Of gods and language.

[Chris]

Well it is logical- an immoral debauched society fails ...eventually. Co operation and community keeps community together. We cannot exist alone.

True enough, but this is just pragmatism. We can all agree that stealing is bad because society functions a lot better when we are not all going around taking whatever we want whenever we feel like it. But what happens when we discover that more people are better off if we are free to take what we wish from a small subset of the population? Is this moral, then, because society is better off as a whole? And what happens when things change over time, and it is no longer good for society to steal from this smaller subset of people? Is it then immoral?

[Dawkins] does, and makes sense what he says about morality.

What he says about morality makes no sense whatsoever. He knows there should be such a thing and tries to come up with a justification for it after the fact, but his philosophy makes it impossible. He tries to justify it through biology first. But in his mind, biological things have no ends in themselves, so there is no way to get to a true objective morality from there. There can only be the as-if morality I was talking about before. His other appeals are emotional, and emotion is not reason.

Atheism is not about living in an immoral fashion.Ever read anything about Percy Bysshe Shelley the Regency poet? He was an atheist and was all for social justice. This has been common with atheists and agnostics throughout history. Kant saw reason as natural.

As I said, it is certainly possible for an atheist to arrive at true objective morality - IF he is working from the correct philosophical foundation. The materialism of Dawkins and the other "new" atheists is not such a foundation.

Now Kant is another kind of thing, and this is important, because his philosophy has permeated the world, even in Christian and other theist circles. But there are serious questions we should raise about how Kant arrives at his morality. He says we are "autonomous" and "self-legislators", "ends in ourselves", and that a moral community is one which strives to create a "kingdom of ends." But this is highly problematic when trying to establish a system of true objective morality. That is a system that requires us to acknowledge the reality of the natural ends of things. And human beings are in no sense the source of the nature that determines our ends. It is nature - not the preferences, emotion, or even reason of a human being - that grounds the content of the moral law and gives it obligatory force.

One other point I would make is in response to this:

Even some animals know right from wrong- ever seen a guily expression on a dog's face when he sneaks food from someone's plate and he knows he's not supposed to?

I disagree. Animals cannot be capable of moral and immoral behavior. Morality is by definition the function of a rational creature, which (non-human) animals are not. They are not capable of knowing abstract concepts like good and purpose. I think you are anthropomorphising here. Yes, I remember that guilty look on my dog's face when he'd sneaked some food! But it wasn't because he was a moral creature. It was because he knew the pattern of what behavior was praised and what behavior was punished, and he knew which was coming! This is nothing more than the hope of reward and fear of punishment that Dawkins was attributing to theists as the source of their morality. And indeed, that would not be true morality! Morality, for the theist or atheist, can only truly exist on a philosophical foundation that does not appeal to mere consequences, either divine or human.

[Megan]

Is it Buddhism that teaches reincarnation, like you come back as an animal?
What would be the point in that. Is it some kind of judgement?

[AeolianHarp]

With respect AeolianHarp all that again misses the point - I have never said atheists aren't capable of good, only that there can be no logical definition of good under such a belief. Hitler thought he was doing good. Atheists doing good 'naturally' are closer to God than they know!

Hitler could not possibly have thought mass murder was compassionate behaviour. Atheists don't believe in god so they are not close to what they don't believe in.

You quote Shelley as a moral example, yes he had some good ideals but didn't he also abandon a young girl having got her pregnant and didn't that result in her suicide? You might just as well mention William Wilberforce who as an evangelical Christian was also committed to reforms and dealing with injustice.

Nobody is perfect- Shelley was estranged from his wife and yes, she was pregnant, but he didn't leave her alone and penniless.I don't know how their marriage was ( not seen any great detail of it), but today they probably would have divorced- relationships don't always work out. Her suicide may have been nothing to do with her parting from Percy:

On 10 December 1816, the body of Shelley's estranged wife Harriet was found in an advanced state of pregnancy, drowned in the Serpentine in Hyde Park, London. Shelley had generously provided for her and their children in his will and had given her a monthly allowance as had her father. It is thought that Harriet, who had left her children with her sister Eliza and had been living alone under the name of Harriet Smith, mistakenly believed herself to have been abandoned by her new lover, 36-year-old, Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Maxwell, who had been deployed abroad, after a landlady refused to forward his letters to her.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Percy_B...econd_marriage

The natural good you speak of whether in atheists or religious people of any faith comes from God whether they acknowledge it or not.

