Posted on 09/30/2015 11:30:21 AM PDT by Heartlander
There are two atheist "memes" (to use a jargon term) that seem to me to be in prima facie conflict. I will not claim to be able to cite chapter and verse showing that the same atheist uses both of these memes. But I'm quite sure that there are atheists out there who have done so.
So these are not exact quotes from anyone but approximate statements that reflect things that I, and I suspect you, dear Reader, have heard and read.
Atheist meme #1: It is offensive to imply that being an atheist is in any way detrimental to being a moral person. Atheists can be just as moral as religious people.
Keep your eye on the ball. The question of what is meant by "just as moral" will be crucial.
Atheist meme #2: The idea that man is in any way special is speciesism derived from religious ideas like the image of God. Once we get rid of those religious concepts we can see that man is just another animal, though a highly evolved one. Man's continuity with the animals means that abortion, euthanasia, killing those in "vegetative states," and even infanticide are all "on the table" for ethical debate. The decision in specific cases should be made on the basis of utilitarian considerations without any notion that human life per se is valuable.
It should be pretty obvious that the proposals in atheist meme #2 are socially radical. They represent a departure from what a lot of people for a long time in Western society have thought of as moral behavior. Yet atheist meme #2 says that, once you are an atheist, you should consider them to be viable options.
Prima facie, this conflicts with atheist meme #1. It's pretty obvious that, if atheist meme #2 is true, atheist meme #1 is false: Atheism does make you a less moral person if atheism leads you to consider doing all those things or even advocating them.
Suppose someone wanted to hold both of these to be true. What could he say? He could try to say that, since the ethical system outlined in atheist meme #2 is actually correct, atheism doesn't really make you less moral. It just leads you to redefine what constitutes morality so that it allows things that previously (traditionally, according to Judeo-Christian morality, etc.) were not allowed.
The problem with that response is that it turns atheist meme #1 into a pointless tautology. If atheist meme #1 has a point in communication, it must be either to reassure people about atheist morals or to shame those who question them. Neither of these ends is served if "moral" in atheist meme #1 could mean "Moral according to norms radically redefined by atheists themselves." If that's the only meaning, atheist meme #1 is compatible with, say, finding that atheists are bank robbers at a much higher rate than the general populace, so long as they are following some atheist redefinition of morality that makes it okay to rob banks. But that would certainly undermine the point (at least if enough people noticed), because then people would decide that atheists qua atheists are less likely to be "nice people."
What this shows is that anyone who trots out atheist meme #1 but also plans to advocate atheist meme #2 is doing a bait and switch. Start by protesting about the morality of atheists. Trust that your audience will be lulled into accepting this claim by the fact that the intellectual atheists you intend to hold up for their consideration aren't right now breaking any laws or personally engaging in any gruesome actions (even if they are quietly, academically advocating them). They look like "nice people." Then later argue for the "enlightened," utilitarian ethics that you actually believe.
I have sometimes wondered, when atheists complain (a la meme #1) that others think they are less moral than theists, what they would say if asked, "What do you think of abortion, infanticide and euthanasia? Is your position on these matters at all influenced by your atheism? If yes, and if I consider your position grossly immoral, then why should you be offended to learn that I consider that your atheism makes you less moral?"
The funny thing is that I actually believe that the true positions on these issues are available by the natural light and hence do not require theism to understand. (Though theism helps. Human beings always find it useful to have more sources of information than strictly necessary.) I examined some of these issues in this essay. In Western society, however, the brand of atheism most commonly held is not some sort of virtuous, Platonic atheism that cleaves to the Good and accesses the natural light but rather some version of naturalism. And that is highly detrimental to moral insight.
I present my readers with the conflict between meme #1 and meme #2 in the hopes that it may be useful, either in talking with atheists or talking to others about atheism.
No, I don’t believe you can arrive at the natural law without and author.
Really? Creationist is a complement?
I should add, the natural law is pre-political, and since interactions between men are political, just looking at the political world you can see why there could be no definitive ‘law’ that could come from that.
I’m no genius on this, but my defense of the second amendment caused me to delve into the natural right to preserve one’s life.
Do you believe that human conscience and consciousness ultimately came from mindlessness?
As you observe, there is no reason in principle why an atheist can not live a good and moral life - and no doubt some or even many do.
But in practice the only atheists I ever run into are the ones who sneer that religious people - of any sort - are by definition stupid and morally degenerate. These, I find most tiresome.
“No one laughs at God”
when.....
Regina Spektor - “Laughing With”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pxRXP3w-sQ
Could you theorize about natural law in the absence of God’s existence. (even though you may not hold that position)? This seems to be my friends position, which I find puzzling.
If I can share something that may address what your friends position may be.
