Secularism versus the Demonization of Atheists

[Greta]

I would start with one thing I clearly notice in my environment which is South America (Colombia). When the traditional structure, in this case a parochial Catholicism (and I mean this as a reference to a complete paideia) is wrenched away, and a strict secularism within the structure of a consumer culture replaces it, and when former conventions and restraints disappear, really rather suddenly, people as a generality lose their bearings and become (my term) the 'victims' of other sets of forces.

Those forces do not elevate and enrich, the possess, contaminate and degenerate. (True, I would have to present evidence and I believe I could, and I also belive it is evident in our present).

What happened there and in other places is freedom was given to a society that was immature in terms of organising itself. Like a child or teen give too much freedom, Colombia has ended up with a large scale Lord of the Flies style loss of order.

When people are rigidly tethered by traditional values over a long period, like children not permitted to explore, there is arrested development in the populace, following rules rather than trying to understand and adapt. Closer to an ant than human in some senses. Give such people freedom and they lack the experience needed to use it productively and, in the absence of understanding, it's only logical and "natural" in a sense that the freedom be used by the recently-liberated to satisfy atavistic desires previously denied.

Societal development, as with individual development, ideally occurs in stages. Unfortunately, circumstances don't always oblige and populations have to do it the painful way - bitter experience - where they must quickly adapt and struggle through anarchy before maturity is achieved.

[Immanuel Can]

A Christian whom I am debating with then stated in one of his comments that atheists cannot even make moral claims; that is, atheists are people walking around who have no sense of morality whatsoever.

The Christian in question did say that Atheists cannot justify any of their moral claims. But that they have "no sense of morality whatsoever," he did not say that. In fact, he denied that explicitly and repeatedly. It ought to occur to any thoughtful observer that the second claim is not entailed in the first. An Atheist can live however he/she pleases, whether moral or not. So it's far from impossible for an Atheist to behave morally.

In fact, I would suggest that the moral situation of an Atheist is actually worse than that: he DOES know there is such a thing as morality. He just doesn't know how to justify any. So he or she can live in a way which people who believe in objective morality can find "moral." And a great many do that. But, of course, some don't. Some have been greatly evil. And how can one show from Atheism that an evil person is actually is evil?

Either way, the Atheist cannot prove -- either to himself or to anyone else -- that the morality he perhaps DOES believe in has any justification. So in those areas in which he or she departs from what he or she believes to be "moral," he or she can experience every bit as much guilt and self-recrimination as the most ardent moral objectivist can...but with this difference...In Atheism, there is no remedy.

Nothing can be done about those unjustified, free-floating feelings of guilt. Nor can he or she prove to him or herself whether or not he or she is being a "good" person...so for him or her, there can be no certainty of moral achievement either.

The upshot is this: if an Atheist has a conscience, he can't tell you why he/she must listen to it. Maybe he/she does, and maybe he/she doesn't. But either way, from an Atheist perspective, the choice is merely arbitrary. He/she may have moral feelings...just not moral legitimation to prove to himself/herself that those feelings amount to anything real or binding.

[Skip]

To whom is an atheist - or a Buddhist, or a Druid, for that matter - obliged to justify his moral code?
While I am able to explain the principles by which I choose to live, I do not recognize an authority that can demand that I do so.

Oddly, no matter how much religion a society has had, it's also enacted a system of laws and agencies to enforce those laws.
It seems that even the most firmly anchored and extensively justified moral precept are sometimes breached.
Should an atheist act any-which-way that is counter to the laws of the land in which he is caught doing it, he is chastised.
Much the same thing happens to a true believer.

I don't see a difference. But then, I'm standing well back to avoid blood-spatter.

[Harbal]

The upshot is this: if an Atheist has a conscience, he can't tell you why he/she must listen to it. Maybe he/she does, and maybe he/she doesn't. But either way, from an Atheist perspective, the choice is merely arbitrary. He/she may have moral feelings...just not moral legitimation to prove to himself/herself that those feelings amount to anything real or binding.

Does a Christian never have to make a moral choice that isn't covered in the Bible? Besides, not all Christians have your intimate knowledge of the Bible, Immanuel, there must be times when they have to make moral decisions and have only themselves to look to for the answer. On these occasions does it usually trouble them that they are no better than atheists?

