How I, an atheist, try to determine right and wrong

[NanceXToo]

You know, if somebody came to my house and stole my stuff, I'd be upset. I'd feel violated and angry that somebody took something that belonged to me, and I'd miss the thing that was stolen which would make me feel sad/bad.

 

This response within myself tells me, "Stealing is wrong. It makes people feel bad. Therefore, you shouldn't steal from others." (That plus I wouldn't want to go to jail and my knowledge and common sense tells me that's what happens to people who steal. :P)

 

My point is, I didn't need some supernatural, invisible "entity" outside of the universe to tell me that. I determined it for myself. As a feeling, thinking human being and as an informed member of society bound to its laws.

 

I can say the same thing for a lot of other situations. If it does harm, causes pain and suffering or people to feel bad, which I can determine by reason, logic, experience, and/or empathy, it's wrong. By my OWN inner moral code (and sometimes by that of society/law), not some outside supernatural entity's, the very idea of which some people find absurd and fantastical but have enough respect and empathy to keep that thought to themselves, rather than insulting or belittling someone else's beliefs (it sure would be nice if non-religious folk were afforded the same respect).

 

I don't even get why someone would have to explain this. It's just common sense to me. And it's insulting and presumptuous and downright irritating to be told (or to have someone insinuate) that you can't possibly know the difference between right and wrong unless you believe in "God" or a certain religion. What nonsense. Don't tell me what I believe or what I base my moral convictions on when you don't even know me.

 

Everyone has their own inner moral code. Some people attribute theirs to religion. Some to their upbringing. Some to an inner conscience that they were just born with. Some to their experiences, which taught them how to treat others based on how they would want to be treated. But in the end, regardless of where we think our moral code came from, we all have an one and we all follow it and actively choose what we think is right or wrong and how we want to act in a given situation, regardless of our religious beliefs or lack thereof. That's why we are all so different. Even those of you who are of the same religion have very different beliefs as to what is right and what is wrong in many situations. (For example, some Christians are respectful and tolerant of homosexuality, and others condemn it- yet you're both Christians).

 

In the end, we have to be able to sleep with ourselves at night and feel good about ourselves and how we acted that day. And of course we have to do what we have to do to keep ourselves from being arrested- following the laws of man and society. And it is our logic and our personal moral codes that determine this. And yep that makes for a wide range of beliefs and actions, good and bad,...as evidenced in the world...the secular world AND the religious world.

 

That's why an atheist like me might donate to charity, host underprivileged children in her home each summer, treat people as she would want to be treated, refrain from doing things she considers illegal/immoral.... and on the flip side god-believing Christians like the Pearls might beat their babies, and Christian cultists might have sex with the twelve year old girls they force to marry them.... I mean, truthfully, there are plenty of "Christians" out there who do things that are horribly appalling to me as a human being...not a religious human being, not as a Christian human being...just as a human being. Appalling. Things I would NEVER do. And yet they believe they get their "morals" from God and I don't believe that's where I get mine. Kind of funny, when you think about it.

 

Of course, I know some wonderful Christians who I am happy to call friend and consider good people. And I know some wonderful atheists, too. And I know some Christians who make me utterly cringe with their horrid words and deeds and beliefs. In the end...Christian, atheist, other, it doesn't matter. We all choose what WE think is right or wrong. It doesn't matter what we attribute it to or don't attribute it to in our own heads, but I will NEVER accept someone else telling me that I have to be religious to be "moral," especially when there's a whole lot of immoral behavior going on out there in the very name of religion.

 

And you know, I usually avoid topics like this like the plague because I really DON'T want to offend anyone because of their personal beliefs... but more than one person on this board today has offended ME because of mine, so sometimes you just have to say what you have to say.

Edited November 12, 2011 by NanceXToo

[Perry]

Dear Nance,

I :001_wub: you.

[MSNative]

You know, if somebody came to my house and stole my stuff, I'd be upset. I'd feel violated and angry that somebody took something that belonged to me, and I'd miss the thing that was stolen which would make me feel sad/bad.

 

This response within myself tells me, "Stealing is wrong. It makes people feel bad. Therefore, you shouldn't steal from others." (That plus I wouldn't want to go to jail and my knowledge and common sense tells me that's what happens to people who steal. :P)

 

My point is, I didn't need some supernatural, invisible "entity" outside of the universe to tell me that. I determined it for myself. As a feeling, thinking human being and as an informed member of society bound to its laws.

 

I can say the same thing for a lot of other situations. If it does harm, causes pain and suffering or people to feel bad, which I can determine by reason, logic, experience, and/or empathy, it's wrong. By my OWN inner moral code (and sometimes by that of society/law), not some outside supernatural entity's, the very idea of which some people find absurd and fantastical but have enough respect and empathy to keep that thought to themselves, rather than insulting or belittling someone else's beliefs (it sure would be nice if non-religious folk were afforded the same respect).

 

I don't even get why someone would have to explain this. It's just common sense to me. And it's insulting and presumptuous and downright irritating to be told (or to have someone insinuate) that you can't possibly know the difference between right and wrong unless you believe in "God" or a certain religion. What nonsense. Don't tell me what I believe or what I base my moral convictions on when you don't even know me.

 

Everyone has their own inner moral code. Some people attribute theirs to religion. Some to their upbringing. Some to an inner conscience that they were just born with. Some to their experiences, which taught them how to treat others based on how they would want to be treated. But in the end, regardless of where we think our moral code came from, we all have an one and we all follow it and actively choose what we think is right or wrong and how we want to act in a given situation, regardless of our religious beliefs or lack thereof. That's why we are all so different. Even those of you who are of the same religion have very different beliefs as to what is right and what is wrong in many situations. (For example, some Christians are respectful and tolerant of homosexuality, and others condemn it- yet you're both Christians).

 

In the end, we have to be able to sleep with ourselves at night and feel good about ourselves and how we acted that day. And of course we have to do what we have to do to keep ourselves from being arrested- following the laws of man and society. And it is our logic and our personal moral codes that determine this. And yep that makes for a wide range of beliefs and actions, good and bad,...as evidenced in the world...the secular world AND the religious world.

 

That's why an atheist like me might donate to charity, host underprivileged children in her home each summer, treat people as she would want to be treated, refrain from doing things she considers illegal/immoral.... and on the flip side god-believing Christians like the Pearls might beat their babies, and Christian cultists might have sex with the twelve year old girls they force to marry them.... I mean, truthfully, there are plenty of "Christians" out there who do things that are horribly appalling to me as a human being...not a religious human being, not as a Christian human being...just as a human being. Appalling. Things I would NEVER do. And yet they believe they get their "morals" from God and I don't believe that's where I get mine. Kind of funny, when you think about it.

 

Of course, I know some wonderful Christians who I am happy to call friend and consider good people. And I know some wonderful atheists, too. And I know some Christians who make me utterly cringe with their horrid words and deeds and beliefs. In the end...Christian, atheist, other, it doesn't matter. We all choose what WE think is right or wrong. It doesn't matter what we attribute it to or don't attribute it to in our own heads, but I will NEVER accept someone else telling me that I have to be religious to be "moral," especially when there's a whole lot of immoral behavior going on out there in the very name of religion.

 

Atheists can and do absolutely have a moral code. So do religious people of all flavors. And the religious codes vary vastly, too. I do have some questions that I hope are respectful. I think the main question is if there is no external standard of right or wrong, what makes your (general - not you, Nance) code better than another person's code? Using the example of stealing, say you have a phone that I need but can't afford. Without the phone, I can't get a job. You have plenty of money and can buy a new one, so I steal your phone. In my view of cosmic good, that is a moral action because the greater good has increased. Now, you and I can argue and say I am wrong. I shouldn't steal because you paid for that phone and it is your private property. However, by what moral code do you judge me? Why is your moral code more valid that mine in that hypothetical? We can say it is against the law but often laws are viewed as immoral. What is the standard and where does it come from?

