoid said:
Ok. Let's say I've misinterpreted Pascal. What hermeneutical corrections SHOULD I make in my reading of writing #194, especially in light of the fact that if he is correct, THEN his argument at least partially impinges upon the said claim that "atheists are moral" by all counts?

I'm willing to hash all of this out with you; it's not like you're on some 'Ignore' List anyway. So, get to work!

For starters, it doesn't really matter if you're interpreting Pascal correct or not. You're the one who wants to use the term. So either you're interpreting him correctly and you're both wrong, or you're interpreting him incorrectly and it's just you that's wrong. Either way, I'm only concerned with the fact that you're wrong to use the term. I couldn't care less if Pascal agrees with you or not.

And no, you're not willing to hash anything out with me. You've dropped all of our conversations half-way through once you've become frustrated. So you should understand based on your track record that I'm not going to bother starting another in-depth conversation with you until you can demonstrate that you're willing to follow through on one of the many others you've already started and quit.

Admittedly, I dropped one here in the E&M section a long time ago because I couldn't argue about the Bible's stance on premarital sex based on the rules of the forum, which crippled my ability to make an argument. You played into that weakness, and I had to quit. That's not a dig on you either, it was a sound debate tactic.

2PhiloVoid said:
P.S. ....and on a personal level, if you've found me to be offensive in some egregious way, that I've somehow personally "dashed" you, please feel free to bring that up with me and we can discuss that, too.

Hmmm... Two things here. I've owned my own sociopathic tendencies. I don't take offense to being called a sociopath, in a lot of ways it's quite an apt description. As I've said, you are simply factually wrong in using the term.

Second, why do you keep using the word "dashed" like that? Is it a reference to my signature? Because the context of my signature is that being "dashed" is a good thing: being quoted for posterity.

2PhiloVoid said:
P.S. II ... and keep in mind that I have actually enjoyed talking to you over the years, so however much you take offense at the things I've said, just know that I don't really harbor ill-will toward you. I actually do "care," but the reality of Christianity, such as it is, means something, and if there is one thing it means on the moral plane is that while we can attempt to be friends, maybe even learn from each other, this by no means that I have to descend to being merely 'nice' all of the time, taking 5 steps back AND pandering to Atheistic intuitions about morality in order to "be a good little Christian."

Hmmm... Some of the actual signs of sociopathy are remorselessness and a lack of empathy for others.

2PhiloVoid · Oct 17, 2019

Moral Orel said:
Second, why do you keep using the word "dashed" like that? Is it a reference to my signature? Because the context of my signature is that being "dashed" is a good thing: being quoted for posterity.

Before I attempt to address the highlights of your post above, I'd like to ask you: Did you, by chance, happen to see the last comment I made to you over in the Christian Apologetics section, i.e. the one that was an attempt at humor in regard to your favorite comedian?

Freodin · Oct 17, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
Right. I can agree with this, but my point is, in conjunction with what others here have already pointed out, and in conjunction with my "wax-nose" analogy, there can be times in the overall praxis of one's ethical system that what is equated even with some form of "doing good on behalf of others," this notion can still be too simplistic and must be scrutinized much more deeply. Otherwise, we can just say, "Hey, those Muslims who brought about 9/11, well............don't blame them because they were just acting on what they thought were the best interests of not only themselves, but also for their own community."

Hey, if that was a simple topic, we wouldn't have all these debates after several millennia of philosophy.
But again, I cannot completely agree with your 9/11 example.
I don't know if you want to go into this line, but that sound suspiciously like the common theistic objection towards "moral relativism": "If you don't have an objective absolute moral system, how can you say another's action is morally wrong?"

But as you pointed out correctly earlier, such a statement has necessarily to be evaluatated within the ethical system it is based on.
And if these two systems are not equal or compatible... it is very well possible to make a statement of "wrongness" from within one ethical system about an action that would be considered "right" in a different ethical system.

It will also help for us to deliberate what a "disregard for others" happens to really be, and what it amounts to as a moral concept within each independent Ethical system. For instance, when we are all flying on an airplane in the U.S., the stewardesses who demonstrate the placement of Oxygen masks upon our faces in case an actual emergency takes place mid-flight also typically make it clear that we adults should place our oxygen masks ON FIRST, even as "self-serving" as it may sound, before we attempt to place an oxygen mask on another passenger, even if that passenger is our own beloved child.

And why do they say this?

Hm... I have no idea. I would assume that it is because deprivation of oxygen very quickly leads to deterioration of motoric skills, but that can also be quite reliably corrected with a quick renewed supply of oxygen. So while an adult with a mask is still able to put a mask on a child, it is much more difficult in turn for a child to put a mask on an adult.

But such a behaviour would only "sound" or "seem" as "self-serving", while in reality it really is "what is best"... both for me as well as for others.

renniks · Oct 17, 2019

Freodin said:
The second definition has at least some descriptive value. "Principles of conduct" makes no evaluatory statement in itself.

