 | |
| This is what I get for telling David he can use any picture he wanted... |
I have a few problems that I believe deserve some attention:
People seem to believe that 'religious morality' is the be all and end all. I realize that my comrade, Joseph, recently examined morality to quite the extent. This is why I begin here; to express my quick analysis of the topic. I would assert that 'religious morality' is an oxymoron. Lacking a source from which to draw morality seems to be a mortal blow to atheism. Well... True morality is generated by examination and analysis of the world around oneself and the subsequent synthesis of opinions and values, within one's mind. Therefore, a 'source' of morality cannot possibly be legitimate, particularly one written hundreds upon hundreds of years ago. This point completely ignores how preposterous it is to refer to a lot of ideas that can be gleaned from 'The Bible' as moral.
Along with morality comes the idea of being a good person. Atheists are accused, by some, of being bad people. It is suggested that we have no reason to be a good person; that we should be out in the world attempting to obtain that which gives us the greatest pleasure in the least amount of time. As far as the least amount of time goes, this claim would only make sense if we believe that each moment is equally likely as the next to be that which brings about our demise. This is quite the silly concept. Coincidentally enough, that which brings me the most pleasure is upholding my morals. Sorry, Lucas... it is neither rape, nor murder, which brings me the greatest pleasure... Go figure. It is also not residing in prison, which would be the consequence of these actions, that brings me the most pleasure.
While there is some disagreement here, I have heard that, in order to go to the Christian heaven, one need only accept Jesus as one's savior. Humans are born as 'sinners,' but, after accepting Jesus, are absolved of the 'sins' they have been born into or committed during their life. It is because of this that I am at a quandary when it comes to the idea that Christians have cause to be good people and atheists do not. I have myself to answer to. When, or if, I do something that I do not believe to be right, I have the repercussions to deal with, as well as the negative mental and emotional reactions. This is enough cause for me to try to live my life well. Christians, however, need only to accept Jesus as their savior, in order to live in heaven for the rest of eternity (after physically expiring, of course).
The bottom line: Christians who live their lives however wretchedly, causing pain or death or destruction, live in paradise for eternity. Atheists who live their lives as well as possible, helping others or advancing humanity or creating beauty, suffer in Hell for eternity.
But, wait! It gets better... Another idea that has some contest, within Christianity, is the possibility of becoming Christian. I have heard that it must be God/Jesus who opens the 'heart' of a man or a woman to itself/himself. So... I am not a Christian and it is not due to my denial of Jesus. Therefore, I get to go to Hell and there is absolutely nothing I can do about it. How righteous.
Did I mention how much we LOVE reader-generated content?! We've got one more lined up for tomorrow as well! Keep them coming: contact@unifreethought.com or tag Uni Freethought in a Facebook note! As always, thanks for reading, and thanks for submitting!
20 comments:
/True morality is generated by examination and analysis of the world around oneself and the subsequent synthesis of opinions and values, within one's mind./
"I am think I am moral, therefore I am moral, unless I believe in God," is therefore not a stretch.
//True morality is generated by examination and analysis of the world around oneself and the subsequent synthesis of opinions and values, within one's mind. //
I'd have to question this as well. I think it's a good description of how most people arrive at their idea of morality, but I would argue that there could be no "true morality", in the ultimate sense, based on this description. Basically, while I agree with the description, I disagree with its implication.
I would also say that religious believers of all stripes come to their idea of morality through this method just like non-believers do. After all, they somehow had to arrive at the belief that their god is the "good" one and that their belief system is the moral one. How did they arrive at this opinion if they were not in possession of religious morality at the time?
I've always been amazed by the theists that argue that atheists cannot be moral. The way I see it atheism, or at least lack of faith in the Abrahamic mythos, is a prerequisite for altruism, as the Abrahamic faiths all believe that somewhere, somehow a deity is out there watching you,, judging you, and plotting to punish or reward you. How can you be altruistic in the face of eternal repercussions doled out by an all-seeing figure?
Brooks: Believing in 'God' has does not determine whether or not one arrives at morals legitimately or not; attempting to draw them from some outside source does.
Nick (I think): I am not attempting to assert that there is a 'true' set of morals, just that there is an honest and legitimate way of arriving at one's morality. This second part is exactly my point: 'religious' morality; drawn from somewhere, is not 'true' morality; arrived at, personally.
