Posted on 09/15/2014 1:18:05 AM PDT by markomalley
One of the more misunderstood the debates between believers an atheists is the question of whether an atheist you can have morality. Some among atheists, and others as well, incorrectly understand believers to mean that atheist are immoral, or live lives that are not sinful by our account. But this is not what is meant by wondering whether an atheist can have a morality.
It will be stipulated that many atheists and agnostics can and do live morally upright lives. For example many among them get married, stay married, do not beat their wife, they pay taxes, and may volunteer and soup kitchens and give to charities. Surely there is manifested many atheists a natural virtue. It will also be stipulated that some who call themselves believers in God, do not always live morally upright lives. And in both categories there is everything in between.
So the question about whether atheist can have a morality does not center around whether some or any of them can live good lives. Rather, the question centers around what is the basis of their assessment of what is moral, good, upright, just and so forth. On what basis do they describe such judgments to certain acts and on what basis do they ascribe other assessments such as “wrong,” “unjust,” “bad” and so forth.
For a believer in God, the usual answer regarding the basis of our judgments of certain moral acts is fairly straightforward. Christians make use of the biblical text wherein we believe God has set forth, among other things, a moral vision. He commands certain actions and forbids others. He praises certain attitudes, and discourages others. Many believers, (especially Catholics) also refer to what is called Natural Law. Natural Law refers to the book of creation and refers to our capacity to use our intellect and reason to discern basic moral truths set forth by God based on what he has created in the instrincic meaning he has ascribed to his creation
These are the basics sources of morality and the moral vision for the believer. But what are the sources of morality for those who both reject God’s existence and also deny that the created order manifest the intentions of the designer. Recall that Atheist materialists insists that creation is a set of blind forces and random mutations with no intrinsic meaning whatsoever. For them there is no reality to go out and meet, and then obey. Rather, for the atheist-materialist reality is “dumbly” there, has nothing to say to us, per se. “Meaning” for them is merely something we ascribe but which is not intrinsically there or discoverable. Everything is simply the result of random mutations manifesting no design, no law, no designer, intelligence, or any creator whatsoever.
Thus, to be clear, for them, there is nothing extrinsic, or no one extrinsic to whom all look with reference. Neither is there any intrinsic meaning in the material world, which according to the tenants of atheistic materialism, has evolved in an absolutely blind process of random mutation. And who is to say what mutations might come next.
Thus, the question for a believer is not whether atheist lives a moral life by our standards, but what are their possible standards for declaring they live moral or immoral lives?
Every now and again we hear vague attempts by atheists and seculars to answer such a question. We hear norms such as “Be nice,” Don’t do evil”, and there are sometimes references to the “golden rule.” But how can there be rules in the random mutation world of the Atheist” Is not everything for them just the blind lurches of random mutation? And further, what does it really mean to be “nice?” (as in “be nice”). And even more deeply for them, who’s to say what is evil, or what is good?
As a faithful Catholic I hold that homosexual acts are wrong, unnatural and sinful. Now suppose an atheist hears me say this and gets angry. On what does he base his anger toward me? If I am just a bag of chemicals interacting to produce a certain behavioral result, then why hold me responsible for what I think or say? Why call me names like “homophobe” or “bigot?” Why is there any indignity at all toward what I think? I am only doing what my brain chemistry randomly causes.
Further, if I believe in God, why get indignant or angry over that? I am just a bag of chemicals producing a random result. I am no more responsible in such a materialst system for what I think or do that a rock is for falling from a cliff and hurting you.
But clearly atheists DO get upset with the behavior of others. Why? On what basis?
Perhaps, as some atheists and materialists posit, one is to look to the general norms of a culture for right and wrong. But as we all know, there have been some strange and ugly notions that sometimes set up in the general thinking of the wider culture. Any look at human culture and we can see the genocide happens, so too slavery, concentration camps, holocausts, racial discrimination and Jim Crow laws, the eugenics movement and so forth. Cultural norms of various times supported, and even celebrated many such notions. Thus the wider or general culture seems to be a poor indicator of right and wrong because it changes, and often suggest things which are pretty ugly and immoral.
Again we are left with trying to find some place with those who deny the existence of God go to find moral norms.
For and atheist, who is to say that what one calls evil, someone else will not call the survival of the fittest? Maybe someone would hold that the stronger nations should destroy weaker nations so that only the strong survive, systems are more efficient and a nation of Super men emerge. Perhaps some would say the week and the innocent should be killed, wiped out since the strong will usher in a better world, a superior race, etc.
I say such things are evil, but I root my reasoning in what God has revealed, and what natural law indicates is necessary for civilization. But atheist have no such system to which they can refer. And this is why some wonder if an atheist can be moral. Who is to say. Perhaps they can accidentally be so, accidentally be in conformity with Judeo-Christians principles. But it would seem to be accidental, there no real basis for them to say what is right or wrong without reference to God, or at least to the Natural Law set frothy by God.
