Atheists Have No Morals
October 1, 2007 by TJM Admin
I can follow some religious fundamentalists that claim that atheists have no morals. But only with some interpretation, and only some of the way.
Most movements, including Christianity, define themselves according to “positive” and “negative” comparisons. A positive definition is when the movement makes statements about who its followers are, what they believe in, and what their opinions are. A negative definition is when the movement makes statements about what it isn’t; for example, Christians will readily state in which areas their religion differs from Islam, and the various Christian groups will gladly explain how they differ from other Christian groups. A positive definition is the religion’s “what we are” statement, and a negative definition is the religion’s “what we are not” statement. Both are valid descriptions helping define the movement, and both are moral statements of what one believes in and what one doesn’t believe in.
Atheism is only negatively defined. It rejects the notion of gods but there is no explanation of what atheism is instead. Atheism only implies a non-belief in gods. Moral questions are not covered by atheism. As a “movement,” atheism has no shared interests to gather around–just like one doesn’t create an organization with the goal of not collecting stamps. Atheism can easily state itself in negative terms (i.e., it is the disbelief in gods), but cannot state itself in positive terms, that is, atheism cannot answer the question of what atheism offers.
In short, atheism has nothing to offer, and the corollary is that since atheism doesn’t have moral statements to offer, then it isn’t atheism that contributes to any atheist’s morals. Morals have to come from somewhere, and according to the definition of atheism, morals can’t come from atheism. Both from a religious view and an atheistic view one can sensibly argue that if atheism rejects the concept of gods, then atheism also rejects the notion of god-given morals.
In the hypothetical situation where atheism was all alone, atheism would in fact lack morals, and probably no society could exist without these non-spoken rules of behavior. One can therefore argue that the various religions accusations that atheist have no morals are in fact true.
The mistake in such an argument is of course that although atheism may not offer particular ethical or moral views, atheism isn’t shielded from society, and while atheism rejects the existence of gods, atheism doesn’t reject ethics or morals. Atheism can easily include Christian morals or other kinds of morals, even if these morals happen to be founded in a world-view that involves the belief in gods. Modern atheism began to appear while belief in gods was widespread (and that’s how things still are), and in a sense adopted the morals that were already found in these societies. It means that although atheists don’t believe in gods, in practice they behave as if they did.
Atheists thus find themselves in a difficult position, because if they are to draw the consequences of the non-existence of gods, at least they must come up with a good explanation of why the existing morals can be accepted. It is a rather poor argument to state that existing morals should be accepted because their justification is the belief of many people in a particular god.
In practice, atheists choose one of two options when confronted with this question. One option is a rather shallow notion that one just follows a “naturally appearing” moral–where unfortunately one misses the devil in the detail that the moral that feels most natural happens to be the moral that one was raised to believe in by one’s predominantly Christian parents. The other option is to consider morals as created by human hands, that is, to rely on, e.g., secular humanism or adopt ideas from, say, objectivism (although the morals of objectivism are highly reminiscent of the ethics identified as protestant work ethics by Max Weber more than a century ago).
Atheists are faced with a hard decision: either they adopt the morals and ethics of the religious people they grew up among, or they must face the consequence of a world with no Heaven og glory bright and no Hell where sinners roast: it is a world with no supernatural purpose with life; it is a world where you have only one life which you’re responsible for making the most of yourself; it is a world where no authority but humans themselves make the rules. As an atheist, you choose between the hypocricy of claiming atheism yet living according to religious beliefs, or you walk the talk by playing what the religious people have long considered the Devil’s game.
Religion has something to offer, and not all of if is intangible. Religion provides a sense of belonging, the feeling of purpose in one’s life, and in many cases a social network. Religion has an advantage that will keep would-be atheists from non-belief until atheists can offer an alternative to the emotional, physical, and mental gratification that religions have to offer.
-Special thanks to Ole Wolf for sharing this article with TJM. Feel free to discuss!
What is wrong with secular humanism? Or simple empathy such as the golden rule of do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Or Kantian philosophy? All of these are acceptable moral theories that don’t involve religion. Therefore there is no hypocrisy.
[Reply]
John: you must have misread the article, because it suggests secular humanism as a valid alternative for morals. It is atheism by itself that doesn’t propose anything.
[Reply]
Well, seeing how religion poisons everything and everyone, why is the lack of religion a negative?
Ethics and morals don’t come from the Bible, The Q’uran or any other religious script.
May I refer to an excellent article in the NY Times.
“Where do moral rules come from? From reason, some philosophers say. From God, say believers. Seldom considered is a source now being advocated by some biologists, that of evolution.
At first glance, natural selection and the survival of the fittest may seem to reward only the most selfish values. But for animals that live in groups, selfishness must be strictly curbed or there will be no advantage to social living. Could the behaviors evolved by social animals to make societies work be the foundation from which human morality evolved?”
Another great article;
http://www.helium.com/tm/430588/there-genuinely-believe-being
A quote from it:
The Nobel winning American physicist Steven Weinberg made the point very well, he said: “Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things - that takes religion.”
[Reply]
Luci: the article doesn’t consider whether the values themselves have positive or negative effects or anything along those lines. The positive definition says what the religion is where as the negative definition says what the religion isn’t. These are moral considerations, but it is nowhere implied that others must agree, or that it is the morals themselves that are positive or negative.
An ideology defines itself positively when it includes something, and negatively when it excludes something. For example, Christianity defines itself positively when it says: “we believe in loving one’s neighbor” or “we believe that sinners will burn in Hell,” even if some of those definitions have negative connotations among other ideologies. Conversely, Christianity defines itself negatively when it says: “we are not like those primitive Muslems.”
Atheism doesn’t say that it believes in something or stands for something. If it did, then that would be a positive definition. Atheism only says what it doesn’t stand for.
[Reply]
What we are:
Free from a doctrine that does the world a lot of harm.
