Is There Such a Thing As a Moral Atheist?
Is it possible for an atheist to be moral? Perhaps we should first ask, "What is morality?" In today’s popular, postmodern culture, to suggest that there is a universal moral law may draw anything from raised eyebrows to outright hostility. At the same time, there seems to be written on our hearts a law that demands justice when we have been harmed and paralyzes us with feelings of guilt and shame when we are the perpetrator. When asked if rape, murder, or genocide is wrong, there seems to be universal agreement within the human community that only a psychopath would answer “no.”
We seem intuitively to experience a rightness about ethical claims and a sense of obligation to obey them. There is an a priori oughtness about morality. Philosophers call this the incumbency of moral rules. That is, moral rules have a tangible force about them that precedes our actions (Koukl and Beckwith, Relativism, 166). Unless one's conscience is seared, one's violation of a moral rule results in feelings of uneasiness and fear of retribution (Beckwith in The New Mormon Challenge, 227). This suggests that there is a moral law prior to and outside of the natural realm that presses upon it, a moral law that we encounter and discover rather than create.
This universal human experience of moral incumbency cannot be explained empirically either in part or in full within nature itself. Nature is impersonal and cannot be the source of such a phenomenon. Nor can we explain such a phenomenon by proposing that moral laws exist eternally in some abstract form. If moral laws were in themselves distinct eternal entities, then there is no mind or authority behind the moral law (Ibid, 228). This would render incomprehensible the guilt and shame that accompanies violating these laws. Personal guilt implies a person offended. Therefore, it would seem that a morally ordered universe must be fully infused with the intentionality of a personal being who claims legitimate moral authority over all existence, a being whose moral authority is not limited by co-eternal entities. Only a sovereign creator God who brought everything into being out of nothing could claim such unlimited authority and be himself the source of that authority.
So is it possible for an atheist to be moral? An atheist does not recognize the existence of a personal God. He is left with a closed natural order of physical causes. There can be no "oughts" in such a universe, only matter in motion. In such a universe, there could be no freedom of choice, since all behavior would be determined necessarily by random, mindless physical, biological, and chemical processes. Hence, "morality" would be a word without a referent because moral behavior entails free agency and personal responsibility. In addition, moral behavior requires true belief, that is, actual knowledge of moral truth. But no moral truth can exist in an atheistic world since there could be no transcendent value by which to measure our conduct.
Therefore, an atheist is left without evaluations, but only descriptions of behavior. He has no basis upon which to classify a behavior as "good" or "evil". One cannot get an "ought" from a simple "is". In the end, if an atheist is to be consistent, he must never label any personal performance or the actions of another with a term of value. In a non-theistic world, behavior is only behavior. Mother Theresa and Adolf Hitler share the same house, and Jeffrey Dahmer merits no moral sanction. Since no transcendent being exists, neither does any transcendent standard, and no moral judgment is possible either in this life or in a hypothetical afterlife.
Of course, we all know that most atheists claim to be moral persons, although they have absolutely no grounds for making such a claim. In fact, many atheists are very vocal when it comes to issues of social justice. What they will generally not admit, however, is that, when they make such claims, they are borrowing on the capital of theism whether they like it or not. The fact that even an atheist cannot help but make moral judgments and act as if there really is a transcendent source of morality is evidence of the recalcitrant image of God in man, and hence evidence for the existence of God himself. At the very least, an honest atheist must admit that the moment she makes a moral claim or invokes a moral rule her godless worldview collapses. We Christian theists will be first in line to help her clear the rubble and rebuild upon the Rock of Christ a worldview that can never be shaken or swept away.
"Convinced that there is no eternal life awaiting him, he [man] will strive all the more to brighten his life on earth and rationally improve his condition in harmony with that of his fellows" (Ernst Haeckel, The Wonders of Life, 108).
"If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied" (Apostle Paul, 1 Cor 15:19).
Blessings,
Arnie Gentile
Visit the Christian Apologetics Bookshop.
Categories: Philosophical Apologetics
Tags: Christianity Christian Apologetics morality Theism God Faith and Reason Atheism Ethics
I enjoyed your article. As a servant of Christ I believe that the 10 commandments are imprinted into our very soul. I think it is this that lets even an atheist have some form of a moral code. I look at the world and see the hand of God everywhere. It would be immoral to deny it. People want morals that reflect what they want. They change like the wind. Only the morals found in God’s word have stood the test of time.
Reply to this
Well said! Thanks, Charles.
Arnie
Reply to this
Thanks Arnie!
I suppose or infer that nowadays popular atheist evasions to the above may go in two possible directions: (1) ethics conceived as pragmatic and functional in a quasi-darwinian sense, or (2) ducking into some form of pantheism (with or without admitting it undermines atheism).
The first and greatest ethical principle is to love God; any ethical foundation which denies such accountability is crippled from the start. All moral principle, here notably what remains after the first commandment, is what God says it is; an atheist whose given action accords with what God says of moral principle cannot be doing so with motives unalloyed by immoral rejection of God Himself.
