Friday, February 17, 2012

Atheist Ethics

One of the common accusations I hear from Christian apologists[1] is that atheists have no basis for their morality. Admittedly, it's important to consider the source in situations like this. The most recent case that I'm aware of is Ken Ham, a man whose goal in life seems to be to condense the depth, richness, and variety of Biblical teachings into a handful of bumper-sticker slogans as a service to future generations. Since this Quixotic quest forces him to discard a significant portion of scientific knowledge (and, arguably, the entire scientific method) as incompatible with his grossly oversimplified approach to Christianity, he may conceivably not be the best man to consult on, well, much of anything. Nevertheless, the view that he presents - this idea that atheists have no firm basis for their ethics, and perhaps no ethics at all - is not uncommon among the more insular sorts of Christians.

So, strictly as an intellectual exercise, I thought I'd demonstrate how it's possible to get to a consistent basis for morality without any appeal to (or belief in) the supernatural. Here's how it works:

It's a fairly simple observation - I'd go so far as to call it obvious - that people get more done when they work together. We can set up systems: share resources, divide labor, concentrate on one task or one type of task instead of having to do everything for ourselves. We may not always enjoy it - there's friction, and disagreements, and power struggles - but it does get more done. So, in terms of making sure that people have both basic necessities and little luxuries, cooperation is highly beneficial. Cooperation, then, is why people tend to live in groups: tribes, towns, nations, and other social systems.

Those sorts of social systems work best, however, when everybody involved is playing by the same rules - and, I think, when those rules have provisions that allow them to adapt to new or changing information. That means, basically, that everybody shares the same set of morals. That never actually happens, of course, but any functioning social group will have a workable approximation: a social contract.

Part of the difficulty in establishing such a contract, however, is what project managers like to call "buy in". Basically, if you want to implement a new system, or change an existing system, you have to get enough people to agree in order to make the change work. And it's easiest to get people to agree voluntarily is if the system (or the change) treats everyone fairly (or more fairly).[2] In other words, whatever the specifics of your social contract, it will work best if you treat other people the way you would want to be treated if you were in their place.

And there you have a working atheistic basis for morality: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

This is enormously simplified from the details of actual situations in the real world,[3] but it does (I hope) show how you can easily derive the Golden Rule from simple observation of human nature and the natural world.

[1] "Apologist" in this context usually means "evangelist" ... and not infrequently "asshole" as well. Note that this does not in any way typify the vast majority of Christians, most of whom - in my experience - have a great many more important things to occupy their attention.

[2] There are other ways to get people to agree, of course: fraud, coercion, threats... I'd argue, however, that over the long haul those are quite a bit less efficient than voluntary cooperation, and that they're easier to enforce when resources are scarce; where resources are more freely available, it's a lot harder to force people to do things that they don't want to do.

[3] The process of simplifying complex real-world difficulties into simple abstractions is, I believe, usually referred to as "Philosophy".

58 comments:

  1. I think what gets me about Christians who make this claim is that the claim they're really making is much more troublesome and flies in the face of history. The reason they don't think atheists have a basis for being ethical is that they cannot imagine an ethical system that isn't based on Some Supreme Authority Declaring What Is Right and What Is Wrong.

    The thing is, history is full of philosophers who philosophized about morality based on reason rather than Divine Dictates. The Greeks alone had a veritable smorgasbord of philosophies that dealt with ethics. The Icelandic (I think) Havamal is full of ethical advice based on reason rather than Divine Dictates. Even early Christian philosophers were more likely to frame ethics in terms of reasoning from principles rather than "God said 'do this' and 'don't do that'." (I forget whether it was Augustin or Aquinas who once offered the moral edict of "Love God and do what you will."

    In this sense, I'd say atheists are in good company with many philosophers, including a good many theistic philosophers.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My husband and I were actually discussing this last night on the way home from our date shopping at Sam's Club (we lead such a thrilling existence!), and he pointed out that even higher primates have a concept of "fair" and "unfair", for example, given a group of chimpanzees, if a person feeds only some of the chimps and not all, eventually the chimps will turn on the person, because they're not being fair.