What we offer:
Freedom
[Reply]
unholycorndog: no, that’s not correct. Not offering Christianity isn’t the same as offering something else. Remember how Christians claim we’re a religion? We’re not: we don’t offer something else.
Yes, we’re not Christians, which is what “free from a doctrine that (some moral statement),” just like Christians aren’t Muslem.
Your “what we are” statement is a negative definition of atheism: it doesn’t state what we ARE, it states what we’re NOT. “Freedom,” as in “free from that doctrine,” is also a negative definition in this context.
You guys are making the classical mistake of attributing universal values to morals when you hear the terms “positive” and “negative.”
I’m an atheist, too, but I’m not falling into the trap of believing that makes me something. I have my set of morals and ethics, and while they’re made possible by atheism’s negative definition, they are not caused by it.
[Reply]
When presented this question by “the faithful”, I often respond by looking confused and following it up with: “I’m not sure I understand what you mean? What do religion & morals have to do with either beyond religion being the antihesis of morality? If religion provides moral guidance, then genocide, mass infanticide, muder, rape and slavery are all acceptable morals. You ask how I can be moral if I’m not religious, I ask how you’re moral if you ARE religious?!”
So far, every faithful twit I’ve confronted in this way has given up immediately.
[Reply]
Ole Wolf
I really don’t think believing in something that DOES NOT EXIST makes it a positive attribute. I would rather NOT believing in something for which there is no proof, as believing in such a thing would be evidence of a mental disorder.
I would rather stand for nothing, than stand for a lie.
[Reply]
Luci: you obviously have a hard time following what “negative” and “positive” definitions mean. It’s not a matter of whether it exists, nor is it a matter of whether anyone agrees or whether it has positive or negative values according to someone’s morals.
For example, when I define my personal views, I do not believe in the Devil. This is a negative definition, because I reject something (even if you and I can easily agree that there’s no Devil). I also do not believe in any other metaphysical entities. I also define myself as someone that has other moral values than Christians or Muslems. Again, this is a negative definition, because I’m defining myself in terms of what I am not, defining myself in contrary terms of what others are. You would have to know their morals in order to make any deductions about mine.
However, I embrace many of those features traditionally attributed to the Devil, such as our carnal existence, humanism, rebellion, trust in science, etc. Those are positive definitions, because they help clarify what I believe in, or what I am.
I’m using the Devil as an example to show that although the Devil doesn’t exist, it can make perfect sense to rely on that image anyway; Christians can do this with their God, too, because although there is no such thing, they are evidently capable of defining their ideals nonetheless.
Similarly, an astrologist can define himself negatively stating that he doesn’t believe in gods, but what sets him apart from most atheists is a positive (albeit probably in our view silly) definition stating his belief in the ordering of the stars and what else makes sense to him.
Both a negative and a positive definition ultimately help clarify what you are, but a negative definition says what you are only in terms of opposition to something that is defined positively.
Saying that you stand for nothing is equivalent to saying it’s your hobby to not collect stamps. It either doesn’t make any sense, or it makes sense only by comparing yourself with people that do collect stamps, i.e., it’s a negative definition.
[Reply]
I think we misunderstand each other, Ole Wolf - I hope so in any case.
I have a problem with this in your OP;
“Atheists are faced with a hard decision: either they adopt the morals and ethics of the religious people they grew up among, or they must face the consequence of a world with no Heaven og glory bright and no Hell where sinners roast: it is a world with no supernatural purpose with life; it is a world where you have only one life which you’re responsible for making the most of yourself; it is a world where no authority but humans themselves make the rules. As an atheist, you choose between the hypocricy of claiming atheism yet living according to religious beliefs, or you walk the talk by playing what the religious people have long considered the Devil’s game.
Religion has something to offer, and not all of if is intangible.”
I don’t get what you mean by the “ethics and morals of the religious group they belonged to” - except if you feel bigotry and hypocrisy are moralistic and ethical. What religious beliefs are actually worth following and adhering to? The fact that one can sin as much as one wants, and then be forgiven and redeemed?
Whereas Atheists KNOW we have only the here and now - we don’t have a redeemer, nor do we have Satan to blame?
I repeat: I’d rather stand for NOTHING than to stand for the so-called morals and ethics religion has to offer.
[Reply]
Luci: I’m assuming that you have little or no training in philosophy, so let me ask you a question:
What are your values? None?
I can safely answer that you do have values. The question is where you got them. If, like some atheists, you think they “came naturally to you,” remember that what feels natural is what you learned from your parents mostly, whose religion I’d wager a guess I know. The rest came from society around you.
Values, morals, and ethics include, but are not limited to, bigotry and hypocrisy. They also have to do with how you view other human beings. They define your opinions of right and wrong. You can’t convince me you made up all of them on your own.
Oh, wait: you don’t even have any if you stand for nothing. My bad… or would you perhaps say you do stand for something after all?
This is the challenging part, because if an atheist happens to define this something as everything the Christians stand for, except for the faith thing, then for all practical purposes you might as well be a Christian. That’s the hard decision I’m talking about. If an atheists stands for something and doesn’t live accordingly, then this atheist is just as hypocritical as the Christians whose hypocrisy he challenges.
[Reply]
Ole, just so we’re straight - are you suggesting that we must do everything different from Christians or risk being hypocrites? Must we murder and rape and steal every day? That gets awfully exhausting after a while, you know. Heh.
Moral codes are very complex things, and even between any randomly chosen Christians, there will be huge differences in parts of that moral code. No murder? Okay, that’s almost universal. No meat on Fridays? Not so universal.
