Atheists Overreach ... Why do they do that?

[Ed1wolf]

I don't think that unversally binding morality exists.

I think that one can hold to a sense of morality and philosophy that is well thought-out and reasoned and that can be logically defended and take that as a basis for his decisions and the defense of moral rights without involving any dieties.

But that's not part of atheism, and even theists can think of reasons why holding to certain morals is a good idea without resorting to a supernatural reason.

But only Christianity can provide rationally objective reasons and basis for morality. Atheism can not.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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

No....there's no we. Just I.

 

[Skreeper]

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

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'take it as it comes'

I'm just saying that every human has their own sense of right and wrong and that there isn't some absolute standard we can point to just like there isn't a absolute standard what type of music is the best or what flavor of ice cream is the best.

 

[Nithavela]

But only Christianity can provide rationally objective reasons and basis for morality. Atheism can not.

Only by ascribing objectivity to your religious text. If your religious text isn't true, you might as well take your morals from Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter and call those books the objective basis for your morality. And I know that YOU believe your religious text is true, but for someone that doesn't believe it, your opinion doesn't look objective at all.

And even if we assume that your religious texts are objective and true, the interpretation of said religious text is extremely subjective, or Christianity wouldn't have that many denominations.

Also, you have to show how an objective reason for morality is neccessary. I'd say that a morality that is based on subjective reasons or personal reasoning and logic, but results in beneficial behaviour is absolutely sufficient.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No....there's no we. Just I.

There's the problem. You see? If the social reality about morality, being the social concept it is, is that it nearly always either directly involves other people or indirectly impacts them, then morality and ethics are ideas rooted in "WE." There is no pure "I," unless you were able to conceive and birth yourself magically into this world all on your own power and care and, all along since that time, take care of your daily needs as well. I have a feeling, though, that you probably haven't done all of that on your own, just like the rest of us haven't.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'take it as it comes'

I'm just saying that every human has their own sense of right and wrong and that there isn't some absolute standard we can point to just like there isn't a absolute standard what type of music is the best or what flavor of ice cream is the best.

Their own "sense" of wrong and right? That phrasing doesn't really tell us much, and it skirts a whole lot of issues, especially socially embedded issues that are part and parcel of the ideological structures that make up various ethics and moral decisions.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

Zippy, the OP is not, as far as I'm concerned, mainly about epistemology, but since Smith's book seems to have a middle section where he addresses the issue of the relationship between science and religion, then I guess there is something epistemological that can be brought in here in this context (science/religion), as far as citing various examples of atheistic overreach is concerned.

It just seems from the video and the chat between Shermer and Smith that the focal point of their dialogue was moral and ethical in nature.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

First of all, I just have to say that even if I may disagree with your conclusions, I do appreciate your definite effort in applying your own analysis to the issues of the OP. (Thanks for do that, unlike how some others here try to just get by with a passing comment that amounts to something like, "It's really none of your business!"

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?"

Ha ha! That's a great reference, even if I don't now remember what episode Chidi brought that up ... I'll have to go back and re-watch. But yes, I think in a general way, Scanlon's comment is very applicable here.

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.

... it's been my experience that there isn't as much agreement here as we might suppose: not only are there citations of actual values that can be tallied up into comparative lists, but even if there are some similar values on the respective moral lists between an atheist and a theist (or more to the point, a Christian specifically), there no guarantee that those values will hold the same priority or the same ethical reasoning by which to put it into effect. And these differences in respective praxis can make quite the difference in the actual moral decisions and actions that are expressed in our various lives.

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.

Yes, I've run into some of them, and I'm typically shocked to hear it. I'm left thinking that the only Christians they know must go to Westboro Baptist, or some other similar place of religious chicanery.

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

Yes, I much agree with that, but both of us can, I'm sure, point to others who ** ahem ** aren't doing their best and feel no need to do so, yet still count themselves as "moral" and insist that the rest of us affirm that very thing on their behalf. And I'm not just implying that atheists are the only ones who can fail in this regard; we know many folks who claim to be Christian also don't know the right side of 'up' when it comes to talking about morality and ethics, and they don't want to be pushed to engage it either (...shame on them.)

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.

