Atheism

[TCFD273]

Serious question for atheists (not meant to be snarky, judgey, etc.; genuinely curious): how do you determine what "good" is? How do you decide what the "right thing" is?

I'm curious because I often hear Christians say that if there is no God, then there is no "right" or "wrong" and therefore atheists cannot make moral judgements. But obviously, atheists make moral judgments all the time, just like everyone else.

What's guided your thinking on morality and ethics?

Pretty common question.

My standard snarky reply is: So, without God telling you what’s right and wrong, you’d rape little boys then murder them?

Many people have answered this better than I, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins (The Selfish Gene) come to mind.

The easiest explanation I can offer is, ethics are determined by society, and morality by the individual. How some Christians think and behave might be unethical to you, but perfectly normal to them. Examples would be stoning, drowning women, executing homosexuals and so on. What was once perfectly ethical behavior in the Bible is now frowned upon (illegal).

I would be foolish to deny that some of my morals are based on the Judeo Christian faith, most peoples are. But to act like people went around raping and pillaging every person they came across before 3000 BC is just foolish. We have, and will always be tribal people. It’s just that now our tribes are much larger.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[OlongJohnson]

Serious question for atheists (not meant to be snarky, judgey, etc.; genuinely curious): how do you determine what "good" is? How do you decide what the "right thing" is?

I'm curious because I often hear Christians say that if there is no God, then there is no "right" or "wrong" and therefore atheists cannot make moral judgements. But obviously, atheists make moral judgments all the time, just like everyone else.

What's guided your thinking on morality and ethics?

If you need an official system, Kant puts together a pretty good rational argument for getting answers that seem to just about always come out reasonably and is acceptably resistant to spinning into horror shows the way pure utilitarianism very easily does.

The gist of it is that these other creatures around me seem to be essentially like me, so to the extent that I seek to have productive, useful and pleasant interactions with them, it is rational to treat them with the same kinds and levels of consideration and respect that I would find acceptable and just if they exhibited those toward me. It's nuanced a little differently than the standard statement and most common variations of the golden rule, and that makes a difference. The result is similar, but with a focus on individual rights and responsibilities, and fair and appropriate relationships.

In reality, I think that what everybody really does, regardless of their religious beliefs, is essentially follow the norms of getting along with others in their culture in a way that they believe will optimize their personal outcome within that culture, in accordance with natural selection. We and every other living thing that has evolved on this planet are ruthless optimizers. Find some Jordan Peterson comments on the "endless series of games" concept.

I don't personally accept that religion is a necessary source for morality. The people I have trusted most completely in life, with the greatest stakes, have been devout atheists. I was not burned.

• Commandments 5-10 are essentially universal norms in some form around the world in all cultures, because they are necessary for societal organization and function.
• Applying the general idea of Commandment 4 may have some real mental health benefits, but I would suggest that any amount of stress over compliance with it is counterproductive.
• Commandments 1-3 are basically the Jewish priesthood establishing hegemony in the religious field at the time and place the list was presented.

[ssb]

Serious question for atheists (not meant to be snarky, judgey, etc.; genuinely curious): how do you determine what "good" is? How do you decide what the "right thing" is?

I'm curious because I often hear Christians say that if there is no God, then there is no "right" or "wrong" and therefore atheists cannot make moral judgements. But obviously, atheists make moral judgments all the time, just like everyone else.

What's guided your thinking on morality and ethics?

Very different groups of people separated by vast geographic barriers to their interaction with each other all arrived at pretty much the same place on the basics: don't kill without justification/sanction (murder), don't take what isn't yours to take (theft, rape, etc.), be honest in your dealings with others, so on and so forth. My pet theory is that our psyches evolved over time upon negative interactions with each other ("experience is the product of good judgment, an experience is the result of poor judgment") and we collectively figured out the basics of "don't be an asshole" through experience, psychologically conforming ourselves to societal norms. It became necessary for our survival as humans -- act out in a certain manner, and the others will hurt/kill/banish/etc. you. But then again, I'm not even remotely qualified to speak in an educated manner on that front -- it's just an explanation I've heard which I found plausible as a layman.