 

Again, I hope this is clear and respectful. I do not mean to imply or suggest that atheists or people of other religions have no moral code or are evil or would justify stealing. Also, much evil has been done in the name of religion so I am not saying that religious people are perfectly moral, either. I really am interested in the philosophical discussion.

[Bluegoat]

 

THE PROBLEM COMES WHEN PEOPLE COME IN AND SAY MY MORALITY COMES FROM THEIR GOD, AND THAT I MIGHT AS WELL BE A CHILD RAPIST, OR SUPPORT CHILD RAPISTS IF I DON'T RECOGNIZE THAT.

 

I don't think you have any idea how often I hear that. "Why don't you just go kill people if you don't believe in God. You can't be good without God!"

 

People in this thread haven't done that. So, I haven't had any issues, in particular.

 

 

People are confused because this is confusing. I think everyone understands the claiming people would be rapists or whatever is rather out of line. But you've just said that people saying that all morality comes from God is out of line, which is just what you said you were ok with a while back.

 

I certianly sympathise with the troubles of living in a place where most people don't believe what you do, but I'm not sure what response you want. Here most people are secular, and it's pretty cool to be a neo-pagan, Jew, or Muslim. But Christians are considered a bit simple by a large proportion of the public, and the perpetrators of all the ills of society by some (a la R Dawkins) and are subject to the same kinds of comments you mention. I've heard some real doozies at work with people assuming that anyone Christian must have just been indoctrinated by authoritarian parents, or can't know any history, or whatever.

 

But what to do about that? People surely have a right to believe what they want, and vote for people who believe something similar? Do you have some reason to think that if the balance shifted where you are, the same thing wouldn't happen? Or is it just human nature that many people cannot fathom anyone else's ideas?

[linguistmama]

If you want to post them on facebook, save them to your computer (right click, save as - put it in your documents or somewhere else that you'll remember) and *then* you can upload them to facebook. (on your wall or in a specific album)

 

Posting them HERE requires hosting them somewhere (I used tinypic) if you want them in the post itself or uploading them as attachments.

 

Thank you!

[Ipsey]

Atheists can and do absolutely have a moral code. So do religious people of all flavors. And the religious codes vary vastly, too. I do have some questions that I hope are respectful. I think the main question is if there is no external standard of right or wrong, what makes your (general - not you, Nance) code better than another person's code? Using the example of stealing, say you have a phone that I need but can't afford. Without the phone, I can't get a job. You have plenty of money and can buy a new one, so I steal your phone. In my view of cosmic good, that is a moral action because the greater good has increased. Now, you and I can argue and say I am wrong. I shouldn't steal because you paid for that phone and it is your private property. However, by what moral code do you judge me? Why is your moral code more valid that mine in that hypothetical? We can say it is against the law but often laws are viewed as immoral. What is the standard and where does it come from?

 

Again, I hope this is clear and respectful. I do not mean to imply or suggest that atheists or people of other religions have no moral code or are evil or would justify stealing. Also, much evil has been done in the name of religion so I am not saying that religious people are perfectly moral, either. I really am interested in the philosophical discussion.

 

Kindly meant here.

 

Let's use Jean ValJean. He was taking care of a sister and her 7 children. Couldn't get a job, children starving. He steals bread. Right or wrong? Why do you say so?

 

Law says stealing is wrong. Christian moral code says stealing is wrong. Most cultures' moral code says stealing is wrong. However, in some situations, we can understand and sympathize with doing the "wrong" thing.

 

Should we bear false witness if it is to save someone's life? "No, Mr. Nazi. Herr Goldbaum is not hiding in my basement." If I recall correctly Corrie Ten Boom has an example in her book of how a woman hiding Jews told soldiers the truth about the Jews she was hiding because she couldn't lie. The Jews wound up re-escaping after they had been taken into custody, so maybe the right thing to do would be to fork over people who are being rounded up and executed by their governments. Surely Ten Boom's acquaintance thought so.

 

A man is wounded on the battle field. He is dying in agony. He will die before nightfall, but it is hours away and he asks his friend to shoot him to put him out of his misery. However, Christian teaching says that murder is wrong. Most cultures' moral code says that murder is wrong. In this case, would is be worse to let this man suffer, or to free him of his suffering?

 

How do you answer these questions? Probably the same way most of us would. We wrestle with our own consciences and the various influences in our lives, whether cultural, religious, political, etc.

 

There is not a simple answer to every question. There is really not Always this way or Always that way to circumstance.

 

We get our morality from our culture, our sense of compassion, even our brain chemistry.

 

It's something I hope most people work and struggle with. Morality is something to be worked out with "fear and trembling" if you will, from situation to situation.

 

I'd be afraid, frankly, if someone were unable to see various situation and circumstance when thinking about morality.

 

As far as "who has the superior moral code" and "on what do we judge them". I have absolutely no interest in such a discussion, but perhaps Nance is game.

 

I think there are as many moral codes as there are people. And, mostly, our moral codes are based on our individual upbringing, experience, nature, and culture. People look to themselves for their morality.

[sheryl]

I read your thread earlier today. You've brought up some good points. Like LL last night, it's getting late for me so off to bed, but...

 

There is a misconception, I think, that many people equate "Christians" as being OK with bombing abortion clinics, etc. NO! Most (not all)Christians, in fact, would be opposed to that. Granted you have your extememists that are bi-partisan ;) and do not portray the majority well at.all! We are all imperfect.

 

No, I don't think gays/lesbians, forget who else you mentioned should be murdered just as I truly don't believe an unborn babe should have its life cut short.

 

Oh dear, I really should have re-read your thread, b/c now I don't know if I'm digressing.

 

Bottom line, I'm not going to police the world....I'm not G-D! He knows what He's doing and I find peace in that!

[Bluegoat]

You know, if somebody came to my house and stole my stuff, I'd be upset. I'd feel violated and angry that somebody took something that belonged to me, and I'd miss the thing that was stolen which would make me feel sad/bad.

 

This response within myself tells me, "Stealing is wrong. It makes people feel bad. Therefore, you shouldn't steal from others." (That plus I wouldn't want to go to jail and my knowledge and common sense tells me that's what happens to people who steal. :P)

 

My point is, I didn't need some supernatural, invisible "entity" outside of the universe to tell me that. I determined it for myself. As a feeling, thinking human being and as an informed member of society bound to its laws.

 

I can say the same thing for a lot of other situations. If it does harm, causes pain and suffering or people to feel bad, which I can determine by reason, logic, experience, and/or empathy, it's wrong. By my OWN inner moral code (and sometimes by that of society/law), not some outside supernatural entity's, the very idea of which some people find absurd and fantastical but have enough respect and empathy to keep that thought to themselves, rather than insulting or belittling someone else's beliefs (it sure would be nice if non-religious folk were afforded the same respect).

 

I don't even get why someone would have to explain this. It's just common sense to me. And it's insulting and presumptuous and downright irritating to be told (or to have someone insinuate) that you can't possibly know the difference between right and wrong unless you believe in "God" or a certain religion. What nonsense. Don't tell me what I believe or what I base my moral convictions on when you don't even know me.

 

Everyone has their own inner moral code. Some people attribute theirs to religion. Some to their upbringing. Some to an inner conscience that they were just born with. Some to their experiences, which taught them how to treat others based on how they would want to be treated. But in the end, regardless of where we think our moral code came from, we all have an one and we all follow it and actively choose what we think is right or wrong and how we want to act in a given situation, regardless of our religious beliefs or lack thereof. That's why we are all so different. Even those of you who are of the same religion have very different beliefs as to what is right and what is wrong in many situations. (For example, some Christians are respectful and tolerant of homosexuality, and others condemn it- yet you're both Christians).

 

In the end, we have to be able to sleep with ourselves at night and feel good about ourselves and how we acted that day. And of course we have to do what we have to do to keep ourselves from being arrested- following the laws of man and society. And it is our logic and our personal moral codes that determine this. And yep that makes for a wide range of beliefs and actions, good and bad,...as evidenced in the world...the secular world AND the religious world.

