Answering “ed”
In the comments section to my article “Atheism is not a religion“, a reader named “ed” asked me to answer three questions surrounding atheism:
Who is the quintessential atheist, in your opinion? Who has (if anyone) fully represented Atheism both in beliefs and actions?
Well, as “The Atheist Jew” pointed out already, an atheist is simply someone who has no belief in God. There are no “beliefs” in atheism, and I had already explained how atheism is not a religion since it has no belief system. Yesterday I was watching the “Atheist Experience” show on the internet, and they had a caller who talked for about 10 minutes on the subject of belief, before insulting the hosts and being cut off. He did however, start a discussion on whether it takes the same amount of faith the disbelieve in a God than it does to believe in him. Of course, the atheist hosts answered the question with a well explained “no”. They mentioned believing in “pixies”, and the fact that nobody would seriously argue that you need to take a leap of faith to say you didn’t believe in pixies. The evidence is overwhelming that these creatures only exist in legends and stories, and that no accurate sighting have ever been made or verified. Nobody can know for sure whether God exists of course, and so there is a leap of “faith” in the same way that there is with any scientific theory, but the leap only comes through supporting evidence (or lack thereof). If anything, it requires less of a leap to disbelieve in God than it does to believe, certainly not more.
Now to the whole concept of “acting atheist” which I can’t really wrap my head around. If we have already come to the obvious conclusion that there are no beliefs structures in atheism, and therefore the only thing lumping atheists together in a group is the fact that they say “I don’t believe in God”, how can that define any possible actions? Christians and Muslims pray because their belief system supports it as an action, but the only actions supported by atheism are the ones that come naturally to humans anyway. So to answer the second part of your question rather simply, every single living (and indeed non-living) human “acts” like an atheist. Now, if you are talking about whether atheists should act in a different way then you are covering an entirely different subject, and one I would possibly like to save for an entire blog post. I personally don’t support the way Richard Dawkins is going about waging a war with theists, but that is his decision, not the decision of atheists in general.
How does an Atheist deal with Evil?
This question gets me into one of my favourite subjects when debating many religious people…morality. A lot of Christians like to claim that the Bible came up with morality, in fact, Kent Hovind used to make a load of money each year by saying it repeatedly at his lectures (until he was arrested for tax evasion that is). He claimed that he once asked an atheist student where his morals come from. The student replied “my morals come from me, they are what I think are correct”, so Kent said to the guy “Ok, well then I think it’s fine to shoot you in 5 minutes, so watch out!”. For once, Hovind had got it right, but it was really the students fault for his appalling answer. Morality comes from a majority decision on what is right and wrong. It forms out of the protective instinct we have for our own families, and the proof for this exists in history.
If the Bible invented morality, then how were there any people left to write the Bible in the first place? In a world without morals, humankind would be murderous and savage. It wouldn’t be our fault of course, we just wouldn’t know any different. It would be a think-do world, one in which consequences are never considered. This world (thankfully) has never existed, because as far as we can tell, cavemen were moral people. They lived in groups of families, and attacked anyone who attacked or threatened one of their own. Their behaviour is reflected in almost every single branch of the animal kingdom, and it doesn’t matter if you are a grizzly bear or an ant, you will protect yourself and your family from harm.
So it is fair to say that our common instinct developed into the idea of morality, long before the Bible started advocating slavery and homophobia, which of course are excellent morals for a modern society…
Evil then, must be an overriding factor in our moral judgements. Not much is known about what drives a human to commit acts of “evil” (defined by the majority again), but some reports suggest abuse as a child (when the brain is open to new ideas), and certainly people like Charles Manson can be attributed to this. Human beings are not perfect in any shape or form, and the fact that we can override our sense of instinctual morality is one of these flaws. Evil will exist as long as human beings exist in this form.
Is it possible to be an Atheist without being a Humanist or a Doctor of Biology?
I would answer this question simply with a “yes” since I know plenty of people who aren’t Biology students and Humanists, yet who are atheists. I am sure a student of Biology understands the process of evolution and how the body works better than I, but that doesn’t mean I don’t have a good understanding of it. Neither does it mean that all Biology students are atheists, and I am sure that there are a vast number who are theist, and simply believe that God used the process of evolution to shape life.
To be an atheist, all you need to do is to not believe in God, it’s that simple. Every single human is born atheist, because no newborn baby can comprehend or understand a God. They only start believing in God in later life, if at all.
Now to address the humanist issue, which can be proven wrong with a simple example. One can hardly call the likes of Joseph Stalin a “humanist”, and yet he was an atheist. The fact that he was an “evil” dictator and an atheist is pure coincidence, and he certainly never ordered the deaths of anyone “in the name of atheism” as some theists like to claim.
So, I hope that answers your questions ed. Please feel free to comment / debate the points I have made.
