One of the more misunderstood debates between believers and atheists is whether or not an atheist can have a morality. Some incorrectly understand believers to think that atheists are immoral or live lives that are 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 wives, pay taxes, and may volunteer at soup kitchens and give to charities. Surely there is manifested in 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 atheists can have a morality does not center around whether some or any of them can live good lives. Rather, the question centers around the basis of their assessment of what is moral, good, upright, just, etc. On what basis do they ascribe such judgments to certain acts? 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 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 to our capacity to use our intellect and reason to discern basic moral truths set forth by God based on what He has created and the intrinsic meaning He has given 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 atheistic materialists insist that creation occurred via a series 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 just “dumbly” there; it 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, no intelligence—no creator whatsoever.
Thus for them, there is nothing and no one extrinsic to whom all look for reference. Neither is there any intrinsic meaning in the material world, which according to the tenets 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 asked by believers is not whether atheists live moral lives by our standards, but rather what are their possible standards for declaring that they live moral or immoral lives?
Every now and again we hear vague attempts by atheists and secularists to answer such a question. We hear things such as “Be nice,” Don’t do evil,” and 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?” And even more deeply for them, who is 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? After all, I am just a bag of chemicals producing a random result. In such a materialistic system, I am no more responsible for what I think or do than is a rock for falling from a cliff and hurting you.
But clearly atheists DO get upset with the behavior of others. But 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 have sometimes set up in the general thinking of the wider culture. Any look at human culture and we can see that genocide happens, so too slavery, concentration camps, holocausts, racial discrimination, 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 because it has suggested things that are pretty ugly and immoral.
Again we are left with trying to find some place that those who deny the existence of God go to find their moral norms.
For an atheist, who is to say that what one person calls “evil,” someone else will not call “survival of the fittest”? Maybe someone would hold that stronger nations should destroy weaker ones so that only the strong survive, systems are more efficient, and ultimately a nation of “supermen” emerges. Perhaps some would say that the weak and innocent should be killed, eradicated, wiped out, since the strong will usher in a better world, a superior race, etc.
I say that such things are evil, but I root my reasoning in what God has revealed, and what natural law indicates is necessary for civilization. But atheists 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 be accidentally so, be accidentally in conformity with Judeo-Christian principles. But it would seem to be accidental, since 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 forth by God.
In the declining West, we have been engaged in a dangerous experiment as to whether there can be a “culture” without 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 basis, a culture ceases to exist. As the modern age increasingly demonstrates, without a shared cultus a culture becomes instead a sort of “anti-culture.”
In America, while there have always been many sectarian divisions, there was once a basic and shared cultus wherein belief in God and His moral vision, as revealed in Scripture, was widely shared—at least in terms of 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 in the Judeo-Christian 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 he claims 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 mine or your neighbor’s?
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 or say?
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?
Very thought provoking as always Msgr. Insightful presentation that we can use to understand the slippery slope of atheism.
Could you re-edit this piece to remove the grammatical and spelling errors? They are most unusual from you?
God Bless You
Michael Brandon
My editor just finished thank. I am publishing this so you can all thank Patty, my intrepid editor!
I listen to Penn Gillette’s { the Magician } “Penn’s Sunday School” podcast. I’s mostly about the entertainment industry, however Penn is a devout Atheist, and he says he preaches love. I find this Atheistic attitude some what confounding since the concept of “love” was born out of religion. Before the advent of religion man lived a “naturalistic” lifestyle, which is to say, like the other animals. Just as in other areas of the animal kingdom, humans would attack other tribes, kill the males, kill the youngest offspring, that were unable to fend for themselves, and mate with the females, and assimilate the valuables of the conquered tribe into their own. We know not all religions are the same, but most provide a moral code that has been to the benefit of mankind, despite the false accusations that religions cause more wars and death than irreligious societies.
The concept of Love was not born out of religion. The idea of love, the expression of love….existed long before any religion we know of ever made an appearance on this planet. To say otherwise is pure ignorance.
“Before the advent of religion man lived a “naturalistic” lifestyle, which is to say, like the other animals.”
What do you dfeine as naturualistic? Since I am sure other animals did not use Fire, record history in art, cook, make clothes…very unlike any other animal. If you mean living with and intune with the natural world…then yes we used to live much more naturalistic lives.
>We know not all religions are the same, but most provide a moral code that has been to the benefit of mankind, despite the false accusations that religions cause more wars and death than irreligious societies.
Benefitted mankind…depends on who you talk to. Sure it helped provided scafolding that society could build off of and grow with. It was a unifying force that held communities and countries together.
Today it does nothing but hold us back. Now in the US is tears families apart. You have people calling for death(yes Christians have sent death threats to people for not believing as they do) for those who are different. Peoples belief is forcing them to deny proven science and fact for mythology. People die from treatable conditions because of what a bronze age book tells them. In other parts of the world people are denied their basic human rights due to religion. People flying planes into building, beheadings(including the 19 we don’t hear about in the news from Saudi Arabia). Religion is used as a weapon to harrass, intimidate, persecute and kill people around the world.