As I understand it, once upon a time in the New World (as probably elsewhere in the Old), an atheist's testimony was not admitted to court because the atheist had no recognized grounds for swearing to tell the truth.
Reply to this
Thanks again, Peter, for your insightful comments. Yes, an atheist may claim that morality is still in some sense objective even if it is not theistically grounded. We are still left begging the question, however. Who decides which pragmatic end offers the highest good, whatever "good" means.
Attempts to ground ethics in neo-Darwinism result in some embarrassing questions for atheists. If the "good" in Darwinism is about the survival of the most advantaged individual and his progeny, one wonders how giving one's life for another, for example, is a "good" thing, since it disadvantages the individual in a Darwinian sense (i.e., in this case, say discontinuing one's progeny).
But I am particularly fascinated by your recollection that, once upon a time, an atheist's testimony was not admitted at court. Now that's a great example of the practical application of a thoroughly integrated biblical worldview that firmly grasps the philosophical consequences of rejecting such a worldview!
Hey, isn't it about time you and I did a link exchange?
Blessings,
Arnie
Reply to this
I must respond to the assertion that looking to ground ethics and morality in neo-Darwinism "leads to embarrassing questions for atheists." There's no such thing as an embarrassing question for atheists!! Bear in mind that for me 'atheist' means someone who does not accept the premise that there is a god. I don't actively claim that there absolutely isn't one, because you can't prove a negative, and we must accept that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However the presence of evidence does reinforce a premise. Maybe one day there will be incontrovertible evidence for the existence of a god, and then all atheists will be proved wrong.
There is much we do not know, and if an obvious answer to any question is not forthcoming, then we must simply say we do not know - for now. Further investigation, more questions, more discussion are necessary, but that's not embarrassing, it's stimulating and challenging and all part of the great quest of trying to find the answers.
SongBird
Reply to this
I must respond to the assertion that looking to ground ethics and morality in neo-Darwinism "leads to embarrassing questions for atheists." There's no such thing as an embarrassing question for atheists!! Bear in mind that for me 'atheist' means someone who does not accept the premise that there is a god. I don't actively claim that there absolutely isn't one, because you can't prove a negative, and we must accept that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However the presence of evidence does reinforce a premise. Maybe one day there will be incontrovertible evidence for the existence of a god, and then all atheists will be proved wrong.
Thanks again for your comment. If we define "embarrassing question" as one that would stump a person in a public debate, then I believe that the statement you disagree with is actually true of the strict atheist, that is, one who has committed herself to atheism (the propostion that God does not exist), which you have not. In fact I offer such a question immediately after making that comment.
Be that as it may, from your last post, I conclude that you are really not an atheist (at least not a "strict" one), but a seeker perhaps with some agnostic tendencies. You do not categorically deny God's existence, but you have as yet not accpeted his existence because of what you believe is an absence of evidence (Please correct me if I am wrong on this. I really want to understand your intellectual postion). I am happy to report that there is no "absence of evidence" for the existence of God. There are very good reasons to believe that God exists, Christ rose from the dead, the Bible is historically accurate, and that Christianity is true. I am persuaded that there really is a rational basis for the Christian faith, and it is my hope that, over time, you will agree, even if you choose not to become a Christian.
There is much we do not know, and if an obvious answer to any question is not forthcoming, then we must simply say we do not know - for now. Further investigation, more questions, more discussion are necessary, but that's not embarrassing, it's stimulating and challenging and all part of the great quest of trying to find the answers.
There is no greater and more invigorating quest than the quest for truth. You are correct in stating that we must withhold commitment to a propostion until we have investigated the evidence sufficiently to come to a conclusion. However, we must be reasonable in our expectations regarding how much and/or what kind of evidence is sufficient. When it comes to establishing a posteriori truth claims (that is, truth claims based on evidence), we can never have exhaustive evidence, and, in an imperfect world, we can never have absolute certainty.
There will always be some element of uncertainty, however small. This should not deter us from accepting a propostion as true when the quality and/or the quantity of the evidence commends such acceptance. We do not have 100% certainty for the atomic theory, but the probability of its truth is so high that it is unlikely that it will be overturned accept by a mega-dose of contradictoy evidence. This cannot be said for the belief that the universe was not caused to come into existence. This belief stands on very precarious evidential grounds.
I look forward to future discussions.
Blessings,
Arnie
SongBird
Reply to this
Do you really mean to tell me that no religious person swearing on their bible has ever told a lie? It is a truly chilling thought that someone anywhere could be denied the opportunity to give their testimony in a court of law, because their freedom of choice led them to a position of not holding a belief in god.
The response that this is a good reason to become a christian makes me fear for all people living in the so-called 'Land of the Free'.