But the first definition just moves the question one step back. So what is "right" and "wrong"?
If "right", for example, would be "what is best for me"... then "morality" would be exactly what you denied it is.

Objective right and wrong can not be just what is best for me. That's not morality. You are right back to the biggest and meanest person being able to say what is right for all and what is wrong with that mindset.
Real morality is actually just the opposite, what is best for everyone else? As the Bible says, 32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back.

Freodin · Oct 17, 2019

renniks said:
Objective right and wrong can not be just what is best for me. That's not morality. You are right back to the biggest and meanest person being able to say what is right for all and what is wrong with that mindset.
Real morality is actually just the opposite, what is best for everyone else?

Sorry, that cannot work. You might have gotten some hints in the other posts.
You assume that "the best" for someone is a kind of zero-sum-game. What is "best for me" must necessarily mean that it is "worse for someone else".

Ok. Let's say this is correct, for the sake of the argument. But that would mean that what you say is "real morality" means: "what is best for everybody else" is "worse for yourself". You don't get any gain from "being moral". The reasoning you used to reject the "what is best for me" morality prohibits that.

But no moral system is that simplistic, nor is there an absolute limit of "good" that can exist.

You claim that it would be the "biggest and meanest" person dictating morality for all. That has a massive problem I will get to later, but for now: why would that have to be the case? Could it not be the smartest and most caring person dictating morality for everyone? Just consider: this is basically what your theistic model of morality is claiming. This person is "God".

So even within a "what is best for me" system of morality, this doesn't have to mean robbing everyone who is not me... it could also mean ensuring that everyone gets "what is best for them". And that even might include (we know it does) sharing and cooperation.

You have only that idea of such a system as "me against the rest of the world". This is a very short-sighted view.

As the Bible says, 32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back.

And that leads us the the problem I have mentioned above. The system I have talked about above is not "perfect". It can work - it does work, we know it does - but it can also be sabotaged and manipulated.
But so can this system here. The system you call the "real morality". They system you say is meant to ensure "what is best for everyone else".
The problem: it doesn't. There is nothing in this system to prevent the "biggest and meanest person" to game it, exploit it... and get to the very system you reject. Even easier than a system build on cooperation.

Here is it, written in plain words: "lend to your enemies without expecting to get anything back." That is, in nice words, saying "Allow yourself to be robbed. If you don't do that, you are not better than a sinner... a sinner yourself. Immoral."

Try it. Right now, I need a few thousand dollars. Say, 8000. I am nicely asking to "lend" them to me. I, the immoral atheist, promise to pay you back. Pinky swear!

Let's see... you wouldn't send me money, right? You're not willing to follow this "real morality" of yours... because you know it would lead not to "what is best for everyone else", but "what is really bad for yourself".

Moral Orel · Oct 17, 2019

2PhiloVoid said:
Before I attempt to address the highlights of your post above, I'd like to ask you: Did you, by chance, happen to see the last comment I made to you over in the Christian Apologetics section, i.e. the one that was an attempt at humor in regard to your favorite comedian?

Yep. And just to note, Mitch Hedberg is amazing and all, but not my favorite. I think Anthony Jeselnik would be at the top of the list, but his stuff isn't going to be received very well here. Mitch Hedberg is my favorite clean comic, that's why you see me use his stuff on Christian Forums so much. Know your audience, and all that.

2PhiloVoid · Oct 17, 2019

Moral Orel said:
Yep. And just to note, Mitch Hedberg is amazing and all, but not my favorite. I think Anthony Jeselnik would be at the top of the list, but his stuff isn't going to be received very well here. Mitch Hedberg is my favorite clean comic, that's why you see me use his stuff on Christian Forums so much. Know your audience, and all that.

Ok. Well, I still think it was a very interesting coincidence that I happened upon just that portion of his comedy routine on the car radio which expresses the very thing you cite in your signature. The point being is that I actually heard it just a few hours after I told you and @cvanwey that I was curtailing our conversation opportunities; and it made me think, "OH GOD! Are you telling me I need to keep the door open?"

Anyway, my insidious insinuation is that I left the door open to you back there on that post ...... and even though the door felt like it was hitting me on the backside on the way out, I wanted to make sure it stayed open at least a crack for further discussion. It's not like I've placed you or @cvanwey on some black-list of mine. Even if I had one, I'm not sure I'd keep track of it very well for more than 24 hours.

Alright. I'll have to gingerly address the rest of your previous post sometime soon here.........

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

Well-Known Member

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Well-Known Member

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Downhill Prevention!

Devout believer in a theologically different God

That's grasping after the wind

Downhill Prevention!

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Downhill Prevention!

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Everything You say is Life to me

Downhill Prevention!

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Downhill Prevention!

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Well-Known Member

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Proud Citizen of Moralton

Downhill Prevention!

Similar threads