Humanity needs to be done with religion.
Thomas Stratford: “Before the advent of religion man lived a “naturalistic” lifestyle, which is to say, like the other animals. Just as in other areas of the animal kingdom, humans would attack other tribes, kill the males, kill the youngest offspring, that were unable to fend for themselves, and mate with the females, and assimilate the valuables of the conquered tribe into their own.”
I guess you haven’t read Deuteronomy 20:10-20?
10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the Lord your God gives you from your enemies. 15 This is how you are to treat all the cities that are at a distance from you and do not belong to the nations nearby.
16 However, in the cities of the nations the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance, do not leave alive anything that breathes. 17 Completely destroy[a] them—the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—as the Lord your God has commanded you. 18 Otherwise, they will teach you to follow all the detestable things they do in worshiping their gods, and you will sin against the Lord your God.
19 When you lay siege to a city for a long time, fighting against it to capture it, do not destroy its trees by putting an ax to them, because you can eat their fruit. Do not cut them down. Are the trees people, that you should besiege them?[b] 20 However, you may cut down trees that you know are not fruit trees and use them to build siege works until the city at war with you falls.
You seem to be making a very good argument against relativism. Relativism has to be conquered first, it seems to me, before atheism can be addressed. First it seems that we have to stress the universality of natural law in every man’s conscience whether we like it or not, and then we can argue about how (and by Whom) that law got there.
You said, “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.” I hope what you are meaning is that atheists *do* have natural law, but that some don’t admit it to themselves. Revelation arms the conscience against the sin that distorts our understanding, but all men still have recourse to the natural law in their consciences even if they don’t hold to revelation. Say a child is crying loudly in a restaurant. If another patron gets irritated, walks over to the child, and punches it, there’s no man in any culture anywhere who would not be shocked at the behavior. All men share a basic understanding that there’s something *wrong* with that action: only a psychopath would punch a child like that.
Rom 1:20 is one of my favorite verses – one of the few I know by heart: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” Paul is saying, in the context of this verse, that despite our weakness, every man still can know something about God’s power and nature, even if we don’t know His name.
An atheist might ascribe this law to a non-deity, because not all atheists are relativists. You said, “The evidence is increasingly clear that a culture cannot exist without a shared cultus.” With this, you point more to the problem of relativism than atheism. Confucius’ contemporaries were practical atheists but not relativists. They very much shared, under Confucius’ direction, a shared cultus. A more modern example of a homogeneous culture is that of the Japanese – again, they’re not relativist, but they are overwhelmingly atheist.
Just brilliant! Hope athiest friends will see the darkness around their thinking! And walk towards the light
The Lord did not make Athiests different from believers. We were all made in His image and certain truths embedded in our souls. That an Athiest can know these same truths (killing is bad, don’t lie, etc) proves they are human, just like the rest of us.
This unknown knowledge they posess is also the reason they get angry with others who express their beliefs, the lie (no God) fights the Truth (God is real) and the consequence of that lie (evil) is then manifested as anger at the one would dare oppose it. The darkness fears the light as it knows once exposed to light, it can no longer exist. The anger protects the object of the fear, keeping the darkness protected behind the evil spew.
This post is dishonest and misleading. It is easy to find better and more charitable accounts of how an atheist might be moral. Consider, for example, this debate between Shelly Kagan and William Lane Craig regarding the issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiJnCQuPiuo.
Strawmaning atheists’ views of morality will do nothing to convince them–or those sympathetic with them–that they are wrong to believe what they do. And misleading your congregation about the views of atheists will serve only to encourage abusing and persecuting them.
How is anything that Msgr. said a straw-man? If there is no God, from whence does objective morality come? It’s a simple question. Msgr. Pope never said an atheist can’t BE moral – they clearly can – but from what objective source does one determine the rules of morality?
Look. I’m sympathetic to Msgr. Pope’s point but I object to the manner in which gives it. Watch the debate I linked in my comment. Kagan gives a compelling account of objective morality from an atheist point of view which is very persuasive and not unusual among prominent atheists. It might be wrong but WE NEED TO ENGAGE WITH WHAT ATHEISTS ARE ACTUALLY SAYING if we hope show people that they are wrong. Msgr. Pope doesn’t do this at all. He puts no effort into discussing what atheists actually say about objective morality. He just constructs a caricature of their position based, I presume, on what he thinks atheists must believe given their atheism and it is easily refuted, which is why I called it a strawman and why his argument won’t convince anyone and why it will serve only to encourage people to abuse atheists. It is dishonest and misleading.
“It might be wrong but WE NEED TO ENGAGE WITH WHAT ATHEISTS ARE ACTUALLY SAYING if we hope show people that they are wrong.” Why do you say “It might be wrong” and then decide we must follow a wrong path to reach a right conclusion? I can’t recall a situation in my life where that has ever worked.