If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Possibly Related Posts:
Subscribe to my RSS Feed if you like what you read!
Loading ...
[...] es sein, zu begreifen, dass Atheismus keine Religion ist und auch keine Glaubensinhalte besitzt? ~ Answering “ed” Monday, February 25, 2008 | at 9:58 [...]
Atheismus ist immer noch keine Religion | A GRIM DRAFT
25 Feb 08 at 8:58 pm (GMT)
In reference to the first question you answered, I agree with the answer you gave that atheists of course do not have one overall way doing things that holds us together, but just to argue the other way for the sake of it, maybe you should consider the fact that a large number of atheists have developed a collection of common traits - many of us for example are knoledagle about the Bible and spend a large proportion of our time time pointing out its faults. Thats just one example off the top of my head, a thing that many of us happen to “do” as atheists although of course there are no real intrinsic traits of atheism bar not believing in the existence of God.
Mary
25 Feb 08 at 11:15 pm (GMT)
A atheist is not someone who has no belief in God. That’s an infant.
An atheist is someone who believes no god exists.
Atheism is a belief by most people because:
- They have no had personal expiring of any evidence against the existence of a god. They are not scientists but believe what scientist say to be true.
- The existence of the big bangs says that the universe had a beginning, as the religious claim, when time started - as Hawkins showed. However we will never know what if anything, created the Big bang because everything that precede the big bang as destroyed in it event. Nevertheless Hawkins (History of time) does not believe it was a God.
Atheism is not a belief system because it is one belief - God does not exist.
Atheism is not a religion because it carries no guide to conduct, Humanism is atheism which does.
just Jack
26 Feb 08 at 1:49 am (GMT)
just Jack,
So are you claiming that because adults have been exposed to the idea of God, we have to be “believers” in some way? Whereas an infant has not been exposed to the idea and so can not form an opinion?
I just wanted to know where you stood because if that is the case, everything becomes a belief issue. If I went up to you and said “I once swam across the Atlantic without breathing”, you would say “I don’t believe that” simply because the evidence suggest that it is impossible. You wouldn’t say “I believe that you didn’t do that” because 1) it implies that it could be possible, and 2) it overcomplicates the point.
It is far easier, and far more justified to say that you do not believe in something than to say that you “believe it is not possible”.
As for your other points (about the belief system and conduct), I am in 100% agreement.
Adrian Hayter
26 Feb 08 at 2:08 am (GMT)
>Is it possible to be an Atheist without being a Humanist or a Doctor of Biology?
I threw you a softball with that one. The question should have been: is it possible to defend atheism without being a Doctor of Biology?
It seems as though it is not. Here we enter a discussion about the nature of evil and you and Atheist Jew: introduce comments about the animal kingdom. If we’d only look to scientists…they have the answers. How about lobotomies…whew they got that one wrong, didn’t they?
>How does an Atheist deal with Evil?
>Morality comes from a majority decision on what is right and wrong.
You ought to be careful with your answer here, because it leads me to ask you to comment on the Nazi group morals.
I’m glad that you brought up Slavery. There was a time in the history of the world in which Slavery was “a majority decision”. Here is the atheist difficulty on the Evil (which I was hoping that you’d clear up). Are you telling me that there really is nothing immoral about Slavery (you just don’t prefer it, because it is out of fashion, currently)?
I would never say that all Atheist are immoral or that the Bible has created Morality.
>Who is the quintessential atheist, in your opinion? Who has (if anyone) fully >represented Atheism both in beliefs and actions?
I think that due to the problems of dealing with evil, you have had difficulty coming up with a person to label as the Quintessential Atheist. It is impossible to view your fellow man as nothing but and animal and at the same time fight for his dignity and worth.
Where is the Mother-Teresa-like atheist who spends his/her life selflessly working for the betterment of the upright monkeys? Ask yourself why there is none.
Adrian, gallant effort, however, I don’t feel that any of these questions have been answered.
ed
26 Feb 08 at 6:43 pm (GMT)
ed,
You don’t have to be a scientist to understand science. If someone came up to me and said they didn’t believe in gravity, I’d be able to explain to them why gravity exists because I understand the theory behind it. The same applies to biology. I understand how evolution works, and therefore I am able to explain it to non-believers. Of course, evolution first came out of the minds of scientists, but that doesn’t mean you have to be a Doctor of Biology to be able to use it. You forget that the majority of atheists support their views using science, and so it is very likely that a scientist came up with the information they are using.
Obviously Nazi morals in the accepted modern society are viewed as wrong, but in Nazi Germany they were accepted as perfectly valid, so yes, in the context of Nazism, Nazi morals are perfectly valid.
