August 14, 2007
Posted at 12:11 am by Richard and tagged 10commandments, argument, atheism, christianity, ethics, morality, richard-dawkins. Popularity: 37% [?]
I hadn’t really come across the argument from morality much before - at least not enough to seriously think about it. I’d heard people ask “if you don’t believe in God, then where do your morals come from?”, but rather than answer the question (I’d say honestly “I don’t know”), I’d retort with the observation that Christians “pick and choose” their morals from the bible, and clearly their morals come from the same place as mine - and it’s not the bible (an idea I’d always had, but one that Dawkins helped me articulate).
For those not familiar with the argument from morality, it basically goes like this:
-
If God does not exist, then there are no objective (i.e. independent of human opinion) moral values and duties.
-
There are objective moral values and duties.
-
Therefore God exists.
My gut instinct when I first thought about this argument is that the first point has issues. I’ve asserted before that we can have morality without religion, and I still believe that a moral code independent of religion is superior, but as for where this morality could come from - I have no idea. I seem to remember Dawkins talking about how morality could have evolved, but that wouldn’t be objective morality, would it?
Which as got me thinking about the idea of objective morality as a whole, and I can’t help but ask - do we really have objective morality (point 2)? Zach Moore says that, at least at a debate lecture he attended, the idea the objective morality exists seems to be generally accepted, but I can’t help but feel that there’s something wrong with that, too.
What morals do we have that are objective? “Murder is bad” - Surely there’s some times it’s justified? “Do no harm” - but what if my survival is at stake? “Do the greatest Good” - but, what IS good? Even the golden rule isn’t objective (although the rule itself seems to be the most universal law of morality) - “do unto others as you’d have them do unto you” relies on our own opinions! Perhaps I really wouldn’t care if you stole my girlfriend?
Do we really have objective morals? If so, what?
Permalink
Share This
July 8, 2007
Posted at 12:14 am by Richard and tagged 10commandments, atheism, christianity, eclecticism, heaven, hell, morality. Popularity: 13% [?]
It seems a common claim that morality is impossible without religion. While I might agree that in some cases religion (or, more specifically, the fear of eternal damnation) can be a pretty good motivator, I think that a morality that doesn’t rely on religion is not just possible, but it’s a lot more desirable. In the last couple of weeks, I’ve outlined how some people think that religion is the only kind of morality, even though religious teachings aren’t necessarily moral. This week, I’d like to outline some moral structures that can (and do) exist without religion.
Non-Theistic Morality (or, what you do when nobody’s watching)
In line with my theory of religious eclecticism, I think that all religions share the same basic ideas on morality. That said, however, morality based on religion is flawed not because of what is taught (be good to others, don’t kill, etc.) but how it’s enforced.
Athiest’s Wager suggests (as I did in my last post) that Christian morality is flawed because of the opportunity to receive forgiveness through religion. Without being able to fall back on forgiveness from God, how could an Atheist respond when given the opportunity to act immorally? Simple, they’d do the right thing.
I didn’t feel that I had a choice since I answer to myself. I am able to tell right from wrong and I would have to live with the knowledge that I had caused harm to someone else.
A moral Atheist might have no one to answer to but themselves (which seems to be the reason some suggest that an Atheist has no reason to be moral), but does this make them more or less moral than a Christian who answers only to God? Is a Christian who acts “morally” from fear of eternal punishment more or less moral than an Atheist who acts morally because they feel it’s the right thing to do?
We rightly do not consider a well-behaved dog to be acting “morally.” In the same way, the religious person who obeys not out of love and respect for other people, but in response to the promise of Paradise or the specter of Hell, acts not as an independent, moral person. He is merely a trained animal seeking to please an unseen master.
A great real-world example of this is described over at Parenting Beyond Belief:
“If not for the seventh commandment,” I once heard a Veneerist proclaim in a debate, “there would be NOTHING to keep me from walking out the door to cheat on my wife!” Nothing? Not love? I wondered. Or commitment? Or simple human decency? If you say so.
While I’d agree that not cheating on your wife is the moral way to act, I think that the reasons behind one’s actions are just as important (if not more so) than the actions themselves. While it’s certainly possible to have immoral Atheists, it’s just as possible to have immoral Theists. I think that a morality based on a true respect for those around us is far better than one based on the threat of hell and the promise of heaven.
True morality is what you do when no one (even God) is watching. Or in other words - being good, for goodness sake
Permalink
Share This
June 24, 2007
Posted at 11:56 pm by Richard and tagged 10commandments, antitheism, atheism, bible, christianity, interpretation, morality, religion, richard-dawkins, usa. Popularity: 17% [?]
It seems a common claim that morality is impossible without religion. While I might agree that in some cases religion (or, more specifically, the fear of eternal damnation) can be a pretty good motivator, I think that a morality that doesn’t rely on religion is not just possible, but it’s a lot more desirable. Over the next few weeks, I’ll be outlining what some people think of morality without religion, why religion-based morality is potentially suspect, and my ideas on morality.