It’s nearly inevitable that we, as atheists, would develop moral codes just as complex and customized as any Christian’s. Humans do that, with or without religion as we know it, as cultural anthropology shows, and more often than not, those codes are similar. Nearly every culture has rules against murder, theft, destruction of property, and so on, so it should come as no surprise that atheists tend to adopt those same rules. “Do what thou wilt” shall not be the whole of our law - it’s more like “Do what thou wilt, as long as you don’t step on anyone else’s toes too hard.” That has a lot in common with the Ten Commandments and other Abrahamic law, too - much of which has to do with, no surprise, murder, rape, and property law.
However, there’s a lot in Christian morality that we can do without - like the Commandments about worshiping god. Not necessary for us. Our only commandment when it comes to worship is “Don’t worship anything, unless she’s really hot.” We all do just fine with that one.
Does that mean that we’re taking our morality from Christianity? Not at all. As long as there have been legal codes - which are really just institutionalized moral codes with consequences - there have been rules against things like theft and rape and murder. (And exceptions, too.) It just means that we’re all getting most of our moral codes from the same place: self-interest. And self-interest is a powerful motivation! It’s the bedrock of all legal systems, criminal justice, and government itself: if we make and enforce laws against these basic crimes, then people can feel free enough and safe enough to work and be productive. From a more personal point of view, it means that as long as there are widely-observed rules against murder, theft, and rape, I can feel relatively safe living my life without constant fear of such personal violations.
But there’s a lot of gray area between murder and theft, and the parts about worshiping god. There’s lying, for instance. I lie, without fear of hell. Mostly I lie to protect my identity - Darque is not my real name, as MissPDX can testify - and my own interests, but I will admit that I lie without the same fear of repercussion as a Christian. And what about all those bizarre rules about eating? Shellfish, pigs, cows - religions come up with some weird ones. I just don’t eat anything I don’t like. And honoring my mother and my father? Hahahahahah…
And then there are the parts that our modern society dwells upon, with little or no religious guidance. There’s nothing in Deuteronomy about downloading music illegally. The bible is equally silent on abortion. I’ve got a few all my own, too - I avoid using characters in fighting games that are strictly devoted to boring fireball patterns (like Cable from MvC2), and even when I do use them, I use them as melee fighters instead of fireballers. I’m fairly certain that this rule appears in no legal or religious code of morals.
Moral codes are terribly deep, complex ideas that take many forms. I’d wager that most of your own moral code, dear reader, is so deeply buried that you don’t even know it’s there, so deeply ingrained that no matter how much it informs and alters your actions in the course of a day, you’re hardly aware of it working. No matter how innocuous they may seem, all the little rules that we make for ourselves also make up a large part of our moral codes. And, like DNA, it’s fiendishly complicated and long, much of it is common to everyone, some of it is common only in people like ourselves, and some of it is totally unique.
An easy enough misconception is that atheists must have no morals because we have no religion to give us morality. I argue that religion doesn’t give anyone morality, but rather only tells people when they’re allowed to break moral rules that everybody already knew. For instance, nearly all the atheists that I’ve ever heard express an opinion on the subject (yes, I know, not exactly a scientific poll) are pacifists. I’m one, too - I look forward to the day that international disputes and barroom brawls alike are settled with words instead of violence, with compromise instead of destruction. What my moral code doesn’t have is a list of times when it’s okay to kill: when they’ve done this or that to me or someone I love, when my government tells me to. (Before anyone cross-examines me on this: if my life is in danger, or that of someone I love, and there is no other way out, including manipulation, lying, betrayal, or just severe wounding, yes, I will kill - but I will do anything to avoid it.) I don’t think it’s a coincidence that so many atheists are against the war in Iraq - we don’t have a rule in our ruleset that tells us that we have to kill when our boss says so, and that it’s okay to kill when we’re at war. That’s something you have to go to religion to find. We tend to see war as just one murder after another, with little purpose - and instead of fulfilling our commitment to the Caesar, it instead offends our sense of morality. While it has shrunk to a small minority, it wasn’t that long ago that a large fraction of the US population supported the war in Iraq, and many recognized it as a clash between Western Christianity and Eastern Islam. I don’t think we can dismiss that as coincidence.
An atheist, just like every other person, will end up tailoring their moral code to fit their lives. They may start with a certain pattern - for me, it was “Do what thou wilt, without stepping too hard on too many toes” - and then customize it to suit their needs. Certain behaviors might be modified to fit the pattern, or alternatively, the pattern might be altered to fit certain behaviors if they’re held too dear. We all do this, theist and atheist alike. From where my pattern started, I eventually got to, “Never park in handicapped spaces.” Will everyone make that connection? No, probably not. (Which explains all the perfectly healthy people I see parking in handicapped spaces, the bastards.) I didn’t get that morality from any religious book - I got it from the fact that I, too, may one day be handicapped, and therefore I want (for my own self-interest) to ensure that handicapped spaces are reserved for people who need them.
When people start seeing self-interest as the primary motivator behind morality, religion becomes only a secondary or even tertiary source of guidance.
[Reply]
** Break out of the xian perspective into a wider world **
## a worldview free from the dead hand of God
There is one recognizably Western non-xian high culture of long-standing — that of ancient Greece and Rome from Homer in 750 BCE to Plotinus who died in 270 CE, just over 1,000 years.
Much of this world’s writings are lost — but enough remains to enlighten us and provide a needed antidote to all the xian cultural poison circulating, especially in the U.S.
Atheists and other non-theistic folks: you’ve got to educate yourselves — there is no need whatsoever to take up any metaphysical or moral view from xianity. That religion is bankrupt. Let it go. Think outside the “cross” walk.
## morals and religion not initially related
In a context of discussing the plays and world view of Sophocles, the great classicist E. R. Dodds offers his conclusions about morals and religion in archaic Greece (before 450 BCE):
“I need hardly say [sic!] that religion and morals were not initially interdependent, in Greece or elsewhere; they had their separate roots. I suppose that broadly speaking, religion grows out of man’s relationship to his total environment, morals out of his relation to his fellow men.”
