Haran

Bill, I could appreciate these points of view if, in my hypothetical situation, I had been an Atheist before getting married and my bride had not been the non-divorcing Christian type.

Since I am happy in this relationship, I see no reason to overtly break it up. However, as most any honest married man knows, you don't always get "it" when you want "it", right? And then, along comes this attractive woman who wants "it" at a time when your wife perhaps doesn't, and you think you can get away with it.

I'm not saying you and your "morals" (much less mine) would let you do such a thing. From an Atheistic perspective, what is wrong with such a thing? Can you tell the person who would do such a thing that they are "wrong"? If so, then I imagine that it is the "morals" that you have borrowed or pieced together that allow such a condemnation... Objective or subjective? You decide.

Haran

Haran

Thanks Michael. You are correct, there are too many and I don't have enough time to lay my thoughts out like I'd like. I have only brief snippets of time to make any kind of thoughtful post without spelling errors and I'm afraid I don't always do a wonderful job...

Anyway, I don't want a formal debate either (sure not enough time for that). As I said to RD, many here will probably be disappointed with my points as they are really intended to reinforce my statements on another thread and are intended for specific people. There will probably be nothing earth-shattering here for most.

I'll try to find some time to get to the point tonight.

Thanks,
Haran

jlowder

I agree that few people have read Darwin's works. (I have read most of the Origin of Species but not yet the Descent of Man.) But I would also note that, with all due respect to Charles Darwin, he was not a philosopher. And just as very people who talk about evolution have ever read Darwin, I find that even less people have actually read any contemporary books on either evolutionary ethics or ethical naturalism. Anyone who is truly interested in this subject should read Larry Arnhart's Darwinian Natural Right.

Even on the assumption that there is no God and that evolution is true, it doesn't follow that "morality" is "just an evolutionary step, which allowed men to coexist with one another." The word "morality" has many different senses and meanings. For example, there is descriptive morality, statements about how people actually behave. This is where a Darwinian explanation of "morality" fits in. There is another sense of "morality," though, known as prescriptive morality, statements about how a person morally ought to behave. For example, consider the proposition, "One ought to refrain from setting newborn babies on fire for fun." Darwinian evolution doesn't address the truth of the proposition at all. That isn't what Darwinian evolution is about.

It isn't clear what you mean by this. Are you saying that the moral instincts provided by evolution sometimes run counter to a person's self-interest? Or, for that matter, that what is actually moral--since it is logically possible that our evolutionary moral instincts could conflict with what is actually moral--can run counter to a person's self-interest? This raises the question of the relationship between morality and self-interest.

Of course, if ethical egoism is true, then being moral is in one's interest. Again, I've found that very few people who discuss ethical egoism have bothered to read any contemporary defenses of it. If they had, they would know that ethical egoism can be much more sophisticated than the simplistic versions people like to knock down. I recommend Tara Smith's Viable Values to anyone interested in a sophisticated defense of ethical egoism.

If Haran (as an atheist) has to pretend to be "moral," that presuposses that there can be valid moral principles even if God doesn't exist. But putting that issue aside, why would it be in Haran's self-interest to "pretend" to be moral? Aren't you assuming Haran has no moral conscience? And how could Haran ever really have a guarantee that he could commit an immoral act without getting caught by another person? Prisons and jails are filled with people who thought they would never get caught for breaking the law. Why should Haran think he would be any different?

Jeffery Jay Lowder

jlowder

Yes, you're right. When people give up religion, sometimes they will "turn drastically away from their former values." Of course, that's a double-egded sword for the theist: when people find religion, sometimes they will also "turn drastically away from their former values." (People who commit religiously-motivated acts of terrorism come to mind...)

However, I think the question here is NOT one of descriptive ethics, but one of prescriptive ethics. Therefore, in order for your example about your formerly religious friend who cheated on her husband to be relevant, what is needed is an argument that her behavior was morally justified because atheism was true. (Or in other words, what is needed is an argument showing that if God does not exist, then the moral principle, "One ought not have extramarital affairs if there is no prior agreement to have an 'open' marriage," is false.) I do not find such an argument in any of your posts.

Vorkosigan

From an Atheistic perspective, what is wrong with such a thing? Can you tell the person who would do such a thing that they are "wrong"?

Haran, did you even bother to read a single post here? Lowder already told you. There is no atheist perspective on morals, just as there is no atheist perspective on politics, or art, or any other major human mode of thought. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, period. It entails nothing about morality, aside from the fact that the Divine Comand Theory of morals is false. Atheists come in thousands of flavors, from Daoists to metaphysical naturalists. What do they all have in common, other than atheism?

You can certainly tell someone they are doing wrong. Any time, any where, any action. Whether you can convince them they are doing wrong is another thing entirely. Don't confuse the two. Subjectivist morals -- which I assume you are attempting to speak against -- mean giving up the idea of using moral beliefs as clubs to control the minds and bodies of others. The subjectivist can offer no moral compulsion of the "believe or die" variety entailed in Xtian thought. We gave up compulsion when we gave up gods and other fairy tales.