    So, yeah. Reason. I'm going to remember that next time my mother goes into Stress Overload because I'm not bringing her grandsons up in the church. Quelle horreur! Of course, it won't make her feel any better (I wish it would but I know my mom), but at least she may stop bringing it up on a weekly basis.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey, shopping together can be very romantic!

    You know, my mom gave me the, "Well, I want my grandchildren to go to church so they'll get some sort of moral instruction" line, too. (Now that I think about it.) That was an interesting conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks for putting into words what I've been trying to coherently put together for a long time. I've never been able to understand the idea that I, as an agnostic (or an atheist, when more angry with the world than usual), couldn't possibly have a set of existing morals or ones that weren't of religious origin.

    Amusingly enough, your basic layout is totally reminiscent of what I remember from my 10th grade learning of the Leviathan: the only way to remove people from their natural, chaotic state is to have them mutually agree to reside under an order they mutually agree to live under (the government/society).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Yes, but in Leviathan (purely for the maintenance of order) once the social contract had been established, the Sovereign's authority was absolute.
    Hobbes was very interested in the avoidance/prevention of chaos and disorder, and was very much prepared to have liberty fall by the wayside if necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Seriously, do people really believe this bunch of crap? There are so many unanswered questions to this article, it's mind boggling. Tell me, was Stalin's group "cooperating" well to achieve what they wanted? How many of you are "doing to others what you would what to be done to you"? How many starving people are you feeding? What did you buy from Sam's club for those who don't have "little luxuries". How many times have any of you lied to get something you wanted at the expense of another? How may of you have taken something that didn't belong to you? Is that "doing unto others"? Do some self-examination unless you all think you're holier than thou.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Congratulations, anon! You have demonstrated that atheists are not morally perfect! For your next trick, will you also demonstrate that water is wet?

      You see, as Michael pointed out (or at least alluded to), this post did not set out to prove that atheists were morally perfect. It set out to demonstrate that atheists can develop a basis for making moral decisions. Pointing out that atheists don't always follow that basis perfectly does not negate the existence of such a basis. If it did, then given the number of Christians who have acted immoral...

      Delete
  7. What does any of that have to do with the argument as stated?

    If you think the argument is invalid, by all means say so. But slow down, take a deep breath, and actually point out the flaws - or set up a counterargument. Accusatory rants don't do much to explain your points, especially when they don't seem to be addressing the article as written.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh brother, please stop whinning. I'm not trying to do a "hit and run". I have a life. I can't just be sitting around waiting on you to respond. I knew you won't like my answer. That's fine. I saying that the basis for your ethics is weak. All it would take is for one man (Hilter) to break it all down, or one corrupt president to keep his people in poverty, one money hungry union boss, one husband who adandons the family for the girlfriend. You can't even live up to your own standards. You all lie, you all take things that don't belong to you, you all break the rules on the highways, you all mistreat your kids and your spouses. You all gossip about fellow co workers and your bosses. That's why every town has crack houses and prisons. We are sexually abusing our kids. Child sex trafficking, prostitution and child pornography is rampant. Fathers are beating up their kids, ADT, the home security is having record sales. The police can't keep up with the gun violence, drugs and domestic violence. So, you tell me.....how that "social contract" is working out for? It's weak. I would think the reason WHY we are in tribes, nations and towns.....it makes more financial sense to live close together, it's convenient and it's social. Cooperation is the tool to which we stay a town but that's not why we build towns. I guess you don't like the way I am not "playing by your BLOG rules". None of you (or I) can live up to your own rules within your family, your work, your town and your country. You just might be one of the luck ones who doesn't get caught at breaking the "basic" rules of the land.

    ReplyDelete
  9. ::snerk::

    Okay, one little bit at a time.

    "Oh brother, please stop whinning. I'm not trying to do a "hit and run". I have a life. I can't just be sitting around waiting on you to respond. I knew you won't like my answer. That's fine."

    It's not that I didn't like your answer, it's that it's barely an answer. And frankly, your follow-up response isn't looking much better.