* Before I go any further and someone misquotes me, I would like to make it VERY clear that I do not condone Nazism, nor do I support their morals. *
To answer your second question, in different periods of history, slavery was an accepted moral, and not immoral by the standards of the time. Since I don’t live in a time where slavery is considered moral, I find it completely immoral, and my view is based on my upbringing in a society that is increasingly against slavery. However, if you or I had been brought up a few hundred years ago, we would both likely think that slavery was moral.
I don’t “not prefer” anything just because it is out of fashion, and I am sure that if the government suddenly brought slavery back in, most (including myself) would be against it.
I’m glad that you don’t think atheists are immoral or the Bible created morality, but I would be interested in knowing your view on where it comes from.
I oppose your third point because I honestly do not think there can be such a person. Remember that atheism is not a religion, and so does not have any rules you can judge people by (in terms of who is the better atheist etc). I would personally love to put myself forward as the “quintessential” atheist, but I am sure pretty much every other atheist on the planet would come up with reasons why I am not.
On your point about Mother Teresa, there are thousands of atheists working for the betterment of “mankind” (but thanks for the monkey jibe), whether they are working in the police, as scientists, or as teachers.
It is also interesting to note that Mother Teresa was reportedly a closet atheist, something revealed by Time magazine and numerous analyses of her letters, so in some ironic way, I put forward Mother Teresa as a “quintessential” atheist.
Finally, I’m sorry that you don’t feel I have answered your questions, but I am sure others will feel that I have given you the answers most atheists would give. I would like to enquire who you think the “quintessential” theist is, because I can’t think of any person who fulfils aspects of every single theist based religion on Earth, and as soon as you realise this you will realise why we find it so hard to answer your question.
-Adrian
Adrian Hayter
26 Feb 08 at 9:13 pm (GMT)
It is your inability to make an objective/conclusive declaration that Nazism is morally wrong in all situations that is astonishing to me. Frankly, it scares the heck out of me and should be the largest imedament to the advancement of Atheism. If you can’t say that loving children is more than just a preference over throwing them in a gas chamber, then I’m done with this site. I’ve made my point. Atheism is morally bankrupt.
The other problem is, how is the “majority group opinion” of morality determined by the individual? Do you take a poll every time you have a moral decision to make?
ed
26 Feb 08 at 10:55 pm (GMT)
* Before I go any further and someone misquotes me, I would like to make it VERY clear that I do not condone Nazism, nor do I support their morals. *
Did you not notice I made a very clear conclusive declaration concerning Nazism??? I do not support Nazism, and I think it is morally wrong.
However, in a Nazi society, which we *are not* in, Nazi morals are perfectly valid because they are what the majority of the society believed. I’m not saying they are correct morals in anyway, and as a pacifist I am against all forms of murder, but I cannot ignore the fact that these morals were widely accepted in Nazi Germany, and so must therefore fall into the category of valid morals.
They are not valid now, but they were then. It’s very simple and I don’t see how you are forming such strange views of what to me is a very clear explanation.
It’s sad to think that you are leaving just because you can’t understand some basic points about how morality is interpreted, and claiming that atheism is “morally bankrupt” is completely ridiculous, since I am considered a very moral person myself (and *shock horror* an atheist!)
As for poll taking, your jest is pretty accurate in the terms of how government and society works in the modern world. We all vote for the government we think best reflects out views / morals, and we all take part in discussions and debates with people about views. From these polls and discussions, we form our basic morality. I suspect the reason why people were so morally “wrong” throughout history is due to the lack of proper democracy, and the lack of debates / discussions within the common people.
Adrian Hayter
27 Feb 08 at 12:04 am (GMT)
Adrian- So are you claiming that because adults have been exposed to the idea of God, we have to be “believers” in some way? Whereas an infant has not been exposed to the idea and so can not form an opinion?
Jack - Yes. But is not God, that’s a belief, its exposure to the reality of death that results in beliefs that escape awful reality. Nor is it an adult thing. some Adults are never exposed to that knowledge but more often than not people are exposed to it in childhood.
Adrian - I just wanted to know where you stood because if that is the case, everything becomes a belief issue. If I went up to you and said “I once swam across the Atlantic without breathing”, you would say “I don’t believe that” simply because the evidence suggest that it is impossible.
Jack - No. The evidence does not suggest it is impossible, the evidence shows it is impossible:
1. I cannot hold my breath for more than 2/3 minutes and I do not know of anyone who can hold their breath for more than 3/4 minutes
2. It takes longer that 3/4 minutes to swim across the Atlantic
Adrian - You would’t say “I believe that you didn’t do that” because 1) it implies that it could be possible, and 2) it over complicates the point.
Jack - Lets change the analogy to that in which you claim to have swum the Atlantic. It is possible, people have swum incredible distances. Before I believed you I’d want to see the evidence for myself. It would be honest to say “I believe you didn’t.” which shows that I am open to the presentation of that evidence. I’m more likely to say “I don’t believe it” and hereby challenge you to produce the evidence that would lead me to ‘know’ that you did. Septics can be very pedantic and wisely so. I am equally skeptical about numerous ’scientific’ beliefs, such as schizophrenia (see Szazs) or intelligence (See Burt the fraud).
