lurking 8: morality is nonsense to an atheist
It’s not possible for atheists to rationally ground moral judgments objectively. You are merely expressing your personal opinions when you say that something is right or wrong. On your atheistic view, things like rape, slavery, infanticide, genocide, etc. are all permissible if the majority of people in a particular place and time accept it. There is no objective right and wrong, and there are no objective human rights. Morality is nonsense to an atheist.
This quote was found in the comments section on an invited lurking trip, courtesy of my dear old friend, and second favourite blogger, Ark. After choking on my dinner, I thought it might be nice to respond to some of the accusations found in this interesting comment.
1. It is not possible for Christians to rationally ground moral judgements if they think that sensible directions for behavioural choices can be found in the a rambling ancient text.
2. As an atheist, I am indeed merely expressing my opinion when I say something is right or wrong, and I am open to hearing reasons why other people would take a different view. Reasons based on evidence, not a rambling ancient cobbled together text. That’s why over the years I’ve changed my opinion on things like eating other animals (it’s wrong).
3. In the Christian view, things like things like rape, slavery, infanticide, genocide, etc. are all permissible whenever their god feels it’s justified. And Christians accept this, while declaring morality is absolute and comes from this god, and atheists are immoral because no-one told them not to do these things (whilest providing examples of when it’s okay to do them). Confused? You must be a Christian!
4. There is no objective right and wrong, and there are no objective human rights. There are our best guesses at the least harmful approach to any situation, given the evidence available about possible outcomes. That’s why the human rights movement continuously changes and evolves.
5. Morality is a pile of nonsense. It’s a loaded religious label designed to confuse the simple mixture of co-operative and empathetic instincts that develop in all social animals. These combined with the social norms of our upbringing determine what we feel is right and wrong. That’s why suicide is okay in some cultures, and not in others. That’s why the death penalty for crimes is normal in some countries, and not in others. That’s why it used to be acceptable to burn witches, drown heretics and stone adulterers. Where’s your absolute morality now?
When Christian Apologists cite the Divine Command Theory as an excuse for genocide and consider it moral you know you are dealing with people who have left their brains at the door.
The sad, and galling thing is this nonsense is taught to children and Christians are brought up to believe they have a moral (sic) duty to proselytize.
Sadly there seems to be almost nothing one can do to openly prevent this from happening and from the accounts I have read of deconvertees most have never been persuaded by the atheist argument but rather a slow and oft times painful discovery that they have been lied to and only then does the unraveling begin.
LikeLike
I think there’s no argument that can undo religious wiring, because like you say it is a long process of unpicking it all. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being religious, it’s a natural yearning, but making up rules on the back of it is the problem. Or being confused about how humans work and spreading that confusing. Morality shmorality …
LikeLike
I use to believe in divine command theory, but in my opinion the way I feel about morality is pretty simple. God did not invent, cause god does not exist. so morality is defined by men, and has changed just as man has changed.
LikeLike
Agreed. It’s so obvious that I can’t really understand where the deluded theists are coming from. Even if I believed in a creator god, I would have to acknowledge that this sense of right and wrong is nothing more than a requirement of a co-operative species.
LikeLike
# 5 should be #1, and it should have flashing lights plastered all over it. Thank you! I have lost all patience with theists who bring this up. It’s really very simple: with intelligence comes the ability to predict, with prediction comes the ability to analyse the consequences of behaviour on others (ergo, empathy), and with greater intelligence comes the ability to formalise acceptable behaviour (ergo, a flexible moral code). That’s it. There is nothing more complicated to it.
LikeLike
Their arguments are so bizarre. You just have to look at dogs, or any other species, not randomly killing each other – no prophet dog had to present this on a written tablet for dogs to get this. It’s basic survival instinct – we push for a world where our chances of survival are optimised, and that no longer entails killing potential rivals for most of us, but demanding equality of treatment.
LikeLike
Well said. Consider also the case of the military general. He is at pains to dehumanise the enemy in the eyes of his soldiers, the one’s who’ll be doing the killing. He must override their natural empathy before the battle so the soldier doesn’t see another human being on the other side, but a form which must be destroyed.
LikeLike
What a tangled web…
Regarding the quote: It is wrong. An atheist can still come up with some sort of moral system; you yourself have a (confused) one.There have been many coherent attempts at building moral systems independently of the question of God over the years: Kant, Smith, Nietzsche, Quine, Habbermas…
Regarding your points:
1) Point one is not a factual statement. Looking at Christian tradition, the basic point of reference is not quite scripture, but the old concept of natural law. For most of Christian history it was commonplace to assert that pagans should have a basic intuitive understanding of good and evil behavior because he was human. Morality was generally considered a human thing, not a specifically Christian thing. God, as creator of humanity would have been the ultimate source of morals, but you would not have to know the creator to figure out good and evil, just the creature.
