Atheists Overreach ... Why do they do that?

[2PhiloVoid]

A few examples of the Bible justifying its 'shalt nots' would help me to appreciate your point.

Personally, I think the Sermon on the Mount, on the whole, provides more than a few examples. You might check that out again.

I'm not clear on what you're trying to say here. Some of the more basic common moralities (e,g., don't harm others unless...) probably arise from unconscious, evolutionary behaviour related to group living and kinship instincts. Beyond that cultural transmission begins to take over and what is seen as right/wrong behaviour begins to differentiate in various cultures.

Well, there you go. You've already found it necessary to begin with a relative basis for your behavioral claim, one that you're not sure about. I'd advise against hanging your hat on a Frans de Waal style approach to human morality or ethics since it's even more probable that evolution in and of itself isn't directional over time.

We could argue that some of the very basic moralities have an objective (but unconscious) value while culturally transmitted morality becomes increasingly variable (i.e., subjective) and less amenable to objective justification.

Oh? Which ones represent the former? And which ones the latter?

While we may disagree on details, the similarities in our moral values derive from a similar cultural background.
OB

You mean to tell me that it's a central part of your morality and code of ethics to "love even your enemies"? Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle! Maybe there is hope for the world in a godless ethics after all!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Only if one believes it is the word of God. I see little reason to believe a bronze age book that has some holes more than big enough to run a camel through as the literal word of God.

All Christians have is an appeal to authority and an authority that seems to decline to show Himself.

Or put differently why should I believe some guy who claimed a burning bush talked to him when I've never even met him, let alone decided he is both honest and not easily fooled. If I happen across a talking burning bush that is not consumed I might feel differently. But that or anything like it has never happened to anyone I even know, let alone know and trust.

A claim that something exists is not teh same as the thing existing.

I can agree with some of your points, keith, but since this thread has been designed from the get go to focus primarily upon the deficiencies of moral justification that atheists have in providing to the world a truly workable, robust and universal moral vision, I don't see that any of them will be saving the world any time soon, and I say this for some of the same reasons that Christian Smith mentions in the video and his book. Please refer to either of these going forward.

Remember, there's no requirement here for me as a Christian to first justify my position on ethics or morality before atheist can do so. No, they have (admittedly, really) their 'own' moral project going on, quite separate from any that Christians ponder and enact. So, let's finally see some atheists give it the ol' college try in justifying--fully justifying--how their own moralities and codes of ethics will indeed lead to a better world for everyone.

 

[keith99]

I can agree with some of your points, keith, but since this thread has been designed from the get go to focus primarily upon the deficiencies of moral justification that atheists have in providing to the world a truly workable, robust and universal moral vision, I don't see that any of them will be saving the world any time soon, and I say this for some of the same reasons that Christian Smith mentions in the video and his book. Please refer to either of these going forward.

Remember, there's no requirement here for me as a Christian to first justify my position on ethics or morality before atheist can do so. No, they have (admittedly, really) their 'own' moral project going on, quite separate from any that Christians ponder and enact. So, let's finally see some atheists give it the ol' college try in justifying--fully justifying--how their own moralities and codes of ethics will indeed lead to a better world for everyone.

Once again you seem to totally misunderstand what atheism is. It is simply a disbelief in Gods, nothing more. As such it does not claim to have any universal morality. It only offers a blank slate not burdened by adherence to bronze age superstition. Religion on the other hand offers all the answers but no justification for them and many of those answers are vile.

 

[keith99]

Not true at all, the Bible is very clear on why anything that is not conducive to holy life is wrong....in fact, it is the only source of such wisdom and knowledge.

Explaining why is not saying because God says so any more than a parent saying because I say so is an explanation.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Once again you seem to totally misunderstand what atheism is. It is simply a disbelief in Gods, nothing more. As such it does not claim to have any universal morality. It only offers a blank slate not burdened by adherence to bronze age superstition. Religion on the other hand offers all the answers but no justification for them and many of those answers are vile.

What do you mean "once again" Keith99? If you've been around here for the last few years, you should know that I'm very well acquainted philosophically with how atheists presently like to define their respective epistemic positions. But this is a social issue being dealt with in this OP and not an epistemic one (or did you not bother to even look at the video or the link I provided?)

By the way, Michael Shermer has no problem with at least conceding that some of the complaints that Christian Smith tosses at the feet of atheists are legitimate. Why can't you do the same?

