Atheists Overreach ... Why do they do that?

[Silmarien]

So, you're ready for Season 3?

Yep! Won't be able to watch further until my brother gets back from being out of town this weekend, but we watched the first episode last night. (Hilariously, he'd been trying to get me to watch it for a while, but it was you guys who finally convinced me to.)

 

[zippy2006]

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.

I never did take such a stance, but the OP does, and I tend to agree with it.

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?

Perhaps. Sacrifice was just an example, though I'm not sure how strong of a case you've made. The point is that there is a correlation between lofty morality and religion. Or to put it more precisely, religion provides the possibility of a lofty morality in a way that atheism cannot. For example, folks who worship a God who literally sacrificed himself are going to be more likely to sacrifice themselves than folks who don't worship that God.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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.

You asked me one question....just one....in the previous post. It was about my "employers" teaching me morality. I have literally no idea what you meant....but if you want an answer, it's no. No, my "employers" didn't teach me morality...whatever that means.

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!

Ok...you don't want to discuss things with those who disagree. Have a happy Labor Day.

 

[gaara4158]

I never did take such a stance, but the OP does, and I tend to agree with it.



Perhaps. Sacrifice was just an example, though I'm not sure how strong of a case you've made. The point is that there is a correlation between lofty morality and religion. Or to put it more precisely, religion provides the possibility of a lofty morality in a way that atheism cannot. For example, folks who worship a God who literally sacrificed himself are going to be more likely to sacrifice themselves than folks who don't worship that God.

Ok, I think I understand your position a little better now. There’s some merit to your point that religion can shape the way a society values altruism and other lofty moral goals more effectively than atheism could. I wouldn’t go so far as to say an atheistic moral framework is limited in how far it can support lofty morals, though. If you can think of a moral act you consider to be laudable to the highest order, yet which would never occur to an atheist, I’d love to hear it. William Lane Craig has offered the act of tithing as an example, but I find that disingenuous since it’s no different from donating regularly to any other cause one believes in, which an atheist could easily justify. Craig might as well have said “accepting Jesus as your lord and savior.”

It would be interesting to see solid statistics on how altruistic atheists are vs. the religious, but I was only able to find conflicting information on Google.

 

[Nithavela]

Ok, I think I understand your position a little better now. There’s some merit to your point that religion can shape the way a society values altruism and other lofty moral goals more effectively than atheism could. I wouldn’t go so far as to say an atheistic moral framework is limited in how far it can support lofty morals, though. If you can think of a moral act you consider to be laudable to the highest order, yet which would never occur to an atheist, I’d love to hear it. William Lane Craig has offered the act of tithing as an example, but I find that disingenuous since it’s no different from donating regularly to any other cause one believes in, which an atheist could easily justify. Craig might as well have said “accepting Jesus as your lord and savior.”

It would be interesting to see solid statistics on how altruistic atheists are vs. the religious, but I was only able to find conflicting information on Google.

It's hard to put a metric onto that. If you go by pure donations to charity, religious people tend to donate more, but altruism doesn't stop there. It's about how you behave to people around you, what choices you make when buying groceries (fair trade, locally sourced)...

 

[zippy2006]

Ok, I think I understand your position a little better now. There’s some merit to your point that religion can shape the way a society values altruism and other lofty moral goals more effectively than atheism could. I wouldn’t go so far as to say an atheistic moral framework is limited in how far it can support lofty morals, though. If you can think of a moral act you consider to be laudable to the highest order, yet which would never occur to an atheist, I’d love to hear it.

First I would say that from Christian Smith's sociological perspective it's not so much a question of whether some atheist philosopher can theoretically justify a lofty moral prescription to himself. It's broader. It's about whether the prescription carries weight and a general possibility of justification within the given worldview. It's about whether it has practical effects. It's about the strength of the reasons and rationale.

Second, to return to the example I already gave, sacrificing one's life out of love for a friend, your defense strikes me as rather mediocre. To be hyperbolic, it brought to mind an elderly, sickly atheist who trades his last few days for a 'meaningful death' and an avoidance of survivor syndrome. That rationale is already vastly weaker than the Christian rationale, the obvious reference being Christ's sacrificial death. It's almost exactly opposite, as it contrasts the sickly lamb with the spotless lamb. Bring in the "broadness" aspect noted above and the sociological implications multiply.

Third, we can take an early example from the video. Watch 8:48-10:00. Maybe pair that with Quid's first paragraph here.

 

[Silmarien]

Ok, I think I understand your position a little better now. There’s some merit to your point that religion can shape the way a society values altruism and other lofty moral goals more effectively than atheism could. I wouldn’t go so far as to say an atheistic moral framework is limited in how far it can support lofty morals, though. If you can think of a moral act you consider to be laudable to the highest order, yet which would never occur to an atheist, I’d love to hear it.

I'm going to jump in here (even though I haven't watched the video ), because I think this is an interesting issue. I'd start by saying that atheists can still have lofty morals, even if an atheistic framework cannot support them. I'm actually more surprised when they don't, due to my own secular progressive background.

When I think of lofty morals, I think immediately of humanism. As far as I can tell, it only really works if you introduce a Platonic element to the equation and hold certain ideals like equality and human well-being as being good in and of themselves, and not merely because they might be helpful in a functioning society. You need the absolute, the categorical imperative, or the possibility of exceptions creeps in. Even the word "lofty" presupposes that some forms of moral reasoning are higher than others, so the whole concept of a lofty morality falls apart if we've trying to avoid Platonism.

I don't think morality is necessarily a problem for atheists, since you can put together utilitarian ethics and virtue ethics without too many problems. The problem is progressivism itself, because it is absolutist and teleological in a way that doesn't really make sense outside of a framework that allows for such things. (I converted specifically because of this issue, because I found the radicalism of the Gospel attractive, and eventually came to the point where I couldn't find that type of humanistic moral absolutism outside of it.)