I don’t have an hour and 27 minutes to watch that video. Please speak to how the post was dishonest, rather than just throw it out there. Please show how it misled. Where did it go “off track” in your opinion? I am interested to see YOUR opinion, and not the opinions of Kagan v Craig. We need to engage with what YOU are actually saying if we are to understand your point.
Fair enough but I think I’ve made my point quite clear, though I am stunned by this remark:
Why do you say ‘It might be wrong’ and then decide we must follow a wrong path to reach a right conclusion? I can’t recall a situation in my life where that has ever worked.
Have you missed my point!? I am NOT endorsing or defending atheism. So I am NOT asking anyone to go down “a wrong path to reach a right conclusion”. My point again is that we need to engage with what atheists actually say IF OUR GOAL IS TO CONVINCE THEM THAT THEY ARE TO BE ATHEISTS. Do you see? If you or Msgr. Pope can rest content with half-baked portrayals of what atheists believe about morality–which anyone who has bothered to read them will see straight through–then we are indeed lost. Catholicism cannot win the culture wars if we won’t try our very best to understand what our opponents believe as they see it so we can destroy it.
Again, Kagan gives a compelling account of how an atheist can be moral and his position not unusual among prominent atheists. Kagan even denies that he roots morality in the sort of evolutionary theory Msgr. Pope mentioned (at about minute 1.18). In fact, Kagan thinks objective morality comes from conditions which Msgr. Pope described as “necessary for civilization.” So, Kagan and Msgr. Pope agree to some extend on the source of morality. Now you might say that Kagan needs natural law to justify this claim. But he doesn’t think so; he is happy to rest his case on the brute fact that human civilization requires certain moral prohibitions like “don’t do harm” in order to function at all. Why civilization rests on conditions such as this is for him neither here not there. It is a fact civilization requires moral behavior and that fact is enough to explain objective morality. This is a powerful argument for objective morality which Msgr. Pope makes no attempt to discuss. A quick Google would have shown him that no atheists of any prominence holds the position he describe in his post; instead a Google would very quick show that they accept a view similar to Kagan’s. This is what makes the post dishonest. It is not hard to try to understand in a charitable way what atheists believe. But apparently Msgr. Pope couldn’t be bothered.
.. and that, I think, is unfortunate.
By the way you didn’t answer any of my questions. I guess you couldn’t be bothered? To your point, I would ask, What standard would an atheist to define harm? or “brute” or any of these metaphysical concepts which render a judgment on certain acts? I can imagine a school of sharks engaged in a feeding frenzy tearing a large fish to shreds and eating it. How is this different than a gang surrounding and killing a rich man so as to take his car or money. I of course think they are different in many ways but I wonder how an atheist or a materialists would determine this? I mean no ridicule, it is an honest quandary. Without some one or something higher to which we all refer, I wonder how an atheist could really make a determination and how his judgment could be any better than another atheist who came to a different conclusion. Where is the shared standard? And if you can say where, then where did the shared standard come from and what authority does its normative quality derive?
I wouldn’t say that “rules that are needed to make civilization function” is really an objective source. It’s more like a process of trial and error. It is certainly true that from this process of trial and error they can discover much moral truth, but in a way this just pushes the question back – from an atheist perspective, how is it possible to prove that civilization is objectively a good thing? Wouldn’t it perhaps be better and cause more progress if the strong survived and thrived while the weak perished?
You seem to fail to understand that one can believe that life, particularly human life (and the lack of human suffering), is sacred despite the non-existence of deities. After all, we’re 13.7 billion years in the making and linked to every moment of this past both atomically and through the procreation of our ancestors both human and non human. This is the story the facts are telling us.
That story is profound even without knowing if there is a creator or not behind the process. After all, if the creator can supposedly come from nothing, then why couldn’t the universe? You also fail to understand that an atheist has reached the conclusion that there’s no reason to believe that God (in this particular case a deity named Yahweh) exists because there isn’t a good enough reason to. An atheist does not claim to KNOW that a deity such as this doesn’t exist. You may have heard the quote, “everyone knows what it’s like to be an atheist, we just take it one God further.”. You don’t believe (or know) that other deities exist, so it’s really not that hard of a concept to grasp. I don’t know why it’s such a challenge for you faithful types.
An atheist simply has to be concerned with human suffering to determine right from wrong. The golden rule applies despite the mythology in The Bible being fictional. It’s not an idea unique to Christian scripture at all. Would you like to be surrounded by a gang and robbed? Chances are, the fact that you don’t is more of a reason why you wouldn’t commit such an act, just like an atheist. Besides, if punishment from God is the only thing stopping you, you’re one scary sob.
The objective standard of morality comes from our own authority whether you believe it or not. Even yours.