 

[Occams Barber]

Personally, I think the Sermon on the Mount, on the whole, provides more than a few examples. You might check that out again.

Thanks - remember I'm not a Christian. Reading the sermon, it lists a set of behaviours, all commendable by our modern standards, but says little about why we should behave that way apart from an associated reward or punishment from God.

Well, there you go. You've already found it necessary to begin with a relative basis for your behavioural claim, one that you're not sure about.

My initial behavioural claim is based on behaviour which supports and promotes a group living strategy. The context is early (pre)human evolution where groups or individuals who instinctively adopt group behaviour will be more successful than those who don't. Group living is a very common evolutionary strategy. Its also axiomatic that those who successfully live in groups have adopted behaviour which fosters group living.

'd advise against hanging your hat on a Fran de Waal style approach to human morality or ethics since it's even more probable that evolution in and of itself isn't directional over time.

I don't see evolution as having a direction? Nor do I see intentionality. Whatever evolves is whatever is successful.

Oh? Which one's represent the former? And which ones the latter?

The initial behaviour is that which is instinctive and tends to foster the group. Things like grooming, minimising aggression, a more cooperative approach to food, predator signalling etc. Cultural transmission is simply the things which are passed on from one generation to the next - learned (as opposed to instinctive) behaviour. In the early stages this could be as simple as modelled simple behaviour right on up to the complexities of modern day cultural transmission. Cultural transmission of behaviour is common to many animals.

You mean to tell me it a central part of your morality and code of ethics to "love even your enemies"? Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle! Maybe there is hope for the world in a godless ethics after all!

I'm not particularly an enemy lover but I'm sure that my morality reflects the culture I live in. I don't understand why this would surprise you. We're all a product of our own culture so to say that we share a range of cultural beliefs is no more than stating the bleeding obvious. It also doesn't mean that we'll agree on everything.
OB

 

[Tone]

Explaining why is not saying because God says so any more than a parent saying because I say so is an explanation.

So, you do believe that what the Bible says is God saying so?

 

[Ana the Ist]

On the other hand, the atheistic reaching to make a case and frame an ethical posture often is doesn't out of sheer existential perceptions of necessity, not because of any objective right or wrong. And that's more or less the focal point of this thread.

Atheism doesn't make any moral argument or hold any moral position.

As such, it cannot possibly overreach on any moral issue. No atheist derives morality from atheism.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And please don't litter my thread with those kinds of attempts. Thank you for your cooperation!

You're replying to the wrong poster.

 

[Tone]

Explaining why is not saying because God says so any more than a parent saying because I say so is an explanation.

The explanation is that those things do not promote the growth of love, which is the true life...taking the Bible's light and converting it into spiritual energy.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Atheism doesn't make any moral argument or hold any moral position.

Correct. And I didn't say that "IT" does, but what the discussion between Shermer and Smith involves---if you bothered to even touch upon it---is that SOME atheists, although not all, overstep themselves by not recognizing that their epistemological position, such as it is, does NOT lend itself to the support of a robust level of justification in providing either a universal nor a superlative kind of morality.

That............and ONLY that, is the discussion here!

As such, it cannot possibly overreach on any moral issue. No atheist derives morality from atheism.

Correct. Atheism itself cannot overreach; but any one atheist CAN! Even Shermer recognizes this.

 

[keith99]

What do you mean "once again" Keith99? If you've been around here for the last few years, you should know that I'm very well acquainted philosophically with how atheists presently like to define their respective epistemic positions. But this is a social issue being dealt with in this OP and not an epistemic one (or did you not bother to even look at the video or the link I provided?)

By the way, Michael Shermer has no problem with at least conceding that some of the complaints that Christian Smith tosses at the feet of atheists are legitimate. Why can't you do the same?

I got about 8 minutes into the video and he had said a lot of words but nothing at all when it came to really stating his position. I bothered to listen to him far more than he bothered to make his position clear and concise.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I got about 8 minutes into the video and he had said a lot of words but nothing at all when it came to really stating his position. I bothered to listen to him far more than he bothered to make his position clear and concise.