Adrian - It is far easier, and far more justified to say that you do not believe in something than to say that you “believe it is not possible”.
Easier but not as honest. To say I don’t believe it is to say I know it is not possible and I do not know that for sure. In the case of schizophrenia and intelligence I do know. In the case of God I do not and science tells me I never will, nor will humanity. I believe there is no beginning and there is no end. Unlike Einstein I maintain that belief, but in the face of the evidence Einstein changed his view. Now some 80% of scientists accept the evidence of a begining, including the beginning of time, in the big bang. Further science says humanity will never know what preceded the Big Bang, so that leaves open the possibility of it being a creator. Its why Hawkins said “Now we can see the mind of God”. A true scientist has to say “I do not know.” To say any other is to say I believe it was something else, which hawkins is imlying he does as Hawkins says is an Atheist. In other words he doesn’t BELIEVE it was a god. That makes Atheism a belief.
Simply because I say I don’t know does not mean I accept all the other baggage that comes with some religions like a flat earth, creation of man in the image of god, woman from a rib or a soul that drifts off to a heaven. Nor do I accept the alternative pseudo scientific ’souls’ like a subconscious, intelligence, or cognitions. I’ve been round the world, I saw the pictures from the moon, I have seen selective breading of plants and animals. Intelligence is a political concept, the subconscious allows those who use it to be eternally right, cognitions keep a whole army of academics in a job and genetic determination of complex human behaviors, such as sexuality, is a fashion. Human behaviour evovles. I don’t ‘beleive’ it, I know it and I don’t delude myself. I’ve been privildged to the experiences to know it.
just Jack
27 Feb 08 at 4:04 am (GMT)
The internet is global.
Is 11.04pm here not 4.04am. I’m not that sad!
But that’s cruel - “Whatever get you through the night, its all right,” as ‘Saint’ John Lennon said.
just Jack
27 Feb 08 at 4:11 am (GMT)
Jack,
You provide some good arguments there, and although I differ with you on some points, I can understand your view on the whole “Is atheism a belief or a disbelief?” subject. I’ve thought about the subject often and there are always going to be atheists who say atheism is a belief, and atheists like myself who say it is not.
I personally think that to be a belief, there has to be some leap of faith, i.e. a lack of evidence. This is clear in the argument for God, since there is no real evidence for such a being, and so the lack of evidence supports the atheist.
I would like to question your response to my analogy of the Atlantic swim. You claim that the evidence “shows” the whole thing to be impossible, but your first evidence of this is the fact that you personally do not know anyone who can hold their breath longer than 3-4 minutes. Surely this is an immediate leap of faith that there is not a person in the world who can do this?
Perhaps a better point would have been that studies of the human body show that it is impossible for any human to hold their breath for that long.
Or perhaps a better analogy is in order, but I can’t think of one which isn’t going to come to the same leaps of faith as this one did.
Adrian Hayter
27 Feb 08 at 4:19 am (GMT)
I read your disclaimer. However, my statement was:
>It is your inability to make an objective/conclusive declaration that Nazism is morally wrong in all situations that is astonishing to me.
The key phrase is “in all situations”. It is not that Atheist all act immorally all the time, my point is that when atheist act morally. It is a borrowed morality instead of something from inside. You said yourself that atheist morality is determined from “the group”. Utilitarian.
So, my criticism still stands. You cannot say that IN ALL SITUATIONS to love a care for a child is more than a preference over torturing them. Nuremberg trials.
And this is where atheism has lead you. As bankrupt as Athesim is with morality, it is just as bankrupt when it comes to Epistemology.
Those are my two great criticisms of Atheism. It appears as though without god in the equation. Life crumbles. Shant that be evidence of his existence? Its something that philosophers have called the “impossibility of the contrary”
ed
27 Feb 08 at 2:30 pm (GMT)
ed,
You are still thinking within the boundaries of the society you have been brought up in. Many Nazi’s in the 1930’s were Christian, and yet they considered their morals to be right.
I object to you saying that in all situations we should love children rather than torture them. I propose the following scenario (however unlikely it is):
An evil mastermind has hidden nuclear bombs under every major city in the world. They are all linked into a single activation computer, which is on an automated countdown sequence. If the computer gets destroyed, the bombs go off. The only chance is to enter the password, but there is limited time. You have pursued the evil mastermind but he either escaped or got killed somehow, but you have managed to capture his 10 year old son. You know that this 10 year old child has the password, but will not betray his father easily, so you now have the moral choice: Do you let millions of people die, or torture this one boy to save them all?