 

[zippy2006]

That last parenthetical remark sure makes it difficult to understand the rest of your post.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yep! Won't be able to watch further until my brother gets back from being out of town this weekend, but we watched the first episode last night. (Hilariously, he'd been trying to get me to watch it for a while, but it was you guys who finally convinced me to.)

How 'bout that 'cliff-hanger' at the end of Season 1? I loved it! That was great.

 

[Silmarien]

That last parenthetical remark sure makes it difficult to understand the rest of your post.

Really? I don't know if you're joking, or if I left out a negative somewhere, or if I'm wrapped up in too many circles to make sense. Be more specific.

How 'bout that 'cliff-hanger' at the end of Season 1? I loved it! That was great.

That was so long ago, I've forgotten it. You need to catch up!

And I have already told Zippy to watch it. We need to spread this show like a virus.

 

[zippy2006]

Really? I don't know if you're joking, or if I left out a negative somewhere, or if I'm wrapped up in too many circles to make sense. Be more specific.

It's definitely one of those.

Here's how I read you:

1. Atheists can have lofty morals
2. Lofty morals are related to humanism, which requires Platonism if it is going to be absolute
3. The only place you are going to find that kind of humanism is with the Gospel

...or were you saying that atheists can have sub-Platonic and sub-Progressive 'lofty' morals? Obviously utilitarian and virtue ethics tend not to be categorical.

 

[Silmarien]

It's definitely one of those.

Here's how I read you:

1. Atheists can have lofty morals
2. Lofty morals are related to humanism, which requires Platonism if it is going to be absolute
3. The only place you are going to find that kind of humanism is with the Gospel

...or were you saying that atheists can have sub-Platonic and sub-Progressive 'lofty' morals? Obviously utilitarian and virtue ethics tend not to be categorical.

Oh, I see. No, I would say that atheists can have lofty morals in that it's pretty obvious that there are many atheists who do in fact have lofty morals. Their atheism does not prevent them from actually holding to such views.

One can hold to views which are ultimately incoherent, though, so whether an atheistic framework actually allows for the absolutism of modern progressivism is a separate question. I would say no, except for the rare individual who is running with some sort of atheistic moral platonism.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh, I see. No, I would say that atheists can have lofty morals in that it's pretty obvious that there are many atheists who do in fact have lofty morals. Their atheism does not prevent them from actually holding to such views.

One can hold to views which are ultimately incoherent, though, so whether an atheistic framework actually allows for the absolutism of modern progressivism is a separate question. I would say no, except for the rare individual who is running with some sort of atheistic moral platonism.

So, if you're generally saying "no," that atheists don't usually have really good reasons for supporting or holding to lofty morals, then you're basically agreeing with Christian Smith in the OP video. Smith thinks that generic, existentially appropriated forms of Consequentialism fail to fully buttress and justify anything like, say, a program of Universal Human Rights or other 'lofty' value sets.

 

[Silmarien]

So, if you're generally saying "no," that atheists don't usually have really good reasons for supporting or holding to lofty morals, then you're basically agreeing with Christian Smith in the OP video.

Probably! I saw that it was an hour and a half long and kind of backed away slowly, so I couldn't say for sure.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That was so long ago, I've forgotten it. You need to catch up!

And I have already told Zippy to watch it. We need to spread this show like a virus.

... what we need to do is have everyone watch the 'Trolley' episode! Chidi's reaction there was priceless!

 

[Silmarien]

... what we need to do is have everyone watch the 'Trolly' episode!

That was actually the one my brother showed me a bit of to try to get me into it.

It didn't work, because while Michael's "solution" is hilarious in context, it doesn't make any sense if you don't know who and what he is. Maybe if I'd stayed around to watch things get even wilder...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That was actually the one my brother showed me a bit of to try to get me into it.

It didn't work, because while Michael's "solution" is hilarious in context, it doesn't make any sense if you don't know who and what he is. Maybe if I'd stayed around to watch things get even wilder...

Your brother had very good intentions, obviously. But yes, without all of the many episodes of relational contexts that lead up to that moment, the hilarious ** ahem ** impact in that scene can be lost.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Probably! I saw that it was an hour and a half long and kind of backed away slowly, so I couldn't say for sure.

......................................

Well, alright then. On my part, I chose the video not only because I like Christian Smith, but also because it was good to hear some of Shermer's admission to his moral quandary.

 

[Silmarien]

Your brother had very good intentions, obviously. But yes, without all of the many episodes of relational contexts that lead up to that moment, the hilarious ** ahem ** impact in that scene can be lost.

Oh, we didn't even get to the impact, haha. Just the figure drawings.

......................................

Well, alright then. On my part, I chose the video not only because I like Christian Smith, but also because it was good to hear some of Shermer's admission to his moral quandary.

Fair enough, though I kind of thought it was old news that naturalism limited the types of ethical theories you could draw from. We know it. They know it. If they're happy with utilitarianism, fine. If not, they can convert. Why kick a dead horse?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh, we didn't even get to the impact, haha. Just the figure drawings.

I'll just say that you've unfortunately missed out on the point of "relevancy" that Michael was introducing to Chidi's moral enterprise within that episode. But I won't say more so as not to spoil the whole thing ...

Fair enough, though I kind of thought it was old news that naturalism limited the types of ethical theories you could draw from. We know it. They know it. If they're happy with utilitarianism, fine. If not, they can convert. Why kick a dead horse?

Because Christian Smith decided to give it one last boot to the gut, however dead it may be ... ? And maybe because I think utilitarianism is somewhat weak, despite the Peter Singer types who wander and list about "out there" in the world (and very often within our own government(s))?