    I said, basically, "Here is one way you can derive a consistent basis for a system of ethics without appealing to supernatural authority." You'll note that I did not say, "This is the basis for my system of ethics." In fact, I specifically noted that "This is enormously simplified from the details of actual situations in the real world". And I absolutely did not say, or even imply, that if everyone would embrace this ethical groundwork, the world would be a good and loving place where all humanity coexists in peace, freedom, abundance, and joy while little bunnies frolic around farting out rainbows.

    I claimed that the Golden Rule can provide a consistent basis for moral behavior, and that you can outline reasons to follow the Golden Rule that are purely pragmatic in nature, and do not require belief in any sort of supernatural authority.

    "I saying that the basis for your ethics is weak."

    You're saying that the Golden Rule is a weak basis for a system of ethics? That Jesus was, perhaps, kidding when he said that "love your neighbor as yourself" is one of the two foundational commandments that all the other laws and commandments derive from?

    "All it would take is for one man (Hilter) to break it all down, or one corrupt president to keep his people in poverty, one money hungry union boss, one husband who adandons the family for the girlfriend."

    True enough, but I don't see how that refutes what I am claiming here. I'm not aware of any system of ethics - religious or secular - that gets applied consistently by human beings operating in the real world. Among other things, perfect moral action would require complete knowledge and understanding of events, and none of us have that.

    "You can't even live up to your own standards. You all lie, you all take things that don't belong to you, you all break the rules on the highways, you all mistreat your kids and your spouses. You all gossip about fellow co workers and your bosses. That's why every town has crack houses and prisons. We are sexually abusing our kids. Child sex trafficking, prostitution and child pornography is rampant. Fathers are beating up their kids, ADT, the home security is having record sales. The police can't keep up with the gun violence, drugs and domestic violence."

    I'm not the world in quite so bleak as you paint it here, but for the sake of argument let's assume that it is. As Jarred pointed out in response to your original comment... so what? What does that have to do with the argument I was making?

    And by the way, what's with all this "You all..." business? If you're accusing me personally, I call Shenanigans - you don't know enough about me to make those claims. If you're suggesting that "You (atheists)" do those things, I can only point out that I see the exact same behavior from religious folks, too. If you mean "you" in the general sense of "people", and you happen to be a human being, I suggest you use "we" instead. It's shorter and more accurate.

    ...continued below:

    ReplyDelete
  10. "So, you tell me.....how that "social contract" is working out for? It's weak."

    It's strong. It's not infallible, but it's strong. And the alternative, broadly speaking, is modern Somalia.

    "I would think the reason WHY we are in tribes, nations and towns.....it makes more financial sense to live close together, it's convenient and it's social. Cooperation is the tool to which we stay a town but that's not why we build towns."

    You're making my argument for me. People live close together because it's advantageous, yes. How did I put it? Oh, yes: "It's a fairly simple observation - I'd go so far as to call it obvious - that people get more done when they work together. We can set up systems: share resources, divide labor, concentrate on one task or one type of task instead of having to do everything for ourselves." Maybe you disagree with my choice of terms, but I would consider that a kind of cooperation. And I'd suggest that, as a matter of fact, that's exactly why we build cities and towns, and form tribes and nations: it makes that sort of cooperation easier.

    "I guess you don't like the way I am not 'playing by your BLOG rules'."

    No, I was just hoping you had a more thoughtful, nuanced reaction than, "Seriously, do people really believe this bunch of crap?" You're playing by the blog rules (rule, actually) just fine.

    Make you a deal, though: I'll quit "whinning" if you'll quit trying to be obnoxious about your disagreement.

    None of you (or I) can live up to your own rules within your family, your work, your town and your country. You just might be one of the luck ones who doesn't get caught at breaking the 'basic' rules of the land."

    Oh, gracious mercy me. You mean to tell me that people aren't perfect? Not even when they have a consistent basis for their morality? Goodness, I never would have guessed. But since I never suggested that they were, I still don't see what that has to do with this article.