 

That's why an atheist like me might donate to charity, host underprivileged children in her home each summer, treat people as she would want to be treated, refrain from doing things she considers illegal/immoral.... and on the flip side god-believing Christians like the Pearls might beat their babies, and Christian cultists might have sex with the twelve year old girls they force to marry them.... I mean, truthfully, there are plenty of "Christians" out there who do things that are horribly appalling to me as a human being...not a religious human being, not as a Christian human being...just as a human being. Appalling. Things I would NEVER do. And yet they believe they get their "morals" from God and I don't believe that's where I get mine. Kind of funny, when you think about it.

 

Of course, I know some wonderful Christians who I am happy to call friend and consider good people. And I know some wonderful atheists, too. And I know some Christians who make me utterly cringe with their horrid words and deeds and beliefs. In the end...Christian, atheist, other, it doesn't matter. We all choose what WE think is right or wrong. It doesn't matter what we attribute it to or don't attribute it to in our own heads, but I will NEVER accept someone else telling me that I have to be religious to be "moral," especially when there's a whole lot of immoral behavior going on out there in the very name of religion.

 

And you know, I usually avoid topics like this like the plague because I really DON'T want to offend anyone because of their personal beliefs... but more than one person on this board today has offended ME because of mine, so sometimes you just have to say what you have to say.

 

I think the reason some people don't get it is because they are trying to express something they can't quite articulate, so they end up dancing around it.

 

In the end, it isn't really a question about how we decide, practically, what is right or wrong - most people do it the way you have described. Sometimes, issues are much more complicated though, and we have to try and really dig down and see what the foundation of out ideas about right and wrong are - our first feelings and thoughts don't clear things up.

 

And that I think is because the question is what is the foundation of morality? What does it mean for something to be good or evil, and why is it important? Most people naturally feel empathy, but some people don't - does that mean their morality is actually totally different - it is ok for them to do things that hurt other people? Why do we think people have rights, or duties?

 

Why do we even value things like human life? If it is just because it makes us feel happy, or makes for a smooth society, or has an evolutionary advantage, is that not ultimately simply a social contract for the sake of our own welfare? Is it really right then to call it morality as such?

 

And if so, can we really be upset if someone breaks that contract for their own reasons? I mean it would make sense to punish the individual to preserve the contract, but should we be really affronted by acts that are really just another kind of self-interest?

 

I think that is what people are clumsily trying to get at when they ask what the basis of a non-theistic morality is the question of what i the relationship between morality and reality is in an atheist world-view - that is, if we are simply natural beings, how does morality come out of nature and why is it significant?

[MSNative]

Kindly meant here.

 

 

How do you answer these questions? Probably the same way most of us would. We wrestle with our own consciences and the various influences in our lives, whether cultural, religious, political, etc.

 

There is not a simple answer to every question. There is really not Always this way or Always that way to circumstance.

 

We get our morality from our culture, our sense of compassion, even our brain chemistry.

 

It's something I hope most people work and struggle with. Morality is something to be worked out with "fear and trembling" if you will, from situation to situation.

 

I'd be afraid, frankly, if someone were unable to see various situation and circumstance when thinking about morality.

 

As far as "who has the superior moral code" and "on what do we judge them". I have absolutely no interest in such a discussion, but perhaps Nance is game.

 

I think there are as many moral codes as there are people. And, mostly, our moral codes are based on our individual upbringing, experience, nature, and culture. People look to themselves for their morality.

 

When I say judge, I mean, do you turn the person in for stealing? (going back to my phone example) When it doesn't impact anyone else, anyone is free to have their own moral code. The problem occurs when two moral codes collide. In your examples, I agree that I would go against the law to do the right thing (allow stealing, lie to save someone, etc.) Certainly moral codes can allow for discernment. However, I tried to choose a question that was a little harder. What if most people don't agree with why the person stole? What makes that person wrong and others right?

 

I appreciate your answering where you think we get our moral codes from. I find this very interesting and enjoy the discussion.

[MSNative]

I think the reason some people don't get it is because they are trying to express something they can't quite articulate, so they end up dancing around it.

 

In the end, it isn't really a question about how we decide, practically, what is right or wrong - most people do it the way you have described. Sometimes, issues are much more complicated though, and we have to try and really dig down and see what the foundation of out ideas about right and wrong are - our first feelings and thoughts don't clear things up.

 

And that I think is because the question is what is the foundation of morality? What does it mean for something to be good or evil, and why is it important? Most people naturally feel empathy, but some people don't - does that mean their morality is actually totally different - it is ok for them to do things that hurt other people? Why do we think people have rights, or duties?

 

Why do we even value things like human life? If it is just because it makes us feel happy, or makes for a smooth society, or has an evolutionary advantage, is that not ultimately simply a social contract for the sake of our own welfare? Is it really right then to call it morality as such?

 

And if so, can we really be upset if someone breaks that contract for their own reasons? I mean it would make sense to punish the individual to preserve the contract, but should we be really affronted by acts that are really just another kind of self-interest?

 

I think that is what people are clumsily trying to get at when they ask what the basis of a non-theistic morality is the question of what i the relationship between morality and reality is in an atheist world-view - that is, if we are simply natural beings, how does morality come out of nature and why is it significant?

 

Yep, what you said. Especially the part about clumsily trying to get at. It's very difficult to put these thoughts into words. :)

[sheryl]

OP, I read your post before mine. I think I know where you are coming from...it's interesting.

 

I detest lying! However, there are many examples in the Torah/OT where people lied...and they were.not.bad.people. Abraham had Sarah "lie". David "stole" the showbread. And, more.....

 

Now, this should NOT be an "excuse" for people to lie and steal, but if it was to "preserve a life" and if it were clear others were not effected by such a decision then yes, by all means, I'd lie.

[Ipsey]

People are confused because this is confusing. I think everyone understands the claiming people would be rapists or whatever is rather out of line. But you've just said that people saying that all morality comes from God is out of line, which is just what you said you were ok with a while back.

 

I certianly sympathise with the troubles of living in a place where most people don't believe what you do, but I'm not sure what response you want. Here most people are secular, and it's pretty cool to be a neo-pagan, Jew, or Muslim. But Christians are considered a bit simple by a large proportion of the public, and the perpetrators of all the ills of society by some (a la R Dawkins) and are subject to the same kinds of comments you mention. I've heard some real doozies at work with people assuming that anyone Christian must have just been indoctrinated by authoritarian parents, or can't know any history, or whatever.

 

But what to do about that? People surely have a right to believe what they want, and vote for people who believe something similar? Do you have some reason to think that if the balance shifted where you are, the same thing wouldn't happen? Or is it just human nature that many people cannot fathom anyone else's ideas?

 

 

You say, "But you've just said that people saying that all morality comes from God is out of line, which is just what you said you were ok with a while back."

 

But I did not just do that.

 

Here's what I said, the piece you quoted, "THE PROBLEM COMES WHEN PEOPLE COME IN AND SAY MY MORALITY COMES FROM THEIR GOD, AND THAT I MIGHT AS WELL BE A CHILD RAPIST, OR SUPPORT CHILD RAPISTS IF I DON'T RECOGNIZE THAT,"

 

See that coordinating conjunction in there, that ", AND"? That's important.

 

Here's an example.

 

"I don't like Christians who say that Jesus is the Son of God, and try to convert other peoples' little children without their parents' consent."

 

See the two clauses there? Just read the first one, and it sounds nutso. When you actually read it as it is meant to read, with that subordinate clause at the end, well, then you've actually read the whole thing. It would be disingenuous to only read the first half of the sentence and respond to it.

 

Which is what you did with my sentence.

 

As to the second half of your post:

 

Yes, people can vote for whomever they want, think whatever they want, and do whatever they want. However, if they act like royal asses over it, and harm a specific minority, I think it's not unreasonable that people call them on it.