The choice for many is obvious, but it seems that if you are the “righteous” person with God in the equation, many people will die. How can you say Life crumbles without God when with him, you are willing to let so many people get hurt?
Many government have a torture clause for this exact purpose. They oppose torture on most levels, but if torture is the only available method, and the outcome is the greater good, then it must be done.
Just as Nazism is not wrong in all situations (for instance in Nazi Germany it was not viewed as wrong). No moral can be truly right in every situation, it’s socially impossible.
Democracy has worked for years deciding morality, and even the society you live in decides morals based on a democratic vote, so please do not claim atheism is morally bankrupt…it simply isn’t true. Christianity teaches that slavery is morally fine, and that if a builder builds a house that falls on the owner, the builder should suffer the same fate (namely death). Both these morals are seen as invalid in the modern society, and yet they still exist in the book that Christians follow (and claim to be the word of God). Likewise, Muslims follow the teachings of the Koran, which says that blasphemers must be put to death, which has been used to promote terrorism in the modern society.
So don’t claim that atheism is morally bankrupt when religions based on theism are so morally wrong as well!
Adrian Hayter
27 Feb 08 at 2:54 pm (GMT)
you are begging the question.
>”Christianity teaches that slavery if morally fine”
And you are telling me that is wrong? On what basis?
ed
27 Feb 08 at 3:46 pm (GMT)
ed,
On the current social basis that every human is equal and has equal rights, therefore owning slaves is morally wrong. It is because of freethinkers that slavery was abolished, because they stood up and said “this is wrong” and presented their argument for the equality of humans.
Are you saying it is correct? On what modern basis?
Adrian Hayter
27 Feb 08 at 10:45 pm (GMT)
Adrian - I would like to question your response to my analogy of the Atlantic swim. You claim that the evidence “shows” the whole thing to be impossible, but your first evidence of this is the fact that you personally do not know anyone who can hold their breath longer than 3-4 minutes. Surely this is an immediate leap of faith that there is not a person in the world who can do this?
Jack - Good question. I prefer the expression “A leap into faith.” It illustrates the issue better.
Nothing in your claim required a leap into faith. You did not present yourself as super-natural or any different to any other human I know. So no, I don’t believe you could swim the Atlantic without breathing.
Had you said you could because God was on your side, then I’d say I don’t know about God but I’ve never seen anyone with God on their side, so I believe it’s not possible.
Adrian - Perhaps a better point would have been that studies of the human body show that it is impossible for any human to hold their breath for that long.
Jack - No that requires a leap of faith. Faith in the accuracy of what biologists and/or physiologists say. Generally I have such faith but I’ve not seen the studies. If I was to repeat what they taught me then that would be here-say. Here-say is not acceptable evidence in a law court. They would call the biologist, not me. It is not necessary for me to be a biology doctorate to know the scientific answer to the question of God, but it is necessary for me to know the research methods of biological science. I don’t. I do know those of psychology.
However I learnt to be skeptical about all teachers and the best teachers encouraged me to be so. For instance, at 15 I was told about Boyle’s Law. A ‘law’ of nature. At 16 I was told Boyle’s law Has some exceptions. At 17 I was told that actually Boyle’s law does not hold up.
Recently STD scientists have said that they have the evidence from Africa that circumcision reduces the probability of AIDS. I find that difficult to believe because AIDS is more common in the USA where 87% of all men are circumcised but less common in Northern Europe where virtually no men are circumcised. I also know their research methods do not show cause, they show correlations. All correlations as suspect to category ‘A’ errors.
The first places of learning were often established by the Church. The first teachers often came from those places. Most religious teachers require unquestioning leap into faith.
There are two sources of knowledge - ways of knowing. One is to discover for yourself. The other is to be told by someone else, such as a teacher.
There are two ways of teaching. One is to take the learner through the experience - common in Mathematics, art and some science subjects. The other is to tell the learner -common in geography and history. Go accept history teaching is an act of faith as shown in the way history is reinterpreted over time. The laws of mathematics taught in schools are not. Maybe the reason I did well in geography as because I traveled hate world as a child and knew most of what the teacher was saying, the other pupils had to accept it as a matter of faith. The difference between being taught and learning is illustrated by dancing. I can be taught the steps, by diagram or modeling but I have to learn them for myself. That is the problem with British employers. They hire graduates who are taught theory but have not learnt anything.
The description of God is framed in a way that cannot be denied. Those who accept the big bang have to accept that God may have preceded and created it. Scientists presently say there are parallel universes with some version of me within it. Maybe that’s heaven? Sounds preferable to the biblical version. In both cases I don’t know and it seems no-one else does as yet. To say it is one or the other, is a leap into faith that I believe one of the other.
I guess we have concluded this debate, because I am back to the same point. Let me conclude with some points:
1. People in glasshouses should not throw stones. Science, especially the social sciences, is loaded with untestable beliefs called theories - intelligence.