We will have to agree to disagree on that one Peter. The good things I do have nothing to do with god- they are my actions, my thoughts.

Yes my father did grow up in a time when not being married was frowned upon, that's my point - then it was right, now it isn't in society's eyes, so where is the reality of this right and wrong?

Some of that is cultural norms and social changes.

From the atheist perspective Nietsche was correct and Hitler drew his own conclusions from this. What relative 'morality' really is is self-justification to do what you like. Your Dawkins quote could equally apply to Hitler and Stalin, except of course they didn't believe they'd get to heaven!

Dawkins is well aware of heinous acts committed by all types of belief systems. Hitler was not exactly an atheist either.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religio...f_Adolf_Hitler

Christ preached that we should love one another - that many 'Christians' and people of no faith have ignored that down the ages doesn't invalidate his teaching, it only highlights our need for it.

Buddha taught love and kindness 500 years before Jesus was said to have lived. Many spiritual teachers of communities in ancient times taught love and kindness- that is the natural human way. Those who teach otherwise are deranged- like Hitler. Love and kindness is not exclusive to Christianity. My atheist friends promote love and kindness and extend this to animals also.

[Peter]

With respect AeolianHarp all that again misses the point - I have never said atheists aren't capable of good, only that there can be no logical definition of good under such a belief. Hitler thought he was doing good. Atheists doing good 'naturally' are closer to God than they know!

You quote Shelley as a moral example, yes he had some good ideals but didn't he also abandon a young girl having got her pregnant and didn't that result in her suicide? You might just as well mention William Wilberforce who as an evangelical Christian was also committed to reforms and dealing with injustice. The natural good you speak of whether in atheists or religious people of any faith comes from God whether they acknowledge it or not.

Yes my father did grow up in a time when not being married was frowned upon, that's my point - then it was right, now it isn't in society's eyes, so where is the reality of this right and wrong? From the atheist perspective Nietsche was correct and Hitler drew his own conclusions from this. What relative 'morality' really is is self-justification to do what you like. Your Dawkins quote could equally apply to Hitler and Stalin, except of course they didn't believe they'd get to heaven!

Christ preached that we should love one another - that many 'Christians' and people of no faith have ignored that down the ages doesn't invalidate his teaching, it only highlights our need for it.

[AeolianHarp]

I think the point you're missing Aeolian is not that we're saying atheists are immoral, better or any worse than many so called religious people, but that from an atheistic perspective there cannot be any such thing as good or evil.

Of course there can and is! The laws of the land are based on secular laws- look at all the equal opportunities and anti racism laws that have come in the last few years. Even some animals know right from wrong- ever seen a guily expression on a dog's face when he sneaks food from someone's plate and he knows he's not supposed to ? Atheists are quite capable of knowing what is right or wrong- many of them are working in social justice, for environmental issues, ending animal abuse, child abuse, and so on. They do not need to believe in any god to know what is harmful to others or not.

What to you is wrong may not be to someone else and who are you or I to say who is right? If your answer is simply 'because it's what I feel and believe', that's no good simply because another person will tell you he thinks it perfectly right to steal, be unfaithful and lie and you simply can't tell him he's 'wrong' only that you don't agree.

With respect Peter- people can say this about their religious beliefs- that their religion says one group of people is of less value than themselves such as homosexuals or black people. Remember many religions had no problem with enslaving people of different ethnic groups than themselves; some even called tribal people "savages".Most people know that stealing and so on is not acceptable behaviour- but in the past many people stole food as they were so poor, so not everything is black and white. It was injustice and greed of the elite that lead them to such desperate acts in the first place.

The reason there is so much immorality in the world is precisely because people do justify themselves by their own standards and no atheist has any right to complain about the consequences because it is the logical outcome of their philosophy!

It is not. In a profoundly religious Europe centuries ago there was immorality. There were more brothels in those days when intimacy between man and woman was considered "sinful" unless they were married. The brothels were a result of women being so poor and without well paid job opportunities, due to being seen as lesser than men. Some men said women didn't even have souls. The poor were half starved, hung publically if they stole food, women were beaten and denied equal rights, children were sent into mines working 12 hour days, Africans were enslaved and abused on plantations.

Nearly all of those perpatrators believed in god. Where was their morality? In fact it was some atheists like Percy Bysshe Shelley who called for a more caring and equal society. True, there were some Christian abolitionists, and well done to them, but what I am pointing out is that whether there is a belief in gods or not, immorality will still occur in society. It always has and always will to some degree or other. Believing in gods does not rid humans of immoral behaviour.