Continuing with Dodds:
“But sooner or later in most cultures there comes a time of suffering when most people refuse to be content with [the separation]. Man projects into the cosmos his nascent demand for social justice; and when from the outer spaces the magnified echo of his own voice returns to him, promising punishment for the guilty, he draws from it courage and reassurance. [The greeks and the irrational. Berkeley. 1951. pp. 31-32]
## the revaluation of all values
“The whole of history is the refutation by experiment of the principle of the so-called moral world order.”* In this Nietzsche follows the ancients. In Euripides’ play “Heracles Insane”, the hero after his descent from murderous mania says, “If the gods are not just, then they are not gods.”
Sophocles and Euripides understood that existence cares not one iota for humanity’s well-being or being comforted. To claim otherwise is to be at once intellectually dishonest and culturally blind.
bipolar2
copyright asserted 2007
*Nietzsche. Ecce Homo. IV.4. Basic Writings of Nietzsche. p.784. Kaufmann trans.
[Reply]
Does theism make any moral statement? No! Theists make the claim that a deity exists - nothing more. Those who examine this claim and find it lacking evidence, reply with a honest refutation. Atheism is the honest answer to the claims made by theists. Is honesty a moral positive? I think so.
So perhaps atheism does make a positive moral statement!
The article is comparing a honest position with a belief system - not theism. Theism doesn’t automatically have a belief system attached. On its own, it has no moral stance. Atheism, as shown above, does!
I would argue that morals/ethics preexist - they existed long before deities and religion were invented. Morals/ethics are a naturally occurring social condition and they change according to our knowledge. Ancient religions ossify our ancestors’ ignorance, so impede our moral and ethical progression.
[Reply]
This article is an EXCELLENT example of Religious thinking. It takes a single, unevidenced assumption and builds a complex network of theory on top of that assumption. Just like every monotheistic religion out there.
The author is not unlike an illusionist. His trick actually occurred in the second and third paragraphs. He waved around his wand and mumbled strange incantations for a couple more, then pulled the rabbit out of the hat right there near the end. Now we’re all expected to clap and cheer, and the jackass who shows everyone the trick is supposed to be booed and thrown out.
The author’s first fallacious conclusion guarantees that the rest of the article is complete crap. The author correctly demonstrates that Atheism does not include an inherent code of morality, but fallaciously concludes that Atheists cannot even possess morality. In the author’s mind, a person possessing a sense of morality CANNOT BE AN ATHEIST.
The simple fact is every sane person (and most other creatures) possess at least a rudimentary sense of morality. Reams of actual and anecdotal evidence support this conclusion, yet the author denies it.
All the sound and fury of the author’s tale attempts to distract one from the fact that it is told by an idiot and signifies nothing.
[Reply]
Rival, I wonder whether the assumption is just that atheism can have no morals quite like Christianity. So, while I still argue that morals themselves come from neither atheism nor theism, but rather from self-interest, atheists can choose from a limitless amount of combinations that can be as much or as little like Christianity as they choose. An atheist can copy Christianity’s non-religious rules to whatever extent they wish, and in a lot of situations, even deeply anti-Christian folks like myself will behave much like a Christian. Of course, without thinking some voyeur god is constantly peeping over one’s shoulder, the hypothetical atheist is liable to take way more liberties behind closed doors and in the privacy of the home.
More power to us, then. Nothing hinders the sex life like a pervert deity telling you how to do it.
Another part of the article I wanted to respond to: do people inherit much of their moral code from their parents, regardless of religiosity? Sure. My parents bequeathed me their sense of right and wrong in many situations, but the general rule is simple enough: don’t do anything I wouldn’t like done to me. How I respond when someone else crosses that line is likely to be up-front and direct, much like my parents, saying what I feel needs to be said. I did not, however, inherit any religion from them. My mother is virtually silent on the subject, and my father was a Roman Catholic kid, coming back to the church only long after I was an adult. I had almost no involuntary exposure to religion, and yet I don’t often go on killing sprees, pillaging neighborhoods for gold, goods, or blood. No religion necessary.
So while the not killing the neighbor part is nice - I’m a little more consistent on that point than the bible recommends, of course, there are plenty of other moral-related issues on which I differ. For example, two, perhaps more, consenting adults can do whatever they wish in the bedroom - “consenting” and “adults” being the key words for me. As racy as that may sound, it’s not exactly a radical proposition. For any question, I pick and choose what works for my own conscience, which may or may not coincide with Christianity at all, with little correlation. For the other atheists here, feel free to make your own choices. I will probably make different choices from you, too, a fair percentage of the time.
I may have my own code, but not so far outside the bounds of social normality that I can’t argue the author’s final paragraphs. As an atheist, there is a third and very reliable option: I can pick and choose what parts of Christian morality I want, and rely upon them at my own discretion, without any of that heaven-or-hell moral-quiz-afterlife business.
Finally, there’s no need for gloom and doom when the author talks about a “world with no supernatural purpose with life… [a] world where you have only one life which you’re responsible for making the most of yourself… a world where no authority but humans themselves make the rules.” That sounds to me more like a statement of freedom, not of despair. Supernatural purpose? Pah, who needs it. We’re the only ones responsible for making our own rules and making the most of ourselves? Excellent! I say we make it as livable as we can, at the very least, and as enjoyable as physically possible on the better days. Think of it: there will be tragedy, and joy, and frustration, and loss, and profound discovery, and every flavor of emotion can be seen and savored and mourned for what it really is, free of the taint of religion. That realization should bring a deep sense of appreciation to an atheist, for so much of the human condition is forbidden by religion.
[Reply]
rivalarrival: theism doesn’t just postulate gods; it also postulates that these gods require us to live according to certain morals. If in doubt, ask Christians whether they have morals they’d like you to live by.
