Jamie_L

As a theist, only humans (or maybe animals, but they won't tell) can find out anything about what you do or have done in THIS life. God only gets involved after you're dead. Does that not give you the freedom to do anything covertly that you wish even if it damns your immortal soul in the afterlife?

The thing is, anybody can do anything they want. Theists cave into immoral desires all the time, despite the threat of eternal damnation (or whatever). Furthermore, many religious sects offer atonement and forgiveness of sins. So anybody can do whatever they want as long as they beg forgiveness later.

And, as I mentioned earlier, risking jail or death to benefit yourself may not really be benefiting yourself at all. What we perceive is good for us is not always good for us. That is the value of a moral system. It helps you better get at what is really good for you (which is often the same as what is better for others).

Ahh, but that's just a cop-out. The truth is that these people followed a religion (in their minds) in which these things were allowed. It just underscores that even people who believe in some divine moral code are free to do whatever they want. In fact, they may convince themselves that God allows, or even mandates some action that others would say goes against the moral code of the religion. Who's right? Just because you say they aren't true muslims, why should we believe you over them? What's a true muslim anyway? Who defines it?

Now there's the real question: why do anything "good"?

1) Most of us have been programmed to from birth such that we "feel good" when we do good. So, we do it because we like it, just like theists.

2) Doing good shows the rest of the world that you are a decent guy. Maybe most of the world doesn't give a rats ass, but your circle of friends builds a certain opinion of you based on how you treat the rest of the world, not just on how you treat them. Thus, you can rely on them more if they think they can rely on you.

3) Because if you make it your habit of being a dick all the time to everyone, it has a good chance of biting you in the ass. Sure, we can speculate about the risks of one situation, but most of the time we don't clearly understand the risks. And over a period of time, those risks compound. Do bad things often enough, and you will likely get screwed, and no one will care.

Do you not rape people because you fear God will punish you, or do you just think it's wrong to rape people? If a bunch of priests said raping was okay, would you rape people? How would you know they were wrong?

Jamie

brighid

It is doubtful, for instance, that feeding the hungry in Africa will benefit one, unless you enjoy the praise of others for doing it.


You have a pretty narrow definition of what will benefit a person as proposed in this definition. Although the immediate affect my contribution to a man, woman or child starving in Africa may not provide me with any prompt benefit, it benefits me (and society as a whole) to help those in need. I don’t do help someone who is hungry because I want a reward in heaven, but because I personally know what it feels like to go hungry and be dependent on the kindness of others. I desire that others not have to suffer as I have. Feeding a children and families in countries that are poor and draught stricken will benefit me, or my community at some point in the future, even if that is a very distant future. Also, my act benefits a human being, eleviates some degree of suffering and therefore is worthy of undertaking. And if I find myself in that situation again I hope that I will be treated with the same generosity I have treated others with, although I cannot count on such things. Nor do I do kind things with the hope of immediate return, or even a direct benefit to myself, other than the satisfaction I gain knowing I have helped someone else. My tiny efforts may never make any Earth shattering ripple effects in this world, but they do make significant difference in the small parcel of this Earth that I occupy. I help others because it is the right thing to do. It enhances a persons ability to achieve their full human potential and I believe that in general, people who are treated with kindness, love and respect go on to demonstrate those qualities to others, and so on and so forth. And I certainly enjoy the feeling I get when I have helped another person. I enjoy seeing happiness on the face of my child, my neighbor, my coworker and the strangers I pass on the street everyday. Not because I care one way or another if some deity will find favor or disfavor in my actions, but because my actions enrich my life and those that I touch. That is enough – to do right for nothing more than it is right.

I find it shameful that people need the threat of eternal damnation or the promise of rewards in another life to find the human motivation to do what is right.

Brighid

Sojourner553

To Haran:

You are just "cherry picking" aong answers on this board to fit into the mold of your prejudiced views.

Using your approach, based on one Christian's responses -- Amos -- I can also "prove" that all Christians do not care about morals (since it is their belief system that "saves" them.)