And? ... y'know, keith, from the paltry responses you atheists are so far giving to this thread, you all aren't giving me much reason to empathize with your position. Surely, you all could just come in and tear Christian Smith a new one ... but I don't see anyone really doing so. No, what I see instead is a general aloofness here and a severe lack of engagement. From my standpoint, it's not a good sign that you guys actually 'care' about any of the issues CF represents, other than that you guys don't want to get beat up by over fanatical fundamentalist type Christians. Of course, this last point of my own I can empathize with ...

 

[keith99]

And? ... y'know, keith, from the paltry responses you atheists are so far giving to this thread, you all aren't giving me much reason to empathize with your position. Surely, you all could just come in and tear Christian Smith a new one ... but I don't see anyone really doing so. No, what I see instead is a general aloofness here and a severe lack of engagement. From my standpoint, it's not a good sign that you guys actually 'care' about any of the issues CF represents, other than that you guys don't want to get beat up by over fanatical fundamentalist type Christians. Of course, this last point of my own I can empathize with ...

I'll rephrase. The video was painfully boring. It said nothing that could be commented on for 8 minutes. Should I and others sit through over an hour of video to find one or two points of substance?

If his point is that some atheists overreach and claim a reasonable morality that is universal rises out of atheism then I would concede the point, though as I have not looked for such I can't be sure of that. I know I do not claim such. I only claim that atheism allows the ground that a foundation and then a moral framework can be built upon. Perhaps a universal framework can be built, but the expression of that framework in the form of rules can be very different under different conditions. This is quite unlike taking ones moral guidelines from Scripture which provides rules without a framework. As such it gives little to no guidance on what to do in an unanticipated situation.

Again atheism in my view only provides solid ground to build upon as opposed to religion which provides an illusion of solid ground in the form of obeying some deity. Such is shifting sand or perhaps more ice which melts under bright lights.

The atheist view does not insure the morality built is one I would consider good, but unlike the common Christian claim it also does not lead to on e that is self centered and empty either. It does lend itself rather well to recognizing that a lot of out morality comes from how we were brought up and thus makes it at least a little more likely that we can recognize inconsistencies or outright errors in that morality. Better still that makes it so admitting to one such problem does not seriously damage that moral system. One based on revelation from some deity is in serious danger if even one tenant is no longer seen as correct. And the more flawless the deity is portrayed as the bigger the problem. When all rests on revelation or authority neither can safely be questioned or even examined.

 

[Tone]

Again atheism in my view only provides solid ground to build upon as opposed to religion which provides an illusion of solid ground in the form of obeying some deity. Such is shifting sand or perhaps more ice which melts under bright lights.

All that atheism is built upon judeo-christianity...can't escape it...even your phraseology can be traced to the Rock that is the Bible.

 

[keith99]

All that atheism is built upon judeo-christianity...can't escape it...even your phraseology can be traced to the Rock that is the Bible.

I happened to use that phraseology quite intentionally. My choice of words does reflect the rhetorical style of Paul. But it no more indicates that my atheism is based on Christianity than Christian Scripture referencing Hades shows that Christianity is based on the Greek pantheon.

 

[Tone]

I happened to use that phraseology quite intentionally. My choice of words does reflect the rhetorical style of Paul. But it no more indicates that my atheism is based on Christianity than Christian Scripture referencing Hades shows that Christianity is based on the Greek pantheon.

Much of Christianity is based on Greek thought. But, you are correct, it's not solely your choice of words that is indicative of atheism's base.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'll rephrase. The video was painfully boring. It said nothing that could be commented on for 8 minutes. Should I and others sit through over an hour of video to find one or two points of substance?

I'm sorry to hear that you think it's boring, but it's hardly an act of analytical acumen to engage only the first 2 or 3% of a podcast and then render an aesthetic evaluation. Moreover, I reviewed the first 8 minutes of the video, and in minute 7 there were some interesting quotes, at the least, that Shermer read from Smith's book, all of which could be considered on an individual basis ... and that's just for starters.

The fact is, in the first 8 minutes of the video, we don't really even get into the meat of the discussion between Shermer and Smith. If you had gone further, then you would have heard Smith's explanation about his book's contents and I think you wouldn't have jumped to conclusions by saying that I don't know beans about the usual atheistic affirmations and how atheist form their own epistemic and moral position(s).

If his point is that some atheists overreach and claim a reasonable morality that is universal rises out of atheism then I would concede the point, though as I have not looked for such I can't be sure of that. I know I do not claim such. I only claim that atheism allows the ground that a foundation and then a moral framework can be built upon. Perhaps a universal framework can be built, but the expression of that framework in the form of rules can be very different under different conditions. This is quite unlike taking ones moral guidelines from Scripture which provides rules without a framework. As such it gives little to no guidance on what to do in an unanticipated situation.