Well, no one believes God came from nothing. He exists outside of time, so the rules of our universe don’t apply. I think you responding atheists are missing the point. We don’t ask whether you CAN come up with a relatively robust morality without believing in God. Of course you can, and fortunately most atheists do.
But if an atheist determines (like Stalin, for example) that future gains justify present human suffering, or that following the principle of evolution and nature (those who are strong survive and thrive, and the weak simply cause damage to the gene pool) fully is what will lead humanity to greater heights, how can you objectively show that they are wrong?
The concept of morality for conservatives (christian) actually fit into what you think atheists (liberals) could possibly believe, which is survival of the fittest. The rich should get richer and the poor, well they are not doing enough to get rich so we don’t concern ourselves with them. Republicans are much less like christ then gays, but were is the uproar over that.
Yes i am making a generalization that christians are conservative and that atheists are liberal, but i think it is an acceptable generalization.
Also you bring up Stalin, but why not bring up Hitler or the crusades.
What does survival of the fittest have to do with human and animal suffering? Understanding evolution doesn’t mean that it’s somehow important to adhere to the process as a society. We don’t even live long enough to witness it happen on a large scale.
A more realistic scenario that the religious oppose (which is arguably amoral to oppose), is that given the right medical technology, most likely involving the use of stem cells, we will eventually be able choose to cure the living of suffering on a mass scale, but at the expense of blastocysts and zygotes. The good news is that it’s looking like we may not even need to use “potential humans” for long. We’re making interesting discoveries on that front.
God exists outside of space and time and doesn’t beg the question, “where did God come from”? That simply doesn’t make sense and is unreasonable and illogical. Once he lived on a mountain (Zeus), but when people reached the top of the mountain, he wasn’t there. Then, he lived in the sky (Yahweh), but when we flew and left Earth, he wasn’t found in the clouds (nor was heaven). So, then he lived outside of space and time. Interesting how he’d rather be anywhere but where we could see him. Why would it be important for the creator of the universe that we believe in him in the absence of evidence?
This God of the gaps doesn’t really fill any gaps because the claim that it exists is a gap in itself. What created God? What created that? What created that? What created that? ad infinitum.
I am not here to start a war, I just want to point out a few truths (at least what i consider truths):
1. Major changes in morality (slavery, women’s suffrage movement) have come from humanism or what humans believe to be right and wrong, not from the bible or other religious texts. Now if morality came from the bible why did it take 2000 years for people to realize what god was saying and abolish slavery? Now I do not pretend to know a lot about the bible or the new and old testament, but i believe the old testament accepted slavery. And women are pretty much the stepping stone of men in every religion.
2. Gay marriage will be like slavery and the suffrage movement. Perhaps in 30-40 years your kids or grandchildren will look back at you the same way the opponents of freeing the slaves and the suffrage movement are looked at now. It is so obvious now that slavery is a sin, and i am 100% sure that is how it will be for gay marriage. Gay marriage is not about religion it is about equal rights and once christians become more like jesus, I honestly believe there won’t be so much hate towards them. Unfortunately right now christians want to take away rights of other people in the disguise of religion. Now i may be using the word christian too loosely and i do apologize for that as it shouldn’t be a blanket statement, but the way they are controlling the country is very frightening.
3. You pick and choose which morality you like to follow. Sorry i just googled this very quickly.
http://www.alternet.org/belief/11-kinds-bible-verses-christians-love-ignore
4. Morality is ever changing. As illustrated in item 1, morality is not a constant. There is never one right answer to a question. Is killing okay? Well that depends on if you are killing in cold blood, or if you are defending yourself or if you committed a horrendous act. I personally am for capital punishment, and not just for a conviction of murder, and it gets a little confusing where to draw the line but i would include rape as well.
5. The bible was translated many times how are we sure that the translation isn’t wrong. Even if they were gods words 2000 years ago, after repeated translations you slowly lose the meaning of the original (human error).
6. I truly believe atheists are more moral then religious people because they have the flexibility to change what is moral (slavery and the persecution of women are 2 examples i gave earlier). I believe no matter what you feel is wrong or right all people have rights and it is not the job of the religious to take those rights away because we do not agree with their life choice (gay marriage).
I can imagine a group of humans hunting and killing, oh, say an elk, and eating it. That cooperative behavior, extended over populations and years, benefits the species.
On the other hand, a species that preys upon itself eventually destroys itself.
There is no need to invoke any deity to explain the development of mutually beneficial behavior.
I don’t see how my summary of Kagan’s argument failed to answer the question about how atheists explain the source of morality. Kagan believes, like many other prominent atheists, that morality is a necessary condition of human civilization. Human community is a fact; so morality is a fact. For him, no further explanation of morality is required. You can’t have one without the other. You might find this answer unsatisfying (that’s fine), but it IS an answer to the question.