    And finally... I'm still unclear on what sort of viewpoint you're trying to argue for. Since you clearly aren't a drive-by (and I admit, I'm more than a little surprised by that, since your initial post had about 80% of the Usual Warning Signs) would you care to explain? You seem insistent that morality doesn't work without divine authority to back it up, but you haven't said so explicitly; is that the point you're trying to make? Or are you just making the more general point that people can be, and often are, quite horrible to each other? (In the latter case... This is news?) If we're going to continue this, I'd like to have some idea of the basis for your disagreement.

    That said, feel free to take your time. If you're actually going to stay and converse, I'm happy to wait. I'm not always online, either; I couldn't keep up my side of the social contract if I were.

    ReplyDelete
  11. “That said, feel free to take your time.”
    Thank you for your “cooperation”.

    I can’t address everything you have commented on. I have a life. I sure hope you aren’t using your employer’s time to write out your comments.

    At the beginning of your article, you made a “simple observation” (which is only 1/5 of the scientific method) that was only an “intellectual exercise” and continued to explain how, in practical terms, it doesn’t work. When you add “people” and their wills to the system, it breaks down. You immediately complained about me being a “drive-by”. Your system worked great when everyone agreed with you until someone comes along, makes a point and doesn’t stick around to hear you out. You immediately made assumptions about me based on past human nature. Seems like people aren’t “cooperating” with you, very well.

    The Golden Rule isn't a weak basis for moral behavior...we are. Our human natures are too self-centered. I was watching the news last night and there was a young lady who won a million dollars. She is still using food stamps because “they didn’t take it away from me so I didn’t say anything.” Nice lady.

    "That Jesus was, perhaps, kidding when he said that "love your neighbor as yourself" is one of the two foundational commandments that all the other laws and commandments derive from?" You actually went back to God to prove your point? Now that was funny. He also went on to say that we can’t do it if we rely just on our own human nature. We are too greedy and selfish. You’ve proved my point many times, in your behavior. Tell me, when you call people assholes, are you treating them like you want to be treated? Do you call your wife and kids that when you don't like their behavior? Or your boss maybe?
    How well are you doing in your “social contract”?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I can’t address everything you have commented on. I have a life.

    Passive aggressive. To claim that you can't respond to everything because "you have a life" is implying that Michael or others don't. That's rude and insulting. In fact, your comments have been filled with insults -- veiled and overt -- and inflammatory language. Considering you're criticizing the moral systems of others, you might want to rethink this behavior. Or admit that you really are just a troll trying to pick a fight and otherwise stir up trouble.

    Indeed, I'd note that you'd have plenty more time addressing Michael's points if you'd stick to them rather than spending so much time making insults and going on tangents.

    You’ve proved my point many times, in your behavior.

    How about your behavior? How about implying Michael doesn't have a life? How about all the other inflammatory language?

    Tell me, are you a Christian? Because you don't seem to be acting ery moral with Jesus. In fact, you've been far more inflammatory than Michael the atheist.

    Seriously, stick to the points.

    ReplyDelete
  13. "I can’t address everything you have commented on. I have a life."

    That's why I suggested that you should take your time.

    "When you add 'people' and their wills to the system, it breaks down."

    This seems to be the spot where we're missing each other's points. Here's the thing: you're absolutely right about this. I completely agree. (And I've already said as much in previous replies.) So if this is the point you're trying to make, you're preaching to the choir. Nothing in the article, and nobody here in the comments, is disputing that claim.

    However, the simple fact that people don't always behave morally in the real world doesn't refute my article. It doesn't have anything to do with what I was talking about. So by all means, keep repeating that my "system" quits working the moment someone decides not to cooperate, and I'll keep repeating, Yes, but so what?

    The point of the article was not to create something that would cause all people to behave morally at all times. So far as I'm aware, in the entire history of the world, no system of ethics or morality has succeeded in doing that. So the fact that people do not behave morally at all times does not refute the article. This is why I suggested that you hadn't actually read the article: you seem to be responding to something other than what I actually said.

    "The Golden Rule isn't a weak basis for moral behavior...we are."

    And now we're back to agreeing with each other. The Golden Rule is a strong basis for moral behavior. That's true regardless of whether you embrace the Golden Rule because Jesus said to do so, or for non-theistic reasons ("because it works", for example).

