Hello there, I'm an atheist

[Paidion]

It seems to me that there is some misunderstanding being indicated with regards to morality. Morality doesn't have its source in some external set of rules or code of conduct. Moral imperatives are recognized by all normal persons from all societies just as the colour blue is recognized by all normal persons (whether each individual is experiencing blueness in the same way or not). There are basic moral principles which are recognized in all societies throughout the world. These principles are applied in a variety of ways according to reasoning, but the principles themselves do not vary. It is right to maximize well-being and to minimize pain (though sometimes it is necessary to cause some pain in order to provide better well-being, for example to extract a wisdom tooth). Maximizing well-being and minimizing pain is the very essence of morality.

Sometimes practices don't seem to be in accordance with this essential moral imperative, and that may be due to false belief. For example I heard of a tribe in which people killed their parents when they reached the age of 60. We would say that the members of this tribe committed murder, did what is clearly morally wrong. But from the tribal point of view they did what was morally right. The held the view that in the afterlife, you continued throughout eternity at the age in which you died. So they believed that if they killed their parents at age 60, they wouldn't suffer the pains of old age, or hobble around as cripples forever. So we can see that the motive of the tribal people was good. They wanted to provide comfort for their parents in the afterlife.

People may disagree about the morality or immorality of an act. But that is not because they disagree about the basic moral principles, but because they disagree about the actions that are derived from these principles. For example, some believe that abortion is morally wrong. Why? Because it consists of taking an innocent person's life. Others believe that abortion is not morally wrong. Why? Because it relieves one or both parents of a responsibility that they are incapable to taking. But the reasoning behind both positions is that someone is somehow helped. If you refrain from aborting, you have saved someone's life. If you abort, you have saved someone from having to go through a long-time hardship of which they are incapable.

Please don't mistake me. I do think abortion is morally wrong. Why? Because I am a moral hierarchist. I believe that when two moral imperatives conflict, one should do the act that takes precedence in the hierarchy. For example, I believe it is morally wrong to lie, and morally right to save a life. But saving a life takes precedence over refraining from lying. So when there is a moral conflict between the two, then it is morally right to lie in order to save a life. Richard Wurmband, who was a prisoner under Communism in Romania for 14 years, said it is RIGHT to lie to the Communists. When the prison officials asked him under torture for names of Christians, sometimes he provided names when the torture became unbearable. But they were either names of people who had already died, or names of people who had escaped the country. Richard had made up his mind to never give the names of Christians who were then living in the country, for then the Communists would bring them into the prison to be tortured, too.

Similarly, saving the life of an unborn child takes precedence over making the parents more comfortable in their future lives. That's why I think the arguments in favour of abortion are invalid. At one time it may have been right to abort in order to save the mother's life. But with modern medical techniques, it is no longer necessary to abort for this reason.

[Paidion]

Is an action morally right because God commands it? Or does God command it because it's morally right?

[mattrose]

We are a very small minority of people who are even aware of the *basis* for their morality. And honestly, it doesn't matter.

Lastly, it's important to listen. When apos says that there is a basis for his morality, values, etc. we should listen to him, and consider what he is saying.

I think you are wrong about this. It does matter.

Now, you might argue that it doesn't practically matter in the case of an atheist that is motivated to 'do no harm'

But you better believe it matters when faced with an atheist that is motivated to harm others to make his own life better.

My point stands. There is a distinction worth making between someone being motivated to live a good moral life and there actually being a compelling 'ought' for living a good moral life. Of course it looks similar in practice when people share common ethical behavior, but such people aren't the one's we have to be overly concerned about!

[Homer]

Morbo wrote:

1. The process of natural selection is not accidental. That's a caricature.

Definition of Accidental:

adjective
happening by chance or accident; not planned; unexpected

So you are saying evolution is planned? Oh, you must be a theistic evolutionist. My bad.

2. You have very low esteem of dandelions.

Not really.