However, those societal norms changed with time. What many of us now know and accept to be rape/sexual assault/etc., for example, has changed in its social acceptability over time. Until quite recently, historically speaking, raping the vanquished's women was just another spoil of war -- indeed, that's even found in the Old Testament as mentioned above, arguably with god's permission (if not direction). Marital rape was lawful behavior a hundred years ago. That famous 1945 VJ day photo of the sailor kissing the woman (who was apparently a total stranger) would be a #MeToo thing today. Those on this forum would, I presume, consider these sorts of things to be wrong -- as they involve unsolicited and unwanted violation of one's person. Would most people from 1650 consider it unacceptable to force themselves on their spouse? Doubtful -- and depending on one's religious beliefs at the time, god was arguably cool with it due to a religiously-bolstered sense of spousal duties. I bring all of this up to illustrate that our standards of what we view as right and wrong, acceptable and unacceptable, plainly change over time.

So, this brings my point to right and wrong being learned (and later evolved) behavior, the product of experience molding societal norms. This invites a statement to the effect of "a malleable moral code isn't much of a code." I'm inclined to agree with the inherent sense of that statement. Thankfully, it doesn't seem that malleability is particularly fast-acting for most people.

One could also say that mere compliance with society's list of basic rules doesn't constitute morality. I would say that it does, to an extent. Malum in se vs. malum prohibitum and all that -- we view certain behaviors as inherently wrong. The core societal norms all require a basic value for your fellow man, rather than simple obedience to a societal equivalent of a traffic light.

[Mercs]

The question of faith is probably the oldest question known to man. When man gained the intelligence to become aware of himself and ask questions of himself, the first deep thought must have been “why am I here?”. Most likely followed by “how did I get here”. Whoever could first answer those questions convincingly, would then gain power over others. That realization, was the beginning of religion.

You don’t need anyone else to tell you their opinion on how or why you’re here. Look how much control religion exerts over people lives. That’s the very definition of brainwashing.

Going back to those burning questions, the simplest answer is the correct one. Now I know I have a much higher intelligence than a monkey, or in fact any other life form on the planet. Hurray for humans!!! I have to laugh though, when people talk about the meaning of life, as if it is different for us than it is for every other life form on this earth. What makes us so special that we operate outside the laws that govern life on this planet? Our ability to love? I mean, surely animals don’t have feelings, right?? Right?

The answer to these questions is so obviously within us, and all around us. Here it is: Every life form on this earth is in a struggle to survive, to procreate. So why do you think sex is number one on almost every healthy mans mind? It’s used so heavily in marketing because it’s literally the strongest impulse we have. It’s also coincidentally the strongest impulse all animals have. Hmmm why is that?? In some instances the goal to survive and procreate involves loving. In others, it means killing. Survival is the common denominator. Survive to procreate. Procreate to survive. Time is more of a spiral than a linear constant. There is no beginning and end.

“Barbaric!” “Animals!” These sorts of words, insults yes, but on a deeper level this shows a thought process of elevating ourselves above all other life, as if we are gods ourselves; its utter fallacy. If you search deep enough inside yourself, honestly, you will find a place where you know you would kill to survive. Or more importantly, to protect your children (if you have any). So I’m sorry to say for those who don’t want to hear it, but the meaning of life is simply to breed and to survive. Religion has no authority to dictate otherwise. No person has the authority to tell me that all the natural laws of this world don’t apply to me.

Making others happy, loving others, hating others, and killing others are things we are all fully capable of; and all things being equal, these are all merely functions of survival. So I’m sorry if you can’t face it, but if you are open enough to let go of what you’ve been made to believe, just get out in nature and open your eyes and take a fresh new look around you, you’ll understand what I’m saying. I was born and raised a Catholic, and I may sound nuts, but it’s because people hide from these truths though they are glaringly obvious.

Love those who love you back, take care of your family above all else. Be nice until you can’t be nice anymore, because it certainly makes practical sense to try to get through life without confrontation. Use common sense. Be a good person that you can be proud of when you look in the mirror, and teach your kids, because otherwise someone else will. That is all we’re here to do. We certainly aren’t some special godlike creatures handpicked by a benevolent being to reign over all the earth. If you stop showering and live in the wilderness with the animals, you could become just like them surprisingly quickly. Catholics will say that’s wrong, we’re better than them. Give me a break...

When you die, “you” aren’t going anywhere, because most of what “you” really are, is a mixture of chemical compounds, nerves, DNA, and all that goes away too. Keep the next generation above all else


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[critter]

Serious question for atheists (not meant to be snarky, judgey, etc.; genuinely curious): how do you determine what "good" is? How do you decide what the "right thing" is?

I'm curious because I often hear Christians say that if there is no God, then there is no "right" or "wrong" and therefore atheists cannot make moral judgements. But obviously, atheists make moral judgments all the time, just like everyone else.

What's guided your thinking on morality and ethics?