[Immanuel Can]

Does a Christian never have to make a moral choice that isn't covered in the Bible?

Good question.

In one sense, yes. Not every minute detail of every particular situation is explicitly covered in the Bible. For example, whatever moral precepts govern things like cloning, nuclear technology or warfare, these things do not have an explicit mention in the Bible.

But then, that's not how moral orientations work. The same could be said of Kantianism, or any of the various consequentialism, or Neo-Aristotelean Virtue Theory, or even of Pragmatism and Nihilism; they don't cover every specific detail of every case. What they do instead is enunciate the specific moral rule that guides us in making the right decision, no matter what decision it is.

So in that sense, no -- the Bible gives the fundamental moral orientations that make it possible to find the right moral position on any new issue, even as they appear. Having that basic moral orientation point is what makes moral judgments of particulars possible.

Besides, not all Christians have your intimate knowledge of the Bible, Immanuel, there must be times when they have to make moral decisions and have only themselves to look to for the answer.

They don't need to do that: as I say, the basic moral orientation they need is provided. They ought to look to that, and if some don't, well, that's on them, isn't it? It wouldn't mean that that was all they could have done.

On these occasions does it usually trouble them that they are no better than atheists?

They never thought they were "better" than the Atheists. Just that they are forgiven. But they have a better situation in this: that they do have the moral principles on hand to which the Atheist has denied himself access. He or she can ground his or her moral judgments, because he or she has the objective moral principle to legitimize such judgments. The Atheist has abandoned that, and thus is at sea in that regard.

[Immanuel Can]

To whom is an atheist - or a Buddhist, or a Druid, for that matter - obliged to justify his moral code?

To himself, if he wishes to be rational, and to every other person whom he expects to follow his moral code.

Thus, if a person breaks into the Atheist's house, he needs to be able to justify to himself what he is allowed to do about it, and to the society in which he lives, why he was justified in taking action against the interloper. Then he needs to justify to the public why the interloper, and not he, should go to jail.

Morality is thus never a wholly individual matter. We interrogate ourselves, so that we can confirm we are doing what is really right; and others interrogate us on our decisions, demanding that we show moral grounds for our shared moral judgments. Law itself, and society itself, are premised on this principle: shared reason, not just individual choice...for individual choice is never sufficient to ground a society or prove a law correct.

[Skip]

[S -- To whom is an atheist - or a Buddhist, or a Druid, for that matter - obliged to justify his moral code?]
To himself, if he wishes to be rational, and to every other person whom he expects to follow his moral code.

Thus, if a person breaks into the Atheist's house, he needs to be able to justify to himself what he is allowed to do about it, and to the society in which he lives, why he was justified in taking action against the interloper. Then he needs to justify to the public why the interloper, and not he, should go to jail.

And how do you justify repeating and repeating the lie that atheists do not and cannot account for their moral standards?
Presumably, you are required to justify this bare-faced slander, not only to yourself, which I can only suppose is done on an end/means basis,
but eventually to your God, who won't buy a single iota of it. Either because you will find, to your great relief, that he's not there at all, or
if he is there, because he has been looking into both your mind and mine all this time.

[Immanuel Can]

And how do you justify repeating and repeating the lie that atheists do not and cannot account for their moral standards?

Easy: because it's the truth. They can't.

If you think they can, you can very easily show it. Give us just ONE moral precept that every Atheist is morally obligated to follow. Just one.

If you can't, of course, then the conclusion is obvious: it wasn't a lie.

[Science Fan]

Immanuel Can: You have it completely backwards -- you, as a theist, cannot justify any of your theistic based claims regarding morality. This is true for at least three major reasons, going all the way back to Plato for at least one of them.

1. When God does something and you consider it to be moral, why? Is it simply because God did it? If so, then you have no basis for morality, because God could have arbitrarily decided to do something else. On the other hand, if you believe God did something because God was following a moral standard, then all we have to do is refer to the moral standard that this alleged God is following to make moral decisions, and God becomes irrelevant to moral issues.