I have stated that atheism doesn’t claim any specific morals, and that it only states a disbelief in gods. However, since you refer to me as a religious, furious idiot for stating this, perhaps now would be a good idea of you to identify the specific morals implied by atheism and list them here.
(Darque: I’ll post a reply to your initial question about inverting morals later.)
[Reply]
Darque: no, we should not do everything differently than Christians; such an anti-Christian definition would be a purely negative definition of ourselves, defining us as “not-them,” and nothing else. (Besides, I don’t believe in the Christians, and that disbelief includes their claim that murder and theft are un-Christian. If anything, Christians are a notoriously murderous and thieving bunch, and meek or humble Christians are far between.)
But we mostly agree, I think. My points were exactly that although atheism “provides nothing” and “stands for nothing,” we atheists do in fact have moral codes. The key is that these moral codes are not implied by atheism. The problem is then: if these morals aren’t corollaries of atheism, where do they come from? It wouldn’t be too great if atheists’ morals came directly from religion, would it?
Scholars today lean towards a definition of religion that views religion as society’s worship of an idealized image of itself. Yes, sociology and psychology has made some progress since the days when religion was opium for the people.
We would all prefer to be safe, well-fed, happy, etc. We also want a society with certain rules for interacting. We all want to know how to behave, and what to expect from other people. That’s what our morals are about.
Combine this desired society with the modern definition of religion: it means that a belief system is a way of saying how society should be and how people should interact with each other, although admittedly it sounds rather convoluted to a non-believer. This way, the gods are irrelevant even to the believers (although few of them would ever realize that).
Christians (meaning “generic religious individuals”) think that this ideal society is what some god wants. We atheists think it’s something we want. But if the only thing that matters is who wants this society, then in my humble opinion I can’t see why one would care to bother arguing against religion. In my opinion, it only matters if we want a different kind of society.
And that’s where morals become important. We all want certain rules of engagement because it would be terribly confusing otherwise. But atheism provides no such rules encoded in moral statements. How can we possibly convince anyone to become an atheist as an alternative to some relatively ordered behavior unless we can argue that we can provide such rules?
The depressing answer is that as mere atheists, we can’t. We must have atheism and something more, be that opinion or alternative belief, if we want to convince others that there’s a viable alternative to their view of an ideal society and their view of social interaction.
The bottom line is thus: all atheists have morals. But it is not atheism that provides these morals, because atheism only states what it doesn’t provide, and the question is: where did you get your morals? Morals are always thought to be based on something. If it isn’t God, then perhaps you think they’re based on “what feels right.” Unfortunately, what “feels right” is what you learned around your mother’s knee by Christian parents in a Christian society. If an atheist thinks his morals come from atheism or science, then this atheist also has some thinking to do.
It’s incumbent on atheists to realize not only that atheism doesn’t provide any morals but also that one needs something in addition to atheism if an alternative to religion is desired. Whatever that might be, some of its morals may coincide with Christian morals. Others hopefully won’t.
[Reply]
Ole Wolf:
Theism is nothing more than the belief in God. The postulates you refer to a common connotations of Theism, but they are not a part of the definition, strictly speaking. The ONLY requirement for theism is belief in God.
Any Trekkie worth his jumpsuit can tell you a little about the Klingon brand of theism - Klingons allegedly killed the gods that created them - this is a theistic philosophy, but is functionally Atheistic and Klingonistic (as opposed to humanistic), i.e.: Klingons do not follow the moral code laid down by their gods, they simply killed them.
First, I did not call you a furious, religious idiot for stating that atheism is nothing more than a lack of belief in God. (In any event, I was referring to Macbeth. I apologize for the word “idiot” - I was trying to turn a phrase, not insult you. ) I criticized you for the method you used to reach your irrational conclusions.
I cannot do as you ask, because, as I stated above, I agree with you: Atheism does not provide morality. To conclude “Atheists have no morals”, one would have to demonstrate that the sole source of morality is religion - this is simply not true, as you have later stated.
We can see rudimentary morality in the behavior of every societal creature. We have the ability to reason, to learn, to correlate events. Correlating seemingly positive events (like the death of mosquito following pesticide usage) with negative effects (harm to desirable species) adds to our morality (It is wrong to use that pesticide).
I think the article places way too much emphasis and meaning on the source of an individual’s morality, paints Atheism as Anti-theism (Whatever Religion does, let’s do something different), and glosses over the effects (positive and negative) of religious and atheistic slants on morality. The article also fallaciously claims that Atheism is incompatible with morality, which you yourself later deny.
What Feels Right is not necessarily what you learned on your mother’s knee. Racism wasn’t considered immoral even 2 generations ago. The generation before mine grew up believing that Jim Crowe laws were a positive thing, mingling of the races was wrong, and blacks were inherently inferior to whites. Yet these old ideas are considered immoral even by the people who were taught that they were acceptable, or even imperative.
[Reply]
Ole Wolf - apart from atheism making at least one moral standard (honesty). I think your points are a little lopsided; if not flawed.
You said “If it isn’t God, then perhaps you think they’re based on “what feels right.” Unfortunately, what “feels right” is what you learned around your mother’s knee by Christian parents in a Christian society.”
I come from a long line of pagans, atheists and a few nominal Christians (my parents) who wouldn’t know a biblical verse if they saw one. My parents never once hit me; although it’s perfectly fine to beat a child according to the Christian ethos. So were my parents doing what felt right? or were they emulating their parents belief system? - doubtful, because my parents were beaten as children. I guess they made a moral decision not to beat their own.
Every moral system created has been and is based on knowledge - including what feels right. Why do you think the majority of people in society have persistently ignored biblical content. If the majority of Christians gained their morals from their ossified book; their behavior would also be ossified and unchangeable. Morals are a societal condition, regardless of what label we attach ourselves to. Womens rights, gay rights, atheists rights, moral laws protecting children, moral laws against child marriage, laws against slavery - none of these came about because of the Christian ethos, they existed in cultures before Christianity and/or came about by those going against the Christian ethos.
