Atheists really like to fight against us ignorant theists who say they have no morals. We’re the backwards hicks who take instruction from a book written by ignorant goat-herders who believed the earth was flat and that the sky was a dome that contained the sun, moon, and stars (all of which circled the earth!). What do we know about morality?
Atheists are so enlightened that they’ve thrown off the shackles of God-belief and are doing the right things because they’re the right things, not because some ancient patriarch shakes his finger at you from 1,000 years ago and says, “Do it or I’ll spank you!”
So of course they don’t lack morals! In fact, they’re more moral than religious people — the vague statistics quoted above don’t lie!
Sensing the sarcasm yet? I hope so. Because I don’t know how to lay it on thicker than what I just did.
Atheists are not immoral. They are amoral.
Difference? Immoral means acting contrary to established morality. It is a question of ethics, not ontology or epistemology. Amoral means lacking morals. It is a question either of ontology or epistemology, not ethics.
Morality represents the essence of good behavior. Ethics represent the execution of good behavior — in other words, the pudding that the proof is in.
In Plato’s dialogues, Socrates asks the good priest Euthyphro what piety is. Euthyphro comes up with several examples, which Socrates says were good but that only covers pious acts. Socrates wants to know what piety is. By giving him extensive examples, Euthyphro wasn’t actually answering Socrates’ question.
The above graphic does the same thing — it only shows that atheists behave more ethically than religious people.
But why do they do that? They can’t tell you — there is no ground for morality given atheistic naturalism. That’s where the difficulty starts. Ethics can change; sometimes dramatically.
It was once legal to bet on (or against) your own team in professional sports. Professional sports also allowed the use of steroids or other performance-enhancing drugs without batting an eyelash. Now, both practices are deemed cheating in most professional sports.
What we need is something to ground our ethics in; something immutable that we can return to to see what goodness looks like. That way, when we find something new, we can create a code of ethics for it patterned after that which gave us the example of good ethics in the first place.
If morality is an immovable anchor and ethics are a boat on the rough, unforgiving seas of our culture, the boat is free to move about within the radius of the anchor. It might go adrift, it might even do something unacceptable, but it will remain in the range of the anchor. Conversely, without the anchor, the ship is free to be tossed around the sea of possibilities, moving unflinchingly into uncharted, dangerous waters with nothing to bring it back to safety.
The nature of God is that immutable ground of ethical behavior for the theist. The atheist has none. We are the boat that will return to safe waters, they are the one that will be tossed out to sea without a guide. I have no problem with considering atheists ethical; the above examples show they are. However, they have no ultimate ground for the morality that informs their ethics and that means they will go seriously adrift.
An atheist explains morality here: http://youtu.be/peCO8KBdUWQ
Cory,
If I had a slave working for me today, that I whipped regularly, wouldn’t you consider me immoral?
There are no references in the Bible that directly say that this (slavery or whipping slaves) is wrong (although I’m sure you can find something to interpret in this way), yet today we think of it as unacceptable.
My point is that your own Christian morality is influenced by and based on this age and it’s teachings, more than you give it credit for. If you were brought up in the 1500s, your Christian morality would probably tell you its required to seek out and burn heretic witches, something that you would find ludicrous today.
It was different in the past (e.g. slavery, mass genocide), and it will be different in the future (maybe with gay rights).
I put it to you that Christian morality is very loosely/selectively based on the Bible itself, and more rooted in what other Christians around you collectively believe. Your mental image of the Christian God today would have been very different from that of the Christian God of the distant past because of this.
This is more of a ‘social’ morality which is not very different from atheist morality, the only difference being that punishment would/could come from both society and God.
Christian morality is not immutable.
About atheist amorality, why do (the majority of) atheists believe that pedophilia is wrong, regardless of whether it affects them directly or not? If you are saying that the atheist would commit pedophilia if he had the want or need to, and believed he could get away with it, then this is not different from a Christian doing the same, except that there is a single additional deterrent- punishment from God. Considering that atheists are no more likely to be pedophiles than Christians, there seems to be no benefit from the added deterrent even if it appears that there should be.
Atheists are not amoral or lacking morals. There is no significant benefit from having a moral law giver as opposed to innately/socially defining morals.
Nope, you’re still wrong; now let me tell you why.
I might be able to cheat on my wife without her finding out, and thus without consequence. So why not do it? You’d point to (2). I wouldn’t like it if she did that to me, so I shouldn’t do that to her. But that conflicts with (3). My freedom is seriously restricted, and I don’t like that!
Things get worse from there. What about people in open marriages? Does that mean it’s wrong for me to cheat on my wife, but NOT wrong for them? That’s confusing. If something is wrong, it’s ALWAYS wrong. It’s not right sometimes and wrong other times.
So let’s use the opposite of your (1), which is deontology. Now, as a husband, it is my objective moral duty to remain true to my wife, not because I fear a negative consequence or because I wouldn’t like it if she did that to me. Because it is the right thing to do. And it’s the right thing for EVERYONE to do, because the duty is OBJECTIVE.