Jeff
//Abrahamic faiths all believe that somewhere, somehow a deity is out there watching you,, judging you, and plotting to punish or reward you. How can you be altruistic in the face of eternal repercussions doled out by an all-seeing figure?//
You are right. It is a ridiculous standard. And no one can match that figure's moral standard. But what if someone did match that standard? And has that figure claimed that anyone has?
David:
//Believing in 'God' has does not determine whether or not one arrives at morals legitimately or not...//
Agreed.
//...attempting to draw them from some outside source does.//
If so, then one cannot reason that one's morals are greater than another morals, because there is no external moral standard.
Which leaves your post ('atheists are greater, morally') in the same exact position as the Christian who tells you you are immoral.
Let me help. In order to make a claim that no one's morals are greater than another's morals, you must claim also that this is because of an external moral standard. Otherwise every individual has every legitimate right to say that he himself is the only moral person, which makes anyone who follows your position, immoral (because they follow your standard, which to them is an external moral standard)
And in your case, if you are an atheist, you should claim that we have an innate moral sense and that we have no completely found it...
In other words, if you do not want to claim a-moralism, you should reason from the standpoint that there is a higher moral standard even beyond any sort of God claim.
Perhaps, you could argue that (as has perhaps been said) since people created God, it was either a desire to make morals, or to make morality in general.
But you cannot stop there. You must reason that a naturalism approach to our existence is a *higher* claim than what the Christian (or Muslim, or Jew, the main single deity belief systems) claims.
Atheism is not a lower claim then but a higher claim to morality. You should not be afraid to say this. You cannot dive half way into the pool.
So, if God-believers are not better people than atheists, then atheists must either be equal, or greater (you have proved this) than God-believers.
If they are greater, you cannot reason that it is upon the basis that they have their personal morals and their morals are corrupted. This leaves us with the statement, "one is not justified in his own morals." So we have to say, as atheists, "Morals based upon man-created gods are not the highest form of moral standards."
What is that standard, then? I don't know; it is vague.
I can now type my own moral system: we are all corrupt. That is one that includes me. Therefore, if I am corrupt, I cannot claim that my own system leads me to a good conclusion (because my systems are, as stated, corrupt). I must claim that there is an external system which is greater than my own. When we say we're lost on the highway we open our GPS to figure out where we are. But it doesn't mean that we don't trust the GPS. We have to claim *something* else.
Brooks,
Trying to match some 'perfect' standard is not the point. Altruism is defined as the unselfish concern for the welfare of others. Any member of the Abrahamic faiths thus cannot be truly altruistic, as they believe that truly doing good (as they see it, as handed to them by their god) will be seen and noted by their god, and they will be rewarded or punished. This reward or punishment means that it is impossible for them to unselfishly do good, while conscious of their faith.
I make no claim as to what these acts are, as 'concern for the welfare of others' is a subjective thing. To one person, it means giving the needy money, and to another, it means giving them an education, and to a third it means voting for or against gay marriage.
For an atheist, it is possible that donating money to the poor is an altruistic act. To a christian, that is not possible, as their god decreed this to be done, and then enforces this decree with the carrot and stick, making the donation selfish. It is only when a christian does an act against their faith that they can be altruistic -- at which point they are simply turning their back on their faith.
//It is only when a christian does an act against their faith that they can be altruistic -- at which point they are simply turning their back on their faith.//
False.
The Christian faith claims that no one - not even the Christian - has pleased God. (Psalms 53: "They have all fallen away; together they have become corrupt; there is none who does good, not even one.")
The Christian who claims to be ultimately good (even, better than non-Christians), therefore, is not a good Christian.
brooks,
What are you even talking about? I am not making any comment about claiming to be perfect in all actions. I am talking about a person doing a single unselfish act for the welfare of another. I am simply pointing out that since the christian faith includes a carrot/stick held by an all-seeing being no act can be considered truly unselfish.
When I give money to a charity, I do so purely for the good it will bring. Whether or not a deity will approve is not part of my rationale. Christians can make no such claim, as somewhere in their mind lurks their god, which they believe sees what they are doing, and will react to it.
Conversely, evil actions work the same way. I don't do evil things because I am not evil. A christian won't do what they think of as evil because somewhere, to some extent, they believe it would displease their god and bring about retribution. It might not be a huge reason for their actions -- but it exists in the christian, and not in the atheist.
//When I give money to a charity, I do so purely for the good it will bring.//
Actually you do it for the good it will bring society, which includes you. You would not give money to a terrorist organization.
// Whether or not a deity will approve is not part of my rationale. Christians can make no such claim, as somewhere in their mind lurks their god, which they believe sees what they are doing, and will react to it.//
A god that does not exist does not influence them.