You said “If an atheist thinks his morals come from atheism or science, then this atheist also has some thinking to do.”
If science finds a product sold at the local store causes cancer or birth defects, I think many of us would see it removed. I guess science influences moral behavior a great deal.
“It’s incumbent on atheists to realize not only that atheism doesn’t provide any morals but also that one needs something in addition to atheism if an alternative to religion is desired.”
Atheism is the honest answer to the claims made by theists. Honesty is considered a moral positive. Atheism makes a moral statement.
If something is needed in addition (for atheists to have morals); all what is needed is a society of two.
[Reply]
rivalarrival: you have said that: “This article is an EXCELLENT example of Religious thinking“, which means you refer to me as a religious person.
You also said that the: “sound and fury of the author’s tale attempts to distract one from the fact that it is told by an idiot“.
While not stated in the same sentence, you’ve nonetheless called me a furious, religious idiot. I don’t care if you referred to Macbeth or your dog; those terms are some of the worst insults you can hurl at a debater in an atheist forum. I don’t think our cultures are so different that I have to tell you that you owe me an explicit apology for this.
We can agree that theism only makes a statement that there’s a god. But that means we also have to agree that theism provides the believers with something, even if it’s just a figment of their imagination. And that’s a key issue. This god that theism provides its believers with is the very thing that they attribute their morals to by constantly defining their deity and clarifying what this deity stands for. They do this through myths of this deity’s impact on mankind, through ceremony and through
Hopefully we can agree on that. But it means that although in principle theism doesn’t imply a specific set of morals, the provision of a deity makes it possible for the believers to attribute their morals to something.
Atheism does not provide anything that we can attribute our morals to. Hopefully we can also agree on that.
One does not have to conclude/demonstrate that the sole source of morality must be religion to state that atheists cannot draw their morals from atheism (I’m assuming you read the article, not just the title). One must only conclude that atheism by itself cannot be used to define morals. It is not logical to conclude that the alternative must be religion.
I also have not claimed that atheism is incompatible with morals, only that atheism does not cause them since atheism (in philosophical terms) is exclusively negatively defined. It is not logical to conclude that because atheism does not cause or imply morals, atheism is incompatible with morals.
You’re making these either-or mistakes, and I frankly I don’t see why I should be held accountable for your fallacies of bifurcation. I also don’t appreciate the insults and aggressive accusations that you hurl at me based on your own lack of correctly applied logic that apparently prevents you from understanding the article.
[Reply]
“Passer By” (sheesh, can’t anyone use their real names?): your parents probably did what most other parents did in their time. That doesn’t mean they deviated from the Christian society around them.
Christian behavior is the behavior demonstrated by Christians, not the behavior that is sanctioned or required by their books or claims. If Christians generally don’t beat up their children, then beating one’s children is not “the Christian thing to do,” not even if their books say so. You can argue whether they’re true to their claims, but you can’t argue whether they’re Christians.
Atheism doesn’t imply anything, not even logic. Its rejection of gods doesn’t have to be based on logic; it is fully acceptable to argue that one just “feels like” there’s no god.
Honesty means you tell the truth as far as you’re concerned, but I don’t think this is neither implied by atheism nor exclusive to atheism. I see no indications that belivers are honest about their beliefs, not even when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. (For example, recall that miracles and such doesn’t contradict science; they’re miracles because they don’t fit into science!) If one was capable of coming up with a lie detector that worked, I think it would show that believers are honest in their beliefs.
[Reply]
Ole Wolf - their Christian behavior is demonstrated by their adherence to the teachings. Deviating from those teachings isn’t being Christian, it is being anti-Christian - You join a club, you don’t obey the rules, you get kicked out - you are no longer a club member. Of course, there is a reason why some so-called Christians don’t beat their children, own slaves, drink Drano, and amputate limbs as Jesus commanded - so something else is at play and it’s something you seem to be missing from your arguments. Humans are naturally social animals; cooperation serves our survival. This survival mechanism gives us the ability to identify what is socially acceptable within a group (regardless its label). The wider the scope of our knowledge, the better our understanding and ability to reason. Because of these abilities, society naturally rebels against what was once socially acceptable and new laws, new morals are constantly created. These things are not exclusive to Christianity. In fact, Christianity at its core is anti-reason and anti-knowledge, it’s rules are set in stone. What you described as Christian behavior isn’t Christian behavior at all - it is human behavior. I guess we are all members of this same club; and it’s one we can’t be kicked out of.
I stand by my statement. Atheism is the honest answer to a CLAIM. Saying you don’t believe is giving a honest answer to the question. Honesty walks hand in hand with Atheism.
A social group of two is all what needed for a moral system to work - whether we believe in fairies or not. We all have morals.
[Reply]
“Passer By”: I’m sorry, but you’re making is a classical beginner’s mistake in terms of social sciences.
If you want to define a group by scientific principles, then you can’t ignore how that group behaves and thinks in practice. If they happen to deviate from your interpretation of their texts, then it’s up to you to realize that your model (i.e., your interpretation) is wrong.
You may think that Christians would behave according to some particular rules if they weren’t social animals, but alas, they are, and that’s how we’ll have to define them if we want to stick with science or in any way have a useful definition. Otherwise you’re describing some Platonic ideal Christian that doesn’t exist, and that’s plain mysticism.
The only ones that can sensibly argue that the Christian Bible contains the truth about Christian behavior are Christians. I sincerely hope you don’t believe it does.
Science aside, it would be silly to describe Christians by studying their scriptures instead of observing and analyzing the Christians that are out there.
[Reply]
Given your inability to look at the bigger picture, I’ll make this my last post.
“If they happen to deviate from your interpretation of their texts, then it’s up to you to realize that your model (i.e., your interpretation) is wrong.”
