As some of us have been talking about in comment sections, the 'morals' adopted by atheists are usually based on those of the society in which they find themselves. To do 'right' is to do what society believes is 'right' or 'moral'. To do 'wrong, likewise, is to do what society believes is 'wrong' or 'immoral'.
Therefore, it seems counter to logic that such an atheist would follow 'progressive' or 'liberal' political trends. In proclaiming to society that it 'ought' to change, to 'progress' or become different, they are basically telling society that its ideas of 'right' / 'moral' and 'wrong' / 'immoral' are incorrect or that they should be adjusted. On what basis, and according to what?
It seems more logical for an atheist to want to be 'conservative' and to preserve the 'status quo' so that 'right' / 'moral' does not become 'wrong' / 'immoral', so that their values stay consistent.
However, many atheists do seem to be 'progressives' and 'liberals', going against the current values of society. Why? Perhaps, rather than as many claim, society has very little to do with atheistic values and morals.
Therefore, it seems counter to logic that such an atheist would follow 'progressive' or 'liberal' political trends. In proclaiming to society that it 'ought' to change, to 'progress' or become different, they are basically telling society that its ideas of 'right' / 'moral' and 'wrong' / 'immoral' are incorrect or that they should be adjusted. On what basis, and according to what?
It seems more logical for an atheist to want to be 'conservative' and to preserve the 'status quo' so that 'right' / 'moral' does not become 'wrong' / 'immoral', so that their values stay consistent.
However, many atheists do seem to be 'progressives' and 'liberals', going against the current values of society. Why? Perhaps, rather than as many claim, society has very little to do with atheistic values and morals.
8 comments:
There's not one society, I think you're making the mistake of assuming America to be the only society. Moreover, I don't know of any atheists who adopt every social moral in any given society, but pick and choose based on the social principle of betterment of humanity and treat every person good, both of which many, if not most, in society also profess.
Chris
I can see how someone would think that my post refers only to our society, but it does not. I think on a very wide scale, always trying to see how morality works in all types of societies.
I think the confusion comes because of the terms used. In spite of the very current terms "conservative", "liberal", and "progressive", the same concepts that underlie these labels can be found in any society. There are always those in a society who want to preserve traditional morality..."conservatives". There are always those who challenge traditional morality..."liberals" / "progressives". Of course, one can make an argument that things are much more nuanced, and they'd be correct, but this captures the problem in all societies at a macro level.
If one's morality is determined by society's values, then one cannot go against those moral values and say it is for the "betterment of humanity". Instead, those people will always be branded "bad" and "immoral" by their society for attempting to change traditional and accepted morality.
I think, however, what you are trying to tell me is what I already suspect...that atheistic values really have very little to do with their society but with their own individual desires and perceptions of morality. This, again, to me, leads to social chaos because no two atheists have no common and agreed upon standard between them.
"No two atheists..."
Well, neither do no two Christians. I've never met two Christians who agreed on everything, morality included. Moreover, I think you're stereotype of "conservatives" v. "liberals" is a false one. Take abortion, for example. Going by sheer numbers, there are more people pro-choice (think of all the people in China since the gov't there is pro-abortion) than (the falsely named) "pro-life".
Moreover, you bring in a slippery slope fallacy in concluding that atheistic morality induces chaos. There are laws, and atheists can agree, based on evolutionary drive, to co-operate together and promulgate laws, and then follow those laws, regardless of whether they think they're moral or not. I don't think it's moral to push one's theism onto others, but I don't go about killing every evangelist or burning down missionary churches!
I'm afraid you're far too simplistic in thinking this out, Bryan, and ignore the basic evolutionary impulses that the majority of people share (primarily, survive yourself and help your own species survive).
Chris
Well, neither do no two Christians. I've never met two Christians who agreed on everything, morality included.
The difference is that Christians have a 'starting point' and agree upon much more, morally, than given credit for by some.
Atheists do not have a 'starting point' that they feel they must agree upon.
Moreover, I think you're stereotype of "conservatives" v. "liberals" is a false one. Take abortion, for example.
I'm afraid that you are misunderstanding. The argument over abortion, as you portray it, is a US, and perhaps "Western", one. As I said, if one is an atheist, then many say that they must abide by the laws of their society. Simply put, that means being 'conservative', by my definition, that simply means preserving or 'conserving' the 'status quo'. Being 'liberal' means to proclaim a 'freedom' of sorts from the 'status quo'.
If atheists truly base their morals on their society, then it would seem that they would 'conserve' or preserve the views of their society...if that happens to be something different for abortion, then that is what I mean. I think you are reading my thoughts 'too shallow'.
(the falsely named) "pro-life".