To Jamie, Right on when you say:

"The thing is, anybody can do anything they want. Theists cave into immoral desires all the time, despite the threat of eternal damnation (or whatever). Furthermore, many religious sects offer atonement and forgiveness of sins. So anybody can do whatever they want as long as they beg forgiveness later."

The late Isaac Asimov took up the discussion on why, as an atheist he did not feel tempted to commit crimes during an interview with Bill Moyers:

"I don't believe that I'm ever going to heaven or hell. I think that when I die there will be nothingness. That's what I firmly believe. That does not mean that I have the impulse to go out and rob and steal and rape and everything else because I don't fear punishment. For one thing, I fear worldly punishment. And for a second thing, I fear the punishment of my own conscience. I have a conscience. It doesn't depend on religion. And I think it's so with other people, too".

"Besides, even in societies in which religion is very powerful, there's no shortage of crime and sin and misery and terrible things happening-- despite heaven and hell. I imagine if you go down death row where a bunch of murderers may be waiting for execution and ask them if they believe in God, they'll tell you yes."

According to Asimov, the belief that a person can do "anything they want" can actually lead one to live according to lower moral standards, because of the belief that they will always be "forgiven." For himself, he would not be able to do unjust, immoral acts, because he would then have to answer to his "own conscience"--which would never be able to accept the superficial
explanation that one was just "sorry"-- or couldn't God just take care of it?
(Isaac Asimov Speaks Out--Bill Moyers' Conversation with the American Humanist
Association President", THE HUMANIST, January 1989, p 6)


Sojourner

[ April 05, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

Vorkosigan

Michael,

Thanks for your apology and your thoughtful replies. I get the impression that you don't think I'm trying very hard to understand this issue from your point of view, but I truly am...

You're welcome. What is it you are attempting to do in this dialogue, then?

Let me try again. As an Atheist, only humans (or maybe animals but they won't tell ) can find out anything about what you do or have done in life. Does that not give you the freedom to do anything covertly that you wish even if it hurts others that are not your immediate friends (or even if they are, does it matter?)?

Haran, you always have this "freedom." You can do it as a believer or an atheist. In point of fact believers do behave this way, so obviously there is more to it than just whether you believe in gods.

You keep saying "as an atheist" and I keep replying "as what kind of atheist?" A Buddhist? A Confucian skeptic? As hardline skeptic, like myself? As a pantheist? A believer in ESP? All of these people have different moral values. The choice is not between "atheism" and "theism," but between atheism, pantheism, buddhism, wicca, skepticism.....there are many moral positions compatible with atheism. There are many supernatural positions compatible with atheism. Don't confuse atheism with metaphyisical naturalism. All metaphysical naturalists are atheists, but not all atheists are metaphysical naturalists.

Further, you seem to take "whatever you wish" to mean "behave in a way that maximises short-term gains regardless of harm to others." But this may not be what most atheists wish......most of us are social beings and understand how this harms ourselves and society.

In fact, another way to look at it is to say that as an unbeliever, I am free to develop an ethic that is tolerant, open-minded, changeable, and progressive....all the things religion is not. "Whatever I wish" turns out to be something socially positive.

So in the real world what keeps people from screwing each other constantly? Let's concentrate only and narrowly on the short-term "selfish" reasons. Let's take it as a given that the gains from long-term cooperation outweigh the gains from short-term cooperation (basically, the gains from short-term cooperation, no matter how large, are finite, while the gains from long-term cooperation, no matter how small per transaction, are essentially infinite). First, people see each other over and over again. Where transactions between A and B occur frequently, A and B will begin to cooperate, since if one screws the other, they will both pay in reduced opportunity for further transactions. Second, A and B are social beings in a community. If word gets around that A screwed B, soon nobody will want to transact with A. Third, A's status in the community will sink, since A is a member of Homo sapiens, a primate that competes for social status. And so on. Note that when these conditions do not obtain -- in cases where the chance of getting caught is low, the penalties are nil, the possibility of future transactions low, and cheating takes place against outsiders, the chance of getting cheated rises astronomically. For these reasons tourists, for example, are constantly cheated. Note that you can derive a whole morality like this on very simple principles.