I grant that I didn’t try to explain how atheists like Kagan answer all of your questions but, again, that wasn’t the point of my comments. The purpose of my original comment was to challenge the honesty of your post. You say quandary is an “honest” one. Is it really? Part of the purpose of your post is to suggest that atheists don’t have the resources to explain morality, is not? Its tone suggests that this is part of its purpose and, if so, it is not an “honest quandary” at all. I DO doubt the sincerity of your interest in understanding how atheists explain morality. Again, your post shows that you haven’t made an effort to find out what atheists actually believe (which, I pointed out, is absurdly easy to do) and, instead, you describe a view of morality which no atheist of any note actually holds, so you can knock it down easily.
Are we supposed to believe morality comes from the God who said slavery, child abuse and murder are okay? I supposed we must all be happy that few people live up to this god’s morals.
Yes. I don’t have time to debate these individual issues with you, but they have been covered here on the blog before. Use the search bar. But your rhetorical question is not difficult to address, it simply requires you to explore each issue in good faith and see that the matters are not as simplistic as you present. I would challenge you to explore those matters with an open mind and you may find some very interesting things of how God has led us from things like slavery etc. in stages. Curb your indignation and cultivate your interest in discovering the full truth of the Scriptures
There are too many results if i type slavery. If you could please provide me a link, that would be appreciated.
The word you are looking for is “empathy”. It’s telling that such a long essay didn’t use the word even once, because it’s absolutely essential to any honest discussion of the topic of morality from a non-religious perspective. But I suspect that honest discussion is not your actual intent.
1. On what do you base your notions of right or wrong?
I base my notions on right and wrong by understanding what constitutes human and animal suffering.
2. How are your notions better than mine or your neighbor’s?
I don’t necessarily believe my notions are better than my neighbor’s. After all, we all pretty much agree on what is right and wrong and dispute over maybe 1-2%. I will say that it is incredibly more moral to do good for goodness sake rather than to simply do as you are commanded (in some cases this could be immoral).
3. Are not the very words “morality,” “right,” and “wrong” judgments? If so, what is the standard you use to make these judgments?
Morality is simply just a word used to describe determining right and wrong. “Right” and “wrong” are indeed judgments. My knowledge of what constitutes human and animal suffering is the standard I go by to make these judgments. Is it that hard to believe that humans have the ability to understand what constitutes suffering? Do you really think we are that pathetic? If you stopped believing in god, would you go and do terrible things? I doubt it seriously.
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 or say?
You are held responsible of what you do by US criminal laws. You have a brain. You use your brain to collect and store information (hopefully some of that is what constitutes human and animal suffering).
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?
You are indeed responsible for what you do (excluding mental health issues). I would only be angry with you if you did something that was clearly immoral. I don’t get angry with people who simply disagree on issues of morality (like homosexuality). I am an adult and I know how to act like one.
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?
If you did something immoral, that would make me angry. I wouldn’t like it because you violated mine (and pretty much everyone else’s) understanding of what is moral. I do sense what is right is being violated, we simply disagree on where that sense comes from.
7. But where do these notions come from and why are your notions better than mine?
Read answer 2.
8. Again, if I may: on what do you base you notions of right and wrong?
Read answer 1.
9. Can you, an atheist, be moral?
Yes
How?
My ability to understand the world around me.
Says who?
Me
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?
Read answers 1-8.
When you have the basic order of the universe wrong (for example: you believe god made man in his image, not the other way around) none of the rest of what you believe can be trusted. When you look for moral instruction from an institution that won’t pay back wages to women it kept as slaves, that coddled pedophiles for decades, and spreads lies about the effectiveness of condoms in preventing the spread of HIV, you really have have things backwards.
1. On what do you base your notions of right or wrong?
HA: When and where I grew up (society) and other experiences.
2. How are your notions better than mine or your neighbor’s?
HA: Depends on how we would define better and the context. I could think of examples where each of our notions could be better.
3. Are not the very words “morality,” “right,” and “wrong” judgments? If so, what is the standard you use to make these judgments?
HA: Yes. The standard is a combination of society and utility.
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 or say?
HA: We hold people responsible for their actions. For example, we understand that a sociopath serial killer reacts much differently to certain stimuli we still isolate them from society because their actions are not the *norm*.
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?
HA: Anger is a biological response to usually negative stimuli. I would likely be angry because your actions *harms* myself in some way (directly or indirectly).
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?
HA: Partly repeated question (See 1.) and unclear.
7. But where do these notions come from and why are your notions better than mine?
HA: Repeated question. See 1. They may not be better it depends on how society views my “notions”.
8. Again, if I may: on what do you base you notions of right and wrong?
HA: Repeated question. See 1.
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?
HA: Yes. By following the *norm* of society. Society. There is no natural moral law like gravity.
Child rapists lecturing others on morality. How rich.
I just want some of you all to see the sort of childish stuff I’m getting, so I “approved” this one. At least it wasn’t riddled with profanity like many of the others. For the record I have never raped anyone and have been a faithful celibate for all the years of my priesthood
1. On what do you base your notions of right or wrong?
Empathy.