Hmmm....should I even touch that?! :-) Let us see...we either allow a developing human being to be born or we stop its development (which I certainly call killing...after all, people even talk of killing trees). I will never, ever, ever, ever understand how anyone can think it is ok to end a developing human's life. The reason I find the whole "but it's not really a life yet" or "it doesn't know anything yet" arguments utterly stupid and bereft of any morality, compassion, or reason, is because if that fetus were allowed to develop on course, it *would* become a human being (and perhaps a very 'good' one). To me it is like looking you in the face and telling you that I think your mother should have chosen to not allow you to live. Just sick. So, yes, I certainly view it as "pro-Life" and "pro-choice" as the 'falsely named' argument because the developing human gets no choice in the matter. Anyway.... ;-)
There are laws, and atheists can agree, based on evolutionary drive, to co-operate together and promulgate laws, and then follow those laws, regardless of whether they think they're moral or not.
If you have read my posts, you will know that I believe *all* basic human laws (even those we have derived) were believed to be given originally by God(s). Say you are leader of my pre-historic tribe and you make a law that I disagree with. If I can get away with it, I will not follow your law - at least privately. If, on the other hand, all-seeing, all-judging God(s) present a law, I feel bound to follow it both publically and privately or I know I will suffer the consequences.
I believe it is obvious that there is no 'evolutionary drive' toward cooperation, merely evolutionary 'selfishness' which leads some people to co-operate with *some* people to acheive their selfish ends. There is no global altrusim or working together with those one deems 'different' from oneself or one's social group. 'Tribes' are evolutionary...not 'one world governement'.
I don't think it's moral to push one's theism onto others, but I don't go about killing every evangelist or burning down missionary churches!
Phew! :-) However, what you probably don't realize is that by voting against certain religious ideals currently held by society, you *are* pushing your views on others like myself. Sorry if that comes across strong, take it with a grain of salt, please. I *do* feel that many of the religious ideals once held by the society in which I grew up are changing to the opposite of what I believe is right. So, I certainly also feel that certain views are being pushed on me by many.
I'm afraid you're far too simplistic in thinking this out, Bryan, and ignore the basic evolutionary impulses that the majority of people share (primarily, survive yourself and help your own species survive).
There are some key things that you must admit to and about your deepest self, Chris, before you will completely understand at stop seeing the things I say at a simplistic level. ;-) What I am saying cuts to the heart of every person and every civilization. I am very surprised, if you have read existentialist philosophy, as you have indicated to me before, that you do not see the issues I highlight.
You say I "ignore the basic evolutionary impulses that the majority of people share (primarily, survive yourself and help your own species survive)", but there are two problems with saying this. First, I certainly do not ignore the selfish evolutionary trait that makes us do whatever to survive and thrive, this is, in fact, the cornerstone of my beliefs about how humans interact. Second, I flat out deny that there is an 'evolutionary trait' that makes us desire to 'help our own species'. Were there really such a common trait, there would be no wars and we would be more concerned about our affects on the environment and about what we leave for our children. Humans have only ever made baby steps in these directions. Since you called my views simplistic, which they certainly are not, I will remark that I think it is very simplistic to think that humans, on the whole, care about their species. You go ask them, sure they'll give it lip service, but then go deeper than the simplistic and you'll find very few who do anything to help their fellow man (e.g. suffering charities, people dying in other countries of starvation and lack of basic medical supplies while people in rich countries throw away large portions of food). The problem with seeing these things is that they are done (or not done) in private where you can't see what people say or do. Only God(s) could.
I know you want to be a 'good' person, Chris. It's easy to tell from your passion. It is *my* opinion, however, that you could go a lot deeper in analyzing atheism and morality. It is easy to find ways to champion one's beliefs, but looking for the holes is much more difficult. I've spent years analyzing the 'holes' in Christianity pointed out to me by atheists to the point that I lost faith. I've thought extensively about life as an atheist, and I find it logically ugly and inconsistent. I now, again, see more reason to believe in God, specifically the Christian God. Rather than have *faith* in utterly fallible and selfish humanity, I have faith in God again.
Hello Bryan,
The difference is that Christians have a 'starting point' and agree upon much more, morally, than given credit for by some.
This isn't really relevant.
Atheists do not have a 'starting point' that they feel they must agree upon.
That's because atheism isn't a starting position. You have different varieties of theists, and many different kinds of Christians within theism, so too have atheists taken up different positions.
Some atheists are conservatives. Some atheists aren't. I'm perhaps even more conservative than you in that I wish to see morals older than the Christian revolution come back into place. Your post seemed shallow at first, but now it seems too simplistic. Societies have existed for thousands of years, so which society you can always say. Moreover, you're neglecting cultural memes which in my opinion influence it far more, and then evolutionary instinct, which is intimately tied to cultural practices.