Of course, for social transactions alone, think what is required brainwise. A whole mental apparatus that contains built-in devices that suss out cheaters, that attempt to decieve others, that use logic to analyze social situations, and so on. Morality is built into us by evolution, so we can function as social beings.

Naturally transaction costs are hardly the only thing driving human cooperative and self-sacrificing behavior. Humans also have families that watch out for one another, since me protecting my family, even if I have no offspring myself, ensures that some portion of my genes will continue in the next generation (called kin selection). In addition, humans have a fabulous and complex sexuality that comes with built-in preferences. Humans also use tools, and they divide up tasks according to a specialized division of labor. All of these have moral consequences.

Further, humans generalize their built-in devices to new problems. For example, one reason humans are such terrible thinkers about statistics is that they use the same devices to solve statistical problems that they do to solve social ones. In the case of society as a whole, we may be applying devices that we use to work out our family relationships and generalizing them to a larger group. Moral behavior has many roots.

Additionally, pushes toward cooperation are also inherent in the nature of social transactions. Where information is asymmetrically held, incomplete or unknown, people might cooperate to reduce the risk caused by a lack of information. Some types of transactions are automatically transparent and cheating cannot take place.

Finally, in the real world, people undergo acculturation processes as part of growing up. And in all cultures these involve the imbibing of social and moral values.

I'm sorry if these questions offend...

They don't offend. I was simply pointing out that it seemed a mite hypocritical for you to get on our case for mentioning the WTC, when you essentially called everyone here selfish and immoral. Most believers do not see these statements as personal attacks, but get defensive in being in a place where religion is widely regarded as erroneous and even evil.

, but there's some kind of disconnect here that I am just not seeing. As I noted earlier, there are plenty of people who would risk jail or their life to benefit themselves, and do.

Sure. But not all people, all the time, on every transaction. Plenty of people who hang glide or scuba dive are kind, generous and easy-going in their dealings with others.

Finally, you mention all the horrible things that religion has done, but you fail to take into account (in my opinion) the degree to which these people follow the ideals of their chosen religion. For instance, the WTC "bombers" committed several grievious "sins" - suicide, gambling, drinking, and killing of other Muslims. Just like you would deny the types of Atheists who might do some of the horrible things I suggest, those of religious persuasion would deny that these people were very in-touch with their religion.

Deny all you want, but it seems obvious to me the WTC bombers were fulfilling other goals of their religious and political stances. I am sure people of religious persuasion would deny that the bombers are in-touch with their religion, but then denial is what religion is all about.

You're still dodging the real criticism here, Haran. Believers kill. Unbelievers do not. No atheist has ever committed genocide for the sake of atheism. Communists killed for Communism, not atheism. Killing always takes place for some belief. Obviously it is not enough to say that "X was not a real Communist/Muslim/Christian." As far as I know, he considered himself one. If religion is so powerful a force in life, why are the crimes of believers so vast?

<a href="http://www.angelfire.com/ct2/chat/" target="_blank">Eric and Dylan</a> of Columbine (who mention (among other things, something Eric said or at least song lyrics they believed - not sure which - I HAVE COME TO ROCK YOUR WORLD - I HAVE COME TO SHAKE YOUR FAITH - ANATHEMATIC ANARCHIST - I HAVE COME TO TAKE MY PLACE - Do you think they thought a punishment of any kind awaited them after they took their own lives as Suicide Mass Murderers?)... Michael, there are other examples if you'll honestly look for them.

There is nothing to suggest D & K were atheists. In fact they were raised in Christian homes. Further, even if you demonstrated that they were hardline skeptical atheists, it wouldn't matter one iota, since atheism entails no particular behavioral consequences. If they became atheists and thence were lead to despair and suicide, that is a personal journey of their own. A sad one, certainly.

I just don't see how you can say that Atheism provides any better answer since some Atheists also seem to be capable of these things.

Atheism does not provide any answer to the question of how to live a moral life. It is just a lack of belief in gods. To live a moral life you have to find other answers. The atheist is in the same boat as everyone else on this question.