    "We" are not a basis for moral behavior. We are the ones who try to translate a philosophical basis for moral behavior into actual actions in the real world. That we often do so poorly, or simply choose not to do so, does not show that the principle is invalid. It only shows that the principle is being applied imperfectly.

    Yes, people are the weak link between moral principles and moral actions. But - and I realize I'm repeating myself - so what?

    The point of the article was simply that you can embrace the Golden Rule for non-theistic reasons. That's it; that's all I set out to show. If you are looking for a basis for moral behavior, a way to decide whether an action or course of action is moral or immoral, the Golden Rule provides a consistent way of doing so. Do you disagree? You can conclude that the Golden Rule offers a consistent basis (not application, basis) for morality, without relying on any sort of supernatural authority. Do you disagree? If so, why?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Michael, thank you for treating me like you want to be treated (without the “snerk” comment). I appreciate that. No one would want to come back to your blog if you snicker, call them assholes or make assumptions about them. The only people you would attract are ones like Jarred. Those who agree with every word you say. So thanks.

    “That's true regardless of whether you embrace the Golden Rule because Jesus said to do so, or for non-theistic reasons ("because it works", for example).”

    (although you've admitted that it doesn't work).

    So, what’s the alternative to the Golden Rule for you? Barbarism, Vikings, the judges of Africa, Hilter? What other choice do you have?

    If it’s just a nice rule that you like….so what? Who cares? It's just your opinion.

    (Whatever your answer, I'll take your advice and consider the source.)

    ReplyDelete
  15. “That's true regardless of whether you embrace the Golden Rule because Jesus said to do so, or for non-theistic reasons ("because it works", for example).”

    (although you've admitted that it doesn't work).


    You're still missing my point, I think. The Golden Rule works fine as a basis for moral behavior. That is, if I'm interested in trying to be a good person (or at least a better person) and I'm looking for a core, underlying principle that I can use to judge the morality of more specific rules and actions, the Golden Rule works fine. It can be used to provide a consistent basis for generating more specific rules and for figuring out how to react to specific situations.

    Let me try to put that another way:
    If I'm asking, "What basic principle can I use to figure out how to be moral?" ...then the Golden Rule works as an answer. It's not the only answer; it's not even the only answer that works. But it is one answer, and it does work.

    What you seem to be asking, instead, is more like, "How can we get people to behave morally?" And in that case, the Golden Rule doesn't work as an answer. No basic principle does, because that isn't a question about principles; it's a question about applications. For that sort of question, you need answers like "moral education," and "incentives for desired behaviors," and "social pressures," and "legal systems." But none of those will help you figure out what moral behavior is - they'll only help you get people to conform to what you've already decided is moral. And that is not at all what this article was intended to look at.

    ReplyDelete
  16. So, what’s the alternative to the Golden Rule for you? Barbarism, Vikings, the judges of Africa, Hilter? What other choice do you have?

    Given what I use the Golden Rule for, the alternative would be any of a number of other basic moral principles. Some are similar; for example, the concept of "enlightened self interest". Some are different; for example, "Do as God commands you." And some are so different that they are essentially incompatible with the Golden Rule; for example, "Whatever benefits me right now is Good."

    The point of the article was that atheists can have a consistent basis for their morality. The example I chose was the golden rule, so the rest of the article was designed to show that basing your moral decisions on the Golden Rule is not incompatible with atheism. Admittedly, having a consistent basis for your moral principles is not the same thing as consistently applying moral principles to your behavior; but A) I never said it was, and B) no other basis for morality can accomplish that, either. That's not what basic principles are for.

    So your next question:
    If it’s just a nice rule that you like… so what? Who cares? It's just your opinion.
    ...isn't really relevant to the point I originally set out to make. For this article, it doesn't matter if the Golden Rule is a divine mandate, a Universal Truth, or just a rule that I happen to like. All that matters is whether it's consistent - which it is - and whether or not you can use it as a basis for more specific moral rules and actions - which you can.

    Remember, my original question was, "Can atheists have a consistent basis for their morality?" My answer is, "Yes, and here is one way that this is possible."

