Atheists Overreach ... Why do they do that?

[Tone]

Well the answer is pretty simple....you can't.

What is the basis of your morality?

 

[gaara4158]

The problem is that theists will invariably define morality as something that’s derived from God, which they define as something fundamental to reality itself. So of course you can’t support morality the way a theist defines it on an atheistic worldview. You have to define it according to specific principles, and theists will fight you every step of the way. Theists and atheists could agree on an intersubjective framework, and that’s plenty, but theists won’t find it as satisfying as their own framework.

 

[Ana the Ist]

What is the basis of your morality?

Depends entirely upon circumstances.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Look up Yuval Noah Harari and watch his history of the world some

Some Christian apologists make atheists or secularists sound intentionally dire, when that isn't necessarily the point at all.

Ok. I know you and I have talked about Harari in the past in relation to technological 'futures studies,' but I think he tucked in some of his 'history of the world' into that. But, I'll recheck it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Lol metaphysical?

Yes. Metaphysical. Since my comment was addressed to @LaBèlla, and since she is a fellow Christian, my statement was generally cogent, even if not specifically delineated.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes. Metaphysical. Since my comment was addressed to @LaBèlla, and since she is a fellow Christian, my statement was generally cogent, even if not specifically delineated.

I understand who you were addressing....I just wondered if you could expound upon that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I understand who you were addressing....I just wondered if you could expound upon that.

Sure. It's just a simple fact that an atheist, situated as he is in his cognitive stance with the world, doesn't tend to value metaphysical ideas, especially the notion of God--or in this case, the divinity of Jesus---and so, out of the possible influences that could come to bear upon his moral deliberations, the commands of God and/or Jesus won't be included or valued.

My statement about the possible influence from metaphysics wasn't to assert that it indeed exists and that an atheist would be negligent if he ignores it. I'm simply saying that from a Christian standpoint, I recognize that an atheist isn't beholden to divinely given morality and therefore won't likely be influenced by it.

That's it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The problem is that theists will invariably define morality as something that’s derived from God, which they define as something fundamental to reality itself. So of course you can’t support morality the way a theist defines it on an atheistic worldview. You have to define it according to specific principles, and theists will fight you every step of the way. Theists and atheists could agree on an intersubjective framework, and that’s plenty, but theists won’t find it as satisfying as their own framework.

In your response above, were you addressing the OP or some other chap here on the forum instead? (Sorry, I thought I'd ask since it wasn't clear if you were directing to me or not.)

 

[gaara4158]

In your response above, were you addressing the OP or some other chap here on the forum instead? (Sorry, I thought I'd ask since it wasn't clear if you were directing to me or not.)

It’s to the OP, but really it comes as a response to what I see many of the theists echoing here: theists have an easier time drawing a direct line from theism to an objective moral framework than atheists can do with atheism. My response is that this is just a matter of course, since their idea of morality comes from a bag of things their worldview already defines as something fundamental to the universe. I don’t find this remarkable.

 

[Skreeper]

What is the basis of your morality?

Here's my answer: The basis for my morality is my own opinion. It's the same for why I enjoy certain food or like certain music. Morality for me is just like that.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It’s to the OP, but really it comes as a response to what I see many of the theists echoing here: theists have an easier time drawing a direct line from theism to an objective moral framework than atheists can do with atheism. My response is that this is just a matter of course, since their idea of morality comes from a bag of things their worldview already defines as something fundamental to the universe. I don’t find this remarkable.

Well then, this reaffirms what Smith says, but it would also reaffirm what I've said more than a few times over the past few years here on CF to various individuals that atheists kind of need to stop claiming they've got "morality" when in fact--because its unremarkable to recognize this--that they are admitting to either having a different conception of morality or, when they go so far as to assert that they 'too' are moral, they then do so with what looks like an equivocation. Because, as I've just said, the moral ideals between Christians and atheists are very often NOT the same, so atheist need to stop claiming that they're moral in some way that is fully recognizable by Christians. In sum: when an atheist talks about being moral and a Christian talks about being moral, they're NOT talking about the same thing, necessarily.

The upshot in this, with Smith's comments in tow, is that atheists can't produce a consistent nor universal framework that in any way could (or across the board would) make the world, on the whole, a better place. To entertain the thought that atheists can offer this is a bit delusional, particularly if Smith it correct and most of them have little justification (if any good, solid justification beyond individual ideas on Consequentialism) to support one of the assorted views on Universal Human Rights.