[Ipsey]

When I say judge, I mean, do you turn the person in for stealing? (going back to my phone example) When it doesn't impact anyone else, anyone is free to have their own moral code. The problem occurs when two moral codes collide. In your examples, I agree that I would go against the law to do the right thing (allow stealing, lie to save someone, etc.) Certainly moral codes can allow for discernment. However, I tried to choose a question that was a little harder. What if most people don't agree with why the person stole? What makes that person wrong and others right?

 

I appreciate your answering where you think we get our moral codes from. I find this very interesting and enjoy the discussion.

 

Ohh, on another night, perhaps, I'd discuss it more with you. Honestly, I've run out of steam and interest on questions like this that have no real answer. At least, I don't think they do. I don't mean to shrug you off, but we've reached the point on this particular topic where I simply have no real investment or care anymore. Again, I'm not a philosopher. When I read materials on these sorts of questions, my brain goes blank. I bet there are others though who like the topic more. Hope you find someone who likes the brain-tussle.

 

:)

 

Here's something you might enjoy! These are some terrific philosophy games, that I go back to from time to time. This one on "do-it-yourself deity" might really interest you.

 

Not only can Christians ask non-theists about where their morality comes from, even deists and Christians can do it. Even when they say "morality comes from God" http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/whatisgod.php'>http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/whatisgod.php Try this one! And come back and tell me about it. I'd like to hear about it.

 

Here are some more, not necessarily god-related games.

 

http://www.philosophersnet.com/games/

Edited November 12, 2011 by Ipsey

[Bluegoat]

You say, "But you've just said that people saying that all morality comes from God is out of line, which is just what you said you were ok with a while back."

 

But I did not just do that.

 

Here's what I said, the piece you quoted, "THE PROBLEM COMES WHEN PEOPLE COME IN AND SAY MY MORALITY COMES FROM THEIR GOD, AND THAT I MIGHT AS WELL BE A CHILD RAPIST, OR SUPPORT CHILD RAPISTS IF I DON'T RECOGNIZE THAT,"

 

See that coordinating conjunction in there, that ", AND"? That's important.

 

Here's an example.

 

"I don't like Christians who say that Jesus is the Son of God, and try to convert other peoples' little children without their parents' consent."

 

See the two clauses there? Just read the first one, and it sounds nutso. When you actually read it as it is meant to read, with that subordinate clause at the end, well, then you've actually read the whole thing. It would be disingenuous to only read the first half of the sentence and respond to it.

 

Which is what you did with my sentence.

 

As to the second half of your post:

 

Yes, people can vote for whomever they want, think whatever they want, and do whatever they want. However, if they act like royal asses over it, and harm a specific minority, I think it's not unreasonable that people call them on it.

 

You know, you've been pretty snippy with people that haven't responded the way you'd like.

 

And can be used that way, but it is often also used like "or" or with an implied "also". As in, "it ticks me off when people do X, and when they do Y.

 

You really don't need to be sarcastic and condescending.

[MSNative]

Ohh, on another night, perhaps, I'd discuss it more with you. Honestly, I've run out of steam and interest on questions like this that have no real answer. At least, I don't think they do. I don't mean to shrug you off, but we've reached the point on this particular topic where I simply have no real investment or care anymore. Again, I'm not a philosopher. When I read materials on these sorts of questions, my brain goes blank. I bet there are others though who like the topic more. Hope you find someone who likes the brain-tussle.

 

:)

 

I was just about to post something similar. I went back and reread some posts and saw how raw the hurts may be for some. This is probably not the time for a deep philosophical discussion. Probably just a time to say :grouphug: and I hear you. Sorry you or anyone else felt picked on or hurt. I enjoy the diversity of thoughts and beliefs on this board. So, go forth, have chocolate and relax. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts. One more :grouphug: 'cause I like hugs.

[Free]

And that I think is because the question is what is the foundation of morality? What does it mean for something to be good or evil, and why is it important? Most people naturally feel empathy, but some people don't - does that mean their morality is actually totally different - it is ok for them to do things that hurt other people? Why do we think people have rights, or duties?

 

Why do we even value things like human life? If it is just because it makes us feel happy, or makes for a smooth society, or has an evolutionary advantage, is that not ultimately simply a social contract for the sake of our own welfare? Is it really right then to call it morality as such?

 

And if so, can we really be upset if someone breaks that contract for their own reasons? I mean it would make sense to punish the individual to preserve the contract, but should we be really affronted by acts that are really just another kind of self-interest?

 

I think that is what people are clumsily trying to get at when they ask what the basis of a non-theistic morality is the question of what i the relationship between morality and reality is in an atheist world-view - that is, if we are simply natural beings, how does morality come out of nature and why is it significant?

 

It is an assumption you make based on your faith that morality has a theistic foundation. Religion is man made and religious moral codes are also man made. We can just as easily have a secular moral code not based on religion. After all every society on earth does have a moral code even though it may look very different from yours. Even in a unit as small as a family, rules are made. A moral code is simply an extension of societal living.

[Free]

When I say judge, I mean, do you turn the person in for stealing? (going back to my phone example) When it doesn't impact anyone else, anyone is free to have their own moral code. The problem occurs when two moral codes collide. In your examples, I agree that I would go against the law to do the right thing (allow stealing, lie to save someone, etc.) Certainly moral codes can allow for discernment. However, I tried to choose a question that was a little harder. What if most people don't agree with why the person stole? What makes that person wrong and others right?

 

I appreciate your answering where you think we get our moral codes from. I find this very interesting and enjoy the discussion.

 

Oh, but this happens anyway. Why! Did we not just the other day have a big discussion on this board on whether the woman who ate a sandwich in Safeway and forgot to pay for it did anything wrong or not?

 

People use their own discernment, their own value systems to make decisions about morality all.the.time.

 

And judges in courts also, I would hope, use their wisdom to decide how to apply the laws of the land in such cases. People use their own inner moral compass all the time.

[Ipsey]

You know, you've been pretty snippy with people that haven't responded the way you'd like.

 

And can be used that way, but it is often also used like "or" or with an implied "also". As in, "it ticks me off when people do X, and when they do Y.

 

You really don't need to be sarcastic and condescending.

 

 

 

I think I've tried to explain my point at least 4 different times in clear ways, in rather long and detailed posts.

 

I've been told I've caused an uproar. I've now been told I'm sarcastic and snippy when I'm asked to explain it yet again.

 

Ok, I'll own them all. I'm a snippy, sarcastic, condescending. And now I'm done.

 

Please, feel free to respond in any way you like. I promise not to respond any more at all, as I apparently cannot make my point understood without being a nasty person. That was never my intent.

[Free]

Kindly meant here.

 

Let's use Jean ValJean. He was taking care of a sister and her 7 children. Couldn't get a job, children starving. He steals bread. Right or wrong? Why do you say so?

 

Law says stealing is wrong. Christian moral code says stealing is wrong. Most cultures' moral code says stealing is wrong. However, in some situations, we can understand and sympathize with doing the "wrong" thing.

 

Should we bear false witness if it is to save someone's life? "No, Mr. Nazi. Herr Goldbaum is not hiding in my basement." If I recall correctly Corrie Ten Boom has an example in her book of how a woman hiding Jews told soldiers the truth about the Jews she was hiding because she couldn't lie. The Jews wound up re-escaping after they had been taken into custody, so maybe the right thing to do would be to fork over people who are being rounded up and executed by their governments. Surely Ten Boom's acquaintance thought so.

 

A man is wounded on the battle field. He is dying in agony. He will die before nightfall, but it is hours away and he asks his friend to shoot him to put him out of his misery. However, Christian teaching says that murder is wrong. Most cultures' moral code says that murder is wrong. In this case, would is be worse to let this man suffer, or to free him of his suffering?

 

How do you answer these questions? Probably the same way most of us would. We wrestle with our own consciences and the various influences in our lives, whether cultural, religious, political, etc.

 

There is not a simple answer to every question. There is really not Always this way or Always that way to circumstance.

 

We get our morality from our culture, our sense of compassion, even our brain chemistry.