2. You have zero credible evidence for God.

3. Even if we assume that a God exists and a God giving us a command must be followed in order for us to be moral, you have the added problem of not being able to determine what those alleged commands are. Even if we assumed everything in the Bible was true, there is no answer in the Bible to such questions as whether stem-cell research should be allowed, whether a government should be permitted to record the people whom you talk with on your cell phone, whether abortions should be permitted, etc., etc. This is because all of these issues, and many others, depend on technology that was not in existence at the time the Bible was written. So, you are not able to justify any moral stance regarding any of these issues, because you have nothing documenting any statement from any alleged God of yours on these issues. You can't rely on an inference from what is stated in the Bible, precisely because you claim one needs a direct statement from God in order to know what the moral answer is to a specific issue.

As an atheist, I can ignore all of the impossible issues to answer with respect to a divine-command theory of morality, which means that I can provide far better justifications for morality than any theist basing their claims for morality on a command from an alleged God.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can: You have it completely backwards --

Before I respond, let me note right away that you did not respond to my very, very minimal test...to give me one moral precept to which an Atheist owes an obligation.

Very clearly, then, you have no reason to consider me anything but right about Atheism on that score. If you did, you'd have offered it. You would not have passed up a chance to defeat my proposition so utterly...

If you had it.

When God does something and you consider it to be moral, why?

Because the synonymous expression for "moral" is "harmonious with the will and character of God." There is no more profound meaning to the word than that, actually.

Is it simply because God did it? If so, then you have no basis for morality, because God could have arbitrarily decided to do something else. On the other hand, if you believe God did something because God was following a moral standard, then all we have to do is refer to the moral standard that this alleged God is following to make moral decisions, and God becomes irrelevant to moral issues.

You're repeating the old Euthyphro Dilemma, and it's been decisively refuted. Socrates was a polytheist, which was the only reason he could ask the question in the first place -- for him, there were multiple gods, each with a different perspective on whatever "the Good" really was. Since they disagreed, "the Good" had to be something bigger than all of them, he thought.

But if God IS "the Good," then this dilemma just goes away. And why? Because then you can no more ask, "Is God Good or is Good prior to God," than you can ask, "Is this person a man or a husband?" The simple answer is "Yes to both."

2. You have zero credible evidence for God.

You do not know what I have. You do know what you do not, at the present moment, have. That's all you can really say about that.

Even if we assume that a God exists and a God giving us a command must be followed in order for us to be moral, you have the added problem of not being able to determine what those alleged commands are.

You're right: God would have to reveal them. Is you suggestion that a genuinely Supreme Being would be unable to do that? It's hard to see why...

Even if we assumed everything in the Bible was true, there is no answer in the Bible to such questions as whether stem-cell research should be allowed, whether a government should be permitted to record the people whom you talk with on your cell phone, whether abortions should be permitted, etc., etc.

Yes, I talked about this above.

What morality gives us is the general precept: the specific application is what we Divine Command people mean when we speak of "ethics." So, for example, let's take the issue you name above -- abortion. On an Atheist account, you can keep your children alive or butcher them, at any time in life, if you can get away with it. On a Divine Command account, we know that, as the Bible says, all souls are not at our disposal, but are the ultimate property of God. So to take away a child is to attempt to deprive God of His property...straightforwardly immoral. And this is why, if you've ever wondered, so many Theists are anti-abortion.

This is because all of these issues, and many others, depend on technology that was not in existence at the time the Bible was written.

Not a problem, as I indicated above.

...you claim one needs a direct statement from God in order to know what the moral answer is to a specific issue.

I did NOT say this. See above. What we need is the general moral precept that gives us the precedent for the particular issue in hand.

As an atheist, I can ignore all of the impossible issues to answer with respect to a divine-command theory of morality, which means that I can provide far better justifications for morality than any theist basing their claims for morality on a command from an alleged God.

Non-sequitur. If, as you say, you can "ignore all of the issues" in question, then you are not needing any morality at all. And as for justification, I've repeatedly asked you to give just ONE case of such a thing...and you cannot.

Maybe it's time you asked yourself why that is. You could win your point so easily...just by citing a single such "justification" or precept. But you do not.