2. How are your notions better than mine or your neighbor’s?
They tend to produce better results. People whose worldview is based on an empathetic understanding of the struggles of other human beings perform acts that are generally agreed upon to be immoral at a much smaller rate than do followers of hard-and-fast dogmas. Atheists, for example, make up anywhere from 6-20% of the US population (depending on how you phrase the question) but make up far less than 1% of the population of US prisons. Nonreligious countries routinely have fewer societal problems, lower crime rates, etc., than do their very religious counterparts. All of this runs flatly contrary to the hypothesis that moral behavior is not possible for an atheist. My own moral code is effective, I think, precisely because it is not a dogmatic adherence to rigid rules but rather a philosophy of learning and understanding that is quite capable of adapting to new information or new ways of thinking. I don’t think it’s important to claim that it’s the “best” code out there, rather than to highlight and advertise that its adaptability is precisely what helps it to function.
3. Are not the very words “morality,” “right,” and “wrong” judgments? If so, what is the standard you use to make these judgments?
Appropriate judgments are a societal issue, contingent on a collaborative vested interest in the success of human civilization. That which I deem to be “wrong” is behavior that threatens that success.
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 or say?
This is a dishonest, negligent representation of an atheist’s worldview. Humans are “just a series of chemical reactions” in the same way that a Beethoven Symphany is “just a series of vibrations in the air.” You are held responsible for your actions because *that series of chemical reactions is YOU*, with all the philosophical repercussions that the word “You” entails.
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?
Because your behavior is not conducive to human success, which is in turn dependent on social behavior.
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?
Yes. Ibid.
7. But where do these notions come from and why are your notions better than mine?
Empathy. Ibid.
8. Again, if I may: on what do you base you notions of right and wrong?
Ibid.
9. Can you, an atheist, be moral?
Of course. I am a moral person, and my atheistic worldview certainly helps to enable, for example, my expression disgust at the systematic rape and torture of young boys and the systematic organizational protection of the perpetrators of said systematic rape and torture of young boys in a way that members of said organization, which shall remain nameless, seem somewhat reluctant to emulate, even though we all seem to agree (I hope) that the systematic rape and torture of young boys is a generally immoral act, as is the covering up of those horrible crimes.
And sorry, but no. I’m never, ever going to let that one go.
> How?
By behaving in a moral fashion.
> Says who?
Says me. Which is the best that you can do back to me, since there is no reason to believe that the god that you presume to speak for actually exists to begin with.
> 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?
Empathy. Ibid. Also, “A mindless succession of random mutations” is a pernicious misstatement of evolution. Natural selection is not random.
Creatures, including humans, evolved social behavior as a survival strategy. Human morality is an emergent property of that strategy, coupled with our intelligence. And it is worth noting that a great many creatures in the natural world, that have also adapted social behavor as a similar survival mechanism, display behavior that is “moral” in the context that they punish behavior that is counterproductive to the society. Bees, ants, penguins, apes, you name it.
1. On what do you base your notions of right or wrong?
Empathy and reasoning.
2. How are your notions better than mine or your neighbor’s?
I don’t claim that they are. One difference though is if I realize that my morals are lacking in a certain area, I can use empathy and reasoning to improve them. (An example would be gay rights.) When you believe in objective morality, then your source of morality is unchanging, and your morals should also remain static. (Even though many believers still use empathy and reasoning to push their morality above and beyond this ‘objective morality’ that they claim to follow.)
3. Are not the very words “morality,” “right,” and “wrong” judgments? If so, what is the standard you use to make these judgments?
Empathy and reasoning. Cultural upbringing is also a factor.
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 or say?
That depends where you live because there are different laws for different countries.
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?
You are responsible for what you do. The only exceptions to this would be if you had certain types of mental disorder or if you were too young and your brain wasn’t mostly developed yet.
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?
I’m not angry about you believing in God, or objective morality, or whatever else you want to believe in.
There are a handful of things that I don’t like about religion though and the biggest one is childhood indoctrination. I think that if churches weren’t preying on children before their mental facilities have had time to develop, the other problems from religion would be greatly decreased. (In other words, there would be far less homophobic people voting against gay rights if they weren’t TAUGHT from childhood that gay people are an abomination.)
And yes, I do have an sense of right and wrong. As I mentioned before, it derives from empathy and reasoning. I can consider any moral question, using nothing more than empathy and reasoning, and arrive at a conclusion. (I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian household so when I first did this, the conclusions I drew would often conflict with what I was taught.) You also have a sense of right and wrong but you attribute it to objective morality.
7. But where do these notions come from and why are your notions better than mine?
Empathy is also found in other animals. I don’t know enough on the topic to give you a more specific answer other than evolution. You could look up empathy and reason on Wikipedia to learn about them though.
The rest of the question is a repeat of question #2 so look at that answer.