 

It's something I hope most people work and struggle with. Morality is something to be worked out with "fear and trembling" if you will, from situation to situation.

 

I'd be afraid, frankly, if someone were unable to see various situation and circumstance when thinking about morality.

 

As far as "who has the superior moral code" and "on what do we judge them". I have absolutely no interest in such a discussion, but perhaps Nance is game.

 

I think there are as many moral codes as there are people. And, mostly, our moral codes are based on our individual upbringing, experience, nature, and culture. People look to themselves for their morality.

 

Ipsey, just want to say here, this post is beautiful. Very well said.

[Bluegoat]

It is an assumption you make based on your faith that morality has a theistic foundation. Religion is man made and religious moral codes are also man made. We can just as easily have a secular moral code not based on religion. After all every society on earth does have a moral code even though it may look very different from yours. Even in a unit as small as a family, rules are made. A moral code is simply an extension of societal living.

 

What makes you think I've made an assumption about that? It's a logical and inevitable result of my view on metaphysics that morality would also have it's origins in the foundation and origin of all reality.

 

But you haven't actually answered the questions I asked. You've said that we can see that all societies have a moral code, and most people have a sort of moral code.

 

You haven't very clearly suggested what the basis of the moral code is though - one could take a few approaches that I can think of to what you've said. Do you think it is just a practical construct in order to live socially? If so, it would seem to follow that any stable society could have any moral code and there would be no way to prefer one over the other. So, a stable society with slavery would be no better than one that gives freedom to all. And we still have the question - why do we value society?

 

Or, it could be that as social animals, morality is just a kind of codification of whatever way of life is most evolutionary advantageous. That would seem to lead to a kind of social darwinism. It to some extent raises the question why we feel there is value in the species - the answer would be that nature makes us, but then one wonders why we tend to find social Darwinism a bit unlovely.

 

Or we could say with the objectivists or the followers of Nietzsche that all value resides within the particular individual, and so our morality should be whatever is most advantageous to each individual, and each individual needs to assert himself against others to gain whatever advantage is possible, and possibly to enforce his values on others. In this case we don't have to ask where the value comes from, because we all value ourselves on a really primal level. But it does have some other disadvantages, and doesn't seem to come out of any kind of communitarian principles as you've suggested.

 

Or we could take a humanistic approach and say that we see the foundation of value in what is human, and therefor the human community. But the question still is why?

[Free]

Do you think it is just a practical construct in order to live socially? If so, it would seem to follow that any stable society could have any moral code and there would be no way to prefer one over the other. So, a stable society with slavery would be no better than one that gives freedom to all. And we still have the question - why do we value society?

 

Yes, I think morality is a practical construct in order to live socially. I also agree that there would be no objective way of judging one moral code over the other. It does not mean that I would be equally happy in a society where slavery is prevalent (especially if I was a slave). I prefer the freedom that I currently enjoy and that preference would always colour my judgement of which moral code is best.

 

If you look back at history, there has hardly been a civilization where women were not oppressed, where slavery was absent, where gays and other minorities were treated fairly and this is irrespective of the religion practiced. Human moral code has evolved, particularly so I believe after industrialization. It continues to evolve. With new medical and genetic technologies, humankind is poised to play "God" and I believe the ethical issues that we will face will be unprecedented.

 

For large part I believe humans valued love, compassion and courage the most. Still do. But it seems it is only in the last century or so, that individual liberty and freedom have been added to the top of the human value system.

 

 

Or, it could be that as social animals, morality is just a kind of codification of whatever way of life is most evolutionary advantageous. That would seem to lead to a kind of social darwinism. It to some extent raises the question why we feel there is value in the species - the answer would be that nature makes us, but then one wonders why we tend to find social Darwinism a bit unlovely.

 

Or we could say with the objectivists or the followers of Nietzsche that all value resides within the particular individual, and so our morality should be whatever is most advantageous to each individual, and each individual needs to assert himself against others to gain whatever advantage is possible, and possibly to enforce his values on others. In this case we don't have to ask where the value comes from, because we all value ourselves on a really primal level. But it does have some other disadvantages, and doesn't seem to come out of any kind of communitarian principles as you've suggested.

 

Or we could take a humanistic approach and say that we see the foundation of value in what is human, and therefor the human community. But the question still is why?

 

If your fundamental question is why humans prefer one form of morality over the other, then I have no answer to that. If your argument is that humans are driven to love and compassion above all, because of divinity driving humanity, well it is an interesting perspective. Again I don't know, but I am open to such an idea.

Yes, I think morality is a practical construct in order to live socially. I also agree that there would be no objective way of judging one moral code over the other. It does not mean that I would be equally happy in a society where slavery is prevalent (especially if I was a slave). I prefer the freedom that I currently enjoy and that preference would always colour my judgement of which moral code is best.

 

If you look back at history, there has hardly been a civilization where women were not oppressed, where slavery was absent, where gays and other minorities were treated fairly and this is irrespective of the religion practiced. Human moral code has evolved, particularly so I believe after industrialization. It continues to evolve.

 

This is very well said, and I think it important to point out that morality does change (I hesitate to use the word evolve :-) ) over time. I believe, as I hope everywhere here does, that slavery is abhorrent. However, had I lived in, say, ancient Greece, I suspect it never would occur to me that slavery as an institution is wrong, it was so much part of the fabric of ancient life. Even if I were a slave, surely I would long to be free, but I don't know that I would be able to construe a world-view that didn't include it.

[Spy Car]

Some Christians, like the self-described "paleo-Confederate" Minister Douglas Wilson (he of Veritas Press, Canon Press, and Logos fame), believe that slavery is an institution fully approved by God and by scripture. And not only "approved" by God, but a good thing.

 

Let's also not forget that, while there were Christian Abolitionists, the institution of slavery in America was justified in the South on an explicitly biblical and Christian basis. Quite a moral lapse.

 

Bill

[Heather in AL]

Ipsey, Nance.... I :001_wub: you both!

[keptwoman]

The way I like to describe my athiest/humanist perspective on morality is simple. Since I only get one go-round with this life and existence, I should do my best to leave the world a little better than I found it and help others do the same. :001_smile:

:iagree: that sums it up for me.

 

Ipsey, Nance.... I :001_wub: you both!

:iagree: Thanks to both of you for presenting "our" case in such a well thought out and polite way.

[Liz CA]

I was specifically thinking about your example of girls being drowned for having pre-marital sex. Yes, you are right: God says it's not good but He would not suggest killing them because He knows He can easily forgive them and He is so much bigger than pre-marital sex or any other sin. :)

[silliness7]

Uproar? I'm sorry? Was there an uproar somewhere? I thought I had written a very nice explanation as to how a non-religious person determined their morality. I'll hide under a pillow the next time I try such a thing, to try to be less uproarious about it.

 

I'm going to try to explain it one more time, and then I'm going to have to give up, ok? I'm really sorry if I can't make this any clearer.

 

Someone in another thread was ignorant, and in her ignorance was saying very hurtful, damaging things about non-religious people. Or, she was being malicious.

 

I tried to answer a specific question she had, namely, where non-religious people got their morals.

 

She said that non-religious people might just as well believe in child rape if they didn't believe in God. She made very, very ugly straw men arguments, whether from ignorance, or that she was making a very ham-handed gesture to lead people to her deity (which I think was probably the case).

 

She was saying things which contribute to the fact that atheists in America are the most feared and distrusted minority in the US (Did ANYONE read the links I put up), and they were the least likely to be elected into office.

 

I'm ok with disagreeing about beliefs, even with talking about them. Do you see. It's ok! Several people have come on here to tell me that they believe my morality comes from their god. There's been no uproar in response. OK?

 

THE PROBLEM COMES WHEN PEOPLE COME IN AND SAY MY MORALITY COMES FROM THEIR GOD, AND THAT I MIGHT AS WELL BE A CHILD RAPIST, OR SUPPORT CHILD RAPISTS IF I DON'T RECOGNIZE THAT.