It is therefore a motivation which is just as good as your own mental motivation, which originates in your mind as well.
Brooks, I'm legitimately confused by this exchange between you and Jeff. Is there a bigger point that you're trying to get at?
What is confusing? Your answer will help me understand what to explain in more detail.
//A god that does not exist does not influence them. //
This is ridiculous. There are people who see people that don't exist. Some can commit acts because of it. Take Tennyson Obih for example. He believed he talked to aliens and could see the future. It resulted in him murdering someone.
Obih was obviously influenced by his experiences with aliens and his belief that he had special power. Do those aliens thus exist because they influenced him?
Why can't we just call this what it is. At some point we have to stop arguing over what sauce the Flying Spaghetti Monster favors most, who revealed the color of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and what legitimizes the morals of god. Brooks believes the world's first zombie sacrificed himself to let us all join up with some invisible man in the sky after we die. This is absurd. Lets stop giving it any legitimacy.
/////A god that does not exist does not influence them. //
This is ridiculous./
Not really.
David's post says that atheists are more moral than believers. We all then discussed internal vs. external moral standards.
If a god does not exist, it is truly creation of one's own mind, and thus an internal moral standard.
(BTW Nick maybe this is a good response to your question - let me know if that irons out confusion at all...)
Trevor, I am not even using a faith based argument. It's just an argument on external vs. internal moral standards. I am using reason to speak with reasonable people.
OK.
I *think* I see where the confusion comes in!
It's when I said, "A god that does not exist does not influence them."
What I should have said is, "Supposing that God does not exist, then it is not God that influences them. That which does not exist cannot influence them. Therefore it is an imaginary concept which influences them, and thus it is an internal influence."
It's not pithy, and that's probably why I did not explain further in the original comment.
The point remains: if God is imaginary, then an atheist cannot say that his own moral sense is superior solely on the basis that the non-believer is also using an internal moral sense.
To quote a famous theologian:
"*Everyone* can be super! And when everyone's super, no one will be." - Syndrome, The Incredibles
//David's post says that atheists are more moral than believers. We all then discussed internal vs. external moral standards.//
Incorrect, we're talking about motivation. You follow a book because you think someone tells you to. Even if your god doesn't exist, you're not doing it to help someone -- you're doing it because you're commanded. That's why atheists have a higher morality.
/Even if your god doesn't exist, you're not doing it to help someone -- you're doing it because you're commanded. That's why atheists have a higher morality./
That is a weak argument. For example, is a medical doctor (commanded to adhere to the hippocratic oath, "or else,") less moral simply because he has letters behind his name?
No.
Nonetheless I will sincerely concede.
People in general (not just atheists) are truly better people than I am. No doubt this sounds facetious, but it is not. I have done quite a bit of reading and it has been humbling.
This is not so difficult for me to see, actually. It plays along with the Bible, which says:
"1 Corinthians 6: For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. "
It is rather a foolish religion, Christianity is. It says that people are accepted by God almost *because* they are low, foolish beings.
\\A god that does not exist does not influence them. \\
Brooks, that has to be one of the stupidest arguments I have ever seen.
Whether or not a god exists, the belief in a god has influenced millions of people in trillions of decisions throughout the history of the world.
\\The point remains: if God is imaginary, then an atheist cannot say that his own moral sense is superior solely on the basis that the non-believer is also using an internal moral sense.\\ --Brooks
The point remains that this is wrong.
The non-theist can do good because it is good, but the theist, even if no god exists, is still doing good because they believe they will be rewarded.
The simple *belief* that you will be rewarded means that you are not acting altruistically, regardless of if you are actually rewarded or not. I would hope that someone claiming to be a pastor would understand such basic concepts of logic and theology.
\\That is a weak argument. For example, is a medical doctor (commanded to adhere to the hippocratic oath, "or else,") less moral simply because he has letters behind his name?\\
There is a huge difference here. It is possible for a medical doctor to selflessly work to help the welfare of another. Just because they took an oath to do no harm does not mean they need to work for free on a 36 hour surgery to reconstruct the face of an accident victim. This means it is possible for them to give of themselves with no expectation of reward or punishment. A religious person, who believes they are always being watched and judged, and will *ALWAYS* be rewarded or punished for the results of their actions is a different case entirely.
This of course does not bring in the fact that the Hippocratic oath does not cover all aspects of a doctors life -- or even of their practice. They can donate to charities just like anyone else, and not have the oath even apply.
Post a Comment