A Challenge to Richard Dawkins and the Atheists

[Necromancer]

As it happens, it is atheism which is reliant on empathy, because there is no promise of a reward in the afterlife to serve our personal interest.

Or more popularly put, the money and (physical) security from "whoever the master"!

Also,
the minds and rationality in people can be seen as granted from God. There is therefore no particular divide in doing good and being aligned with God.

[uwot]

It might or might not be good for me, but that is a matter of calculation. The moral exhortations do not include '...unless necessary' or '......unless you can get away with it' or '...unless the gain is worth the risk', yet in real life circumstances are always arising in which this is the case.

I think most people would agree that a moral code can remain moral if it includes provision for '...unless necessary'. Some theists believe they can't get away with anything and it isn't worth the risk. If there were "something more to moral exhortations" that theists tap into, there wouldn't be any need for the promise of rewards or threats of punishment.

I don't think there necessarily has to be an afterlife, but you have to assume there is a value that transcends your own personal interests.

Anyone can believe in fairness, justice, kindness, even morality as transcendent values. Nobody is compelled to believe they created and sustained by a supernatural being.

Why be empathetic?

Why have size ten feet? Some people do, some don't.

[uwot]

As it happens, it is atheism which is reliant on empathy, because there is no promise of a reward in the afterlife to serve our personal interest.

Or more popularly put, the money and (physical) security from "whoever the master"!

Clearly some people do things that serve their own interest, to gain rewards and avoid punishment. That is as true of theists as it is atheists. There are also theists and atheists who happen to be good people.

Also,
the minds and rationality in people can be seen as granted from God.

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with doing so, but...

There is therefore no particular divide in doing good and being aligned with God.

It really depends on the god. The fact that even the same gods are interpreted in widely different ways implies that it is we humans who decide what is good, and it is demonstrably the case that appalling acts are done in the name of god. The goodness, therefore, is in the individual, not their god.

[Londoner]

I think most people would agree that a moral code can remain moral if it includes provision for '...unless necessary'. Some theists believe they can't get away with anything and it isn't worth the risk. If there were "something more to moral exhortations" that theists tap into, there wouldn't be any need for the promise of rewards or threats of punishment.

I don't see how you can combine a moral exhortation with an '...unless necessary' or the other get-outs. It would turn it into something that was situation specific. If that was how it was meant, then the versions of 'Do unto others...' would be like my writing 'Turn left!' or 'Do that!'. Readers would reply 'I don't understand! What is it you think I am doing?'

Surely we take moral instructions as applying generally. You should do this thing because the action has the quality: 'good'.

I take your point that the theists may think that 'good' means 'something you will be rewarded for in another life', but I do not see this is more irrational that 'something you should do (no reason)'. There aren't degrees of irrationality; somebody who believes in 'fairies' cannot look down on somebody who believes in 'fairies riding dragons'.

Anyone can believe in fairness, justice, kindness, even morality as transcendent values. Nobody is compelled to believe they created and sustained by a supernatural being.

Certainly, but again, both have chosen to 'believe' in something immaterial, and allow that belief to influence them so much that it trumps pragmatism.

Me: Why be empathetic?

Why have size ten feet? Some people do, some don't.

But surely the difference is that we can choose to be empathetic, or not. It might be that empathy is something we are born with, but if it was entirely innate we would not be conscious of it; we are conscious of it because we are not bound by it, we can be not-empathetic - just as we can decide not to be scared of the dark, or not be religious, even though these may also be common human traits.

My point is that it seems odd that an atheist would take the line that morality is not necessarily religious. Why not simply disown morality altogether? Say; 'Yes, all moral systems are quasi-religious, and that is why (as atheists) we think they are all nonsense'. (As some philosophers have done)

[uwot]

I don't see how you can combine a moral exhortation with an '...unless necessary' or the other get-outs. It would turn it into something that was situation specific.

Do not remove someone's appendix, unless necessary springs to mind. Do not murder Archduke Ferdinand's assassin. Do not abort Adolf Hitler. If you do not apply your judgement to specific situations, are you any more a moral agent than the bees and ants which you say are slaves?

Surely we take moral instructions as applying generally. You should do this thing because the action has the quality: 'good'.

Doing that which best enhances other people's quality of life, or that which does least to damage it, is how some moral philosophers have defined 'good'. I think it is a worthwhile definition; a good person is one who acts in a way that they judge will achieve that. This is not some trascendental, or god approved 'good', it is the demonstrable benefit to your fellow sentient beings.

I take your point that the theists may think that 'good' means 'something you will be rewarded for in another life', but I do not see this is more irrational that 'something you should do (no reason)'.

Nor do I. I don't know of anyone who has actually said this. The closest I can think of, off the top of my head, is Aleister Crowley's 'Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.' but even that is qualified by 'Love is the law.'

There aren't degrees of irrationality; somebody who believes in 'fairies' cannot look down on somebody who believes in 'fairies riding dragons'.

Anyone can believe in fairness, justice, kindness, even morality as transcendent values. Nobody is compelled to believe they created and sustained by a supernatural being.

Certainly, but again, both have chosen to 'believe' in something immaterial, and allow that belief to influence them so much that it trumps pragmatism.

People can believe whatever pleases them. I'm sure some people do believe that moral qualities are transcendent values, but if pragmatism includes acting to enhance others quality of life, it is superfluous. The results of your behaviour on others' quality of life is demonstrable.

But surely the difference is that we can choose to be empathetic, or not.

There are any number of pathologies which make choosing to be empathic impossible. Can you choose to be the sort of person that chooses to be empathic?