    That said, I do think the Golden Rule is more than just "a nice rule that I like." I think it's an effective way to judge whether specific, real-world goals, rules, and actions are moral, and for that reason I think it's valuable.

    And since we're off on a tangent anyway: choosing a particular moral code doesn't make a person moral. What makes a person better is simpler than that: it's trying to be a better person.

    The only people you would attract are ones like Jarred. Those who agree with every word you say.

    Speaking of making assumptions about people... um, you just did. Jarred has agreed with me here on this thread, but believe me when I say that we don't always agree. He's quite capable of thinking for himself. I don't have followers, except in the People-Who-Use-Google-To-Be-Alerted-When-I-Write-Something-New sense of the word.

    Also... Try to look at this from my angle: an anonymous commenter dropped by one of my older posts, and the first words he(?) put on the screen were, "Seriously, do people really believe this bunch of crap?" So, yes, feel free to chide me for being less than perfectly friendly and welcoming, but please pull the beam out of your own eye, too.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Michael, you are getting much better at applying the Golden Rule with me.

    I think you’ve got the incorrect “common accusation” apologists have with atheists. It’s not that you can’t have or hold a basis. So you are arguing a bogus accusation. You wrote an article about a principle you are able to hold. Then you go on to attack those who don’t agree with you. What happened to the Golden Rule? You go on to explain how it’s application doesn’t work (which your behavior already proved). But you don’t allow me that privilege to talk about the application. So why should I take your writings seriously? You were rude and made ad hominem attacks on others. Then you went on to explain how the application doesn’t work. You allow yourself to mention how it doesn’t work but when I do, I get “that’s not the point of my article”. What’s fair for you isn’t fair for me.

    "The Golden Rule works fine as a basis for moral behavior."

    You can use any rule, method, logic, action or thought or illusion that you want to provide a consistent basis. If waving your underwear over your toilet every morning gives you a consistent basis to determine whether something is moral, by all means. If doing summersaults in your front yard at high noon gives you consistency to be a better person, good for you (but please make sure you are wearing your underwear while you’re at it.). Atheists can have a basis for their morality by watching Gumbie. A sexual abuser can have a moral guide for behavior. So what? He may not use it, in practical terms but he can have it as a basis for moral behavior. Basic principles are abstract, in your head, a thought, an idea. Feelings change at a moment in time, in your head. It’s something you like. It’s a preference. It’s just an opinion. You have a “basis” or “principle”.

    "underlying principle that I can use to judge the morality of more specific rules and actions, the Golden Rule works fine. It can be used to provide a consistent basis for generating more specific rules and for figuring out how to react to specific situations."

    Who are you judging? If it’s yourself, fine. If you are judging my moral behavior, you can’t. I have my own moral basis that I hold that is totally opposite to yours and you can’t say mine are wrong.

    "then the Golden Rule works as an answer."

    The Golden Rule is an “idea”. It’s just a thought. You can think it all day long. You can say it, you can write it down. So what? Your successful at having a “basis”. You can’t prove it but you have one.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "But it is one answer, and it does work."

    Are you saying that it works in your mind? Are you saying that you can successfully “believe” it, think it, have it in your mind? Then it doesn’t work for you. When you decide to do something immoral….for that moment in time you are not being consistent with your basis. You are abandoning the “basis” for that split second in your mind. So no, you don’t have a consistent basis for a moral behavior. So then, all it becomes is just a preference you might use at certain moments in your mind. Something you like. It depends on your feelings at that moment whether you adopt the basis or you abort it.

    "What you seem to be asking, instead, is more like, "How can we get people to behave morally?"

    I didn’t ask that. I don’t think a “basis” for anything is any good if you can’t apply it or when you do, it has no effect or a negative effect. If I was asking anything, it was….why have it, if it doesn’t work and produce “good” behavior. MY idea of good behavior, of course.

    "And in that case, the Golden Rule doesn't work as an answer."

    You have a basis “for you” that “you like”. O.K.? Why write this article about something that is in your head. It doesn’t help me to believe you. Why should I even believe you even hold the Golden Rule. Maybe you are lying to everyone. You say you hold it but how do I know you truly do? It’s abstract. It’s just a thought. It’s a viewpoint.