Well, at least you're honest about the net effect on our potential discussion if you haven't engaged the podcast. On my part, I don't mind doing the leg work for you in reviewing the contents of the video in order to pull out some of the stated propositions for us to discuss in a clear and distinct fashion.

Again atheism in my view only provides solid ground to build upon as opposed to religion which provides an illusion of solid ground in the form of obeying some deity. Such is shifting sand or perhaps more ice which melts under bright lights.

... I think Smith said that he thinks atheists can build some moral edifices of substance, but the quality of those edifices really can't take anyone beyond moral mediocrity. As for Christianity, there is an in-built expectation within the teaching of the New Testament writers, and reflectively, of Jesus, that more people than not will fail to have integrity when attempting to "follow Jesus," even after they've claimed Him as Lord and Savior. So, on that part, I think we can dispense with the notion that we can be somehow shocked and surprised that people who claim to be Christian often fail to rise above moral mediocrity themselves. I don't think we should commit the Genetic Fallacy when we see folks fail who claim to be Christian. Atheists on the other hand have little if any solid reason to be morally superlative and "go beyond" in loving and caring for other people. Some of them may do so for personal reasons, but not for justifications stemming from any sense of objective or absolute 'oughtness.'

The atheist view does not insure the morality built is one I would consider good, but unlike the common Christian claim it also does not lead to on e that is self centered and empty either. It does lend itself rather well to recognizing that a lot of out morality comes from how we were brought up and thus makes it at least a little more likely that we can recognize inconsistencies or outright errors in that morality. Better still that makes it so admitting to one such problem does not seriously damage that moral system. One based on revelation from some deity is in serious danger if even one tenant is no longer seen as correct. And the more flawless the deity is portrayed as the bigger the problem. When all rests on revelation or authority neither can safely be questioned or even examined.

I'm not sure that the last two sentences you've stated here are as cogent as you may think they are.

 

[keith99]

I'm sorry to hear that you think it's boring, but it's hardly an act of analytical acumen to engage only the first 2 or 3% of a podcast and then render an aesthetic evaluation. Moreover, I reviewed the first 8 minutes of the video, and in minute 7 there were some interesting quotes, at the least, that Shermer read from Smith's book, all of which could be considered on an individual basis ... and that's just for starters.

The fact is, in the first 8 minutes of the video, we don't really even get into the meat of the discussion between Shermer and Smith. If you had gone further, then you would have heard Smith's explanation about his book's contents and I think you wouldn't have jumped to conclusions by saying that I don't know beans about the usual atheistic affirmations and how atheist form their own epistemic and moral position(s).

I'm sorry, I took you at your word when you said what we needed to know was in the first 10 to 15 minutes of the video. I watched far more than 2-3% of what you said was enough and heard nothing that even could be commented on.

 

[keith99]

... I think Smith said that he thinks atheists can build some moral edifices of substance, but the quality of those edifices really can't take anyone beyond moral mediocrity. As for Christianity, there is an in-built expectation within the teaching of the New Testament writers, and reflectively, of Jesus, that more people than not will fail to have integrity when attempting to "follow Jesus," even after they've claimed Him as Lord and Savior. So, on that part, I think we can dispense with the notion that we can be somehow shocked and surprised that people who claim to be Christian often fail to rise above moral mediocrity themselves. I don't think we should commit the Genetic Fallacy when we see folks fail who claim to be Christian. Atheists on the other hand have little if any solid reason to be morally superlative and "go beyond" in loving and caring for other people. Some of them may do so for personal reasons, but not for justifications stemming from any sense of objective or absolute 'oughtness.'

I'd argue that ethical systems erected by atheists are apt to be better overall than those of faith based systems. Yes faith based systems are perhaps more apt to produce the exceptional follower. But I think it will produce far more on the bad end than the good. Once someone convinces themselves that what they are doing is God's will there is no limit to the evil they can do and still feel they are good. An atheist doing the same has to face up to his acts that are vile being vile.

It also seems a bit disingenuous to on one side filter out any 'Christians' who are less than ideal and at teh same time discount the role atheism plays in the exceptional acts of an atheist.