In the declining West we have been engaged in a dangerous experiment as to whether there can be a “culture” with out a shared cultus. Despite the bad connotations in English, “cult” is merely a word that refers to a common worship, or belief. For culture to exist, there must be something bigger and higher to which all in the culture look and agree. It is this shared cultus that makes a culture. Without the shared focus and ultimate basis, a culture ceases to exist. As the modern age increasingly demonstrates, a culture becomes a sort of anti-culture, without a shared cultus.
In America, while there were many sectarian divisions, there once was a basic and shared cultus wherein God, as revealed in Scripture, along with his moral vision, were widely shared at least in terms of the basic morality and the vision for the human person, family and community. Now this is gone and what is left of our old culture, rooted int e the Judeo-Chriistian cultus is quickly declining. The evidence is increasingly clear that a culture cannot exist without a shared cultus.
Hence a believer rightly questions an atheist as to the basis of the moral vision they claim to have. Some of the most pertinent questions must be these:
1. On what do you base your notions of right or wrong?
2. How are your notions better than your neighbor’s, or mine?
3. Are not the very words “morality”, “right”, and “wrong” judgments? If so, what is the standard you use to make these judgments?
4. If I am just a series of chemical reactions, doing and saying what matter randomly “causes” in me, by what norm do you hold me responsible for anything I do?
5. And if I am not responsible for what I do, why are you angry with me when I do things you don’t like?
6. Whence your anger? And why don’t you like it? Is it not some sense in you that justice or what is right is being violated?
7. But where do these notions come from and why are your notions better than mine?
8. Again, if I may: On what do you base you notions of right and wrong?
9. Can you, an atheist be moral? How? Says who? Where are your norms to be found if there be no God, no Natural Law, and if creation is without a designer and is simply a mindless succession of random mutations?
Msgr Pope ping
On what foundation does an atheist base morality?
You know, for supposedly not believing in Him, atheists sure do spend an awful lot of time thinking about God.
And trying to dictate to others what they should believe.
Back on subject: No, it is not truly possible to be moral without some basis to measure from.
And atheists hate the standard of measure.
To an atheist, there is no “infidel” or “Great Satan” or “God” but there must be some sense of how one goes about governing their own free will. I’ll just assume that it helps to be an American and a good one at that.
Where do atheists think that their rights come from?
Its more a question of by what standard are they moral.
Ping!
Aetheists I’ve spoken to always claim to be moral. I ask them what their moral code is, which has always been based on Christian morality.
I point this out to them, thank them for the flattery, but then point out how illogical they are being. As people who believe we are simply smart animals, there is no logical reason for them to stray from Darwinian rules of order. Logically, they should do what is best for themselves. There should be no vices in their world, but rather they should do whatever works out best for themselves.
Can an atheist be moral? Yes. But not consciously.
The bible clearly tells us that God wrote His law upon our hearts (yes even the unbeliever knows the law (Romans 2:14-15)).
Unconciously the average atheist follows that law. But when they think about it they have NO reason for doing the things they do. They have no conscious moral basis for anything in their lives (as Msgr Pope lays out)
They can be. My brother is an athiest, but also very moralistic. I think that has more to do with having actually been raised in a conservative, God-fearing household. If he had been left without that? Not so sure.
Good message and sorry to quibble, but someone should remind the monsignor that Spell Check is an imperfect tool and no substitute for a re-read and edit. The multiple mis-types and automatic corrections (week / weak, frothy / forth, etc.) are distracting.
Yes, agree with your take John.
Claiming to be an atheist does not quiet God’s voice, rather the atheist claims it to be his own inner voice.
And that is what they don’t get. If they are “moral” it is because they have been surrounded by Judeo-Christian values all their lives, even if they personally do not believe. As more and more people move away from that, you can see what it does for society as a whole. Just as a small example, when it was found that Michael Brown stole cigars from the store, post after post said, “it’s just shoplifting. What’s the big deal?” Black families were a lot better off when they took their kids to church and taught them the Ten Commandments. As were ALL families.
Ya gotta examine the definitions of “morality” and “ethics”...
Ethics is the set of rules defined by society.
Morals is the sense of right and wrong as defined by the individual’s own principles.
So, I suppose an atheist could be “moral” by this definition,
but they’d have nothing to compare their principles to to see if they are “right”.
Like, what’s a “moral” atheist to do when confronted by someone whose principles are contradictory to his own? Tell the other guy he’s “wrong”? How so?
I wonder how he’d answer my dilemma for those who claim that each person can/does have his own sense of right and wrong -
how do you, when encountering someone with differing views, determine who is “right” without an external objective source?
Society is NOT that source, because societal values change, and you can’t really say your present society is “better” than past societies without an external and objective standard.
Sure they can be moral.
And Hell has athesitic moral people in it too.
Yup. I have yet to build up to this question. I’m taking a step-by-step approach. I’ll get there. This article definitely helps in framing that question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.