So, for atheists, it's more or less a moral crapshoot and this epistemic state of their moral situations, being as individualistic as they are, doesn't give the rest of us something to feel good about or to ethically depend upon.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'll put it this way Philo....

I know you don't think I watched the video...but I did. I don't understand what the point of this thread is based on the first 10-15 minutes of the video. I don't remember exactly where I tapped out, I think it was around the 12 minute mark, but here's what I got from it....

A handful of Kuddos to you, then, for trudging through the first few minutes of the video ...

You have an atheist host, a Christian guest, and it's more or less an interview about a book the Christian wrote. As far as the Christian goes....he basically says...

"Sometimes I come across an atheist who makes moral arguments like..."

Everyone deserves the same universal human rights.

"...and I disagree that someone can rationalize that belief as an atheist."

They go into some more detail explaining that....but there's no real argument there. I understand that the atheist he's referring to believes in some version of humanism...but I don't know enough about that particular atheist's view of humanism to really comment on it. I certainly can't trust this Christian who disagrees with him to accurately convey the argument of an atheist who isn't even a part of the conversation.

Well, you can trust that Shermer, as the atheist that he is, will explain his own point of view in the video as he chats with Christian Smith.

So what exactly are we supposed to discuss? The overreach of humanism in regards to universal human rights? What is the topic?

The topic is the overreach of those atheists (which means not all) who purport to be able to justify their support of superlative kinds of moral or ethical frameworks, even the support of Universal Human Rights, such as it is, and other unfortunately ethereally justified moral ideals.

In reviewing the entirety of the OP video, it looks like at least some of the overreach that Smith considers pertains to those atheists who think science disproves the existence of God. Granted, not all atheists think science disproves the theistic position, but some do and, hence, also express another form of Smith's cited "Overreach."

 

[gaara4158]

Well then, this reaffirms what Smith says, but it would also reaffirm what I've said more than a few times over the past few years here on CF to various individuals that atheists kind of need to stop claiming they've got "morality" when in fact--because its unremarkable to recognize this--that they are admitting to either having a different conception of morality or, when they go so far as to assert that they 'too' are moral, they then do so with what looks like an equivocation. Because, as I've just said, the moral ideals between Christians and atheists are very often NOT the same, so atheist need to stop claiming that they're moral in some way that is fully recognizable by Christians. In sum: when an atheist talks about be moral and a Christian talks about being moral, they're NOT talking about the same thing, necessarily.

Well, yes and no. Atheists and theists will generally agree with T.M. Scanlon (yeah, here comes a The Good Place reference) that morality is humanity's attempt to answer the question "what do we owe each other?" We find that there is a great deal of overlap between what kinds of actions both atheists and theists agree are either moral or immoral. Where they will differ is in how they justify their answers at the very fundamental level. Because they disagree on where morality comes from, it is inevitable (and again, unremarkable) that either side will find the other's justification lacking somewhere down the line of continued why's. Moral differences between atheists and theists don't have to stem from moral ontology, though. It's entirely possible to make simple comparisons of two people's adherence to mutually-accepted maxims without them having to align perfectly in all other aspects of their moral framework. For example, can an atheist not say to a Christian "I think I'm more moral than you because I am a little kinder to everyone around me than you are?" This is the only kind of comparison I see atheists making when they call themselves more moral than Christians.

There are some atheists who will argue that Christians are actually more moral even than their God, which simply won't compute from a theistic framework, but when taken as the sort of comparison I just described, you start to see where they're coming from.

The upshot in this, with Smith's comments in tow, is that atheists can't produce a consistent nor universal framework that in anyay could (or across the board would) make the world, on the whole, a better place. To entertain the thought that atheists can offer this is a bit delusional, particularly if Smith it correct and most of them have little justification (if any good, solid justification beyond individual ideas on Consequentialism) to support one of the assorted view on Universal Human Rights.

I don't think anyone can do that. But that's no reason not to do our best.

So, for atheists, it's more or less a moral crapshoot and this epistemic state of their moral situations, being as individualistic as they are, doesn't give the rest of us something to feel good about or to ethically depend upon.