So-called Christians have to use their own sense of morals to reason which texts are moral or immoral. They discard the ones they find abhorrent because of this ability to reason. This ability has nothing to do with them being Christian - it is a naturally occurring ability that exists in all social groups regardless of the label they attach themselves to. Their book demands obedience to their god, it demands that Christians obey the teachings of Christ - those who ignore these teachings, according to their rule book are anti-Christ, therefore anti-Christian values - this isn’t my interpretation.
Of course, there are those who do adhere to the teachings in their rule book, but they usually end up in the nut house or the nick.
As we know, the majority of so-called Christians don’t even read the Bible; most of them wouldn’t know a Bible verse from a saying in fortune cookie. So where are these so-called Christians who ignore and oppose their teachings getting their morals from? They, just like atheists, are getting most of their morals through reasoned opposition. If you are opposed to or for abortion, that doesn’t make it Christian or Atheist behavior. If you are opposed to or for cancer causing chemicals in food, that doesn’t make it Christian or Atheist behavior. It’s human behavior.
You, like many so-called Christians (who hijack our human behavior and claim copyright to it), seem to be confusing this and attaching it to their Christian identity. I think doing so would be a mistake.
[Reply]
Ole Wolf,
I said your thinking was religious, and I stand by that statement - I have supported this stance in my original comment and in my last response.
I said your tale was full of sound and fury and signified nothing, and I supported this opinion in my original comment and in my last response, however I will further, explicitly state that this was directed at the idea you were presenting, and not at you. You chose to interpret “A furious tale” with “A furious author” - The author is due inherent respect, however his ideas must stand on their own. I don’t care if you’re are an atheist, a Christian, a Muslim, Jerry Falwell, Ted Haggard, Richard Dawkins, or Albert Einstein - I consider ideas on their merits.
I called you an idiot, and I have already explained and apologized for that. No further apologize is due, deserved, or forthcoming.
Passer By:
Theism is “Belief in god”
The “A-” prefix means “Lacking”
Atheism means “Lacking (belief in god)”
Morality is a pre-existing condition - children who are unable to comprehend religion, let alone Atheism, are able to make basic morality judgments.
I disagree that reasoned opposition is the source of morality. Opposition is a product of morality, not the cause. when presented with a new concept, your sense of morality
[Reply]
“Passer By”: If your insist on a definition of Christians that doesn’t match that of modern sociology, then you have every right to do so for exactly the same reason as some Christians have the right to insist that the Earth is 6,000 years old. I prefer to stick with science, however.
rivalarrival: your conclusion that my thinking was religious was a result of your fallacy of bifurcation. Have a look at the atheism logic FAQ if you need an explanation of this fallacy.
[Reply]
Ole Wolf,
You consistently claimed that religion was a source of morality. Religion was the only source of morality you presented in any sort of positive light. The following quotes are indicative of the dogmatic thought process you employed:
“Morals have to come from somewhere, ”
Alone, there is no problem with this statement. In the context it was used, this statement implies an external source for morality - this fact is not evidenced.
“Atheism can easily include Christian morals or other kinds of morals, even if these morals happen to be founded in a world-view that involves the belief in gods”
Atheism cannot include Christian Morality. Look at pre-Christian Morality, then at the ideas that came about due to Christianity, and you understand that true Christian morality and atheism are inherently mutually exclusive.
“although atheists don’t believe in gods, in practice they behave as if they did.”
Again, this implies the “source” of morality is god.
“As an atheist, you choose between the hypocricy of claiming atheism yet living according to religious beliefs, or you walk the talk by playing what the religious people have long considered the Devil’s game.”
This false dichotomy seems to imply that an atheist would be a hypocrite for doing anything but follow Satanic beliefs. Aren’t there additional options available? Like a moral code that would piss off “Satan” but be equally objectionable to Christians? You know, like Honesty, Charity, Altruism, Love, and Refusal to Worship God?
Look, I agree with what you are trying to say: A broad definition of Atheism does not (and cannot) include any reference to a code of morality. If Atheism had a specific code of morality, it would be much more appealing to the masses.
I just don’t like how you are saying it. Christianity doesn’t provide the moral guidance it claims to - morality existed long before Christianity, long before Judaism, long before prehistoric man even left Africa. There is no hypocrisy in following a moral code that is consistent with portions of your adversary’s code, even if your adversary claims to be the source of that code. Refusing to follow certain aspects of your adversary’s code does not mean you are collaborating with that adversary’s worst enemies.
[Reply]
Look, we both know that there are no gods, and that morals therefore cannot come from those gods. However, that doesn’t prevent people from believing in those gods, and it doesn’t prevent them from being religious. It also doesn’t prevent them from attributing their morals to those gods.
Their mindset and morals are encoded in that belief, and as a group they draw their values from that belief. The belief system is a convenient way to encode and describe their morals. If someone says: “God wants me to be nice to other humans,” then that’s moral encoded in religious terminology. It doesn’t mean that this god made it up, nor does it mean that the person is necessarily nice, nor does it mean that you can only be nice by believing in that god.
I have said nowhere that these morals cannot coincide with those of theism, only that they cannot be derived from theism. I have said nowhere that moral is incompatible with atheism. I have said nowhere that one must have a specific set of atheist morals. You’re consistently MAKING UP (false) dichotomies with your bifurcations. There are plenty of options available for other morals than those of the Christians, and it is only to Christians (and you, apparently) that these morals would necessarily be the Devil’s game; but as an atheist you had better realize this is how your morals are perceived if they deviate from the Christian moral codes and terminology!