Why is that?

[Science Fan]

You have zero credible evidence for the existence of your alleged God. That's been true for all theistic claims. That's why they are based on faith, which is another way of stating that theists lack evidence to support their claims.

Then please show us where God itself made a specific statement regarding stem-cell research? Since you have no such statement, and neither does anyone else, according to your own divine-command theory, you cannot even take a moral position of any kind on the issue of stem-cell research. For the same reason, you cannot take a moral stand on any issue for which you lack a specific statement from God itself. That's a hell of a lot of moral issues that you are unable to justify any position on.

Atheists don't have such problems, because atheists are not wedded to an incomprehensible position that makes zero sense and has no credible evidence to support it.

[Immanuel Can]

You have zero credible evidence for the existence of your alleged God.

You've said this twice. Perhaps somebody should point out that truth is not achieved through repetition.

Then please show us where God itself made a specific statement regarding stem-cell research? Since you have no such statement, and neither does anyone else, according to your own divine-command theory, you cannot even take a moral position of any kind on the issue of stem-cell research. For the same reason, you cannot take a moral stand on any issue for which you lack a specific statement from God itself. That's a hell of a lot of moral issues that you are unable to justify any position on.

This isn't true, as you know if you actually read my last message. I gave you the Christian position on abortion, even though it's never explicitly mentioned. But I've found this a common strategy: reductio ad absurdum, it's called. It involves first telling Theists what they believe, but misrepresenting it, then indicting them for failing to believe what the speaker said they ought to believe.

Christians are not what you think -- they are not simply believers in a mere list of commandments. Their ethics are derived from a much deeper philosophical engagement, including both foundational precept and subsequent principle.

Atheists don't have such problems...

True enough: their ideology has no moral precepts at all. That's why. It's easy to have "no problems" when you have no view at all.

Or have you now discovered one? Please do offer it now.

[Science Fan]

Atheists have moral views. Being atheists, they simply do not base their morality on fictional beliefs in fictional gods.

Morality exists for the vast majority of us because our brains are hardwired for moral thinking. Morality predates religion, and likely did so by more than a million years. Religion was based on morality, not the other way around. This is why it is pure nonsense for anyone to claim that without religion, anything is permitted. How does that follow? It doesn't. It's a myth that people use to try to justify belief when it is completely unnecessary. It was also a concept that people had centuries ago, when they did not know the truth about how we evolved, and that our closest primate relatives have a moral sense. The facts regarding our closet relatives, and our evolution, as well as studies showing that toddlers have a moral sense, show that morality exists without the need for any religion. One has to ignore a huge number of facts regarding our history, evolution, and neurobiology, to make the claim that morality is in any way dependent on religion. It's not. It never has been. The causal chain runs in the opposite direction --- morality results in religion, as opposed to religion resulting in morality.

[Harbal]

He or she can ground his or her moral judgments, because he or she has the objective moral principle to legitimize such judgments.

But those moral judgements are grounded on a mistake: the mistaken belief that there is a God. In order for this argument to be resolved the first step would necessarily be for one of us to prove to the other's satisfaction that God does or doesn't exist, before that is established there is no common frame of reference from which to argue. It is completely pointless, the best we can achieve is to annoy each other, which doesn't seem like a particularly moral aim.

[Skip]

If you think they can, you can very easily show it. Give us just ONE moral precept that every Atheist is morally obligated to follow.

That would make me almost as dishonest as you are. You have been told, by many atheists besides me, on many occasions, that atheists do not belong to a sect or club or compact, with a single set of rules. And that capitalizing the word is grammatically incorrect, as well as deliberately misleading. We are all individuals, and each of us answers to whatever moral and/or legal authority we choose, or a singular, personal one, or none. We are not all equally forthcoming with that information, nor equally reflective nor equally articulate.
There is no central command of atheism, no Great Big Book of Hokum.

Conversely, it seems to make very little difference that religions all do have their books to reference and ordained specialists to interpret those books for the laity, when those prelates disagree with one another's source of authority, and many adherents, including officials of low and high status, of each faith break its rules many times.

FYI there is a copious emission of smoke from your pants.