Definition of weed:
a plant that is not valued where it is growing and is usually of vigorous growth; especially : one that tends to overgrow or choke out more desirable plants

So it depends; actually they are said to make tasty salad greens. Some people eat them. In the evolutionary scheme of things they are of as much value as humans. Perhaps more so considering the havoc wrecked by sinful people.

3. Is it only G-d that keeps you morally in check? Your estimation of a dandelion, or the forests, or other people are based on the revelation of G-d's existence to you, in whose absence, you have no values? Your pronouns seem to indicate that.

We all have a built in conscience that separates us from animals. We all have general revelation, AKA natural law, as Paul points out in Romans. "We" refers to all mankind.

In the area of sexual ethics... and speaking as a man, I have to wonder if the only reason I think p0rn is bad is because G-d said not to lust. If G-d hadn't said that, then is it ok to lust? Or if there was a consequence for lust, should I only not look at p0rn out of fear of the consequence?

If there is no God then wouldn't lust serve to promote evolution? We see in the animal world the strongest males mating with many females and the weak male being out of luck.

Or is there a higher motivation? Which is honor and respect for another human being, and not reducing their value to their sexual potential and my desire.

Why would we expect evolution to provide a "higher" motivation than as described in my previous comment? Strange idea.

[dizerner]

Theoretically, I don't see why an absolute morality might not be contained in the laws of the universe itself, like physical laws. I would argue from conviction of wrong to there being a God, but I don't see there being an absolute standard of morality as somehow logically necessitating God. Atheists will mostly play around with relative morality, and what else can an agnostic do. I feel this wrong, I feel this is right, but we all know we can deceive ourselves. Even Paul said "judge nothing before the time," because sometimes we just don't sense how we are doing; yet we sure want to be on the right side at the final revelation. I pray every day for the conviction and awareness of my own sin. But morality IS relative, even an absolute one, it's just relative to God, and we have a problem when every situation is completely contextual. Just as the story Ravi tells of the young man who lost the horse to gain a horse herd to be injured which let him avoid a gang pressing him into service, so that one could hardly tell whether the initial losing of the horse was a good or bad thing, so every thought and motive of our actions is contingent on an incredibly array of factors. This is why I don't even think morality can be outwardly discerned at all, indeed Scripture tells us God looks at the heart and not outward appearances. regards

[Paidion]

There is no such thing as "an absolute standard of morality."

If you think there is, then what do you do with moral conflicts? For example, suppose your are faced an authority figure who demands to know where your Christian friend is hiding. You know that your options are (1) tell the truth and the authority will kill your friend (2) tell a lie and save your friend (3) refuse to answer and get killed yourself.

Richard Wurbrand who suffered 14 years in a prison in Romania, chose to lie and thereby saved the lives of fellow Christians.

Sister Corrie Ten Boom saved the lives of the Jews she was hiding by deceit . She was asked, "Where have you hidden the Jews?" She replied, "Under the table." The Nazis thought she was smart alec-ing. What Corrie stated was literally true since she had hidden the Jews in a cellar beneath the table. But it was still a lie. For the very meaning of "lie" is not "a statement which is false" but "a statement which deceives."

Brother Menno Simons while driving a coach saved his own life by means of deceit. His enemies caught up to his carriage but didn't know him by sight. They asked him, "Is Menno Simons in your carriage?" Menno shouted down, "Is Menno Simons down there? No reply. Menno then said, "No. There's no Menno Simons down there." Again, what he said was true, but it was deceit. It has the effect of telling his enemies that he was not on the carriage at all.

Erwin Lutzer, who was in first year Bible School with me in Winnipeg, and who is now pastor of Moody Church, wrote a book promoting the absolutist position on morality.
He said, that he would lie in order to save a life, but would then confess "the sin of lying" to God and ask for forgiveness. I cannot agree with this thinking. If it is morally right to lie in order to save a life, then it is not sin to do so!