I thought this would be easy to understand. Believers have a well-defined package of morals ready for you, encoded in their religion. Atheists don’t have such a package, and can’t have it, because atheism doesn’t imply certain well-defined moral codes. It’s up to atheists to either identify and define morals inherent to atheism or–if a specific set of atheist moral codes cannot be agreed on–organize in groups that meet the requirements currently only met by religion: something to unite about, an agreed moral code, and agreed values. But if a group of atheists come up with a set of morals that are (almost) one-to-one with Christian morals, then it is only in terminology that these morals deviate from the Christian morals, and this particular group of atheists might just as well have been believers.
And please knock off that talk about “true Christianity,” because there’s no such thing.
[Reply]
“True Christianity” as I used the term, referred to moral values exclusive to Christianity - Jesus is the way to salvation would be an example of Christian morality. Do Not Kill is not - this moral issue predates Christianity by millenia.
Start with all moral values attributed to Christianity. Strip out the “generic” moral values that are consistent with other philosophies, and what you have left is “true Christian” morality. Of course, True Christianity is entirely hypothetical…
“There are plenty of options available for other morals than those of the Christians, and it is only to Christians (and you, apparently) that these morals would necessarily be the Devil’s game”
This goes directly against your own conclusion that Atheists can either be hypocrites or playing the Devil’s Game. I’ve already pointed this fallacy out once - this is your false dichotomy, not mine.
In any event, we seem to agree that Religious moral values are a farce, an illusion.
Why should emulating such a system be a positive thing?
Why should a specific, arbitrary code of behavior be a positive thing for an atheist? Why should we follow group opinion over our own reason and rationality? Isn’t that one of the main failures of religion?
Morality is, quite obviously, a subjective issue - while certain aspects are fairly consistent across demographic groups, others vary wildly, even among fairly similar groups. How can such a subjective issue be definitively encoded?
The lack of an arbitrary code of morality is a positive issue, not a detriment to Atheism.
Personally, I follow a libertarian philosophy of morality. The rights of the individual extend to the point that they interfere with the rights of another individual. The responsibility of the group is to enforce this ideal. The responsibility of the individual is to empower the group.
[Reply]
rivalarrival: I’m beginning to wonder whether you can’t, or don’t, read. Christians in general consider morals that deviate from theirs to be the Devil’s game. If you deviate, then it will be perceived as the Devil’s game. If I say you’ll either be doing as the Christians want you to or play the Devil’s game, then this DOES NOT imply that you should follow one specific set of morals instead of the Christian morals; it just implies you should follow some other kind of morals. If I had said it was either one specific set of morals or another specific set of morals, then there would be a (false) dichotomy, but please understand that I have not said this. You keep making up things I said based on your own bifurcations. When I say “not A,” then it doesn’t imply Z when options B, C, D, E, etc. are available.
And would you please also realize: by “negative” and “positive,” I am not referring to values (such as attributing detrimental or contributional values). I am using basic tools of philosophy to specify classes of definitions; defining what you are is a positive definition, no matter if people agree it’s a good thing, whereas defining what you are not is a negative definition, no matter what people agree it’s a good thing.
[Reply]
** “. . . Take no thought for tomorrow . . . .” — Jesus had no ethic
Silly rabbits:
Sophomoric philosophical trix are for kids.
Xianity has had about 2,000 years to confront its critics, external — pagan religions, philosophy, other religions — and internal — pick your favorite heretic from “gnosticism” to “mormonism.” Many a classic battleground has a pet name:
The problem of evil
Inherited sin
Jesus’ interim ethic
Unless you, xian/ western theist /Jesus=philosopher/ deist/
agnostic/atheist/anti-theist, know what the so-called “interim ethic” is; stop blathering on about Jesus and so-called xian ethics.
This pointless debate has being going on for over a century — but you still have to know about it. That is, if you must continue to imagine that something important turns on what an alleged Jesus had to say about right action.
When I googled “interim ethic” there were 259,000 results! Looks like religious types are still making a buck off this game.
Jesus thought the world would end soon. So did his immediate followers . . . that’s why Paul has to calm the freaked out first generation of dupes (”believers”) some of whom died before vengeance fell upon their hated enemies. Jesus, notably in the Sermon on the Mount, foresaw the kingdom of god as childlike. The new world stood in need of no Law, religious or secular.
That Jesus was dead wrong should surprise no one. The only apocalypse to come will be created by madmen like George Bush who clearly have a death wish and the power to impose it on mankind.
If you must waste your time with a dead God and a dead worldview, suit yourselves. But at least realize that trix are for kids. You think theology is for rank amateurs? Think again.
bipolar2
copyright asserted 2007
[Reply]
Atheism dosn’t offer morals??? It doesn’t offer frequent flier miles either.
This is an arguement? How about this? Since I am free of a god; I am responsible for my morals, which means that my actions have consequences to effect other people.
That’s right. we
Atheist are GOD-FREE. That is the basis of our morals and is a good one because it is responsible and not obedient.
[Reply]
I’ve said this time and time again. Religion is not the be all and end all of morality. Religions pose their own ideas of perceived morality. Even though that I am in fact a Christian, it does offend me that certain religious people call atheist immoral. I have many friends who are atheists and if anything if I had no tolerance of atheists I would probably have no friends. Yes indeed atheists do have morals. They are capable of great deeds and I myself have been at the receiving ends of such generosity coming from those who do not believe in any Gods. As for an atheism alternative to religion, try researching for pantheism. I respect people and their beliefs and wish to discourage any kind of ignorance of that sort. Furthermore I do find claims that all religious people are gullible, incapable of free thinking and evil. I have respect for the likes of Richard Dawkins who openly view their beliefs and dispel any misconceptions about atheists. As a society it would be nice to promote greater understanding of all belief systems and stamp out fundamentalism. While moderate religion may have its benefits I find it hard to belief that extremists are doing any kind of good in this world.
[Reply]
I’m an atheist. I have morals, respect for religious people, and a moral code. I simply don’t use religion as a base for my morals. By making the incorrect statement that every single atheist on the planet doesn’t have any morals, you are making a biased statement.
[Reply]