Reply to this
Do you really mean to tell me that no religious person swearing on their bible has ever told a lie?
Of course not. I believe that you are missing the purpose of my comment. My purpose was to point out the consistency with which the indicated worldview was placed into practice. Since the indicated worldview accepted the existence of a transcendent being who had established transcendent norms that apply to all people, such as the ninth commandment, then it would be consistent with such a worldview to be cautious about those swearing upon a Bible to tell the truth in the name of God who in fact did not believe in either God or the Bible. Such an "oath" would be a mockery and a sham.
It is a truly chilling thought that someone anywhere could be denied the opportunity to give their testimony in a court of law, because their freedom of choice led them to a position of not holding a belief in god.
People are denied this opportunity regularly today because of the beliefs that they have freely chosen, even beliefs that are constitutionally protected. That is why potential witnesses are deposed and potential jurors are interviewed. If it is ascertained that the individual's beliefs might unduly bias the outcome of the trial, the individual is simply and summarily dismissed. Being a witness or a juror is not a right protected by the Constitution. It is a duty. This is why witnesses and jurors are subpeonaed. You can't just walk in off the street and say, "Hey, I want to exercise my right to be a witness." There is no such right. Ironically, a potential witness or juror in today's moral climate may be denied the opportunity because he or she does believe in God and a transcendent moral order. In any event, one's dismissal from being a witness or a juror is in no way a violation of their constitutional right to freely choose what they believe.
The response that this is a good reason to become a christian makes me fear for all people living in the so-called 'Land of the Free'.
I never said that this was a good reason to become a Christian. In fact, this would be a very bad reason to become a Christian. A person should become a Christian because the person is convinced in both the heart and mind that Jesus Christ is the Son of God who rose from the dead and that there is no other name under heaven by which one can be saved. One who has been genuinely transformed in this way will lead a life of love and willingly accept any consequences for professing this belief, even persecution and death. That is Christianity.
Regarding the "Land of the Free," I would argue that the freedoms intended by our founding fathers are being usurped precisely because our country is becoming increasingly secular. The founders understood the importance of true religion being exercised in the public square if freedom was to be preserved. They understood that even one's right to be an atheist could only be preserved if God and his transcendent values, embodied both in the Bible and in Natural Law, were publicly recognized and endorsed. They feared that a growing secularism and unbridled democracy would lead to people abandoning the providence of God and looking to the government to fill the void. This, they believed, was the ticket to tyranny, and it is happening today as we speak. If the founders visited us today, I believe that they would weep. May God have mercy on our nation.
Blessings,
Arnie
Reply to this
I read with interest your perceptions of how atheists experience the world, particularly with regards what you call 'moral law'. You assert that atheists live in a 'closed world', devoid of any sense of 'good' and 'evil', but I have to tell you that on the whole we live happy fulfilled lives, and are not represented by your one quote by the psychopath Jeffrey Dahmer. I'm assuming he was atheist? Because if that's the yardstick you are using, then let's own up to the fact that there have been many more insane and terrible acts committed by the religious - justified by god!
The atheist view is that good and evil do not fly about the earth like a miasma waiting to infect us - people do good things or they do bad things. Psychopathology however is not a choice, it's a medical condition, one which god seems happy to insert into the occasional human brain - or not to prevent, anyway. (Incidentally, I'm interested to know what the religious position is on this. If the deity COULD prevent the condition and hence the act, but doesn't, that's cruel and therefore not 'Good', but if it CANNOT change or prevent the condition, then it cannot claim to be 'Omnipotent' - not a good case for an all-powerful, all-loving god). Stealing however IS a choice and what might make an atheist stop short is not a 'fear of retribution' as has been stated, but empathy. It is also empathy that makes us throw ourselves into danger to save a fellow human being. This does not fly in the face of Darwinian theory because it is relatively rare, but there are so many subtleties to that debate which can't be covered in the short and, it must be said, quite closed-minded forum here. Your religion would infantilise me by removing my own volition and replacing it with a 'parent in the sky', who will 'punish' me if I don't do as 'he' says.
Darwinism is a theory for which there is a lot of convincing evidence. One doesn't 'believe in' it however - that would be arrogant, because if a better explanation comes along, we revise our understanding, and you can't do that if you have closed off all other avenues of thought. What we 'believe' would be irrelevant in any case. I would suggest that most believers in god have closed their minds to all other ideas and their deity is the end of the story. To most atheists that is an intellectually impoverished way to approach the world, which is just as full of wonder and beauty for them as it is for anyone. You suggest that I must somehow be 'admitting' an existence of god by having a set of moral values. Why is my ability to go through life as a happy person with plenty of wonderful friends and family so hard for you to accept?
Thanks for listening, and I hope you will publish this. It it meant as an honest (although undoubtedly inadequate) attempt to put my point of view as an atheist, which in my case simply means 'not believing', in the same way that I do not 'believe' in unicorns.
Reply to this
Greetings. I interact with your comments below.