2) Reasons based on evidence are the source morality? Yeah, that is pretty much the starting point of most Christian theologians I know of, from Aquinas to Rahner. The thing that is being argued about is just what sort of “reason and evidence” is considered valid.
3) Historically, there have been theologians who tried to understand certain OT passages in which God commands something objectively immoral by saying that God alone can command immorality, or that certain things were permitted in the OT that are not permitted in the NT, leading to some silly intellectual contortions. The modern approach is to admit that God simply does not command immoral acts, and that the Biblical account is a reflection of Bronze age cultural norms which can be judged according to (gasp!) objective moral norms.
4) Oh good, now we know that your moral system is “the least harmful approach based on available evidence”. But you still need to ground WHY we should prefer the least harmful approach. Why is “minimize harm” your moral absolute?
5) If morality is a pile of nonsense why bother with “the least harmful approach”? What makes “least harmful” superior to “maximum harm” if not some form of morality? And if you were transported to 16th century Germany, would you object to the burning of witches? If you were living in 15th century Spain, would you object to the Inquisition? On what grounds?
LikeLike
1) It is factual – see the ‘if’ – and many Christians do believe answers are found exclusively in the text (and by answers to prayer via a sign or funny feeling).
2) As I stated, the Bible isn’t a valid source of evidence for determining what’s right and wrong by current human standards. See slavery, genocide and stoning. If it can be wrong about such basic areas, it would be beyond foolish to consult it for guidance on other matters.
3) Agreed. Making the whole matter of how to imagine what the god God would say about abortion, contraceptives or same sex marriage all the more ridiculous.
4) Why is “minimize harm” my moral absolute? At a most basic level because like every other living creature I want optimal survival opportunities for myself and my offspring. Protecting my corner doesn’t cut it in an international world, it’s about making life better for everyone.
5) You misunderstand. ‘Morality’ the misleading label for our natural empathetic instincts as social animals, is a pile of nonsense. Trying to make living conditions better for all people is natural for the reasons given in 4. I have no idea how I would have responded to the burning of witches or the inquisition, but I’m sure the people who did it thought they were making life better for everyone. My point was that rights and wrongs are in no way absolute from a Christian point of view, so the quoted paragraph ranting about atheist morality is bizarre.
LikeLike
So to sum up your position in other words: the moral absolute by which actions are to be preformed is the principle of the greatest good for the greatest number. The foundation of this principle is human nature itself: humans cave the capacity and instinct to provide and care. Christian morality is flawed 1) IF the Christian is a slack-jawed fundamentalist incapable of distinguishing the bronze-age tribal morals of the patriarchs from a reason-based morality and 2) if some actions are considered always wrong regardless of the outcome.
LikeLike
Deary me, either I’m a poor writer or you’re a poor reader. There’s no such thing as a moral absolute. Morality is a construct, a meaningless label. You really must get your head round that. Christian judgement is flawed because they think the Bible holds black and white rules to behaviour.
LikeLike
I think you are just so turned off by the word “morality” that you don’t recognize your own moral system.
LikeLike
And you’re confused because you think it’s a ‘system’. Like everything else is life, it’s a simple mixture of biological instinct combined with social programming. When we properly acknowledge this, we can use logic and evidence to help us make more sensible decisions with each generation. If we don’t believe in invisible deities with magic rule books of absolute Truth.
LikeLike
Immediately you lose all credibility by assigning a capital letter to the word god; a sure sign of indoctrination.
That modern philosophers such as William Lane Craig are at pains to demonstrate the morality behind Divine Command Theory merely illustrate the utter contempt your religion is deserving of.
Marcion at least was on the right track in wanting to do away with Yahweh.
You lot missed the boat there, and you have had no idea since.
Evidence vindicates the thrust of this post, something that is totally lacking in the basis for Christian ( Pauline) doctrine.
LikeLike
So are you two friends or what? I seem to remember when I left you were odd buddies. Still hang about and chat?
LikeLike
Dear old JP likes mental masturbation and semantic gymnastics in a similar vein as P*W and Debilis.
LikeLike
You fell out then? That’s a shame. These are all nice people that it’s fun to have a chat with. I still miss PeW, and Debilis is very interesting. You always get carried away when you’re losing arguments and fall out with nice people. 🙂
LikeLike
Ah yes, I must learn to understand those that support the inculcation of children and champion Divine Command Theory while tacitly condemning all others to the pit…or at least the judgement of their god,
Shame..it’s not their fault, right?
LikeLike
The journey out of the religious mind trap is a long one. People who consider things thoughtfully tend to come to the logical conclusion in the end, but it can take many years. And they make interesting points. Just think, if you’d blog-met your buddy Nate a few years earlier you would have been unnecessarily rude to him too.