2. Many social scientists use things they cannot see or measure to explain our behavior - Subconscious, cognitions, etc. They have merely invented a ’scientific’ soul. Science should put its house into order.
3. Evolution by selection is not a theory as recently determined by a vote of the Florida State Education board. Evolution is fact.
4. It is not the behoven of those who not propose a theory to prove that theory, that is for those who proposed the theory. How can they do that when science has said humanity never know what preceded the big bang or probably the outcome of the universe.
6. I’d like an easy answer. Easier than something preceded the big bang, call that God if you want, ‘created’ the universe and everything within it. That includes evolution which returns us to the position of the majority of early scientists that have existed (To date).
5. Whatever gets you through the night is alright and long as you do not abuse someone else in the process. It is an abuse in my view too act upon a belief if that adversely affects another or expect anyone else to act upon beliefs they do not hold. Generally speaking the law agrees with me, but not always. In the USA, if I believe someone else has put my life in danger, it is legitimate for me to shoot them. UK law agrees with me but allows me to use reasonable force in self-defense.
Jack
just Jack
28 Feb 08 at 6:41 am (GMT)
Now you are talking out of the both sides of your mouth.
On one hand you want to say that Atheists follow the morals “of the group” and on the other hand you want to say that there were some Atheist abolitionist who stood up against the group. This is confusing. Which is it?
“Do you let millions of people die, or torture this one boy to save them all?
The choice for many is obvious, but it seems that if you are the “righteous” person with God in the equation, many people will die. How can you say Life crumbles without God when with him, you are willing to let so many people get hurt?”
It is your code of ethics that is more sympathetic to the extermination of millions of people, not mine. I know that you said that you do not support the Nazi morals, but you also cannot condemn them if you were in Nazi Germany.
Lastly, regarding the majority opinion on morality. I’m sure that the millions of Jews didn’t support the notion of extermination. So, we shouldn’t be referring to Nazi morals as “the majority” in Nazi Germany. At some point, “the final solution” became the law of the land. So, then the question is: do Atheist blindly follow the law of the land as the majority opinion on morals or use some other means?
ed
28 Feb 08 at 2:06 pm (GMT)
There is currently Slavery in the world today. I guess you are saying that it is evil for a child to be sold into Slavery in America today, but if you are living in Cambodia then it is virtuous?
ed
28 Feb 08 at 2:09 pm (GMT)
Ed.
This is an open discussion. Accusing someone of an ‘..inability to be objective’ and of “talking out of both side of your mouth” simple deters others from reading your comments and participating.
It is the mark of a true democracy that everyone is free to hold and express whatever beliefs they choose, even if others, in the majority or minority, find those beliefs or views abhorrent. Your statements above suggest a frustration that you are failing to win an argument. In a discussion, there is no winning or loosing, there is only understanding of views and discussants’ positions. Arguments are won or lost in debates and politics. I trust this forum is neither.
For something to be bankrupt it must have lost that on which it stood. Atheism cannot be morally bankrupt because Atheism is not a moral view or system just as it is not a belief system. It is a single belief that God does not exist, atheism has no beliefs of what created the universe, except possible that science will one day answer that question. Atheism has no morals. Secular humanism does.
The Christian bible is a moral code of conduct. Born again Christians may be seen as mistaken that every word of their Bible is to be taken literally. Read, as it was probably intended, the bible is a set of fables that chart the history of social evolution. For instance Adam, Eve and the tree is a coming of age fable repeated by every adolescent. Regrettably it suggests that when caught breaking the rules it is OK to blame the lowest of the low. Adam blames Eve, Eve blames the snake.
The Ten Commandments are described by many social scientists as the ten basic rules needed to create a stable civilized society. Even in the bible they evolved. Seven were given to Adam, one was added with Cain and Abel, Moses had ten. That shows that if God created man then God did create man in his own image - of is capable of learning. Atheists and most social scientists would argue man created God in his own idealistic image. Perhaps God will learn, as man has, that it is not OK to blame the defenseless snake.
Your argument that the atheist has a greater propensity for evil, as in Stalin, is far more interesting. For that discussion you will first need to define evil. Is it evil to dominate one’s fellow man, is it immoral and if so by whose moral code? Next you will need to show that those without god on their side have done more evil than those with god on the side. If you succeed, at this or any other point in history, you then need to show that it is more than a coincidence - more than a spurious correlation. Finally you need to show why atheism has a greater propensity to be a-moral or immoral. To do that you need show what maintains moral behaviour. Whether you have a doctorate in social science or not does not mater. Throw the softball, lets explore.
To encourage others to engage in that discussion I suggest Adrian starts a new thread, maybe with a question:
“Is Atheism amoral? If so does Atheism encourage immorality. Should society be concerned?”