I read with interest your perceptions of how atheists experience the world, particularly with regards what you call 'moral law'. You assert that atheists live in a 'closed world', devoid of any sense of 'good' and 'evil', but I have to tell you that on the whole we live happy fulfilled lives, and are not represented by your one quote by the psychopath Jeffrey Dahmer. I'm assuming he was atheist?
I am not sure if Jeffrey Dahmer was an avowed atheist. However, he seemed to understand at a gut level the logical moral conclusion of the atheistic proposal quite clearly, more clearly, I would argue, than most atheists. Nonetheless, after his arrest, he admitted to being constantly haunted with guilt, describing his life as a constant nightmare. Why is it that he should be so haunted if there really is nothing out there?
Because if that's the yardstick you are using, then let's own up to the fact that there have been many more insane and terrible acts committed by the religious - justified by god!
I do not measure all atheists by Jeffrey Dahmer. He is just an example of someone who seemed to understand at a gut level that there could be no meaning or ethical sanction in life unless there were a universal moral law and thus a Moral Law Giver. He is someone who felt the pressure of the Moral Law even as he tortured his victims. I concede in my article that most atheists behave morally. My claim is that they do so in spite of their worldview, not because of it.
There have indeed been horrible acts done in the name of God. One might wonder if those who have committed such acts were true believers despite their theological claims. Be that as it may, your stunning assertion that “many more insane and terrible acts have been committed by the religious” requires qualification (what is meant here by religious?), evidence, and argument to defend it. Please produce this evidence and make your argument. What is the basis for this claim?
On the other hand, the progressive optimism that launched the twentieth century was rooted in a growing secular and atheistic evolutionary ideal. These hopes were buried under the feet of Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Pol Pot to name a few. Each of these men was ideologically driven by the atheistic ideal imbedded in Marxist determinism and/or evolutionary eugenics. Each of them was responsible for millions of murders. So let’s be careful not to throw rocks in a glass house.
The atheist view is that good and evil do not fly about the earth like a miasma waiting to infect us - people do good things or they do bad things.
Wait a minute…Foul! You have no grounds for assessing goodness or badness. What are your criteria and where do they come from? How do you know what is good or bad. What is your basis for judgment?
Psychopathology however is not a choice, it's a medical condition, one which god seems happy to insert into the occasional human brain - or not to prevent, anyway. (Incidentally, I'm interested to know what the religious position is on this. If the deity COULD prevent the condition and hence the act, but doesn't, that's cruel and therefore not 'Good', but if it CANNOT change or prevent the condition, then it cannot claim to be 'Omnipotent' - not a good case for an all-powerful, all-loving god).
Whew, you are opening a whole new argument here. I have addressed some of your concerns in other articles at this blog. Perhaps if you would like to read some of these articles and leave a comment, we could discuss these questions in those contexts. Check out the category “Existence of God” and the category “Problem of Evil” in my sidebar.
Stealing however IS a choice and what might make an atheist stop short is not a 'fear of retribution' as has been stated, but empathy. It is also empathy that makes us throw ourselves into danger to save a fellow human being.
Empathy? Why empathy? What grounds do you have for claiming that empathy is a universal moral principal? Then you admit that there is at least one transcendent moral truth that applies to all people in all places. Am I correct? You concede that you would likely experience a sense of moral failure or even guilt if you failed to exhibit this virtue. I am afraid that by so conceding, you have refuted your atheistic worldview. Moral absolutes do not grow on trees or flit randomly about the the night sky. They must have a source outside of human existence if they are to apply to all humans.
This does not fly in the face of Darwinian theory because it is relatively rare, but there are so many subtleties to that debate which can't be covered in the short and, it must be said, quite closed-minded forum here.
Excuse me, but you have just told me in so many words that empathy should control our behavior. Furthermore, you are apparently claiming that Darwinism is true for all persons at all times and that atheism is true for all persons at all times, whether I choose to believe it or not. Nonetheless, I did not delete your post, and, in addition, I am here choosing to engage with you in rational discourse. Who’s the closed minded one here?
Your religion would infantilise me by removing my own volition and replacing it with a 'parent in the sky', who will 'punish' me if I don't do as 'he' says.
Volition? What’s that? I thought you believe that atheism is true. Whence cometh volition? In order to make a moral choice, we must have access to moral truth. We must have true belief, that is, knowledge of transcendent realities. But atheism, particularly the Darwinistic variety, leaves us alone in a closed universe of mindless physical, biological, and chemical processes. There is no mind behind the matter (We can debate the origin of consciousness and the immaterial nature of the mind at a later date).
Darwinism is a theory for which there is a lot of convincing evidence.
Really? If you could present some of this evidence at some point, I would be open to considering it (No, really, I said open).
One doesn't 'believe in' it however - that would be arrogant, because if a better explanation comes along, we revise our understanding, and you can't do that if you have closed off all other avenues of thought.