8. Again, if I may: on what do you base you notions of right and wrong?
Empathy and reasoning.
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?
Yes, I am moral.
I am moral by using empathy and reasoning. I also follow the rules in my society.
Morality is subjective so someone may think I am immoral for believing that gay people should be treated equally. I think that they are immoral for thinking that gay people should be treated unequally. I can use empathy and reasoning to make my case. What can they use?
I am getting a lot of repetitious answers here at this point. This post is several days old and I have all I can handle over at the other posts. Thanks for the reply, perhaps other readers can interact. The repeated use of the word “empathy” is interesting. But here too, I ponder on what basis an atheist and/or materialist system can posit either the existence of empathy or the constancy of it. Empathy seems a rather metaphysical thing for a materialist or atheist to posit. It cannot be observed under a microscope or weighed on a scale. What are the metrics for it? How can say you empathy is right or wrong. There could be some things I empathize with that I should not empathize with. The whole thing seems so vague for an atheistic materialistic claim. I’m puzzled, I really don’t get it at all. But then too, I come from a world where deeds are right and wrong and where at least in the broad picture the morality of them is specified by an authoritative source, namely God in Revelation and also in Natural Law. Empathy seems pretty squishy to me. Some people abort babies diagnosed with Down Syndrome out of “empathy” since they would want to live that way. But isn’t killing someone who doesn’t measure up a rather not empathic thing to do?
The existence of empathy is not metaphysical at all. It is an emotional reaction. Those who say they feel bad when they watch a video of someone getting hit with a hammer (the majority of people) have it. Those who say they are indifferent, do not. When connected to machinery that scans the brain, they find that indeed there is a lack of brain activity in the latter group as compared to the former. So it can’t be observed under a microscope or weighed on a scale, but that’s because those are the incorrect tools to use. An fMRI machine is the correct tool to use there.
As far as whether empathy is right or wrong, we can determine that by taking a look at a situation somewhat in reverse. We find that we feel that empathy when something happens to a person that the empathetic observer would not want happening to themselves. Also, when we use simply reasoning, we find that getting hit with a hammer is not something people typically want happening to them. Also, if you are to medically examine someone who has been hit with a hammer, they may be healthier than someone who is terminally ill, but they are always worse off post-hammer hit, than they were before.
If you’re concerned about empathizing about the right things, turn it onto yourself. Think to yourself “how would I feel if such a thing happened to me?” Humans typically have the cognitive ability to consider these things.
As far as “atheistic materialistic claim”, you mustn’t conflate those two terms, as materialism does not follow atheism by default. Atheism is simply one position on one question (the existence of a god).
You “come from a world where deeds are right and wrong and where at least in the broad picture the morality of them is specified by an authoritative source”. The problem is that there is no way to distinguish between those who say they have been spoken to by a true god, or those who are merely delusional. I happen to think that everyone making that claim falls into column B. So if there is no way to verify what god has actually said, do you turn to the bible? Because I hardly believe that a book that never explicitly condemns slavery or rape is in any way a reasonable guide to morality. It far more specifically condemns eating shellfish, pork, and wearing mixed fabrics than it ever does those two horrendous actions. In spots, it specifically condones slavery, and while never seemingly commanding rape (depending on what purpose keeping only young virgin women alive after a mass genocide had), it only says that the aggressor must pay a dowry to the father of the rape victim, and she is to marry her attacker. With a system that passes off texts as the barbaric words they are, we must simply ask the question of ourselves: Do you want to be owned as a slave? Do you want to be raped? If the answer is no (and it always is, as the very concept of either requires lack of consent) then we don’t have to examine the issue any further.
As far as bringing abortion into it, I personally do consider it a contentious and difficult issue, but only in certain cases. Due to the poetic language surrounding the heart, many believe that as soon as a heartbeat is present, the fetus is sentient. Of course, we now know that sentience requires a working brain. The point at which downs syndrome is detectable to a level of 99% certainty is at 14-20 weeks (after performing an amniocentesis). The absolute earliest point at which sentience can begin is said to be 18-25 weeks. If the fetus is not sentient, then it can’t suffer. If there is something else you’re considering other than earthly suffering, well then that’s just up to your own god’s mercy. If he sends that fetus to purgatory, limbo or hell, well we had no way of knowing. I don’t believe that the bible specifically outlaws abortion either, and at the very least excuses it in Numbers chapter 5. Of course it prescribes a situation where a solution is provided that only causes a termination in certain circumstances, but that alone implies an exception to the rule, does it not?
As an atheist I am confounded that you all think I have no moral base to work from. It is simple really. When confronted with an issue of morality I have to think of how much pain and suffering my action will cause to other people. If my action hurts no one then I can consider my action morally good. If my action does hurt someone then I have acted morally bad. I consider hurting oneself to be morally ambiguous unless it hurts other people in the process.
For example: Smoking hurts my health-If I die from cancer-my family will be hurt by my passing=morally bad.