 

I don't think you have any idea how often I hear that. "Why don't you just go kill people if you don't believe in God. You can't be good without God!"

 

People in this thread haven't done that. So, I haven't had any issues, in particular.

 

Can I make an example for you?

 

I can say, "I don't think there are any gods. I think Christians are wrong about there being a god." That's ok, right? Now, what if I said, "Christians would all just be a bunch of rapists and murderers if not for their god."

 

Can you understand the difference between those two?

 

PLUS, what if this was already a country where Christians were a minority of 13 percent, the most distrusted in the US. What if Christians had no chance in hell of becoming president. What if there weren't a half a million churches in the US?

 

Would you be frustrated. Would you want to stand up for yourself?

 

The woman in the other thread was not merely asking questions. She was contributing, I think willfully, to the degradation and ugliness toward skeptics and the non-religious, who are already in a far less influential position.

 

You are being dismissive, or not understanding this at all.

 

I hope I've clarified this a bit.

 

I don't think I can help explain this any more for you.

 

:svengo:

 

 

:chillpill:

 

 

:auto:

[Scarlett]

Now that's interesting.

 

I know right?

[Jennifer3141]

You honestly think she has been sarcastic and condescending? I don't see that from her. It's been a very interesting thread, with several posters giving their own explanations.

I, however, just saw your cutesy chill pill to her. This seems a bit off. Perhaps you're upset and see her writing as angry, because you are angry?

I think the OP has been quite gracious about the whole topic.

 

Ipsey has been awesome. The response of some members here has been... illuminating. :001_smile:

[leeannpal]

Some Christians, like the self-described "paleo-Confederate" Minister Douglas Wilson (he of Veritas Press, Canon Press, and Logos fame), believe that slavery is an institution fully approved by God and by scripture. And not only "approved" by God, but a good thing.

 

Let's also not forget that, while there were Christian Abolitionists, the institution of slavery in America was justified in the South on an explicitly biblical and Christian basis. Quite a moral lapse.

 

Bill

 

Thank God that we who are Southern Christians today don't feel the same way. Are you trying to be offensive? We could get into the historical atrocities committed by any number of religions. You are taking away from the original discussion when you post inflammatory things like this.

 

Each person has to come to his ot her own conclusions about morality and the reasons for what he or she believes.

Edited November 12, 2011 by leeannpal

[ereks mom]

C.S. Lewis had quite a lot to say about this. He called it the Law of Nature, or the Law of Right and Wrong.

 

RIGHT AND WRONG AS A CLUE TO THE MEANING OF THE UNIVERSE

 

Everyone has heard people quarrelling. ...They say things like this: "How'd you like it if anyone did the same to you?"--"That's my seat, I was there first"-"Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm"-- "Why should you shove in first?"--"Give me a bit of your orange, I gave you a bit of mine"--"Come on, you promised." ...Now what interests me about all these remarks is that the man who makes them is not merely saying that the other man's behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other man to know about. And the other man very seldom replies: "To hell with your standard." Nearly always he tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standard, or that if it does there is some special excuse. He pretends there is some special reason in this particular case why the person who took the seat first should not keep it, or that things were quite different when he was given the bit of orange, or that something has turned up which lets him off keeping his promise. It looks, in fact, very much as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or decent behaviour or morality or whatever you like to call it, about which they really agreed. And they have. If they had not, they might, of course, fight like animals, but they could not quarrel in the human sense of the word. Quarrelling means trying to show that the other man is in the wrong. And there would be no sense in trying to do that unless you and he had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a footballer had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of football.

 

Now this Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. ...The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law--with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it. ...This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that everyone knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are colour-blind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behaviour was obvious to every one.

 

...I hope you will not misunderstand what I am going to say. I am not preaching, and Heaven knows I do not pretend to be better than anyone else. I am only trying to call attention to a fact; the fact that this year, or this month, or, more likely, this very day, we have failed to practise ourselves the kind of behaviour we expect from other people.

 

...Now this is really so peculiar that one is tempted to try to explain it away. For instance, we might try to make out that when you say a man ought not to act as he does, you only mean...that what he is doing happens to be inconvenient to you. But that is simply untrue. ...I am not angry--except perhaps for a moment before I come to my senses-with a man who trips me up by accident; I am angry with a man who tries to trip me up even if he does not succeed. Yet the first has hurt me and the second has not. Sometimes the behaviour which I call bad is not inconvenient to me at all, but the very opposite. ...So you cannot say that what we call decent behaviour in others is simply the behaviour that happens to be useful to us. And as for decent behaviour in ourselves, I suppose it is pretty obvious that it does not mean the behaviour that pays.

 

...Some people say that though decent conduct does not mean what pays each particular person at a particular moment, still, it means what pays the human race as a whole; and that consequently there is no mystery about it. Human beings, after all, have some sense; they see that you cannot have real safety or happiness except in a society where every one plays fair, and it is because they see this that they try to behave decently. Now, of course, it is perfectly true that safety and happiness can only come from individuals, classes, and nations being honest and fair and kind to each other. It is one of the most important truths in the world. But as an explanation of why we feel as we do about Right and Wrong it just misses the point If we ask: "Why ought I to be unselfish?" and you reply "Because it is good for society," we may then ask, "Why should I care what's good for society except when it happens to pay me personally?" and then you will have to say, "Because you ought to be unselfish"-which simply brings us back to where we started. You are saying what is true, but you are not getting any further.

 

...And that is where I do stop. Men ought to be unselfish, ought to be fair. Not that men are unselfish, nor that they like being unselfish, but that they ought to be. The Moral Law, or Law of Human Nature, is not simply a fact about human behaviour in the same way as the Law of Gravitation is, or may be, simply a fact about how heavy objects behave. On the other hand, it is not a mere fancy, for we cannot get rid of the idea, and most of the things we say and think about men would be reduced to nonsense if we did. And it is not simply a statement about how we should like men to behave for our own convenience; for the behaviour we call bad or unfair is not exactly the same as the behaviour we find inconvenient, and may even be the opposite. Consequently, this Rule of Right and Wrong, or Law of Human Nature, or whatever you call it, must somehow or other be a real thing--a thing that is really there, not made up by ourselves. And yet it is not a fact in the ordinary sense, in the same way as our actual behaviour is a fact. It begins to look as if we shall have to admit that there is more than one kind of reality; that, in this particular case, there is something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men's behaviour, and yet quite definitely real--a real law, which none of as made, but which we find pressing on us...

 

http://lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt

[Scarlett]

But what do you think morality is? Is it real in any sense? If we make a moral judgement, is it based on anything more than imagination?

 

I understand that you accept that a religious person believes his moral direction comes from God. But you don't believe that's actually true, since you don't think that God exists. So where do you think his moral ideas really come from? The same place yours do? Somewhere else?

 

Morality, if it is real, has some kind of objective basis, however we get hold of that - it is intertwined with the nature of reality in some way. I as a Christian think that it has its source in the Divine Nature, just like the laws of physics, or mathematics, or the material world, or the immaterial created world. All of these things have their reality because of God. So from my POV, an atheist percieves the physical world, or logic, or whatever, because they come from God. Similarly, good and evil.

 

Atheists see morality as having a foundation in something else, or as having no foundation. But if they think it is real, they think it is part of reality, it is part of the world we live in apart from whatever any individual decides. Atheist moral philosophers have a variety of different ideas about this. And that thing is the source of morality for everyone, even if those people ascribe that source to something else.

 

THat is what Christians are saying when they say even atheists get their morality from God. They believe God is the objective underpinning of all reality, whether people realize it or not, and so the origin of all moral truth.

 

And that is no different than what atheists who believe in moral truth think, minus God.

 

Is it frustrating when people are rude and stupid? Sure, but there are lots of places, like where I live, that are more likely to treat Christians the way you are complaining about.

 

Very nice post. I need to re-read it. Several times. Thank you.