Nietzsche wrote “God is dead”, and he saw where his logic led. He wrote that “our moral judgments and evaluations are only images and fantasies based on a physiological process unknown to us.” At least he was being honest about his beliefs in nothing.

That is his view and atheism does not in itself lead to immorality.

You stated to Chris "But sadly there are hedonistic, debauched people who lack some morals- many will live a life of self gratification and materialism but even then would stop at murder...then you get those who'd stop at nothing to get what they want." Firstly, from an atheist point of view who are you or I to judge them as 'immoral' and secondly from the atheistic perspective why shouldn't they live their lives like that if they want to?

Well, I put this to you again- being atheist does not mean that we support cold, unfeeling, heinous acts. Many atheists are caring people with strong senses of justice- all the atheists I know are and go on many social justice marches, campaign for animal rights, ethical business practise, anti fracking camps and so on. People that commit monstrous crimes are usually psychopaths and of abnormal mental functioning. That can be seen in brain scans.

Atheism is not about letting people run amok- the secular laws are made in response to what is beneficial for human society. Of course they are not perfect, but there is no such thing as perfection; all we can do is strive to be mindful of our actions and life as good a life as we can. May I remind you that Tibet is an atheist society- bult on Buddhist principles and the people there are not a debauched immoral society- they have good values and although they are not perfect, all the morals you as a Christian would wish to uphold, they do too.

In an earlier thread you said it didn't matter if people were married or not, yet my father who is also an atheist would regard people living together as immoral! You see the problems with this moral relativism?

Your father grew up in a time when this was frowned upon, and this stems from that. Marriage is a contract that is legally binding- the law was bound into it in historic times- in pre historic/tribal times two committed people sharing a home was enough. Doesn't mean that those people back then were any less committed to each other, just because there was no ceremony or binding contract.


We have always had "moral relativism"- they may come from religious texts, beliefs or secular laws. There is no getting away from it- this has been discussed since the time of the ancient Greeks. Unless we all become programmed robots, there will always be different viewpoints.

Even animals can display moral/altrusitic behaviour.

Regarding Richard Dawkins- he has argued that behaving morally because one fears retribution from a god cannot be true morality:

“Do you really mean to tell me the only reason you try to be good is to gain God's approval and reward, or to avoid his disapproval and punishment? That's not morality, that's just sucking up, apple-polishing..."

When people do good just because they want to do good, that is morality.

I know a man who worked tirelessly for Friends of the Earth and is an atheist. I said to him once,"I really admire you because you are atheist and have no reason to do all the good you do, what is your impetus?"

He looked at me puzzled, said something like doing good is natural.

“Bush and bin Laden are really on the same side: the side of faith and violence against the side of reason and discussion. Both have implacable faith that they are right and the other is evil. Each believes that when he dies he is going to heaven. Each believes that if he could kill the other, his path to paradise in the next world would be even swifter. The delusional "next world" is welcome to both of them. This world would be a much better place without either of them. ”
Richard Dawkins

[Peter]

Decent people yes Chris. But sadly there are hedonistic, debauched people who lack some morals- many will live a life of self gratification and materialism but even then would stop at murder...then you get those who'd stop at nothing to get what they want.




Well it is logical- an immoral debauched society fails ...eventually. Co operation and community keeps community together. We cannot exist alone.





He does, and makes sense what he says about morality. Atheism is not about living in an immoral fashion.Ever read anything about Percy Bysshe Shelley the Regency poet? He was an atheist and was all for social justice. This has been common with atheists and agnostics throughout history. Kant saw reason as natural.




There certainly is I think. Ever read Kant's Formulations? Human beings are quite capable of knowing what is beneficial, compassionate behaviour and what is not. Belief in gods is not a pre requisite for morality. Buddhism is an athiest philosophy and teaches morals of a high order.

I think the point you're missing Aeolian is not that we're saying atheists are immoral, better or any worse than many so called religious people, but that from an atheistic perspective there cannot be any such thing as good or evil. What to you is wrong may not be to someone else and who are you or I to say who is right? If your answer is simply 'because it's what I feel and believe', that's no good simply because another person will tell you he thinks it perfectly right to steal, be unfaithful and lie and you simply can't tell him he's 'wrong' only that you don't agree. The reason there is so much immorality in the world is precisely because people do justify themselves by their own standards and no atheist has any right to complain about the consequences because it is the logical outcome of their philosophy! Nietzsche wrote “God is dead”, and he saw where his logic led. He wrote that “our moral judgments and evaluations are only images and fantasies based on a physiological process unknown to us.” At least he was being honest about his beliefs in nothing.