If I eat a pot brownie and watch a football game with my buddies-good time had by all= morally good.Unless I am disappointing the child I promised to visit that day=morally bad.
If I manage to start a war with another country for the express intent of benefiting myself financially -lots of people killed-but I make a lot of money= morally bad.
And for the record, Just because I don’t have religion or any faith in any gods does not mean i am devoid of emotion. I am not “filled with hate” as some describe the faithless. I love my wife and child. I enjoy and marvel at watching someone demonstrating a new principle of science or mathematics, I hate getting the short end of the stick by making a bad decision. Humanity is too caught up in thinking that morality only comes from whatever holy or sacred book is popular in their part of the world.
Robert Heinlein is quoted as writing ““Sin lies only in hurting others unnecessarily. All other “sins” are invented nonsense.” I actually try to live this. I wish the religious would do the same.
Don’t be astounded, I am asking what it is. You say you do. I wonder what there could be other than you and what would keep me from saying the opposite. And if you and I disagreed over something, to what would we both appeal that would resolve the difference…in your system.
We have actually evolved to be good to the people of our tribe because it is a survival strategy that works to ensure that our genetic makeup is passed on to the next generation. The person of the tribe that acts badly (The morally generally don’t survive to reproduce. It is no wonder that most people actually live by this regardless of their faith system. I do not try to convert others to my way of thinking, but I do call others out when they exhibit “bad behavior.”
To your point:
In my system it would be the degree of harm caused by my actions towards others vs. the degree of harm caused by your actions towards others. . Is cheating on my wife harmful…Yes, it could break apart my family=morally bad. Is thinking about cheating on my wife, but not acting on that impulse, and realizing that it would harm my wife = morally good. As always there is no black/white morality decision that is always easy and sometimes it relies on doing the least amount of harm to others. Many times I have been called a good christian by people of faith and almost always I encounter surprise and shock when I inform them that I am an atheist.
1. On what do you base your notions of right or wrong?
I subscribe to the objective morality espoused by thinkers like Matt Dillahunty and Sam Harris. I’m not a moral relativist. You take basic premises the majority of humanity can agree on, things like “Life is generally preferable to death”, “Pleasure is generally preferable to pain” and “Health is generally preferable to sickness”. If we can’t agree on premises as simple as these no form of conversation between us will be possible. From there I construct the basis for my morality, which is on the basis of harm and well being. If you are interested in a fully detailed version of it, cause I don’t feel like writing it all out here, google or youtube the “Superiority of Secular Morality” by Matt Dillahunty.
2. How are your notions better than mine or your neighbor’s?
Yours specifically? It’s better because it’s based in reality and not make believe. My neighbors? That I don’t know because I don’t know what their morality is, they may very well have a better moral system than I do, I haven’t asked them.
3. Are not the very words “morality,” “right,” and “wrong” judgments? If so, what is the standard you use to make these judgments?
Yes they are. I base them on my objective morality. Again, not a relativist.
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 or say?
Well I don’t agree that you are that. What I think you are is a organic machine with a mind, just like a computer is ‘just a series of wires and diodes’ but when you turn it on you can do wonders on it. We are the same, we are a manifistation of the processes in our brain, just like a operating system is a manifestation of the processes in a CPU. And I hold you responsible because you are in control of what you 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?
I don’t concede that you aren’t responsible. YOU ARE.
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?
Since you are still assuming things, this question is N/A to me.
7. But where do these notions come from and why are your notions better than mine?
Mine are based in reality. Yours aren’t.
8. Again, if I may: on what do you base you notions of right and wrong?
Objective morality, go watch the video I suggested.
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?
Yes, obviously so. The same way as you do. I’m an animal like you, and many animals are capable of morality not just humans. The norms are found in society and our inborn empathy. To put it bluntly, if we weren’t moral we would have died out long ago, we never would have gotten this far without it. We would have gone the way of the dinosaur into extinction. There are natural laws. And you make the mistake of calling reality creation when it’s just reality. You don’t get to assume a creator. This is reality, or the unvierse, NOT creation.
One of Florida’s top Christian Ministers, whom is only a mere 27 years old, is in critical condition after sustaining a life threatening Pulmonary Embolism. Christians all over the world are praying and making donations to help this young child of God get back on his feet to continue to spread Jesus Christs message of Salvation, everywhere from in home one-on-ones to Dangerous Prison Systems where Christ has advised to go and find his lost sheep wherever they may be! I’m begging each and every one of you that reads this message to help Support Clancy Byrne, his Wife Phelicia Byrne, and their unborn Child. Every dollar counts, Every Prayer is heard. I pray in Jesus name that you help this Strong Faithed Christian get back on his feet to continue to spread Gods word and Love! A link to learn more about this incredible Christian and how you can make a donation of any amount can be seen using the following line, http://www.gofundme.com/emh2ss. Thank you, and may God Bless you and your Family!