Oh, come on, of course you “believe in” Darwinism (and atheism), otherwise we would be wasting our time here. For several paragraphs now you have been passionately attempting to defend your belief. Don’t suddenly back off now. That would be dishonest. Own it. I certainly do not blame you or condemn you for your belief. I respect you as an individual made in God’s image. I have tolerance for your belief. I just think that it is wrong and that you should reconsider. I happen to believe that the evidence for theism far outweighs the evidence for atheism. I invite you to read the other articles at this blog and to comment on them. You are welcome here.
It is not in the least bit arrogant to believe that something is true. One is only arrogant if he refuses to change his belief despite clear evidence to the contrary. In fact, we must first have beliefs if there are going to be changes in our beliefs. It is the nature of being human to have beliefs about things. So don’t go politically correct one me here.
What we 'believe' would be irrelevant in any case.
What we believe is enormously relevant in all cases. Ideas have consequences.
I would suggest that most believers in god have closed their minds to all other ideas and their deity is the end of the story.
How many believers have you known with whom you have discussed these issues? I would be careful about stereotyping here. Be open-minded!
To most atheists that is an intellectually impoverished way to approach the world, which is just as full of wonder and beauty for them as it is for anyone.
My experience has been that believing in God changes everything from black and white to color. I am compelled to ask, “What is the source of all of this beauty and wonder that we both observe?” Why in the world is there something rather than nothing in the first place, let alone a something that is so wonderful and beautiful? Belief in God enriches my intellectual life and motivates me to engage the world and discover what it’s all about. I see no reason why belief in God should abort intellectual inquiry. That has certainly not been my experience, nor the experience of many thousands of intellectuals since Christianity began .
I have not even remotely suggested that an atheist cannot be a “happy person with wonderful friends and family.” I certainly wish that for you. What I have argued is that the desire for and the valuing of such enjoyment should provoke a very important question…”Why?” Whence cometh this inner yearning for a happy life? Why value such goodness? Why is it that this seems to be a universal yearning? We consider the evil in the world and sense that things are not the way they are supposed to be. Yet, we long for the way things are supposed to be, and tend to generally agree that happiness, friends, and family are a part of this. Why should we have this longing in an atheistic world in which Darwinism is true? It simply does not make sense, and, I would argue, should compel us to look upward.
Thanks for listening, and I hope you will publish this. It it meant as an honest (although undoubtedly inadequate) attempt to put my point of view as an atheist, which in my case simply means 'not believing', in the same way that I do not 'believe' in unicorns.
You are welcome! Please come again! I don’t believe in unicorns either. So we do have something in common!
Many Blessings,
Arnie
Reply to this
Songbird,
It sounds like you are making a semantic argument about the word "believe." If by believe you mean "take on blind faith" then I would tend to agree with you. I think it is appropriate, however, to use the term "believe" in the following ways. "I believe the ground is under my feet." "I believe I am typing on my computer right now." "I believe 2+2 equals 4." "I believe God exists." "I believe God does not exist." We behave consistently with what we really believe to be the case. We can say we believe just about anything. What we do reflects more accurately what we believe to be actually real.
As far as morals go, the issue is not so much "do I have moral values" but rather "what grounds my moral values?" If I claim that neo-Darwinian evolution is in fact true, then I must explain my sense of morals by way of neo-Darwinism which itself relies on materialism, the belief that all reality is reducible to matter in motion.
The morality that Jesus believed in was a morality built into the fabric of reality by the creator God. Moral laws exist because there is a moral Law Giver. Now, these two positions differ rather significantly.
I am most familiar with Jesus' type of morality as a concept. What is the basis for morality in your Atheism?
Thanks for sharing.
Sincerely,
Travis Coleman
Reply to this
Hey Arnie,
Since you quoted from Jeffrey Dahmer, I am passing this along. I met the pastor who wrote this book. I was in Wisconsin shortly after he baptized Jeffrey. I knew nothing of this until I was sitting in a restaurant with a handful of ministers for their monthly get-together.
Conversation got around to Roy Ratcliff sharing with us his perspective on Jeffrey's converstion. When they started talking about it, I was shocked. I had to interrupt and ask, "You mean the Jeffrey Dahmer?" Indeed he was talking about the Jeffrey Dahmer. I had gotten so used to viewing Dahmer as the epitome of evil like Hitler that I had a hard time believing that he could actually be saved by the Grace of God.
Then I realized, if a repentent Jeffrey Dahmer could not be forgiven, what hope did I have. It was a humbling moment when God revealed to me (once again) the root of self righteousness within me. I actaully thought I was more acceptable in God's eyes than Jeffrey Dahmer because I was better than him. My sin mingled with Jeffrey's sin in Christ's agony on the cross.