You are confusion lacking grounds for argument with lacking grounds for compulsion. I can't compel, I can only persuade. I can come up with many powerful arguments why you should not cheat on your wife. But in the end, it is entirely up to you whether you accept them or not. I can't force you to do anything.

It behooves me to point out that according to Barna (www.barna.org), the Christian polling organization, atheists, agnostics and freethinkers have the lowest rates of divorce. If there is nothing stopping us, why is our divorce rate so low?

For some in-depth discussion, please reference:
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000067&p=1" target="_blank">Another Thread on CS Lewis</a>
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000078&p=1" target="_blank"> Thread on CS Lewis</a>
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000092" target="_blank">Thread on Objectivism/Subjectivism</a>

And for crying out loud, either bring on an argument, or stop posting in this thread. Fish or cut bait, Haran. But let me warn you: if you are going to hunt tigers in their own forest, you'd better bring a fucking huge gun.

Michael

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>

Eudaimonist

Yay! An Infidel who is recommending Viable Values other than myself.

goody2shoes

Hi,

Avoiding jail is a legitimate concern. That is part of self-preservation. "Having a conscience" is about feeling guilty for doing something that hurts someone else -- back to the golden rule again? What happened to the one about "He who has the Gold rules"?

Darwin's "The Descent of Man" is about twice the size of "The Origin of Species". It follows similar lines and it definitely not philosophy. It is history and scientific investigation. You should read it instead of philosophy books. I think that philosophy (when it comes to morals) is just another smokescreen.

If morality is not something that comes about from other than pure naturalistic forces, then it is unreasonable to consider anything but self-interest. Sure, you might like to (say) raise a family because it makes you "feel good", but that is just another form of self-interest.

Goody

Graeme

I have two problems with this argument.

1) Haran seems to be arguing against one particular set of 'atheistic morals', when in reality there is no one such thing. Also, in making his argument, he is implying that 'Christian Morals' are one distinct thing also, which we know is simply not the case. Christians have the same range of moral beliefs as Atheists - or at least act that way. Indeed, often it seems on the surface that atheists have more in common in their judgeable actions than Christians do.

2) The moral value structure of an atheist depends on many factors, some of which can be proven to exist, some of which we must only assume exist. Pragmatism and compassion for others are the two main ones, and I don't think anyone can argue against the existence and usefulness of these two concepts. On the other hand, Christian morals are simply THERE - they don't have any logical backing, even though if you looked at many of them from a non-theist perspective you could attribute logical backing to them.

The existence of dogma and religious scripture, however, esentially removes any opportunity to place logical backing behind Christian morals. If one is to ask "why is this rule as it is", the only REAL answer is "because god said so". Thus, when the Christian finds himself in a situation where some sort of creative moral thinking is required, some sort of moral pickle that isn't easily solveable through the application of scripture, they have very little to fall back on. They are not obeying the root causes for the basic rules, they are obeying the stated rules and NOTHING ELSE.

Thus inflexibility, thus confusion, thus a whole bunch of Christians pointing fingers at each other and saying "YOU are obviously not a REAL Christian."

I personally think the Christian moral structure is much more suspect than any one atheistic one.

goody2shoes

Haran,

I see a lot of "smoke and mirrors" comments in response to this original post by you. Try to find some logic in those who say you should have some moral principles beyond self-preservation and post it if you can find some. It should be interesting.

The rules are "anything goes" and don't get caught. If you have problems with a conscience, then you had best consider going back to being a non-atheist (theist) again.

Goody

Sojourner553

Good site Turtonm at <a href="http://www.barna.org" target="_blank">www.barna.org</a>

(See <a href="http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease.asp?PressReleaseID=39&Reference=B )" target="_blank">http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/PagePressRelease.asp?PressReleaseID=39&Reference=B )</a>

I will use it for Haran:
__________________________________________________
Haran,

You are so blinded by your desire that your beliefs are true that you IGNORE everything that refutes it!!!

So how do you explain the fact that Christians are statistically more likely to divorce than non-Christians?

* * *

Christians Are More Likely to Experience Divorce Than Are Non-Christians (December 21, 1999)

Of the nation’s major Christian groups, Catholics and Lutherans have the lowest percentage of divorced individuals (21%). People who attend mainline Protestant churches, overall, experience divorce on par with the national average (25%).

Surprisingly, the Christian denomination whose adherents have the highest likelihood of getting divorced are Baptists. Nationally, 29% of all Baptist adults have been divorced. The only Christian group to surpass that level are those associated with non-denominational Protestant churches: 34% of those adults have undergone a divorce.

Among non-Christian groups the levels vary.

*Jews, for instance, are among those most likely to divorce (30% have),

*while atheists and agnostics are below the norm (21%)

*Mormons, renowned for their emphasis upon strong families, are no different than the national average (24%).

A related survey recently completed by Barna Research among a nationwide sample of Protestant senior pastors showed that just 15% of pastors have ever been divorced.


EXPLAIN THIS FOR US HARAN: Because I truly find your "superiority hangup" that you have higher morals both fundamentalist and disgusting!

P.S. You STILL haven't answered the "God or Devil" scenario I presented within this context.
I take that to mean: You can't!

Sojourner

[ April 04, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>