[dizerner]

You know that your options are (1) tell the truth and the authority will kill your friend (2) tell a lie and save your friend (3) refuse to answer and get killed yourself.

I'm not trying to be argumentative but merely exploratory in thinking: I'm not sure the logic of this pans out. I like to call it transference of responsibility. The idea gets used in Hollywood blockbuster movies a lot. Say I hold the whole world in ransom, I will blow it up unless you obey my commands. Did I now transfer the responsibility for the scenario I created and make you responsible for the entire world dying unless you obey all my commands? Now I would, under the above systematic, have incredible control over you. You could reason "well I have to kill one person to save the whole world, it's the only moral thing to do." But when an outside immoral decision is leveraged upon you, it doesn't suddenly make you responsible for the action. If you tell the truth about your friend, you were one chain in the factor, but only because the outside sinner forced you to be through his immoral decision. It's not like he's any less guilty for the actual murder, or if he murders someone through you not lying, you are suddenly guilty of murder. You didn't do the murder, you did one thing: tell the truth. You can't transfer moral responsibility in this disingenuous way. It would introduce incredible scenarios, like a doctor justifying the murder of one innocent patient to save five others who each need a different organ. regards

[Homer]

Paidion,

As you know we agree about the hierarchical view of morality. You wrote:

Erwin Lutzer, who was in first year Bible School with me in Winnipeg, and who is now pastor of Moody Church, wrote a book promoting the absolutist position on morality.
He said, that he would lie in order to save a life, but would then confess "the sin of lying" to God and ask for forgiveness. I cannot agree with this thinking. If it is morally right to lie in order to save a life, then it is not sin to do so!

IMO Lutzer, if his lie was a sin, would not be forgiven when he confessed his sin and asked for forgiveness unless he truly repented of the sin. Would he not have to repent in the sense that if he could go back he would not tell the lie and would let the person die?

[Paidion]

IMO Lutzer, if his lie was a sin, would not be forgiven when he confessed his sin and asked for forgiveness unless he truly repented of the sin. Would he not have to repent in the sense that if he could go back he would not tell the lie and would let the person die?

What you say makes sense to me, but I don't think Lutzer would look at it that way. If he had chosen to tell the truth and let the person die, he would then have to confess his sin of letting the person die when he could have saved him, and ask for forgiveness for that sin. From his point of view, either option is sin and must be confessed and forgiven.

[ApostateltsopA]

I'm sorry to have been off a couple days, I'm fighting a particularly nasty cold. Mostly better now though and thrilled to see this discussion ranging into so many interesting places.

I'll try and hit a few high points here and if anyone feels I missed something I'm happy to revisit it. Just ask about whatever.

[/quote="mattrose"]If, hypothetically speaking, there IS an external source of morality, then perhaps it is true that an external source is required. If that is reality, then my insistence upon it should not be considered a flaw in definitions.

I am curious to know if, in your view, you can clearly distinguish b/w motive and obligation for morality. Does obligation exist? And, if so, how? is there an 'ought'?[/quote]

To posit an external source as required you would have to meet the burden of proof to demonstrate such a source exists. I recognize you believe but you have essentially taken the wind out of the sails of your earlier comment that no, nonthestic, morality code seems compelling to you. You have set the bar at a level no nonthestic code can match. It would be like my demanding scientific proof of magic.

is "b/w" between or black and white? Obligation generally applies to a deontological theory of ethics. I'm offering a more consequentialist model. Still to put it roughly, if a set of actions outcomes can be reasonably predicted and the harm they cause outweighs the well being then it ought not to be followed. My right to swing my fist ends a bit before your face. However much I might enjoy swinging my fists around, the harm to your physical well being and emotional well being outweighs it. I ought not to hit you.