IHMO, it comes down to the foundations of belief and/or worldview.
He certainly believes in and accepts the “Laws of Logic”, but the question for him is “Why?”
Where does Logic come from?
Is logic just an evolved social trait?
Can he prove logic to be true without using logic?
Now he needs to address his use of his “evolved logic” when doing math or “science” with consideration to his belief that we evolved by chance. After all, it/we could have evolved in a different way.
Natural law?
An evolutionist has no foundation to believe anything is true if they are consistent. They use the tools granted to them by God while denying God at the same time.
Laws of logic.
Materialism.
Empiricism.
Reduction.
The scientific method.
Reason.
Mathematics.
They can’t apply their own methods on their own methods because they have no foundation to believe their methods are true.
I found this “street encounter” very interesting since the atheist is actually very well educated and honest, wrong but honest.
Enjoy.
No Science, No Logic and No Morality: Atheism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxz84kS8k4U
Human concepts like the rest of the universe are subject to change. If morality is merely a human concept then there is no foundation at all for moral distinction between shooting a robber and shooting a little old lady selling flowers. An atheist worldview precludes any logical basis for deriving abstract moral incumbency from ever-changing matter in motion.
So what is the foundation for your abstract, universal, invariant moral prescriptions above?
You telling a bunch of atoms banging around what they ought and ought not do?
Besides, you are finite. You are not universal. You do not possess all knowledge. So why should a bunch of atoms banging around pay the slightest attention to your finite but somehow know-it-all supposedly universal, supposedly invariant, and supposedly moral prescriptions?
Do you see the problem?
Just because something is "subject to change" doesn't mean it has no foundation. The law of gravity is subject to change (at the end of time in our universe, say, but it's still a very useful concept in the here-and-now for understanding things. Wc can build bridges and sky-scrapers in part because it exists, now (and for the foreseeable future).
If morality is merely a human concept then there is no foundation at all for moral distinction between shooting a robber and shooting a little old lady selling flowers.
So I disagree that your conclusion follows from your first point.
An atheist worldview precludes any logical basis for deriving abstract moral incumbency from ever-changing matter in motion.
You are just re-stating your premise, aren't you. The fact that I can't design a moral system that lasts forever and will outlast the universe doesn't mean I can't design a moral system that is excellent for now, and the foreseeable future, say next 100 years until strong AI's are here, at which point it might need to be reviewed.
Returning to your first point Human concepts like the rest of the universe are subject to change.. Most conceptions of God are that he is timeless, and not subject to change. It's interesting that your statement can be applied to God, in fact it's almost a perfect restatement of the traditional Buddhist view of the universe. "All things are impermanent and without self-nature" is one traditional formulation of the Theravada Buddhists. They include God or Gods in this formulation, and thus don't really worry about them.
This is why some people say that Buddhism is not really a religion, rather a philosophy.
I never really felt like I could rap my head around that, but I believe that is what they believe.
"Excellent", compared to what? "Excellent" presupposes a standard independent of the thing measured. If matter in motion is the only stuff that exists then there is nothing outside of it by which to measure it.
Atheism as a worldview does not provide the necessary preconditions for logic, knowledge or morality, which are immaterial, abstract entities that do not have physical existence. There is no "ought" in matter in motion. That is why I pointed out to the other poster that the physical universe is changing. A physical universe provides no foundation for invariant standards of any kind, much less moral ones, which imply incumbency.
Is logic simply a matter of human convention? How does atheism account for the existence of abstract, universal, invariant standards of thinking? Is morality merely a matter of human convention? If so then both can be changed at a whim. Suppose you yourself are the foundation of morality and you design a moral system that is excellent to yourself for now, and the foreseeable future, say the next 100 years until strong AI's are here. I can not like your moral system and decide to change it. It's not invariant. It's not universal. So there is no reason on an atheist premise why is would be incumbent upon anyone to obey it.
I am not saying atheists are not moral, I'm simply saying that atheism cannot account for the moral prescriptions that atheists make.
Cordially,
Quite possibly.
How does atheism account for the existence of abstract, universal, invariant standards of thinking?
I would guess that some atheists would suggest that platonic ideas exist, others would say that there are no 'invariant standards of thinking' or universal truisms.
Is morality merely a matter of human convention?
Some would say so, someone said so earlier on this thread.
If so then both can be changed at a whim.
Human societies do evolve moral standards over time. Slavery was a "universal" human condition for 4,000 years. Now it's viewed in most places as a terrible wrong. Humans are a social, not a solitary animal, and our institutions, including values evolve as a group, not merely as the whims of individuals. Individuals whose whims are too far outside the bounds of the collective understanding of things like "that's wrong" tend to be punished or killed by the group. It's tough being a great ape!