God Hating Atheists
Some have claimed that atheism is responsible for immoral acts, and that lack of Christian morality (ignoring the possibility of other types of morality) in schools is responsible for school shootings. Both these articles describe various violent acts and crimes committed by young USAians, and then jump right into blaming Atheists and Darwinists (perhaps I’m missing a step in the argument, but I can’t see it - although “How to build a bomb in the public school system” does have one piece of evidence - the words “Natural Selection” on one shooter’s T-shirt):
Now do you realize who the people are who are responsible for children having gotten so violent? The answer is ATHEISTS and other non-beleivers [sic.] in the true God. So you may ask how can this be? The reason why they are responsible is because they hate God and teach their children against God (which is the highest form of child abuse). For example: Atheists hate the TEN COMMANDMENTS because God is their Author.
Aside from the obvious problem that Atheists, by definition, are unable to hate God (because as far as they’re concerned God doesn’t even exist) I see no logical reason why someone couldn’t hate the Christian God, but still “love” the 10 commandments. Jews and Muslims still have the 10 commandments, but in this writers mind, I’m sure Jews and Muslims would classify as “non-believers in the true God” (even though, technically, all three religions have the same roots, and thus the same God). There’s also plenty of people who live arguably moral lives while breaking at least the first few commandments. Depending on your interpretation, it’s also possible that all Christians break the 1st commandment, if you read “thou shalt have no other Gods before me” as endorsing strict monotheism, given that Christianity (arguably) invokes three Gods - I think Jews and Muslims are safe, though. Then, of course, there’s those of us who choose not to kill, steal or commit adultery, and still manage to respect our parents every so often - I don’t need to love (or even believe in) the Christian God for that.
There may be many religion-hating Atheists (or, anti-theists - of which Richard Dawkins comes to mind - while I’ve seen him in documentaries, I have yet to actually read his work, though, so I could be wrong), but a God-hating Atheist is an oxymoron. I certainly don’t think taking issue with religion necessarily makes you amoral, just like I don’t think that following a religion (whatever it may be) necessarily makes you moral.
One final thought - how many “immoral” people do you think are out there in this world? 5%? 20%? 50%? Well, if you subscribe to the theory that without Christianity, you’re necessarily immoral, you are immediately saying that 67% are incapable of living moral lives - not including immoral “Christians”, of course. Is there really a God who would condemn the majority of the world’s population simply because they were raised in a religion other than Christianity?
(To Be Continued… - Morality Part 2 will be posted next Sunday)
Permalink
Share This
May 23, 2007
Posted at 10:44 pm by Richard and tagged 10commandments, atheism, bible, books, christianity, homosexuality, interpretation, language. Popularity: 11% [?]
If you read my essay Reconciling Darwinian Natural Selection with Christian Theology (and you did, didn’t you?) You’d know that I think it’s entirely possible to believe in both Darwinian evolution, and the Christian God (not that I necessarily do, but the possibility isn’t entirely ruled out). There are different ways of accepting evolution and Christian theology, of course, and I’m sure even Christians who have reconciled their faith with evolution differ on the specifics, as I outlined by the two views expressed by Moore and Gray:
“Moore separated [special creation and evolutionist theories] by allowing them both to act in their own time periods. For Moore, special creation was the mode for primary creation, while evolution was the method by which species continued to diversify. Gray, on the other hand, separated them by purpose. While evolution was the guiding process by which species were created, God was still the driving force behind it.”
One group that may not be convinced by either of these options, however, are those who believe that the bible is to be taken literally, and is infallible. Putting aside, for the moment, my views on this position as a whole, this raises another important question:
If the words in the bible are the true word of God, then which version of the words do we take as the ultimate truth?
As you are probably aware, the bible as we know it today didn’t come down written on stone tablets like the 10 commandments supposedly did - it was written by many different authors, over many years. Even worse, we don’t actually have many of these original writings. We have copies of copies of copies of copies, with god knows (irony intended) how many errors. Then, of course, we have the issues of translation. It’s one thing to say that the original scriptures were the infallible word of God, but that each and every version of the bible (however different) is also God’s infallible word?
Then, of course, there’s the issue of contradictions within the bible itself. If we assume these translations are trustworthy, how to we know which bits to follow when there are definite contradictions? “The Atheist’s Wager” examines one aspect of the problem noting that Jews and Christians seem to have very different ideas on what God actually thinks about homosexuality based on giving authority to certain words in the bible over others - how do we know which ones are really important? When is the last time you heard a Christian or Jew saying “I’m sorry, I can’t eat shrimp or oysters, the bible clearly states ‘all creatures in the seas or streams that do not have fins and scales … you are to detest. And since you are to detest them, you must not eat their meat’” Perhaps I’m wrong, perhaps people like this do actually exist - anyone met any? Of course, the seafood issue isn’t the only one - have a look at Skeptics Annotated Bible for just some of the “absurdities” that can be found within the word of God.
A book I’ve been reading recently goes much into much more detail about the problems with the issues associated with translation and access to the original biblical writings. So, even if we wanted to take the bible at its literal word, there seems to be no hope of doing this without significant problems in verification of what those words actually are.
“Christianity from the outset was a bookish religion that stressed certain texts as authoritative scripture… , however, we don’t actually have these authoritative texts… we can’t interpret the words of the New Testament if we don’t know what the words were.”
We need to interpret the bible if it’s to have any real meaning. And in doing so, there will obviously be different interpretations. How can we know which interpretation is correct? Simply, we can’t - that’s why the bible should not be treated as a 100% factual account of history or the nature of god. It is definitely a valuable text, which has historical and spiritual significance, but I fail to see how it can logically be accepted as “gospel”.
Permalink
Share This
[
Posts