You stated to Chris "But sadly there are hedonistic, debauched people who lack some morals- many will live a life of self gratification and materialism but even then would stop at murder...then you get those who'd stop at nothing to get what they want." Firstly, from an atheist point of view who are you or I to judge them as 'immoral' and secondly from the atheistic perspective why shouldn't they live their lives like that if they want to? In an earlier thread you said it didn't matter if people were married or not, yet my father who is also an atheist would regard people living together as immoral! You see the problems with this moral relativism?

[AeolianHarp]

Of course - we all like to think of ourselves as moral.

Decent people yes Chris. But sadly there are hedonistic, debauched people who lack some morals- many will live a life of self gratification and materialism but even then would stop at murder...then you get those who'd stop at nothing to get what they want.

The question is, what is the source of it? What justification do we have for saying this is moral and that is immoral?

Well it is logical- an immoral debauched society fails ...eventually. Co operation and community keeps community together. We cannot exist alone.

The New Atheists, of which Richard Dawkins is a perfect example, talk about morality just as much as anyone else.

He does, and makes sense what he says about morality. Atheism is not about living in an immoral fashion.Ever read anything about Percy Bysshe Shelley the Regency poet? He was an atheist and was all for social justice. This has been common with atheists and agnostics throughout history. Kant saw reason as natural.

But since, as I said, they hold to an anti-teleological conception of the natural world, the most they can reasonably assert is that it is as if there is actual morality. Given that, it is hard to see how anyone holding such a viewpoint can make the argument that another's actions should be restricted or that someone should be punished for immoral acts. The intuition of morality is there, but there is no rational foundation for it.

There certainly is I think. Ever read Kant's Formulations? Human beings are quite capable of knowing what is beneficial, compassionate behaviour and what is not. Belief in gods is not a pre requisite for morality. Buddhism is an athiest philosophy and teaches morals of a high order.

[Chris]

Interesting points Chris- sorry I didn't see your post before. I think the kind of "atheism" you are talking about really is a kind of immoral hedonism. I don't know any atheists supporting that view- they are all quite quite moral and caring! Even the outspoken atheist Dawkins supports moral behaviour.

Of course - we all like to think of ourselves as moral. The question is, what is the source of it? What justification do we have for saying this is moral and that is immoral? The New Atheists, of which Richard Dawkins is a perfect example, talk about morality just as much as anyone else. But since, as I said, they hold to an anti-teleological conception of the natural world, the most they can reasonably assert is that it is as if there is actual morality. Given that, it is hard to see how anyone holding such a viewpoint can make the argument that another's actions should be restricted or that someone should be punished for immoral acts. The intuition of morality is there, but there is no rational foundation for it.

[AeolianHarp]

Can there be morality without God? Some are saying yes, and some are saying no. I think the answer is both yes and no. If one accepts Aristotelian essentialism, then yes. Under that system, what is good for a thing, including a human being, is determined by its nature. And the nature of a human being is what it is, regardless of the question of God.

The morality taught by any institution rooted in classical theism (such as the Catholic Church) works this same way, in fact. So it is no good to argue that the morality taught by such an institution is rooted in something an atheist cannot accept because he does not accept the existence of God. Morality in classical theism does not come from arbitrary divine commands. It is rooted in the natural law, which comes from the nature of things, and, to a major extent, can be known without appealing to God at all.

That said, the popular kind of atheism today is not something that holds Aristotelian essentialism, but absolutely denies it in favor of an anti-teleological conception of the natural world. Under that system, there cannot really be any rational justification for objective morality. Because if there is no intrinsic teleology, all teleology must be mere as-if teleology. And that means that there can be no true goodness, but only as-if goodness. And that in turn means there can be no true morality; it can only be as if there is morality.

And this is why this kind of atheism leads to evil. Certainly any classical theist could do evil and justify it by making some kind of rationalization to himself, but he could never actually justify it under the system of morality he purports to hold. On the other hand, when all you have is a system with "as-if" morality, that is not true. People might come together and form a civil society because they can see it is advantageous to most of them. They can choose to act as if there is morality because most people benefit. If people do not murder, steal, etc., things work a lot better. But then when it becomes convenient to murder the weakest members of that society, or steal from them, those actions can be justified on the grounds that the society is better off that way. Here morality becomes nothing more than a convenient fiction that can be discarded when it becomes inconvenient.