My point is that it seems odd that an atheist would take the line that morality is not necessarily religious.

It really shouldn't given that atheists cannot be religious.

Why not simply disown morality altogether? Say; 'Yes, all moral systems are quasi-religious, and that is why (as atheists) we think they are all nonsense'. (As some philosophers have done)

Who do you have in mind? I can't think of any major philosopher who has said that.

[Immanuel Can]

Of course they can. For example, Kantian ethics.

Kantianism is not grounded either. Take a look at Joel Marks' two articles on that subject in PN, if you want more details. He's right about that.

Kantian ethics is grounded in human reasoning, I haven't read the articles you are referencing. Perhaps you could put on your Marxian hat and explain why ethics cannot be grounded in human reason.

Well, I assume you have a subscription, at least online?

You'll find that Marks makes a good case, moving carefully. He shows why he started out imagining Kant was the right answer, but then realized he was wrong. It's an intellectually courageous story, really, because it meant rethinking his whole worldview and position on Ethics. He was, after all, PN's Ethics expert at the time.

But to reproduce it here would be very lengthy. I'll let Mr. Marks speak for himself.

[Immanuel Can]

Just name one moral value that Theism rationalizes. Just one. Any one.

...still waiting...or can't you rationalize a single one into being that would fail to blend equally with secular morality?

Absolutely. I'll give you as many as you need, and more than you'll want.

But first, answer my question: what ethical precept or principle is rationally grounded by Atheism?

[Immanuel Can]

It's so eeeeeasy to prove me wrong. Just name one moral value that Atheism rationalizes. Just one. Any one.

Do to others what you want them to do to you.

Okay, let's work with that one.

Show me the syllogism that makes it logical.


Premise 1: An Atheist is someone who believes there is no God. (Atheism defined: uncontentious premise, because it's definitional)
Premise 2: ____________________________________ (?)
Conclusion: Therefore, people who don't believe in God must "do unto others what they want them to do unto you." (required by your claim)


That's the formula for basic logic. So all you now have to do is tell me what that missing premise, premise 2 would have to be, logically speaking.

Then you'll have won.

Good luck.

[Harbal]

what ethical precept or principle is rationally grounded by Atheism?

There aren't any, just as there are no "ethical precepts" grounded in surrealism or cubism. There is nothing, however, which prevents an atheist from practising some other kind of ism which does require adherence to "ethical precepts".

I trust this settles the matter.

[Immanuel Can]

I trust this settles the matter.

How nice of you to be so trusting.

I agree with you. There aren't any ethical precepts in Atheism, cubism, surrealism. Not only that, but there really aren't any in Deism or Gnosticism. Then there are only prudential precepts (i.e. do it not because it's "right" but because if you don't you'll have trouble) in Polytheism, Pantheism, or Panentheism.

There are only ethical precepts grounded in Monotheism.

But we'll come to that: trust me.

[Immanuel Can]

As it happens, it is atheism which is reliant on empathy, because there is no promise of a reward in the afterlife to serve our personal interest.

Or more popularly put, the money and (physical) security from "whoever the master"!

Also,
the minds and rationality in people can be seen as granted from God. There is therefore no particular divide in doing good and being aligned with God.

Empathy is not actually purely good. It can be, but only if the object upon which it is fixed is itself morally good. Otherwise, it's morally ambiguous.

And there is such a thing as "bad" empathy. Some women write prison fan letters to felons. No doubt that's very "empathetic," but if your daughter did it, you'd probably advise her not to. Some people empathize with pedophiles or racists: but you probably wouldn't want to cultivate that "empathy" in yourself...not if you're a good person. In the last US election, some people really empathized with Hellery, and some with Trumpetry: did their "empathy" make their choice "good"?

So empathy by itself is morally uninformative. We need to know the object of the empathy is a worthy object...that IT is good.

[Harbal]

There are only ethical precepts grounded in Monotheism.

Rubbish and you know it.

trust me.

I'd be more comfortable trusting a rattlesnake than you.

[uwot]

Premise 1: An Atheist is someone who believes there is no God. (Atheism defined: uncontentious premise, because it's definitional)

Mr Can, it is not necessary to believe there is no god to qualify as an atheist, it is enough simply to not believe there is one.

Conclusion: Therefore, people who don't believe in God must "do unto others what they want them to do unto you." (required by your claim)

Morality is not about what people must do. If they have no choice, or are subject to bribery or threats, heaven and hell for instance, they are not moral agents. I gather that your god understands this, which is why it allegedly gave us us free will. Even people who believe as you do choose their actions.

Good luck.

Thank you, but I won't be needing it.

[uwot]

Empathy is not actually purely good. It can be, but only if the object upon which it is fixed is itself morally good. Otherwise, it's morally ambiguous.

Well, there is a distinction to be made between empathy and sympathy, or affinity, for clarity.

So empathy by itself is morally uninformative. We need to know the object of the empathy is a worthy object...that IT is good.

Just understanding someone is not the same as supporting them.

[Immanuel Can]

There are only ethical precepts grounded in Monotheism.

Rubbish and you know it.

Not at all. I believe it. And I have sound reasons for it. But wait and see.

trust me.

I'd be more comfortable trusting a rattlesnake than you.

Then don't. Trust logic. Trust reasons. Trust evidence. Trust your judgment...if you decide to keep it balanced, and not to foreclose on any questions. Meanwhile, you don't need to take my word for anything. I'll spell it out for you, and you decide.

I'd never ask you for more.