As I mentioned before, obviously theists and atheists are going to find each other's moral ontology and epistemology worrisome and baseless. Atheism is a tough pill to swallow for those who are accustomed to a worldview that hands you all the answers in a neat package with a promise that it'll all make sense one day, or that there's at least one mind out there who "gets it" so we don't have to. But it's equally troubling as an atheist to find theists so cocksure in their moral declarations when, even though they trace those declarations directly to what they consider the lynchpin of reality, they cannot justify this worldview to the atheist. It's the same as someone who dogmatically believes "all cats must die, thus saith the Living Universe" criticizing an atheist because he can't justify his affection for cats directly from the lack of an authoritative living universe. The atheist would be less worried about his moral epistemology and more worried about the welfare of his cat around this person.

 

[zippy2006]

But it's equally troubling as an atheist to find theists so cocksure in their moral declarations when, even though they trace those declarations directly to what they consider the lynchpin of reality, they cannot justify this worldview to the atheist.

I don't think the OP is about epistemology or justification, or even direct entailment, though these are all related to the issue. It seems to me that the thesis of the OP is that atheism cannot logically support particularly lofty moral prescriptions (...and religious systems generally can). The axioms of atheism place a limit on theoretical morality. It is the quality of the moral system that is at stake here.

 

[gaara4158]

I don't think the OP is about epistemology or justification, or even direct entailment, though these are all related to the issue. It seems to me that the thesis of the OP is that atheism cannot logically support particularly lofty moral prescriptions (...and religious systems generally can). The axioms of atheism place a limit on theoretical morality. It is the quality of the moral system that is at stake here.

What exactly is the measure of the quality of a moral system? It seems to me that if you can recognize a moral prescription to be lofty, you can logically support it within the moral framework you’re using.

 

[zippy2006]

What exactly is the measure of the quality of a moral system?

Exacting, sublime, high, demanding, strong, ...lofty. "Love your enemies" is a loftier prescription than "love your friends." I am not positing the qualitative difference as a value judgment, though that does enter into it at some point.

It seems to me that if you can recognize a moral prescription to be lofty, you can logically support it within the moral framework you’re using.

How so? Loftiness is not a function of the axioms of one's moral system. Of course there is relative loftiness, but that's not what's being talked about. Many atheists probably recognize that a willingness to give one's life for one's friend is a lofty moral act. That doesn't mean that the act is logically supportable within the atheistic framework. There may also be lofty moral prescriptions that the atheist finds unrealistic, excessive, or psychologically harmful.

 

[gaara4158]

Exacting, sublime, high, demanding, strong, ...lofty. "Love your enemies" is a loftier prescription than "love your friends." I am not positing the qualitative difference as a value judgment, though that does enter into it at some point.



How so? Loftiness is not a function of the axioms of one's moral system. Of course there is relative loftiness, but that's not what's being talked about. Many atheists probably recognize that a willingness to give one's life for one's friend is a lofty moral act. That doesn't mean that the act is logically supportable within the atheistic framework. There may also be lofty moral prescriptions that the atheist finds unrealistic, excessive, or psychologically harmful.

I’m surprised you’re taking such a strong stance against an atheist being able to support lofty moral goals, then, since you seem to have a pretty sophisticated background in philosophy. Surely you’re aware there are very simple, logically consistent ways an atheist can support a decision to sacrifice himself for others? The simplest example being that he would rather die a meaningful death than live a little longer with the consequences of saving himself?

 

[keith99]

Which man is more moral? The one with lofty standards yet who fails to keep who fails to even keep the less lofty ones or the man with less lofty standards who keeps them?

 

[Ana the Ist]

A handful of Kuddos to you, then, for trudging through the first few minutes of the video ...

Ok.

Well, you can trust that Shermer, as the atheist that he is, will explain his own point of view in the video as he chats with Christian Smith.

Ok.

The topic is the overreach of those atheists (which means not all) who purport to be able to justify their support of superlative kinds of moral or ethical frameworks, even the support of Universal Human Rights, such as it is, and other unfortunately ethereally justified moral ideals.

Perhaps you should find one and talk to them about it. Perhaps they can justify it.

In reviewing the entirety of the OP video, it looks like at least some of the overreach that Smith considers pertains to those atheists who think science disproves the existence of God. Granted, not all atheists think science disproves the theistic position, but some do and, hence, also express another form of Smith's cited "Overreach."

See advice above.

 

[Tone]

Depends entirely upon circumstances.

Here's my answer: The basis for my morality is my own opinion. It's the same for why I enjoy certain food or like certain music. Morality for me is just like that.

So, I'm basically hearing something like, "We take it as it comes.", is this correct?