Yes, I'd be worried about my cat too, if I had one, if I were around someone like that as well. Of course, somewhere in the midst of all of this we have to remember that some folks do qualify as sociopathic, so our expectations about the extent to which we could work all of this out among ourselves will have some natural limitations.

Anyway, if the fact that some theists are "so cocksure" about their moral concepts, how do you think you might best address that issue with them? (Or, what would Chidi suggest? )

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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?

Excuse me, but this sounds more like a Buddhist Koan than it does a mere hypothetical question, keith. If we want to compare two individuals who seem to comport to the contrast that you're implying here, then maybe it would be better to do so with real people, whether they are still living or not: perhaps, for instance, we may want to compare the moral lives that were evident between similar figures like Heidegger and Dean Heinrich Gruber, or others for comparison. (I've picked these two individuals since they both were involved with the Nazis during WWII).

But sure. I can concede to you that both the issues of Hypocrisy and/or Moral Dereliction have a place in the discussion ... and your point is relevant.

 

[Skreeper]

Their own "sense" of wrong and right? That phrasing doesn't really tell us much, and it skirts a whole lot of issues, especially socially embedded issues that are part and parcel of the ideological structures that make up various ethics and moral decisions.

I'm just telling you what I think about it. Take it or leave it.

I'm not going to pull out some highly advanced moral theory. Usually people don't think in such complicated ways when talking about what they think is right or wrong.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm just telling you what I think about it. Take it or leave it.

That's fine. You may do so and I'm not going to bash you for it.

I'm not going to pull out some highly advanced moral theory. Usually people don't think in such complicated ways when talking about what they think is right or wrong.

Yes..............................I know. And that is part of the problem.

However, as far as my response to you is concerned, if you remember, you and I've already had a lengthy, even thoughtful discussion on this, like.....well over a year ago. So, I remember more or less your position on this stuff.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There's the problem. You see? If the social reality about morality, being the social concept it is, is that it nearly always either directly involves other people or indirectly impacts them, then morality and ethics are ideas rooted in "WE."

Morality describes behavior. I can't speak for the basis of someone else's morality...quite frankly, no one can.

There is no pure "I," unless you were able to conceive and birth yourself magically into this world all on your own power and care and, all along since that time, take care of your daily needs as well. I have a feeling, though, that you probably haven't done all of that on your own, just like the rest of us haven't.

That's nonsense. I'm responsible for what I do, what I believe, just like everyone else. The fact that I interact with people doesn't magically change that.

 

[gaara4158]

Ha ha! That's a great reference, even if I don't now remember what episode Chidi brought that up ... I'll have to go back and re-watch. But yes, I think in a general way, Scanlon's comment is very applicable here.

It’s a refrain that spans across multiple seasons. Season 3 just came to Netflix, so now’s the time to get caught up! It continues to be a fantastic crash course in moral philosophy.

... it's been my experience that there isn't as much agreement here as we might suppose: not only are there citations of actual values that can be tallied up into comparative lists, but even if there are some similar values on the respective moral lists between an atheist and a theist (or more to the point, a Christian specifically), there no guarantee that those values will hold the same priority or the same ethical reasoning by which to put it into effect. And these differences in respective praxis can make quite the difference in the actual moral decisions and actions that are expressed in our various lives.

A fair point. Setting aside actual praxis (I believe there are far too many confounding biological, social, and situational variables at play to chalk up any decision to moral principles alone), the differences between two people’s ultimate justification for the same moral maxim could cause significant differences in how that maxim is upheld. In such cases, either side would view the other’s priorities as less moral than their own.

In light of this observation, I have to think that the answer to the question your OP poses is “For the same reason Christians do.” We’re all judging each other through the standards we feel are the most strongly justifiable. It’s not an atheist or theist thing, it’s a people thing.

Yes, I've run into some of them, and I'm typically shocked to hear it. I'm left thinking that the only Christians they know must go to Westboro Baptist, or some other similar place of religious chicanery.

While it’s quite easy to see the hypocrisy of factions like the WBC, there are fairly plain, common interpretations of the Old Testament which make God appear capricious and tyrannical if we’re to judge him the way we judge everyone else (which an atheist has no reason not to do).