Your (2) and (3), though great, are unnecessary under a paradigm of deontology. But, you still need to ground the ethical duties in something unchanging.
I’m afraid your solution only complicates matters and (worse) doesn’t really solve anything.
Bernie, I am one of the comment moderators for the CAA website. I approved your comment because you did offer intellectual arguments. However, this is your warning: Referring to anyones thoughts here as “nonsense” is not the kind of mutually respectful atmosphere we try to foster here. A second offense will result in a suspension or ban. Please review our comment policy here: http://www.apologeticalliance.com/blog/comment-policy/
H.M. Kaiser
RE: “They can’t tell you — there is no ground for morality given atheistic naturalism.”
Such nonsense. Here’s the grounding:
1. Consequentialism
2. Reciprocity
3. Individual freedom
Practicing and respecting these principles lead to human flourishing, and that’s what morality is all about.
The moderators answered more than adequately. Cory we could go on for days arguing your assertions, but I will sum it up very quickly your assertions are false.
Archangelariel,
If I need more than assertion, so do you.
What, specifically, is false about what I’ve said? Then we can have a better discussion.
Atheists, as a group, aren’t amoral; that can be concluded by observing reality, which might explain why you missed it.
As one of the comments moderators, I will let your sarcasm go This One Time. Any further infractions will result in a suspension or ban. Please review the CAA’s Comments Policy here: http://www.apologeticalliance.com/blog/comment-policy/
Brian–clearly, atheists are not (necessarily) “immoral”–but if there is no God, there is no always-good being to which moral beliefs (if true) may correspond. Because atheists will not permit their beliefs to correspond to reality (denying the existence of an always-good being), their morals necessarily lack truth (do not actually exist–at least if they are ‘consistent’). Then again…if an atheist would prefer to believe his moral beliefs are true and ‘do’ correspond to reality, s/he can always give up the conflicting belief that there is no always-good being to which it corresponds.
“Brian–clearly, atheists are not (necessarily) “immoral”–but if there is no God, there is no always-good being to which moral beliefs (if true) may correspond.”
True, but not relevant.
“Because atheists will not permit their beliefs to correspond to reality (denying the existence of an always-good being)”
Nope, that your opinion. You haven’t shown that your opinion corresponds to reality.
“Then again…if an atheist would prefer to believe his moral beliefs are true and ‘do’ correspond to reality, s/he can always give up the conflicting belief that there is no always-good being to which it corresponds.”
I don’t know why you think any atheist would believe there exists an “always-good being” in the first place. I’ve never known of one.
You must believe all morality is relative, rather than believing your moral beliefs are true?
I don’t consider moral beliefs to be either true or false. They’re opinions about matters that aren’t true or false statements, generally.
Saying “X is bad” or “X is good” isn’t a true/false proposition, it’s a value judgement, and someone else might not agree.
There are a lot of moral statements where there’s a broad agreement (e.g. murder is bad), and a lot of moral statements where there isn’t a broad agreement (e.g. gay marriage is bad).
Brian, I apologize for not seeing or responding to this earlier. The point of the original post is that atheists are amoral in the sense that they do not hold that moral beliefs are true or false, since they deny the existence of an always good being described by those beliefs.
The point of the original post is that atheists are amoral in the sense that they do not hold that moral beliefs are true or false, since they deny the existence of an always good being described by those beliefs.
First, that’s not what “amoral” means; what you should have used is “non-cognitivism” or something similar.
Second, your “since” clause is not conclusive, as gods are not the only way people claim that moral beliefs are true or false; “moral realism” is an example of this.
I still think you’re confused about ethics and morals.
Morality is concerned with answering what the Good is. By nature, this is immaterial and therefore not an entity that atheistic naturalism supports. There is no “ought,” there only exists what “is.”
Ethics are concerned with specific behaviors. I believe atheists can be ethical, and these vague statistics suggest that atheists are more ethical than theists. However, there is no moral ground for preferring one behavior over the other.
So, while you might use empathy (as Simon suggested), or you might use “reality” (as you suggest) to find ethical behavior and come up with a good framework, you may just as well argue along the lines of Peter Singer and conclude that there is no ethical dilemma with killing a child up to the age of reason (5 to 7 years for most individuals). Without an immutable ground for your search found in the character of God, ethical behaviors are pretty hit or miss.
And Marc, I think we can give him a little latitude in the sarcasm department — I was pretty sarcastic in the post. Provided he doesn’t confuse sarcasm with argument.
One word: Empathy.
You don’t need to choose a religion before you are capable of empathy.
Simon– Exactly. You don’t need to believe in gravity in order to remain on the Earth. But–in order for their to be moral truth, there must be an always-good being to which it corresponds. To believe in morality without believing in God, is like believing you love your mom without believing she ever existed.
Empathy is subjective to change and is not universal. What you may feel could be different to how I feel..
Empathy is universal (Brown’s Human Universals 1991). Whether feelings of empathy are accurate is not relevant here; the fact that empathy exists – accurate or not – is enough basis for ethics and morality.