"My hope is built on nothing less than Jesus' blood and righteousness. I dare not trust the sweetest frame, but wholly lean on Jesus' name."
http://www.christianbook.com/Christian/Books/product?item_no=779021&p=1025023
Sincerely,
Travis
Reply to this
Thanks, Travis!
Wow! I'm putting this one on my wish list. I hope others who visit and read the comments check it out as well.
Blessings,
Arnie
Reply to this
Travis - You ARE more acceptable in every way than Jeffrey Dahmer. Have you caused another human being to feel the pain and suffering and terror that he did? He was a warped psychopath and if he sought but was unable to find any forgiveness that is because he is devoid of all social and personal conscience. It is clear that you have both, and so you must know that you ARE a better person. Don't put yourself in the same category as him!
SongBird
Reply to this
Thank you SongBird. I know that on a social scale that I am more acceptable than Jeffrey Dahmer. That's why he was in prison and I am a free man. That was not my point, however.
He actually did find forgiveness. That's the point. Did my concept of the universal availability of the Grace of God extend even to one such as Jeffrey Dahmer? Jeffrey was glad he was in prison. He didn't want to get out. He didn't convert to get sympathy or a shorter sentence.
If Jesus really is who he says he is, then I must take him at his word that he is ready, willing, and able to forgive anyone who repents and turns to him.
I was humbled because my view of God's grace was not robust enough for it to include a Jeffrey Dahmer.
Jeffrey felt he should have died for his crimes. The Pastor ministering to him in prison agreed with him. Jeffrey said, "Then am I sinning by living?" Jeffrey was beaten to death by a fellow prisoner.
Reply to this
Hi Arnie,
Whew, you have responded in such magnificent detail and breadth that I hardly know where to start! I'd like to say "Thank you" for engaging with me, and for pointing me to your other articles. I will 'read and inwardly digest'. There is much to learn, I know.
I don't think I can address all your points at once (too much to think about all at once!) but I suppose I could start by clarifying that my position re: atheism is not one of 'belief' in atheism - the whole point is that it is a lack of belief; if enough evidence presents itself, a premise may in time become fact, at which point belief is no longer necessary - it becomes an objective 'known'. So I don't actually 'believe' anything. I may have an opinion on a subject, or I may 'think' something to be the case, depending on how much I have been able to find out about it, but the word believe is not one I can honestly use. I find it a word that can lead to so much misunderstanding.
Over the generations we have been coming to understand how the universe works by putting a theory, testing it, and then rejecting it if it turns out to be wrong, or adding it to our body of 'knowledge' if it is borne out. It seems to me to be a pretty sensible way to do things if we really want to find the truth? I think it is important to be able to reject our pet theories if they are proved wrong, otherwise we'll just accept any old thing, whatever the evidence, and truth will disappear in the confusion.
I hope that I can live up to my own claims!
In the meantime, from one (I hope) open mind to another,
Cheers,
SongBird
Reply to this
Whew, you have responded in such magnificent detail and breadth that I hardly know where to start! I'd like to say "Thank you" for engaging with me, and for pointing me to your other articles. I will 'read and inwardly digest'. There is much to learn, I know.
You kept me up pretty late last night! It took me a few hours to think through all you were saying. But I also appreciate the interaction. "Iron sharpens iron, and one person sharpens another" (Proverbs 27:17).
I don't think I can address all your points at once (too much to think about all at once!) but I suppose I could start by clarifying that my position re: atheism is not one of 'belief' in atheism - the whole point is that it is a lack of belief; if enough evidence presents itself, a premise may in time become fact, at which point belief is no longer necessary - it becomes an objective 'known'. So I don't actually 'believe' anything. I may have an opinion on a subject, or I may 'think' something to be the case, depending on how much I have been able to find out about it, but the word believe is not one I can honestly use. I find it a word that can lead to so much misunderstanding.
Hmm...Let me see if I understand you. You seem to be saying that your atheism is not a belief, but the absence of belief altogether. This is quite an interesting definition of atheism, and quite novel, I might add. The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy states that atheism is "the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism. A stricter sense denotes the belief that there is no God; this use has become the standard one." Philosphically speaking, "knowledge" and "true belief" are equivalent terms. So what I am hearing you say is that you are really not an atheist by definition. You also seem to be saying that you are neither a skeptic (nothing can be known) nor an agnostic (there can be no knowledge of supernatural beings) but a seeker of sorts in pursuit of true belief or knowledge and open to discussion about these matters. Am I getting closer?.
Over the generations we have been coming to understand how the universe works by putting a theory, testing it, and then rejecting it if it turns out to be wrong, or adding it to our body of 'knowledge' if it is borne out. It seems to me to be a pretty sensible way to do things if we really want to find the truth? I think it is important to be able to reject our pet theories if they are proved wrong, otherwise we'll just accept any old thing, whatever the evidence, and truth will disappear in the confusion.
Sounds like a great strategy to me! Check out this entry: http://mychristianapologetics.com/2009/06/23/christian-what.aspx
I hope that I can live up to my own claims!