Yes, I much agree with that, but both of us can, I'm sure, point to others who ** ahem ** aren't doing their best and feel no need to do so, yet still count themselves as "moral" and insist that the rest of us affirm that very thing on their behalf. And I'm not just implying that atheists are the only ones who can fail in this regard; we know many folks who claim to be Christian also don't know the right side of 'up' when it comes to talking about morality and ethics, and they don't want to be pushed to engage it either (...shame on them.)

Yes, and I think that’s another human trait, not exclusive to any particular metaphysical leaning. We’re all more willing to make excuses for ourselves than for other people. It’s probably a self-preservation instinct.

Yes, I'd be worried about my cat too, if I had one, if I were around someone like that as well. Of course, somewhere in the midst of all of this we have to remember that some folks do qualify as sociopathic, so our expectations about the extent to which we could work all of this out among ourselves will have some natural limitations.

Anyway, if the fact that some theists are "so cocksure" about their moral concepts, how do you think you might best address that issue with them? (Or, what would Chidi suggest? )

As with any other disagreement, moral disagreements will either be resolved by appealing to common ground leading to agreement, or by one party being forced into submission by the other. I think the former option is more appealing to most of us, especially the overly-socially-conscious Chidi

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Morality describes behavior. I can't speak for the basis of someone else's morality...quite frankly, no one can.

Morality is more than just a description of behavior, Ana. Didn't your employers teach you that?

That's nonsense. I'm responsible for what I do, what I believe, just like everyone else. The fact that I interact with people doesn't magically change that.

No one said that you're "not responsible." However, it does seem that we may be a bit divided between how we each assess the Nature vs. Nurture issue that plays a part in all of this ethical and moral talk.

I'm not sure where you stand on this tension, but I take our moral development as a combination of BOTH nature AND nurture, not just the outcome of one OR the other. I'm not going to argue with you about whether anyone is 'responsible' for their actions, because I think we all are, but what you and I may differ on is the extent to which we each are "responsible."

 

[Silmarien]

It’s a refrain that spans across multiple seasons. Season 3 just came to Netflix, so now’s the time to get caught up! It continues to be a fantastic crash course in moral philosophy.

Well, there goes my evening.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Morality is more than just a description of behavior, Ana.

What else is it?

Didn't your employers teach you that?

My employers?

No one said that you're "not responsible." However, it does seem that we may be a bit divided between how we each assess the Nature vs. Nurture issue that plays a part in all of this ethical and moral talk.

Not sure why that matters ...we could agree it's 100% nature or 100% nurture and I'm still responsible for me....while you're responsible for you.

I'm not sure where you stand on this tension, but I take our moral development as a combination of BOTH nature AND nurture, not just the outcome of one OR the other. I'm not going to argue with you about whether anyone is 'responsible' for their actions, because I think we all are, but what you and I may differ on is the extent to which we each are "responsible."

Who else could possibly be responsible for your actions? Would it appeal to you if someone else could take responsibility? A moral absolution of some kind...like washing away your sins....

 

[Tone]

No....there's no we. Just I.

Seems fair.

 

[Tone]

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by 'take it as it comes'

I'm just saying that every human has their own sense of right and wrong and that there isn't some absolute standard we can point to just like there isn't a absolute standard what type of music is the best or what flavor of ice cream is the best.

Seems fair.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What else is it?



My employers?



Not sure why that matters ...we could agree it's 100% nature or 100% nurture and I'm still responsible for me....while you're responsible for you.



Who else could possibly be responsible for your actions? Would it appeal to you if someone else could take responsibility? A moral absolution of some kind...like washing away your sins....

Enough! As usual, you go on with your typical patterns of rhetoric, and you like dropping your questions and evading those that are posed to you. Alright then.

It's fine if you disagree with me, but since it seems you and I are likely going to continue to disagree about the structures of social reality (probably even about reality itself as a whole ...), then I'm of the mind that it's not much use discussing things with you. So, I'll just get back to my Social Science and Religion inquiries while you get back to your living out your Quasi-Nietzschean worldview, or whatever it is that seems to suffice for you as a mode of moral recourse, Ana.

And with that, have a great Labor Day weekend!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, there goes my evening.

So, you're ready for Season 3?