And certainly even this kind of atheist can be capable of charity and compassion. But why? Because of something inside, as has been noted. Emotion or sentiment. But there is no rational justification for it.

So no, atheism does not, in itself, rule out true morality. But the modern kind of naturalistic atheism does.

Interesting points Chris- sorry I didn't see your post before. I think the kind of "atheism" you are talking about really is a kind of immoral hedonism. I don't know any atheists supporting that view- they are all quite quite moral and caring! Even the outspoken atheist Dawkins supports moral behaviour.

[AeolianHarp]

That's correct. To be more specific, since the Greeks. One of its astronomers even measured the Earth diameter with fairly good accuracy.

They were quite clever how they could do that back then without the technology we have now.

I read a bit of a Roman philosopher's book a few years ago- I think it was Lucretius, not sure, and he talked about atoms! How could he know that??? - that is way way before microscopes and telescopes...

[Enrique]

This is patently ridiculous. Human beings knew the earth was not flat before the Catholic Church even existed.

That's correct. To be more specific, since the Greeks. One of its astronomers even measured the Earth diameter with fairly good accuracy.

[AeolianHarp]

Of course but it needs putting in perspective - the Catholic church has behaved badly on this issue in the past but the media attacks also have their own agenda. http://www.themediareport.com/fast-facts/

The mainstream media has agendas on all aspects of life.

Yes this is very true - whenever I hear about the latest celebrity charity event, I cringe - whilst the money raised is obviously good, the motive is dubious.

Yes, some of them parade around like they think they are saints, but still go back to their debauched luxury lifestyles!

I found this interesting documentary on you tube about young people who live vintage!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOC_vsKy9O4

I can relate to some of it. I have some vintage items in my home such as a 1930s gramophone, and a 1960s dial phone- I love its ring and dialling it!
As you might have seen from my photos my house doesn't look that modern!

[Peter]

Yes, I have heard about Cafod- there was a Cafod charity shop I used to buy from in the suburb I grew up in.

Peter, I think people are still angry about the abuse children endured in some convent and church run educational institutions. I've lived in Eire and the anger and pain of it is still raw. People find those sorts of things hard to forget about and forgive.We need a Western Thich Nhat Hanh!

Of course but it needs putting in perspective - the Catholic church has behaved badly on this issue in the past but the media attacks also have their own agenda. http://www.themediareport.com/fast-facts/

But the fact is those who do good acts out of real altruism ( they are often very humble) don't tend to go round talking about it, so they often are unknown by the wider public.

Yes this is very true - whenever I hear about the latest celebrity charity event, I cringe - whilst the money raised is obviously good, the motive is dubious.

[AeolianHarp]

Of course, there are many people with no faith who have made and are making enormous contributions - all I have been doing in my posts is countering the very negative attack that was made earlier in this thread on religion generally and the Catholic church specifically - not by yourself I hasten to add! I acknowledge the bad things done but some people look solely at that, are unforgiving and are unwilling to acknowledge the good of which there is far more than most people are aware of, for example http://www.cafod.org.uk/

Yes, I have heard about Cafod- there was a Cafod charity shop I used to buy from in the suburb I grew up in.

Peter, I think people are still angry about the abuse children endured in some convent and church run educational institutions. I've lived in Eire and the anger and pain of it is still raw. People find those sorts of things hard to forget about and forgive.We need a Western Thich Nhat Hanh!

But the fact is those who do good acts out of real altruism ( they are often very humble) don't tend to go round talking about it, so they often are unknown by the wider public.

[Peter]

In some cases they have been from secular sources, I mean not coming from a religious impetus. Louis Pasteur did so mich for health didn't he!

Of course, there are many people with no faith who have made and are making enormous contributions - all I have been doing in my posts is countering the very negative attack that was made earlier in this thread on religion generally and the Catholic church specifically - not by yourself I hasten to add! I acknowledge the bad things done but some people look solely at that, are unforgiving and are unwilling to acknowledge the good of which there is far more than most people are aware of, for example http://www.cafod.org.uk/

I'll tell you an anecdote about Pasteur - a man was on a train praying the Rosary when a young student sitting opposite asked how he could believe in 'all that nonsense' as science had shown it all to be so. He invited the man to visit so he could explain it all to him - the man agreed and gave him his card which read 'Louis Pasteur director of the science institute Paris'.