In the meantime, from one (I hope) open mind to another,
I am inspired by your humility and hope that I can say that about myself as well.
Blessings,
Arnie
Cheers,
SongBird
Reply to this
Hello,
The argument from morality is a very interesting one. I just think it's different from what you tell in your blog. I think that morality can be natural and that God works trough nature.
You say "Nature is impersonal". But our genes have lots of characters that make our personality.
I think that morality is an evolutionary benefit. In natural selection (it helps to survive) and in sexual selection (woman choose non-rapers instead of rapers). So i think there is a natural explanation for morality, but i also think that this doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.
Sorry for my bad english. I'm a Dutchman.
I'll hope you'll understand me.
Greetings and blessings,
Remko
Reply to this
Hi, Remko,
Welcome to my blog. You say you are a Dutchman. Are you now living in The Netherlands, or do you reside in the US. How did you learn about my blog?
Thanks for your very intelligent comment.. Let me just share with you why I do not find the argument for morality from evolution and genetics very convincing.
First of all, I do not believe that the fossil record supports Darwinian evolution. I invite you to read my two part series on Darwin and his theory. Here is the link to it: http://mychristianapologetics.com/categories/Science%20and%20Faith.aspx
Go ahead and comment on those articles if you wish, and we can pick up further discussion about the evidence for evolution then.
Secondly, I find evolutionary theory philosophically weak when it tries to account for ethics and morality. All evolutionists agree that natural selection is a random and mindless process. If this is the case, then things could have turned out much differently than they have. That is, evolution could have moved along an entirely different pathway with entirely different results from the ones we now observe. If this is the case, then morality could have been other than it is as well. Evolution could have produced a world in which rape and murder are not wrong. But I think you would agree that all mentally healthy people would claim that murder and rape would be wrong in any possible world. That is, these are universal moral truths that could not be otherwise and that apply to all persons in all places at all times. Hence it would seem that such truths transcend the random outcomes of evolution. Moral facts are necessarily true in all possible worlds, including this one. As such, their nature seems strongly to suggest a personal source rather than a natural one.
Finally, natural selection, as I understand it, is that method by which nature allegedly preserves advantageous anatomical, physiological, and/or chemical changes or variations that occur randomly within an individual animal of a particular species. As a result, the animal’s offspring exhibit and enjoy progressively increasing survival benefits over competing animals of the same species. Over time, the animal and its descendants overtake their disadvantaged brethren in the survival race, the latter moving toward inevitable extinction, the former emerging as a victorious new kind.
If this is so, then why does so much behavior that we call moral exhibit traits that seem counterproductive to the survival of an individual of a species? Why would it be noble to sacrifice my life for a friend when such sacrifice disadvantages me in producing further offspring? What advantage does moral pacifism give me in the survival race when I am confronted by a person with a deadly weapon? In fact, cowardice may be a more advantageous moral strategy than courage because being a coward may prolong my life and give me more opportunity to reproduce.
My point is, many of the moral behaviors that we admire and hold up as examples to be followed do not fit well within a Darwinian paradigm that requires that only the fittest survive. On the contrary, it was evolutionary theory that incited the genocidal eugenics movements in the 20th century that ended in the extermination of millions of people. Those who participated in these atrocities were being consistent with their worldviews. That is, it was "good" to actively cleanse the human race of bad genes and to help evolution along, and it was "bad" to invest in the protection of such people. A consistent Darwinian worldview cannot tolerate weakness, but yet our collective conscience cries out for the protection of such weakness. How can this be unless morality stands above nature and is not simply a product of it?
Thanks again, Remko, and please feel free to visit at any time. Your English is just fine!!
Blessings,
Arnie
Reply to this
What a beautifully closed minded way of looking at morality. You managed to get all of the usual christian weapons in one poorly thought out blog. Kudos! In fact, non religious philosophers have been wrestling with morality for centuries. I think my favorite might be Kant's Rational Morality. Even so, great judging!
Reply to this
Greetings, Pensive 1,
Thanks for visitng my blog and commenting.
In the spirit of "open-mindedness," I am not only publishing and responding to your comments, but I am including them in my showcase! As for being "closed-minded," it is apparent from your comments that you categorically dismiss "religious" arguments for morality for reasons which you do not offer except that they are religious. You have committed the genetic fallacy by suggesting that any argument based on religious premises is, by its religious nature, necessarily invalid and/or unsound without considering the merits of the argument itself. So, who is closed-minded here?
Actually, I have only included a few "Christian weapons" in my argument. There are many more. Be that as it may, you claim that my blog is "poorly thought out" yet you offer no evidence for so claiming or a counterargument that is well thought out by your own standards. So I will simply make the counter-assertion that my blog is really quite well thought out, and offer you the opportunity to provide your evidence to the contrary, should you have any.