And sigh, the same old arguments here:
it *would* become a human being
Oh, come on, Bryan, I thought you could do better than this. Without the mother, the foetus cannot survive on its own, and therefore could not develop into a normal, much less good, human being. It is dependent on the mother.
Furthermore, if we were to go that route, we'd have to treat taking seeds from trees the same as illegal logging. Just because the potential for X is there, doesn't mean it is actually X.
But this is off-topic.
So, yes, I certainly view it as "pro-Life" and "pro-choice" as the 'falsely named' argument because the developing human gets no choice in the matter.
Oh come on now! It's one thing to engage in a little sarcasm where truth lies, but you and I both know it's "pro-choice" because it's the mother's choice. It's her body too, after all. I'll accept a foetuses decision to live as soon as it can make a decision to live. Otherwise, if it is still dependent on the mother's body, than it is still part of the mother's body, and "pro-life" actually becomes anti-choice, since you've not given either the choice.
If you have read my posts, you will know that I believe *all* basic human laws (even those we have derived) were believed to be given originally by God(s).
And I'm going to go ahead and say that you've merely asserted this, and I have no reason to believe you at all. You'll have to do better than your word. You're not god, and therefore I'm not going to accept your word as divine or infallible. I don't think you should either.
If, on the other hand, all-seeing, all-judging God(s) present a law, I feel bound to follow it both publically and privately or I know I will suffer the consequences.
Then why do time after time theists of the Christian/Muslim/Jewish variety (worshiping the all-seeing, all-knowing deity) do commit crimes they know are against God? Because they have an easy way out. They are allowed to commit all the crimes they want, and if they "repent" they still get a free pass. That actually allows for more immorality than an atheist system, since you can be a Christian and not care if you live or die on earth knowing that you will still go to heaven.
I believe it is obvious that there is no 'evolutionary drive' toward cooperation, merely evolutionary 'selfishness' which leads some people to co-operate with *some* people to acheive their selfish ends. There is no global altrusim or working together with those one deems 'different' from oneself or one's social group. 'Tribes' are evolutionary...not 'one world governement'.
I never said otherwise.
However, what you probably don't realize is that by voting against certain religious ideals currently held by society, you *are* pushing your views on others like myself.
I might be pushing moral views by voting (but not me, the collective society - I can vote all I want to ban such and such and if the majority doesn't agree, then you'll never be submitted to it), but so are you. That's different. You can choose to live here or move away. And in fact, many atheists vote against moral legislation. This is really the exact opposite of forcing moral legislation on you - I'm allowing everyone, even you, to have their own moral bounds just so long as they don't infringe on others'.
So, I certainly also feel that certain views are being pushed on me by many.
No one is forcing you to be gay, to not pray, to not go to church, to not read the Bible, to not give alms to the poor, to not worship as you please, to not preach. Allowing others to be immoral does not mean that you too are forced to be immoral. It means you are given the choice.
To say otherwise is to call God immoral, since he too gave all people the choice. Why in the world Christians would want to take away God's gift and selfishly proclaim themselves to be like Gods, having the power to judge (judge not, Jesus did say), is long lost on me.
I am very surprised, if you have read existentialist philosophy, as you have indicated to me before, that you do not see the issues I highlight.
I have read existentialism, and in some way I think they overlooked Darwinism's big picture. Morality isn't entirely subjective, because part of it comes from our basic instincts, and partly from the preceding culture, of which itself is deeply rooted in evolutionary processes. No one can deny that, in every society, shame exists, with or without God, with many gods or spirits, with none at all.
First, I certainly do not ignore the selfish evolutionary trait that makes us do whatever to survive and thrive, this is, in fact, the cornerstone of my beliefs about how humans interact.
You're right - you don't ignore it, you mischaracterize it.
Second, I flat out deny that there is an 'evolutionary trait' that makes us desire to 'help our own species'. Were there really such a common trait, there would be no wars and we would be more concerned about our affects on the environment and about what we leave for our children.
I can flat out dismiss this as mere strawman.
(e.g. suffering charities, people dying in other countries of starvation and lack of basic medical supplies while people in rich countries throw away large portions of food)
We're human. It is simplistic to think that we could do everything with our limited resources. If we were all too selfish, then we would never have charities for people we didn't know, we would never give money to the singing hippy on the sidewalk, and we would never care massacres in other countries. Just because we have to balance our will to survive doesn't mean we have to neglect our species as a whole.
I now, again, see more reason to believe in God, specifically the Christian God.
Morality aside, did you find evidence for this god, or just emotionally incapable of handling a life without it?
Rather than have *faith* in utterly fallible and selfish humanity, I have faith in God again.
I don't have "faith" in humanity - I just don't have faith in god.