In that discussion lets not seek to win an argument but understand and lets not get frustrated by others inability to agree with us.
For me and I guess many others, that is a fascinating and pressing question.
just Jack
28 Feb 08 at 4:53 pm (GMT)
just Jack,
Atheism is a world view that has moral implications. When you deny god you deny the glue that hold us all together. When that is gone, then your world view can become dangerous.
I respect your comments about debates/and discussions on this site. My frustration with Adrian has been his unwillingness to face the obvious conclusions of atheism. Also, atheist tend to be guilty of the same things that they criticize religion for.
I’ve forcing Adrian into a corner over morality in order to allow him to deal with the void that is there. However, he continues to retort with I’m a moral person!! I am willing to accept that, but he is borrowing his morality from religion and he either doesn’t see it or doesn’t want to see it.
ed
29 Feb 08 at 1:45 pm (GMT)
ed,
I don’t think there is any “glue” that holds us together in the first place. I had a very interesting discussion on morality last night with a Christian, and he accepted my view of “democratic morality” as a well structured argument, and something he would have to consider more. Evidently my argument is good enough to convince someone of faith, but maybe I’m not presenting the argument well here.
I think the evidence for certain “democratic morality” is present in today’s society as much as it was thousands if not millions of years ago. So called “cavemen” lived in small groups, often mixed families, and yet they didn’t go about killing within the group. There is evidence that they were very hostile to outsiders, but then that is our instinct even to this day. If someone knocks on your door and asks to come in, you are immediately suspicious, as our instinct has kicked in and the possibility of a threat is played out in our mind.
The key thing to remember here is that there was no Bible or religion back in those days, so where did morality come from? Evidently human instinct has a large part to play in deciding our morality.
The people who wrote the Bible and other religious works simply used the most effective and agreed democratic morals at the time, namely “Thou shalt not kill” and “Thou shalt not steal”. There was murder and stealing before the Bible, but it was viewed as morally wrong in society. Why? Because the majority of people were against it. This is the way society has worked for the entirety of human history.
Let me propose a “hierarchy” of morality then. I think the lowest type of morality on the tree is our instinctual morality, i.e. the morality which is unique to each individual. This is the kind of morality that can be dangerous, since some people can see no wrong in murder (examples such as Charles Manson etc).
The next branch up the morality tree is our “close social” morality. This is the morality formed within close bonds like family and friendship. It has special rules that mean certain acts such as “stealing” are viewed as less harsh. For example, nobody in my flat would mind or indeed care if I “stole” some of their bread or milk, whereas if I went up to someone in the street and drank some of their drink, it would be viewed as completely wrong.
The final tier of the morality tree is the “expanded social” morality. This is the democratic collection of all different moral views in order to find one that the majority agree on. There are of course different scales for expanded social morality, as some countries like America support the death penalty, but other countries such as the UK do not. On a world view, the death penalty probably has more people in opposition than it does in support, and so the world moral on the death penalty is that it is bad.
I hope now you can see that in the context of Nazi Germany, the expanded social view of the world was that it is wrong, yet the expanded social view of Germany itself was that it was right. Both are valid morals, but the latter was not supported by the rest of the world.
I am not claiming that there were not people in Nazi Germany who weren’t against Nazism, but that these people were more related to a close social group than the expanded social view of Germany itself. They were the minority, not the majority.
To conclude, although this is just a “hypothesis” that I have created to try and explain my arguments (and I am no way a sociologist), I think that in simple terms we can break down morality to those three groups. Expanded social morality is the accepted view of the state, but can be overridden by various groups of close social morality, which in turn can be overridden by our instinctual morality. The UK as a state opposes murder, and yet there are gangs such as the mafia who are close social moral groups who think it is fine within certain boundaries. The close social morality has overridden the expanded social morality in this case.
To relate to religion, when religion was first starting, it latched on to the moral views of the expanded social grouping, and claimed them as their own. Religious morals did not come from religion, they came from the expanded social morals that were already accepted at the time. If anything, religion is a carrying force for those morals, and although this was helpful in medieval times, in today’s modern society, ruled by democratic systems, the vast majority of morality is decided by the majority, i.e. the expanded social group. Religion has been an excellent driving force, but the source of morality hasn’t changed, and it never will.
Adrian Hayter
29 Feb 08 at 2:17 pm (GMT)
ED said - I’ve forcing Adrian into a corner over morality in order to allow him to deal with the void that is there.
Jack - Forcing is not allowing. As Ivor Richards said of such heated debates “..knowledged ducks between to ‘NOs’. ”
True in western society much of morality has been preserved and passed down by Christianity, but that does not mean that social morality will not have evolved by other means. At times Christianity strayed far from its own moral code.
just Jack
29 Feb 08 at 5:52 pm (GMT)
Atheistblogger,
Since you will not answer my question. I will answer it for you.