I also see that you think I'm not well studied in Christianity. I warn you of the no true Scotsman fallacy. Be careful defining "true Christianity" However just to clear it up for you, I've read the bible, many versions, broadly though not completely. I've listened to apologists intently. I was educated in a christian school from 3rd grade through 8th. I attended an ELCA Lutheran church weekly for Sunday school, service and was confirmed as a member. I've talked deeply with pastors, preachers and adherents and continue to engage people I meet. As a general rule I know more about Christianity than the average person I engage with. I offer to you that if someone needs to know more than I know to get it right then the bar is set far, far too high for the stakes we are playing for. I'm curious though, is there something you can sum up or a few points you can list where you think my knowledge is lacking?

@Homer,

Forgive me for not going to dig up the quotes. I don't believe you actually answered my questions so much as proposed new questions, and asserted that there should not be a difference between humans and dandelions. You recommended that if someone has their long term memory destroyed we should kill them to save resources.

That notion is monstrous. I hear something like this quite often, that if something is not eternal, then it has no value. While I will agree it has no eternal value, I'm not looking for or requiring eternal value. Transitory value is enough. To prove my point, I'm going to guess something about you as a person. I bet you seek to eat tasty food, not just nutritionally sustaining food. I'm even willing to bet that if you knew you could forget the taste, but that in the moment it would be horrible, you would still prefer tasty food. Your past meals are gone, you may remember a few of them but I doubt you recall even a large percentage. Yet I bet you still seek out tasty food, over food whose taste you do not like.

Value in the moment is still value. If, as I believe, momentary value is all we can aspire to, then it becomes important to seek out the most value we can get. Which brings me back to how you are characterizing selfishness and natural selection. Some species propagate by having the biggest and strongest get more mating opportunity however, that pattern is far from universal. Social species, like humans, have the most well being when all the members of the society do well. That well being leads to more babies living, and better lives for all the members. The well being also leads to less stress, and better child rearing which sets up successive generations for increased success. The person you spoke of sounds like they may have been a sociopath, which is a mental aberration where empathy is lacking. They may also have been an atheist, but atheism only addresses if a person believes in a god. Ethics come from somewhere else, like secular humanism.

@Paidon,

I have said harm instead of pain because pain is not always harmful, like vaccinations or the muscle stress that comes after a successful workout. Basically though, less harm, more well being. With plenty of room to argue specific cases.

I like your description of hierarchical ethics, I don't hold to it, but I think my consequentialism comes pretty close to the same outcomes. In my model the lie to protect others from harm is a good thing, not a lesser bad thing. I don't agree that there is such a thing as thought crime, I judge actions, not thoughts. So for me, lust is only wrong if it translates into action which causes harm. We also disagree on abortion. Not for the reasons you might think though so lets open that can of worms too

Abortion
I hold to a mother's right to choose. I do this even if I grant that a fetus is a person with the same rights any other person can reasonably expect. (I don't, but for the sake of this argument it doesn't matter). It isn't about inconvenience, as I just pointed out on another site, it is about bodily integrity. In order for me to insist that a mother carry the child to term, I need to agree that it is morally acceptable for one person to lose their right to bodily integrity to save the life of another. However I do not. I do not believe that it is right to require that someone give blood, or a kidney, or part of their liver, or any other part of their body if they are unwilling. Since I don't require this of any other person, to require it of the mother would be to fall to the fallacy of special pleading. If I insisted that the mother carry the child, I'd be giving the fetus rights to the mother's body, special rights over and above what any person can require of another person. I may choose to donate my blood, but you can not demand that I do so.

@dizerner I agree there is no absolute standard of morality, or at least if there is one we have yet to discover it. I do think we can practice an objective standard of morality though, which is most certainly not moral relativism. Now this objective standard is still processed through our brains and language so we can, and will, make mistakes in how we interact with it. However it does give us a functional benchmark to measure actions up to. The difference between harm and well being expected from actions, and what has happened with similar actions and situations in the past to inform our decisions in the future. I recommend you check the link to Matt Dillahunty's speech I linked to up above. I'd like to know what you think of the idea.

And with that I feel I've stirred the pot quite a lot but if I missed someone please just let me know this is pretty fun.