Suppose you yourself are the foundation of morality and you design a moral system that is excellent to yourself for now, and the foreseeable future, say the next 100 years until strong AI's are here. I can not like your moral system and decide to change it. It's not invariant. It's not universal.
OK, stipulated
So there is no reason on an atheist premise why is would be incumbent upon anyone to obey it.
So, unless a moral code is universal and invariant there is no reason to obey it, you say.
What about: tradition, respect for parents, avoiding negative emotions, group approval, avoiding group disapproval, punishment, adherence to belief system (albeit non-invariant one), etc. None of those reasons EXIST? Because you say so?
Those seem like legitimate reasons to follow a moral code, even if the world is ultimately "impermanent and without self-nature" as the Buddhists claim.
Would you assert that there is no Buddhist morality and that the great Buddhist civilizations were without morals? How did they manage to survive continuously longer than most other civilizations?
Try to agree to my premised (stipulate) for the sake of discussion; assume that it was definitively proven that "everything is impermanant" next week. Would that mean that there would be no need for, existence of, or belief in human morality? Just because something is a concept developed by humans doesn't mean it's not real and useful.
So "A" could be "non-A"?
What about: tradition, respect for parents, avoiding negative emotions, group approval, avoiding group disapproval, punishment, adherence to belief system (albeit non-invariant one), etc. None of those reasons EXIST? Because you say so?
What I am saying is that IF there is no transcendent standard by which to judge these human behaviors then all you have is a description of human behaviors. There is nothing prescriptive or incumbent in them. Nature is amoral. You might as well be describing a termite colony.
Now all of the things you mention DO EXIST and at least sense can be made of them from a Christian theistic perspective (with some qualifications regarding group approval and avoiding group disapproval) BECAUSE there is a transcendent standard by which the above behaviors are judged, but obviously you do not mean to be referring to these behaviors from that perspective.
Why should I care about Tradition? Why shouldn't I be selfish? Because being selfish will hurt society? But that answer presumes another moral value; namely, that I ought to care about society. But why should I, the great ape, care about society? Because society won't survive? So what? Why should I care about society's survival? And that answer also presumes another prior moral value. And so on. What I am asking for is an accounting of these moral notions in the first place in a purportedly non-theistic universe.
Would you assert that there is no Buddhist morality and that the great Buddhist civilizations were without morals? How did they manage to survive continuously longer than most other civilizations?
I am not very well informed in the varieties of Buddhist philosophy and religion, but I would say that to the extent that Buddhists are moral it is because they have a moral nature, having been created in the image of God, Who has a moral nature.
From what I have read, though, Buddhist morality is more pantheistic than personal:
In Buddhism, sin is largely understood to be ignorance. And, while sin is understood as “moral error,” the context in which “evil” and “good” are understood is amoral. Karma is understood as nature's balance and is not personally enforced. Nature is not moral; therefore, karma is not a moral code, and sin is not ultimately immoral. Thus, we can say, by Buddhist thought, that our error is not a moral issue since it is ultimately an impersonal mistake, not an interpersonal violation. The consequence of this understanding is devastating. For the Buddhist, sin is more akin to a misstep than a transgression against the nature of holy God. This understanding of sin does not accord with the innate moral consciousness that men stand condemned because of their sin before a holy God (Romans 1-2).
Question: "What is Buddhism and what do Buddhists believe?"
Most of Buddhism seems to me to be an attempt to escape karma and suffering and obliterating any kind of dualism by following the ways taught by Mr. Sid Guatama (he's still dead, Jim). And I've never been able to figure out how Buddhists or Hindus explain how anything in a pantheistic universe either is or is not the way it ought to be or why they are trying to escape from something that is or is not ideal.
Anyway, as you can see, my knowledge of Buddhism is sorely lacking.
Try to agree to my premised (stipulate) for the sake of discussion; assume that it was definitively proven that "everything is impermanant" next week. Would that mean that there would be no need for, existence of, or belief in human morality? Just because something is a concept developed by humans doesn't mean it's not real and useful.
It would just means that there would be no foundation or accounting for it, and therefore entail no incumbency. However since both you and I both know innately that there is moral obligation and accountability, that means there is something very wrong with the premise.
Cordially,
That was a good song, thank you.
I do see some people laughing pretty hard around me. Now, surely God has His purposed for them, but I’ll be dipped if I understand.
What especially stings is their eagerness to mock the very people who provide them the freedom to worship (or not) as they choose. A little humility, a little gratitude would go a long way. Then again, that is always true no matter what the topic.
And this is a little belated, because I overlooked the obvious, but I would add that the proposed stipulation is self-refuting. If everything were impermanent there would be no permanent laws of logic and consequently it would be impossible to prove anything. According to the premise, next week there might not be any laws of logic.
Cordially,
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.