Chris, I disagree completely with much of what you've said. You're all wrong, wrong, wrong. Heh... ;-)
I feel very strongly about the views I've presented in spite of the erroneous, rhetorical charges of 'simplicity' which display to me a lack of solid grasp on my points. This has likely happened because the discussion has become too 'macro'-level, though I thought I had covered the 'basics' already in other comments (almost need to lay out beliefs in numbered bullets that can be referenced...a systematic 'theology' in a way...heh). Apparently there was not agreement on the foundations, and if there is no agreement on the foundations, there will be no agreement on the grander scale to which we've come.
Anyway, though I have to fight myself hard not to respond further to certain rhetorical flourshes, I think I'll stop at this point for a bit. I'd like for you to understand my points, but I'm not sure I feel that you really want to understand (especially when rhetorically labelling views 'simplistic' when knowing me better than that and not trying harder to understand), because you know that I disagree strongly with the atheist worldview.
Anyway, I'm looking to understand others and for others to attempt to understand my thoughts rather than rhetorical attempts to dismiss my thoughts. I am very introspective, and I try very hard to get to the absolute root of things. I strongly believe I have a good understanding of the roots of human behavior through observation and historical reading. Human selfishness has always, does always, and will always trump any form of altruism or acting in the best interest of humanity in general. I would need lots of opposing data (not rhetoric) to change my beliefs about these things.
Fruitful discussion is had by asking 'why'...not by simply painting the another's views as 'simplistic' (I get pulled into saying poor things quite often too out of bad habit from IIDB...). I'm not trying to win a debating game. I know what I believe and I believe it very strongly because of deep and introspective thought and 'research', if you will. I crave knowledge. If you think you have the answers and that they are better than mine, then lets try to approach each others views in a more Socratic fashion (it way beats the 'emotion' of "Oh, come on" and such, if we can both hold to it...being the very passionate and 'emotional' people we are...judging, of course, from past discussions. ;-) ).
Anyway, I'm going to take a break for a bit so that things don't escalate into the emotional, rhetoric-laden diatribes we've both been guilty of in the past. I don't want that and am not looking for that. I like and respect you and myself too much to do that again. We both have very strong views and we both believe we are intelligent and right...that makes for a tough situation which calls for more humility on both parts.
For the record, Bryan, I don't view your "views" simplistic - that's a misleading statement - but rather your views on my views, on evolution and its consequences.
I'll try to make a post clearing some things up.
Hi Chris,
You wrote above:
There are laws, and atheists can agree, based on evolutionary drive, to co-operate together and promulgate laws, and then follow those laws, regardless of whether they think they're moral or not...
I have attended Mensa, Atheist meetings, and far from getting on with any discussions concerning the possibility of a transcendant God, I have usually found the progress of the discussion impeded on the side of those who insist that the final reality is a materialistic cosmos, without any non material components, and a good dose of time plus chance.
What happens invariably is people with this base premise, at least it has been my practical observation that this seems to be the case, seem to end up cynical about all aspects of mans attempt to objectively govern himself/herself as they inevitably place human volition under deterministic forces rendering man incapable of objective free thought or will, which of course, leaves a rather awkward pause in the momentum of the conversation as one realizes that the one who sought first to take the high ground of reason has just disqualified his/her self on the grounds that they are incapable of acting or thinking independently of the influence of their environment.
I was holding my two year old son in my arms one day, my wife had gone out. He looked up at me and asked, "where is Mommy?"
I said she was not here at the moment, as I was not sure where she had gone. He looked at me for a moment, then licked his lips, "mmm, she is buying me strawberry yogurt". She came home later with a bag of groceries, and yes, she had bought him some strawberry yogurt. Another time she was washing dishes, not saying a word, and in walks my son who says "I think we should paint it rainbow colors", and he walks out. She looked at me and said, "I was just thinking about what color to paint a chair, and had just thought about painting it rainbow colors."
It seems to me that both our mental activity, and the nature of what we take for granted as the world seen and unseen around us should be a bit more open, and any attempts on our part to categories or conceptualize the final nature of all things based merely on our experience with the things we can see and feel should be done so with a realization that we are attempting to paint a picture of what might be a rainbow when we can only use black and white crayons to do so.
Those who walked with Jesus after He rose from the grave, continued on with a faith identical to those who did not see Him, as they now had moved from a faith based on what they could see physically, to one that they now perceived in the spirit, as John writes in 1 John 1:1, and Peter mentions in 1 Peter 5:1.
We are told the first step is that we must be born again to apprehend the glory of God in the face of Christ. That prerequisite should not be axiomatic with a failure to meet the standards of a valid proposition based on what all men can verify with normal senses, rather it simply moves it into another category, which we must admit is one we must all face eventually.
Post a Comment