[Rivka]

Some Christians, like the self-described "paleo-Confederate" Minister Douglas Wilson (he of Veritas Press, Canon Press, and Logos fame), believe that slavery is an institution fully approved by God and by scripture. And not only "approved" by God, but a good thing.

 

Let's also not forget that, while there were Christian Abolitionists, the institution of slavery in America was justified in the South on an explicitly biblical and Christian basis. Quite a moral lapse.

 

Thank God that we who are Southern Christians today don't feel the same way. Are you trying to be offensive? We could get into the historical atrocities committed by any number of religions. You are taking away from the original discussion when you post inflammatory things like this.

 

If I can presume to unpack Bill's statement a little...

 

There has been a tendency by some (but not most) of the Christians in this thread to set up a dichotomy between moral values which derive from the Christian God (eternal and unchanging, foundational to the meaning of the universe, always correct) and moral values which derive from human reason (baseless, shifting from person to person and culture to culture, capable of promoting abhorrent behavior).

 

I believe that in this quote Bill is pointing out that what is presented as correct Christian morality, based on eternal foundational truths, has in fact changed considerably from time to time and from society to society. Christian teachings have been used by Christians to promote slavery, and also abolition. Today, only extreme fringe Christians like Doug Wilson believe that God's law permits and condones slavery. Two hundred years ago, that was far from being the case. Ergo, Christian morality is not eternal and changeless, nor is it incapable of promoting abhorrent behavior, nor is it invariant across all times, persons, and cultures. Ergo, the dichotomy presented above is a false one.

[Lady Florida.]

Thank you Ipsey and Nance for speaking about atheism so beautifully. It's so frustrating to be thought of as amoral, or as having no real basis for morality.

 

A former president once said he didn't think atheists should be U.S. citizens. As recently as 2008, a candidate used "meeting with atheists" as ammunition against her opponent. We are apparently so abhorrent that even associating with us is enough to keep you out of political office. I think a lot of believers truly don't understand the extent of discrimination against atheists. I have many Christian friends (and family) who have no problem associating with me and agreeing to disagree on beliefs. But I don't think even they realize the extent of the bigotry that is out there.

[MSNative]

If I can presume to unpack Bill's statement a little...

 

There has been a tendency by some (but not most) of the Christians in this thread to set up a dichotomy between moral values which derive from the Christian God (eternal and unchanging, foundational to the meaning of the universe, always correct) and moral values which derive from human reason (baseless, shifting from person to person and culture to culture, capable of promoting abhorrent behavior).

 

I believe that in this quote Bill is pointing out that what is presented as correct Christian morality, based on eternal foundational truths, has in fact changed considerably from time to time and from society to society. Christian teachings have been used by Christians to promote slavery, and also abolition. Today, only extreme fringe Christians like Doug Wilson believe that God's law permits and condones slavery. Two hundred years ago, that was far from being the case. Ergo, Christian morality is not eternal and changeless, nor is it incapable of promoting abhorrent behavior, nor is it invariant across all times, persons, and cultures. Ergo, the dichotomy presented above is a false one.

 

 

You said ergo a lot. :) I love that word.

 

Actually, as a Christian I wanted to respond. You stated that very well and I agree with you. I would only change that true Christian morality is changeless since God is changeless. It is Christian understanding that changes.

 

Also wanted to say that I hope my posts did not come across as grilling anyone. I enjoy learning about other perspectives. I apologize if my posts offended anyone. I do not think that atheists are immoral at all.

[Ester Maria]

The core of the Biblical morality is not humanism - that is the catch which many people routinely get wrong.

 

Humanism can be loosely defined as a value system in which the supreme value is attributed to the human being, the human life, the humanity of another person - so whatever one does gets "measured" that way. Think Kant. Think about the ideal of treating each person not as a means, but as a goal. Biblical morality is somewhat opposite. The core value around which the whole system is organized is NOT humanism, but Divine Law. Things get measured and considered in accordance with the Law and the interpretation of the Law (this latter part is more tricky). True, the legislation of certain relationships between people is a part of the Law - but doing what the Law requires is essentially a means to a further end (and the ultimate end and the supreme value is that Law!), not a goal in and of itself. In other words, it is not about you and other people, it is not an anthropocentric worldview - it is about Divine Law.

 

So, when put in that perspective, people who are religious in the context of Biblical morality are actually less moral in terms of moral autonomy - because they have renounced that autonomy by subjecting themselves to the Law as the ultimate arbiter of what is good and bad. The only question remaining for them is the one of intellectual honesty - whether they are going to admit that and actually live in accordance with the Law and the interpretation they find intellectually legitimate, or will they spend the rest of their lives trying to sit on two chairs and reconciling what cannot be reconciled. Those of us who are infidels or, like me, so profound heretics that they can easily be written off as infidels too :tongue_smilie:, have to deal with the lack of sound and elaborate basis in terms of guidelines, in the wilderness of life attempting to own each of our acts in accordance with our moral autonomy. Which is absolutely baseless and subjective, if you take away the burden of culture we are born into - but that is what makes life more fun. :D

 

My personal worldview incorporates some very gloomy basic beliefs with which you can either live in acute depression for the rest of your life or you can laugh at the absurdity of life and make an attempt to do something good, where you can, as you see good. That is what I try to do, though there are days when I see my efforts as despicable and foolish. :) I am not particularly troubled by the lack of a metaphysical grounding for my morality as I typically feel good following my inner compass and that compass has so far not proven to be at great odds with the society/ies I live(d) in.

[Mom-ninja.]

I think a lot of believers truly don't understand the extent of discrimination against atheists. I have many Christian friends (and family) who have no problem associating with me and agreeing to disagree on beliefs. But I don't think even they realize the extent of the bigotry that is out there.

 

 

There are just as many who do know about the discrimination and are okay with it.

[Rivka]

I have many Christian friends (and family) who have no problem associating with me and agreeing to disagree on beliefs. But I don't think even they realize the extent of the bigotry that is out there.

 

There are just as many who do know about the discrimination and are okay with it.

 

Like the anti-bullying bill in Michigan, which was recently amended to say that bullying is allowed if the bully is motivated by his or her religious beliefs. :willy_nilly:

[Mrs Mungo]

Thank God that we who are Southern Christians today don't feel the same way.

 

Except some of them *do*. We have had white supremacists post on this board. Some people who think slavery is Biblically acceptable are involved in the homeschooling movement. That is what Bill is saying. If you don't agree (as I, as a Christian, don't agree) then that is an example of Christians being in disagreement in today's USA over what Biblical morality looks like. That is Bill's point.

[Spy Car]

Thank God that we who are Southern Christians today don't feel the same way. Are you trying to be offensive? We could get into the historical atrocities committed by any number of religions. You are taking away from the original discussion when you post inflammatory things like this.

 

Each person has to come to his ot her own conclusions about morality and the reasons for what he or she believes.

 

If I can presume to unpack Bill's statement a little...

 

There has been a tendency by some (but not most) of the Christians in this thread to set up a dichotomy between moral values which derive from the Christian God (eternal and unchanging, foundational to the meaning of the universe, always correct) and moral values which derive from human reason (baseless, shifting from person to person and culture to culture, capable of promoting abhorrent behavior).

 

I believe that in this quote Bill is pointing out that what is presented as correct Christian morality, based on eternal foundational truths, has in fact changed considerably from time to time and from society to society. Christian teachings have been used by Christians to promote slavery, and also abolition. Today, only extreme fringe Christians like Doug Wilson believe that God's law permits and condones slavery. Two hundred years ago, that was far from being the case. Ergo, Christian morality is not eternal and changeless, nor is it incapable of promoting abhorrent behavior, nor is it invariant across all times, persons, and cultures. Ergo, the dichotomy presented above is a false one.

 

You nailed it!

 

Bill

[NorCalMom]

There are just as many who do know about the discrimination and are okay with it.

 

I am aware of it, but I'm not OK with it. And as Bluegoat previously stated, (depending on where you live) Christians can face the same bigotry. Sad & frustrating for sure....I believe that all people deserve respect and compassion, regardless of beliefs.