It is indeed true that "nonreligious philosophers have been wrestling with morality for centuries." However, this fact is totally irrelevant to weighing the merits of my argument. Are you stating that the length of time that such philosophers have been "wrestling with morality" is sufficient reason for us to accept their conclusions? If so, I counter with the fact that religious arguments have been around for millenniums, and continue to be quite successfully advanced by folks who are much smarter than either one of us. Therefore, religious arguments should be proclaimed the winner in the longevity category.
As for Kant, he sought to ground ethical principles in reason in order to rescue morality from the fate of Hume's radical empiricism. The question is, "Did Kant succeed?"
The problem is that Kant himself was an unrepentant empiricist. He proposed a noumenal realm occupied by things in themselves, and a phenomenal realm occupied by the things as they appear to us. Hume was consistent with his empiricism, holding that this gap could not be bridged under any circumstances. Kant agreed that empiricism would not allow for universal truths, such as moral laws, but only particular or discrete experiences within each individual. So how did he try to close the gap such that discrete individual experiences would be agreed upon by each individual mind, particularly concerning morality?
Kant proposed the existence of a transcendent mind that does the work of construction in each individual mind such that all individuals would agree and thus exist commonly together. But this move by Kant leaves him obviously begging the question. Whence cometh this transcendent mind and how does one "know" that what it is constructing in one mind is the same as what it is constructing in another so that we may all live commonly together? Even more troubling, how could Kant possibly "know" that such a mind even exists if empiricism is true?
So Kant fails on a couple of levels. First of all, he accepts empiricism, which he should have rejected. Secondly, he attempts to construct within empiricism a basis for believing that discrete experience in each individual may be nonetheless shared in common with all persons by means of the creative work of an abstract entity. He identifies this entity as a transcendent mind (which sounds very much like a religious notion to me), begging the question as to the source and the nature of this transcendent mind. Finally, by proposing such a mind, Kant's empiricism self-desctructs, since he claims to "know" the existence of something quite mysterious by means other than his senses. Hence, when weighed upon the scales of empiricism, Kant's allegedly "rational morality" disintegrates into a question begging, "irrational" religious proposal.
But why should we accept empiricism as true and religion as irrational? There seems to be no reason compelling us to do so. I believe that Theism, which argues that we can have actual knowledge of both universal moral truths and the transcendent source of these truths, is a much more rational option.***
*** [My thanks to my former professor Dr. R. Scott Smith at Biola University for the chapter in his unpublished book that he shared with us in his ethics class in 2006, and which guided me in preparing this discussion of Kant and his work.]
Blessings,
Arnie Gentile
Reply to this
Great judging to you too, Pensive. What a beautifully closed minded response as well. Wait, you have a favorite position on morality? Isn't that closed minded?
Come now, Pensive. Is this the way you talk with everyone you disagree with? Isn't it better to actually engage the ideas than simply offer a bigoted anti-religious jab?
You appear to have read Kant. If so, you really should be able to have a more meaningful conversation on this matter. I hope you will offer Arnie the respect he has given you by responding with more substance.
Rhetoric is not an argument.
Sincerely,
Travis
Reply to this
I agree with what you said, “…moral behavior requires true belief, that is, actual knowledge of moral truth. But no moral truth can exist in an atheistic world since there could be no transcendent value by which to measure our conduct.” And you also said it well that “many atheists are very vocal when it comes to issues of social justice. What they will generally not admit, however, is that, when they make such claims, they are borrowing on the capital of theism whether they like it or not… At the very least, an honest atheist must admit that the moment she makes a moral claim or invokes a moral rule her godless worldview collapses.”
I grew up in Taiwan and came to Christ in Texas. In the democratic society of Taiwan, people have many choices for their religions, such as Buddhism, Taoism, Christianity (Christians only 3%, including Catholics), Islam, and many others. Even if many claim no religion at all, they still worship the spirits of their ancestors, who would bring them blessings. It has been a Chinese tradition for three thousand years. Therefore, whether one thinks he or she is an atheist or not, there is a transcendent value within these people’s minds and hearts. We call it moral truth or Chinese traditional ethics, a moral standard parents use to teach and discipline their children. It is like the conscience which God put into man’s heart, even he or she does not believe the true God.
Therefore, from my own life experiences, I believe that those who claim themselves moral, they are either theistic or atheistic but “borrowing the capital of theism.” Just like people in Taiwan, whether religious or not, they have a strong moral conscience to guide them to do good, not evil. If an atheist really does not believe or “fear” anything (any supernatural beings above), and does not have any transcendent value, I do not think it is possible for him or her to be moral. He or she becomes his/her own god, doing immoral things according to their own sinful nature. On the other hand, if atheists make claims that they are moral and care about social justice, there should be something, some true belief, in his or her hearts to guide or constraint their behavior and thought.
Reply to this
Well spoken!! Thank you for your very intelligent, informative, and thought-provoking comment.
Many blessings,
Arnie
Reply to this