“in today’s modern society, ruled by democratic systems, the vast majority of morality is decided by the majority”
You would answer:
Yes, Slavery is evil in America, but virtuous in Cambodia.
The problem with your system is there is no transcendent hook to your morals, there is no ‘ought’. I ought to love children instead making them slaves. What you have instead is just a preference. The other problem with your system is, what do you do when the majority is wrong? In your system. the majority is never wrong, which presents you with the problem of condeming things that you would have supported if events were different. One philosopher put it this way “In some countries they love their neighbor, in others they eat them. Do you have a preference?”
ed
29 Feb 08 at 7:01 pm (GMT)
Adrian said - “I am no way a sociologist.”
Lets get passed ‘who said’ to ‘what is said’. I hesitate to ‘pull rank’, especially when my qualification in sociology did not extend far into religion, but I wish to compliment you interesting ideas that have much merit, but for:
Adrian said - “The key thing to remember here is that there was no Bible or religion back in those days, so where did morality come from? Evidently human instinct has a large part to play in deciding our morality.”
But there was superstition and it was passed down by the means available at that time - word of mouth. Look back 4,000 years. What we now call superstition we may then have called religion.
The problem with a structural analysis is first that its categorization has overlap and exception. What morality once allowed the Eskimo to watch his mother walk out to die of exposure? It was when she no longer had any function in contributing to the family survival and became only a consumer. Her last act was to be the food that enabled the survival and procreation of the polar bear her son may one day kill and use to feed and clothe the family. That maybe a cruel reality in such harsh environments, and I use it only to illustrate the issue.
Structure merely describes what is there. It’s a description, not an explanation. What made it come about, what maintains it and why may it change? Change is the norm but all too often Structuralists resist change. To do so they claim that the cause is equally ‘fixed’ and not worthy of examination. You fall into this trap - “…that is our instinct even to this day.” What instinct determines when is killing murder? - when the victim is an aggressor, a family, societal, or racial member, or what?
Contrary to the current fashion, the delight of humans is that little of human behaviour is instinctive and even those instincts we have we can and are expected to control. Penile erection is a (instinctive) reflex to stimulation but a woman has the legal right to say ‘No’ even in the midst of sexual intercourse.
Even those instincts we have must have originated somewhere, which points to the ultimate fallacy of Dawkin’s position. The origins must lie in learning or a ‘creator’. If it is a creator then we are forced to accept the structuralist argument. If is learning then we must look at the function of the original behaviour that was selected to become such an instinct.
Killing is not instinctive as shown in British Law, where self defense is only justified by reasonable force. The Old Testament may say an eye fro an eye, but the New testament says that no-one may take God’s law into their own hands. That is now embodied into most laws.
The ultimate question of morality is therefore: In the absence of the ultimate sanction of not getting past the pearly gates of life ever after, why shouldn’t I kill you?
Again I urge you to move this discussion to a new thread to encourage wider participation.
just Jack
29 Feb 08 at 7:03 pm (GMT)
Adrian,
Well you have shown us one thing with your reponse to the question of evil. You’ve displayed that the whole atheism = free thinkers montra is baloney. You’ve admited that your morality is informed by others. That isn’t the free thought that I’d expect from atheists.
ed
1 Mar 08 at 8:51 pm (GMT)
ed,
You evidently don’t understand free thought. Free thought is the premise that beliefs should be formed with science, reason, and logic, not through any form of dogmatic approach. In the context of Evil, we have come to a scientific conclusion that humans are a social animal, and therefore should not do harm to one another. Anything that does do harm to humans through a visible process of thought rather than the natural instinct is classified as “Evil”.
My morality is affected by others, but the evidence behind it is scientific (which is why I believe in Evolution along with the majority of scientists). Since morality is a social idea, I don’t think you can apply the idea of free thought to it as a whole, but certainly you can apply free thought to the morals that come out of morality. For instance, in parts of American it is immoral to be homosexual, yet there are people who are free thinkers and have used the scientific method to disprove this on the grounds of evidence.
Adrian Hayter
1 Mar 08 at 10:24 pm (GMT)
Oh Ed!
You’ve blown your cover. You came with an agenda - and a closed mind.
How disappointing.
just Jack
2 Mar 08 at 3:13 am (GMT)
[...] es sein, zu begreifen, dass Atheismus keine Religion ist und auch keine Glaubensinhalte besitzt? ~ Answering “ed” « Selbstidentifikation durch Konsum [...]
DER MISANTHROP » Blog Archiv » Atheismus ist keine Religion
18 Mar 08 at 9:55 pm (GMT)
[...] to recent discussions on my blog post Answering “ed” and in the post “Without God society is [...]
A question of morality? | The Atheist Blogger
25 Mar 08 at 3:11 pm (GMT)