Some behaviors naturally bring favorable results (for both individual and group), favorable responses, favorable feelings, etc., while others do not. Some behaviors are beneficial to self and group while others are harmful. This is a cultural/in group phenomenon. With or without a God, one learns first from parents or other adults then later from others in the local environment (other kids, other adults). Morals have evolved over time and will continue to do so. Moral codes do not spontaneously generate in a vacuum. They are always learned either directly from others or through positive/negative interaction with others.


My moral code is pretty basic:
Harm no one in any way without just cause.
Respect everyone until there is legitimate reason to withdraw it.
Never intentionally infringe upon the rights or liberty of another.
Never act/react from an emotional position.

Those pretty much cover most situations that arise or come into question for me.

[UNM1136]

My background is Southern Baptist, in the USA. A third of a century in big-city LEO-ing has given me some real-world insight into much of the human condition. Retirement has given me the time to read much more, and to get enough rest, which helps me think clearly on what I have read.

I no longer “buy” all of the doctrine of the Southern Baptist Convention, or any other one denomination, I have yet
found.

I married into a Catholic family, so have close-range perspective in that area. My late father-in-law had actually considered becoming a priest, once upon a time.

I believe in what we know as God, the Father, and Jesus, the Son, and, what we generally call the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Ghost.

BUT, I am not so sure that the Council of Nicea got the concept of Trinity correct. This has, actually, bothered me for a very long time.

I no longer believe that the entirety of any denomination’s Bible is literally, word-for-word, correct. It is, of course, impossible for all of them to be correct.

I believe some of the Epistles may well be fiction. I am not yet prepared to cite anything specific, but there is plenty of further reading I plan to do. How I do wish I had learned to read Greek, when my brain was younger!

I am, also, concerned that one of the Gospels may be what we may, today, call “fan fiction,” borrowing a bit too much from other regional religions of the time, and to be of dubious provenance.

My core faith remains unshaken, but much of the part outside the core is being reviewed and reconsidered.

Raised Catholic, became a Protestant after my first kid was born. Currently quite happy at my little Presbyterian Church.

One of the things that I am focusing on is stripping away the hype provided by various sources, to find the fundamental truths in my faith. The more I analyze the simpler it gets, and I am astounded by what people think I must believe as a Christian, and what I actually do believe. It also makes it much easier for me to accept (as opposed to tolerate) other points of view. As has been said many times in this thread, I am very comfortable not knowing an answer to some big burning question, and admitting it publicly.

In my weekly Bible study we use several translations, we seek out differing opinions, we discuss scripturally how we come to those positions and opinions, and we find them persuasive and convincing or not. In our discussions we frequently come to conclusions like: we don't know, we aren't meant to know, we can't know, and the one rule is that even when we think we know, our understanding is limited, and can change as we get new information or a new perspective on old information. We view our faith as any other endeavor...evolving as more information becomes available. And what it seems to me, is the more we learn, the less we have to believe, as in a critical examination of the teachings creates fewer and fewer "have to" beliefs.

I have seen several points in this thread that over a beer I would address...Where there seem to be mistaken assumptions (on both sides) on what the other side holds to be true. I am not interested in public debate for a number of reasons; chiefly among them is one of the "have to " beliefs that I have shed over the years is that I no longer have to believe that I am right, nor do I have to convince others. I just have to believe that I, and others, are progressing in our respective faiths to the point where we are meant to be by our Creator.

pat

[olstyn]

Serious question for atheists (not meant to be snarky, judgey, etc.; genuinely curious): how do you determine what "good" is? How do you decide what the "right thing" is?

I'm curious because I often hear Christians say that if there is no God, then there is no "right" or "wrong" and therefore atheists cannot make moral judgements. But obviously, atheists make moral judgments all the time, just like everyone else.

What's guided your thinking on morality and ethics?

The answer I would give on that subject is that non-religious people get their initial basic framework of right and wrong from their parents, then expand their understanding of it as they learn what society in general finds to be moral/acceptable, and eventually add their own thoughts and experiences and solidify that into their own unique internal moral code. I believe that's true of religious people as well, except that in their case, the progression seems to look more like parents-->religion-->society-->final internal code (or I suppose in some cases, parents-->religion-->final internal code). It's just a slightly different set of examples to build from. I expect that in most cases, parental influence, whether positive or negative in nature, is probably the largest factor.

[Wheeler]

There's a LOT of stuff in the MANY books of the Old Testament that is pretty harsh by today's standards. I'm aware of it but don't ask me to discuss it intelligently.