    "No basic principle does, because that isn't a question about principles; it's a question about applications."

    Applications don’t tell you if someone works…….results from the application does.

    "For that sort of question, you need answers like "moral education,"

    Or your conscience which makes you feel guilty or the fear of consequences, if you’ve violated yourself or someone or something else. Who is the moral educator….you or someone who thinks the way you do. Should Hitler be the educator? Also, why is it that a child instinctively knows when he does something wrong, he tells a lie to cover it up. Did you as a parent teach him to lie?

    ReplyDelete
  19. "and "incentives for desired behaviors,"

    Who’s incentive ideas? Yours or someone who has a different idea of what morality is? Who’s idea of “desired behavior”?

    "and "social pressures,"

    Can you be more specific. Maybe the Police? Well, what if they have a different idea of what moral behavior is? Then what?

    "and "legal systems."

    When you are standing in front of a judge or warden of a prison, you just might figure out what moral behavior you did wrong. But if the legal system is based on your rule and it’s only consistent in your mind, who should I believe, you or the judge? Why should I trust you or the judge. (But, I know, your article isn’t about the application).

    "But none of those will help you figure out what moral behavior is"

    So why mention them?

    "- they'll only help you get people to conform to what you've already decided is moral."

    Who’s the “you” and “you’ve” and what is the Rule they live by? If I think whipping people into conformity is effective, can I use it?

    "And that is not at all what this article was intended to look at."

    So why mention it then? It’s o.k. for you to talk about what your article isn’t about but I can’t address something you’ve written.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Given what I use the Golden Rule for, the alternative would be any of a number of other basic moral principles."

    You don’t actually use the Golden Rule. All you do is hold it in your head from time to time.

    "Some are similar; for example, the concept of "enlightened self interest"."

    Never heard of it. Can you explain it to me. Why haven’t you adopted that one? You don’t like it?

    "Some are different; for example, "Do as God commands you."

    The only ones I know who use this is Islam. You can’t say they are wrong though. I’ve never heard a Christian say or do it. Besides, what are you comparing when you use the word “different”. Your Golden Rule or someone else’s. By the way, where did you find this Golden Rule?

    "And some are so different that they are essentially incompatible with the Golden Rule; for example, "Whatever benefits me right now is Good."

    “So different” to what? “incompatible” with what “you” like and use? So what if it is incompatible? Why mention it. Do atheists use this rule ever?

    "The point of the article was that atheists can have a consistent basis for their morality. The example I chose was the golden rule, so the rest of the article was designed to show that basing your moral decisions on the Golden Rule is not incompatible with atheism."

    No apologist has ever said that the Golden Rule is incompatible with atheism. Who said that? You made afew statements, that’s all. You don’t hold it consistently so you don’t have a Golden Rule. It’s a made up thing in your head. It’s just an illusion. Like I said before, an atheist, or cat, you can use any basis for morality they want. You can use Hitler’s or Mother Teresa’s. I don’t know anyone who “holds” that Rule successfully. Not even you. The golden Rule is compatible with atheism not because of atheism but because atheists have the mental capability to do so and the willingness to hold it. You don’t have to believe in a supernatural to hold the Golden Rule. If you want to have it as a principle, go ahead. A rock can have it, if it can. I’m not a rock so I don’t know if it can. But since I may have come from one, why not? Right? The Golden Rule is compatible with atheism because you are a human being, not because you are an atheist.
    If it’s just a nice rule that you like… so what? Who cares? It's just your opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "...isn't really relevant to the point I originally set out to make. For this article, it doesn't matter if the Golden Rule is a divine mandate, a Universal Truth, or just a rule that I happen to like. All that matters is whether it's consistent - which it is - and whether or not you can use it as a basis for more specific moral rules and actions - which you can."

    How do I know whether you use it as a basis for more specific moral rules actions? It only matters when you apply it and I can see the results of it.

    "Remember, my original question was, "Can atheists have a consistent basis for their morality?" My answer is, "Yes, and here is one way that this is possible."

    It’s insignificant until you apply it. It can be your basis all day long. So what?