[Lady Florida.]

There are just as many who do know about the discrimination and are okay with it.

 

True. But they're not the ones I choose to associate with IRL.

[Iucounu]

Adherents of each major religion have their own moral codes, which differ in some respects. Each adherent usually feels that their religion is the one true one, with some exceptions. Within each major world religion there is disagreement as to what's right and wrong.

 

There are different versions of the Bible. There is disagreement among Christians as to what the Bible means, and disagreement about issues of morality. Majority Christian views, for example on slavery, are flexible and change over time, as Spy Car et al. have pointed out. Christians also do not believe in

 

Looking in from the outside, there is compelling evidence that humans existed well before Christianity and in fact before every major world religion today. Moral codes existed well before Christianity. There seems to be no evidence whatsoever of a set of immutable moral laws inherent in the universe. And just going on the numbers, if a god exists, it has either chosen to communicate the truth in different ways-- including different sets of moral rules-- to non-Christians in greater number than Christians, or chosen to mislead the majority of the world.

 

If there is an immutable set of moral laws inherent in the universe, nothing causes people to hew toward it by nature, or we would not have such differences along cultural and geographic lines. That is, unless one considers the overlap between all different religious moral codes to be the only subset that's "true", a view with which I'm sure that the more vociferous Christians here would disagree.

 

What would communicate clearly to an undecided person the correctness of one particular Christian's moral views, with so many other equally valid-looking choices available? There really is nothing but a particular person's faith that their belief is the correct one to communicate to a non-believer or different-believer that that is so. Hence while one is entitled to one's religious moral beliefs, one cannot logically convince others of their truth. In addition, as the OP has stated, there are perfectly reasonable non-religious explanations for why moral rules are advantageous to humans.

 

It would be different if a god actually communicated clearly and unequivocally to each person what the truth is, to wipe out all doubt. Instead, what we have is a welter of different belief systems based on human-recorded writings of various pedigrees, with people disagreeing on what those writings mean.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Iucounu

[LibraryLover]

There has been a tendency by some (but not most) of the Christians in this thread to set up a dichotomy between moral values which derive from the Christian God (eternal and unchanging, foundational to the meaning of the universe, always correct) and moral values which derive from human reason (baseless, shifting from person to person and culture to culture, capable of promoting abhorrent behavior).

 

I believe that in this quote Bill is pointing out that what is presented as correct Christian morality, based on eternal foundational truths, has in fact changed considerably from time to time and from society to society. Christian teachings have been used by Christians to promote slavery, and also abolition. Today, only extreme fringe Christians like Doug Wilson believe that God's law permits and condones slavery. Two hundred years ago, that was far from being the case. Ergo, Christian morality is not eternal and changeless, nor is it incapable of promoting abhorrent behavior, nor is it invariant across all times, persons, and cultures. Ergo, the dichotomy presented above is a false one.

 

:grouphug:

[Bluegoat]

You honestly think she has been sarcastic and condescending? I don't see that from her. It's been a very interesting thread, with several posters giving their own explanations.

I, however, just saw your cutesy chill pill to her. This seems a bit off. Perhaps you're upset and see her writing as angry, because you are angry?

I think the OP has been quite gracious about the whole topic.

 

Yes, when someone feels the need to describe the purpose of the word "and" to me as if I were 3 I get the feeling they are being condescending, and when they suggest people are not understanding them on purpose I think they are being snippy.

 

But the topic doesn't make me angry, so no, I don't think that is the issue.

[Molly]

Alas, you're likely right.

At least it was said. It's been said elsewhere, of course, but. . .sometimes the impulse is too great to resist.

 

Actually, I find this really interesting because this is pretty much where I am at in terms of thinking and I am a Christian,

 

I have recently found myself in a discussion regarding evolution, and where human beings have come from. Through this discussion, I have really learnt a great deal about myself and God.

 

But I think my biggest conclusion, is that we all as individuals need to be able to reconcile our beliefs with ourselves and no one else. We should not feel we have to defend what we believe. I think if you are content with your beliefs, so be it.

 

But I also think we need to actually continue to seek in all areas to see whether we are right or wrong in our beliefs. I think if we do not challenge ourselves in our beliefs, can our beliefs truely be reconcilable.

 

(An example is that I am a YEC believer, a believer in the literal Holy Bible written by God. Not only am I currently reading and studying the Bible, but I also am reading a book regarding science discussion with theories leaning towards YEC, and a book written by Richard Dawkins. During my current reading and studying, my belief in God is growing incredibly. I read the Bible as truth to be studied, and other books I read with the thought that these are just humans, like me, who are trying to reconcile their beliefs.)

 

So basically, anyone can be a good person, there is not a doubt about it, but should any of us judge anyone because of their beliefs. So in other words, we all have a sense of right and wrong, but we shouldn't use our beliefs to justify what we do.

 

By the way, I haven't read past the posts that I have quoted.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Molly
Just had a extra sentence to add in.

[Ipsey]

 

I'm ok with disagreeing about beliefs, even with talking about them. Do you see. It's ok! Several people have come on here to tell me that they believe my morality comes from their god. There's been no uproar in response. OK?

 

THE PROBLEM COMES WHEN PEOPLE COME IN AND SAY MY MORALITY COMES FROM THEIR GOD, AND THAT I MIGHT AS WELL BE A CHILD RAPIST, OR SUPPORT CHILD RAPISTS IF I DON'T RECOGNIZE THAT.

 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1786422&page=1#.Tr_pCcOVpkY

[kalanamak]

It matters to me because I get sick and tired of people telling me I either have no morals or that if I'm logical I'll accept that I got my morality from their god. I'm in a society where most people think I'm a bad person because I don't believe in their god. I was told by several of my students on Wed (who don't know I'm not religious), that I can't really be a good American because I don't believe in a god.

 

 

Not worth being sick and tired of, really. Just rise above it. When people say I got my morality from their god, I think to myself that they got their god from their genes.

 

The longer I live the more I think that setting a good example is far more powerful than anything you can debate over.

 

Now then, if ever actually discriminated against in job or housing, I would break my long-held vow of "just walking away" by hiring the meanest lawyer I could find. :)

 

I recall a dying woman (it was actually the first death I attended, and my great intern let me out of all my work except "riding" with this woman to all her tests and treatments, and the next day I went down to her autopsy) who, clutching my hand, asked me my faith. I told her I had none, and she was quite surprised and said she'd never met anyone without faith before (somewhat possible, given the culture she was from). After her initial surprise, she went about her business of lapsing into a coma and dying, still clutching my hand and murmuring to me. Her last words were: "I'll never forget you."

[Alte Veste Academy]

Not worth being sick and tired of, really. Just rise above it. When people say I got my morality from their god, I think to myself that they got their god from their genes.

 

The longer I live the more I think that setting a good example is far more powerful than anything you can debate over.

 

Now then, if ever actually discriminated against in job or housing, I would break my long-held vow of "just walking away" by hiring the meanest lawyer I could find. :)

 

I recall a dying woman (it was actually the first death I attended, and my great intern let me out of all my work except "riding" with this woman to all her tests and treatments, and the next day I went down to her autopsy) who, clutching my hand, asked me my faith. I told her I had none, and she was quite surprised and said she'd never met anyone without faith before (somewhat possible, given the culture she was from). After her initial surprise, she went about her business of lapsing into a coma and dying, still clutching my hand and murmuring to me. Her last words were: "I'll never forget you."

 

True and lovely. Thanks for sharing. :)

[GingerPoppy]

This won't help you. ;) But it isn't much better if you "believe." For the types you are talking to, if you don't believe in the way they do, you are just as ****ed. Really.

 

. . .

 

You don't "believe", if you don't *by God* believe Jonah was eaten and thrown up by a whale. You don't "believe" unless you believe in the flood, and Adam and Eve.

 

Move over, atheist, I'm on the same lost bench.

 

The irony is that most philosophical theories (religious or otherwise) share more principals than not.

 

:iagree: And make room on that bench for me, too.