LikeLike
As he would have been to me.
This is all part of the game.
‘They’ have had 2000 years plus to grandstand on the soapbox of life.
Considering how many their religion has put to death I reckon they can withstand a few sacred cows, don’t you?
At least the ”sensible people” are free to disseminate
such enlightenment without fear of someone in the background shaking a box of matches or threatening legal action.
They may not be able to fight against the pricks ( of conscience) for ever but in the meantime I feel perfectly at liberty fighting the pricks.
And for what its worth, if I were to take this stuff as seriously as they appear to I would have gone round the bend a lo sooner…
LikeLike
Why Ark, I do believe you have just invented a new form of sophism: the argumentum ad maiusculum.
I have never read Craig so I cannot comment besides pointing out that voluntarism (which seems to be called Divine Command Theory nowadays) is considered a minority opinion among Christian theologians. William Occam and Francis Bacon were into it. Personally, I think it is a poor theory.
LikeLike
Good grief, surely you are not looking for a “Bravo” and a hug from me?
That there are so many differing opinions on your religion merely highlights, once more, the utter claptrap that it is and any suggestion regarding divine inspiration is just plain silly, something only the terminally moronic would accept.
I think it is time you actually demonstrated your true intellectual worth and dumped that nonsense once and for all and come and play with the grown-ups, dp.
LikeLike
No, I couldn’t give a crap about your approval.
Of course there are differences of opinion, but looking at Christianity down the centuries I think it is safe to say that there is a main intellectual tradition with various offshoots. Voluntarism is one offshoot that looks to me to be a failure.
There is nothing immature about wanting to sift and judge those traditions and offshoots.
LikeLike
There is nothing immature about wanting to sift and judge those traditions and offshoots.
Well, if you say so, but this behaviour merely suggests another form of cherry-picking that is the hallmark of Christianity, evident ( to some degree) by the 30,000 (and climbing) denominations.
Aside from the core of the Nicene Creed, you lot have never been able to agree on a single doctrine,
And only then because the church tried to exterminate all dissent.
Surely after 2000 years plus the sifting should be done?
LikeLike
The sifting doesn’t end because people do not stop thinking. The tradition develops.
LikeLike
The problem is the religious generally don’t actually think, but rather scheme; scheme to find the best ways to maintain a measure of control in an ever expanding secular world.
It appears too be a lost cause.
The theme of this post demonstrates that the type of morality religion is trying to spread around like so much bullshit people are getting pretty sick of.
Eventually what they are selling noone will want to buy.
And the internet is playing a part in releasing the shackles.
As I said, why not rethink? The tools are there, and you can’t really still believe that a ”man-god” called Jesus of Nazareth is the actual creator of the universe.
You have always struck me as just a tad more intelligent than the average, Praise the Lord inculcated monkey.
LikeLike
Religious people scheme rather than think? I’m always cautious about questioning motives: it is a facile way to get out of an argument. On the other hand sometimes people really do have mixed motives. Just think twice before you do it is all I’m saying.
If the main gist of the post is that people are silly if they take reputed divine commands to rape and pillage and burn as being real commands, then of course I agree: it is a stupid idea. I’m pointing out that it does not traditionally have much traction.
If you are railing against the thesis that “some acts are always wrong”, I disagree and fail to see how you can create a more humane world by doing away with the idea. Murder is always wrong, I would hate to see a world in which killing the innocent could be OK if it tends to the greater good (as decided of course by the rich and powerful)… but that is a little outside of the discussion.
And of course I rethink my positions: honesty demands I do it from time to time. As for atheism, I think it can be internally coherent, but ultimately inadequate to the human experience; it always seems to end up crudely reducing the human person to a bag of meat.
LikeLike
And the more you try to justify your position the more you illustrate the true nature of religion. A bloody smorgasbord that you all love to cherry pick from.
If your god was so smart, even if we are to abide by your rules regarding free will, one would think he would have made damn sure that those in charge of compiling and interpreting his glorious message(sic) were considerably more able than the bunch of ‘effin hillbillies that nominated themselves for the job.
Even a patently confused individual as yourself might have been a better option than dickheads like Ignatius, Eusebius and his ilk.
However…on second thoughts. You may include yourself on that inglorious list of dickheads.
LikeLike
You are so cute when you get all ad hominem.
LikeLike
And while you continue to present fallacious, ridiculous arguments that ensure you get caught with your pants around your ankles you will forever remain an arse.
What will you tell your kids come xmas time, I wonder?
LikeLike
Well stated. Am off to have coffee
LikeLike
I don’t know why I feel the need to rehash all this every time I read a Christian rant about morality. It’s just so infuriatingly nonsense!
LikeLike
It takes patience to read through an apologist rant on morality
LikeLike
Pingback: Tales of Absolute Morality | Truth and Tolerance