Fortunately the more moderate believers can focus on the kinder, gentler teachings in New Testament and try not to interpret that Old Testament stuff too literally.

Herein lies the problem. If we’re discussing Christianity, the Old Testsment is part history, part prophecy, and an explanation of how things were. Detractors will usually head straight towards the Old Testament in an effort to discredit Christianity and Christians. It doesn’t take long to draw the correlation between folks who “grew up in church but...” and folks who “grew up with guns but...”

[ER_STL]

Pretty common question.

My standard snarky reply is: So, without God telling you what’s right and wrong, you’d rape little boys then murder them?

Many people have answered this better than I, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins (The Selfish Gene) come to mind.

The easiest explanation I can offer is, ethics are determined by society, and morality by the individual. How some Christians think and behave might be unethical to you, but perfectly normal to them. Examples would be stoning, drowning women, executing homosexuals and so on. What was once perfectly ethical behavior in the Bible is now frowned upon (illegal).

Busy work day today so I won't have time to post much. Nice to see the continued discussion though. And despite the different points of view, I appreciate those who contribute.

Individual morality is moral relativity, where what's right for me may not be right for you. That's a dangerous line of thinking and it has led to a variety of terrible things throughout history - some being done in the name of Christ. Without an absolute standard on which to base moral behavior though, it is the conclusion to which a person probably has to come. There simply isn't another rational way IMO to explain why the concept of morality exists. Yes, a group or tribe of people might get together and agree that rape, theft and murder is bad, but that's not morality, that's simply a tribal law or a social contract that seeks to benefit everyone. If however the group seeks to define moral laws via democracy rather than as a whole then it can lead to the "two wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner" situation. Either way, you can't really say that stealing, murder and rape are "bad" so much as you'd have to say that they run counter productive to the good of society or the tribe.

And when looking at this from a natural selection perspective, it seems to make even less sense to me personally, because I'd expect things like killing, theft (especially) and in general using others for my benefit to increase my chances for survival and persistence, and the abstinence of those behaviors to decrease my chances. We do after all train to defend ourselves against such people...

I would be foolish to deny that some of my morals are based on the Judeo Christian faith, most peoples are. But to act like people went around raping and pillaging every person they came across before 3000 BC is just foolish. We have, and will always be tribal people. It’s just that now our tribes are much larger.

There are certainly both individuals and in general parts of the world where this behavior runs rampant, right? And in those cases, those responsible for the bad behavior often don't see anything wrong with what they're doing. Without an authoritative source to define right from wrong, who is to say otherwise?

I'd agree that the establishment of the Ten Commandments and the rest of the moral law in Biblical history didn't all of a sudden stop this behavior, but that wasn't its most immediate purpose. Rather, it was the way through which right and wrong behavior could be clearly identified. It was designed to become the authority on which sinful behavior could be identified. EDIT to add: it is also the basis on which the Holy Spirit may guide believers in their personal conduct, in my opinion. That is based both on the subjective but observable experiences of committed believers and on the Bible itself (i.e. the fruit of the Spirit, for example), but I understand that the latter won't be recognized as a valid source by those who don't believe.

[OlongJohnson]

Individual morality is moral relativity, where what's right for me may not be right for you. That's a dangerous line of thinking and it has led to a variety of terrible things throughout history - some being done in the name of Christ. Without an absolute standard on which to base moral behavior though, it is the conclusion to which a person probably has to come. There simply isn't another rational way IMO to explain why the concept of morality exists.

The Bible cannot be an absolute standard. It is full of conflicts, and there is too much in it that modern moral people find abhorrent. Follow the OT to the letter of the law, and you get Daesh. An argument that the NT cancels most of the old isn't helpful, because the clear moral directives in the NT are very limited in scope. They require vast extensions and rationalizations to be useful. And we kinda like Commandments 5-10 as necessary and proper for a functioning society, so we are still stuck with deciding which parts of the OT to discard and which to keep. We are also stuck with deciding how to interpret NT directions given to slaves and slave owners, for example.

It's inescapable that morality does not derive from the Bible. Morality exists outside of and before the Bible, and is used as a filter to decide what from the Bible should be embraced and what should be discarded as primitive and "for the past." In the end, it is another piece of ancient literature that serves to illustrate the human condition and should help keep us grounded, preventing us from thinking that we're really so far different or advanced than people who lived long before us, while appreciating how different we are and how much we have advanced. The best scholars and thinkers do the work to understand the whole library of such works.