Finally, you and Lowder have both mentioned something to the effect that Atheism has no real set of morals...everyone can believe as they wish. This seems to dodge the question to me.

Not "everyone can believe as they wish" but "morals must be constructed without gods." It's not the same thing. Most people are raised in specific environments, and have much that is built into them that they can do nothing about.

Atheists can and are obviously grouped/associated by their unbelief (a - theist - though perhaps this is a misnomer since it presupposes God).

..presupposes belief in gods. Not the same thing.

They can also be grouped by the fact that they all seem to me to believe that only other humans can punish them for "bad" actions - i.e. there is no higher "all-knowing force" that will see/know all of their actions and judge them for the ones they commit in private away from other human eyes.

No, this perception of yours is incorrect. Some atheists, like metaphysical naturalists, believe this. But Buddhists believe in a "higher" punishment system, karma. Skeptical Confucians also believe moral violations are violations of universal guidelines.

...will judge you for it", where, honestly, is the incentive to do anything "good"? I just don't see it...

Well, you seem to want grounds to do good.

Consider that people do not exist in vacuo but are raised as members of a society. Back at the beginning of this conversation several people pointed this out to you. Most of us were raised to "do good," whatever good may be in our particular society. You're not starting with a blank slate, Haran. You've got what evolution gave you, what mom and dad gave you, what you absorbed from others around you, what you've seen by reading and traveling, what you've thought up on your own, and so on. You're a walking, talking, moral encyclopedia.

Jeff and I and the others all have different takes on morals. One practical reason we've refrained from giving moral specifics is that we don't want to spark a fight amongst ourselves -- remember, atheists agree on only one thing. We fight vociferously about everything else. Another reason is that none of us here speaks for all atheists, we speak only for ourselves. Most of us here are subjectivists -- I think Lowder is not, but am not sure -- so we refrain from giving moral commands; additionally, we subscribe to a morality that values tolerance very highly as a powerful social strategy for creating good places to live. The flip side of tolerance is of course encouraging diversity and independence of thought, so when you become an atheist, we'll be happy to give you all sorts of stuff to read so you can develop your own moral ideals. But you have to choose, none of us can tell you how to live your life morally.

Really, though, you don't need to develop morals. As several posters pointed out right away, you already have, as a westerner, an American and Christian, sets of values that for the most part are excellent. You rid yourself of the fundamental evil by giving up belief in external authority. I don't believe in Islam or Mormonism, but I don't drink or smoke, either. I am not a Christian, but I don't cheat on my wife. The only difference is that I do not attempt to universalize my morals under the rubric of absolutism, like Christians or Communists or Muslims do. Down that path lies the madness of twenty centuries of believing butchery.

But you can develop specific grounds to do good. "Doing good" feels good. Doing good is a useful strategy for furthering social progress and creating a good society to live in. Doing good lays the groundwork for when you fall on hard times. Doing good increases your status in the eyes of others. Doing good gives you a tax break.....

It's not hard to find reasons to do good, unless you willfully conclude that morality is impossible without gods, and then discount all evidence to the contrary, since obviously people are moral without gods. One piece of evidence is right here: Infidels is an all-volunteer non-profit community of atheists. Doing good...

Michael

Haran

Sorry to be so picky... Quick post.

I realize that you are offering these as some "grounds", but I have a question then. Does anyone ever truly do good for others, or is it just for the self-gain?

Another point or two. I think it is unfair to say that the WTC "bombers" were religious, just as some of you have said that we don't know for sure if Eric and Dylan were atheists. There seems to be a double standard here. How do we know for sure that the WTC "bombers" were religious/Muslim? They never told us... I suppose the same could be said for Eric and Dylan. However, both left pretty good clues as to their beliefs or "lack thereof".

I apologize for the way the "selfish" remarks come across, but again, I created this thread in reaction to an atheist's charges against me. I understand the feelings these things arouse and I apologize, but there is no good way to approach subjects like these, I suppose.

Oh well. I understand some of these points, but I just can't put any kind of coherent picture together using what I'm hearing. There are so many things I'd like to respond to and elaborate on... Man I wish there was more time in a day!

Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful and honest replies. At the end of the day, I think I shall still take that "leap of faith". However, I appreciate your views.

Haran

Sojourner553

________________________________________________
Per Haran:

"Oh well. I understand some of these points, but I just can't put any kind of coherent picture together using what I'm hearing. There are so many things I'd like to respond to and elaborate on... Man I wish there was more time in a day!

Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful and honest replies. At the end of the day, I think I shall still take that "leap of faith". However, I appreciate your views. "

______________________________________________

Haran, It's pretty clear to me, you were already predisposed to shut out of your mind what posts you did not want to believe and visa versa...

So, Are you ready to obey the Devil now, if he wins the Big Seat?

Sojourner

Vorkosigan

I realize that you are offering these as some "grounds", but I have a question then. Does anyone ever truly do good for others, or is it just for the self-gain?

Why is this an important distinction?

...sure if Eric and Dylan were atheists. There seems to be a double standard here. How do we know for sure that the WTC "bombers" were religious/Muslim? They never told us... I suppose the same could be said for Eric and Dylan. However, both left pretty good clues as to their beliefs or "lack thereof".

I think this is a little ridiculous, Haran. Do you know of any evidence that the bombers were not Muslims?

As I already said, atheism played no role in Columbine. Whatever happened, it didn't happen because those two kids were atheists -- in any case, they don't seem to have been atheists, but Christians raised in decent homes with both parents. Frankly I doubt either Christianity or atheism were causes in the killer's minds; I believe it more likely the reaction to years of marginalization and exclusion at the hands of small-town white, hard right Christians. A legacy of our nation's exclusionary, puritanical protestantism......

Michael

shamon

Why would “deconversion” result in Atheism? Atheism is the opposite of religion but there are more than 2 options.

shamon

It’s not a rule but a LAW. The Golden Law states that regardless of whether you want to or not, you always treat others as yourself. Flaws?

You don’t have a choice of whether you follow the Law or not, just whether you’re aware of it.

Romza Dza Bza

Religion is NOT required to adhere to morality. In fact, religion is a POOR arbiter of morality. The connection between religion and morality needs to be severed, especially in a society where church and state are separated. The reason I believe this follows.

First of all, I am not an atheist. I believe in God, and in Jesus as the savior. However, I vigorously reject organized religion. The only reason I am not an atheist is that I am, frankly, comfortable believing in God. Also, if there is no God, it makes no difference whether one exists or not. But if there IS a God, then there's a good chance it matters. So I choose to believe. It's really not fatal.

Second, all major religions have three basic components: 1) the "what to believe in" component 2) the "What type of person you should be, morally" feature, and 3) the "what acts you need to do in order to show your adherence to #1 & 2 above" feature.

All major belief systems and philosophies, and most minor ones, are in total agreement on #2. The basic essence of it is: "Do your best to further your own success, and in the process, don't needlessly hurt another person in any way." Everything from the Golden Rule to most of the 10 commandments can be collapsed into that statement. As to #1, most religions, even pagan ones, agree that there is a supreme creator, even if many have a pantheon of lesser gods, etc. #3 is the dogma; the stuff that religions tend to differ on (praying toward Mecca, honoring the sabbath, divining via conch shells, etc.)

The universal elements of these systems -- the #2, particularly -- have sustained society and civilization since its inception. The overwhelming likelihood is that they are correct. Do your best to further your self-advantage, without needlessly hurting others along the way. From this statement flow all of the "naturally moral" principles, such as honesty, integrity, excellence, purpose, and patience. Everyone agrees that these are positive values, including people who don't choose to adhere to them. Everyone agrees that it is better not to be hurt than to be hurt; therefore, they understand that it is better not to hurt someone than to hurt them needlessly.

My conclusion is that religion is merely the vehicle through which human societies attempt to ensure that naturally moral, objective, correct principles are adhered to by their members. Religion was merely the most convenient means toward the end of ensuring a relatively stable society through natural morality. However, an enlightened person does not need religion in order to embrace natural morality. Religion is often a drag on natural morality, and often it excuses immoral behavior.