    "That said, I do think the Golden Rule is more than just "a nice rule that I like." I think it's an effective way to judge whether specific, real-world goals, rules, and actions are moral, and for that reason I think it's valuable."

    Morality = what I want done to me. Subjective. How's idea of value?

    "And since we're off on a tangent anyway: choosing a particular moral code doesn't make a person moral. What makes a person better is simpler than that: it's trying to be a better person."



    So Jeffery Dalmer may have held the Golden Rule as his basis. He tried to be a better person by killing less women then he really wanted to. So is he a better person? Or a father tries to be a better person by sexually abusing his 5 year old daughter 4 times a week instead of 8? Or a woman sees her boyfriend 3 times a week rather than 5 because her husband wants her home more? Is that a better person. Who’s idea of “better”?

    ReplyDelete
  22. "Speaking of making assumptions about people... um, you just did."

    Don’t worry, it’s just my “consistent basis for moral behavior”. Who are you to judge my basis? Listen, we all do it….all day long.

    "Also... Try to look at this from my angle: an anonymous commenter dropped by one of my older posts, and the first words he(?) put on the screen were, "Seriously, do people really believe this bunch of crap?"

    Why would that justify your rudeness? So what if it was an older post. Does that give you permission to be rude? Did you treat me the way you would have wanted to have been treated if you did a later post? Is there a timeframe in which comments become “can react rudely now”. So what if I used those words. You are the professional blogger, amateur writer. Shouldn’t you expect things like this to happen?

    "So, yes, feel free to chide me for being less than perfectly friendly and welcoming,"

    I am chiding you to prove a point. For those split seconds in your head, you were not using your “consistent basis for moral behavior” that I wanted. And of course you aren’t perfect. That is why I think you are an O.K. guy. Not because of your behavior, even though it is less than stellar. I understand and can work with it.

    "but please pull the beam out of your own eye, too."

    Are you preaching? Where did you get this statement from? If you are quoting from the bible maybe you should: a) state the location so I can make sure it’s really in there b) you're using it in its right context. We could have a bible study about it, if you really want to be accurate about it.

    Definition of Hypocrisy: the condition of a person pretending to be something he is not, especially in the area of morals or religion; a false presentation of belief or feeling.

    ReplyDelete
  23. What is the Golden Rule, exactly? And where did you get it? Why did you choose the golden rule as YOUR basis? What exactly appealed to you about it? It doesn’t work for you or society so why the golden rule? What exactly is a good person, by the way than being a worse person? Why is being good more important than being smart or handsome? Everyone loves smart and beautiful people. Why only use the Golden Rule to judge morality. Is being a good person just about how you might feel? Moral = what you would like to have done to you. So, you are actually using yourself, your feelings as the standard for a consistent basis for moral behavior. You want a principle that only regards your feelings. How exactly would you know how you would feel in a certain situation anyway, not knowing all the details of that situation? What if you don’t mind being punched, is it then o.k. for you to punch someone? What might appear to you, in a certain situation, in reality may not be so. You may be causing more harm. For me, I have a consistent basis for moral behavior…..it’s eating rare dolphin meat. You can’t tell me mine is wrong. 1) You aren’t a dolphin 2) you aren’t me.

    So, that’s all folks.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "I think you’ve got the incorrect 'common accusation' apologists have with atheists. It’s not that you can’t have or hold a basis. So you are arguing a bogus accusation."

    Nope. Follow that link to the Ray Comfort page, and read what he wrote. Or go read through the Atheist Tuesday posts at Stone The Preacher. Or try a quick Google search on something like "atheists no consistent basis moral".

    The argument goes a bit like this:
    1. Atheists deny God.
    2. God is the source of all morality.
    3. Therefore atheists do not have a source of morality.
    4. Therefore atheists just do whatever they feel like, in accordance with their sin natures/baser instincts.

    Admittedly, it's seldom presented as a syllogism; in fact, it's usually just a straight accusation, presented as something so obvious as to be irrefutable. Occasionally it's more of a sly implication... but whatever form it takes, it's a claim that actually does get made, and often enough that I run into it fairly frequently.

    So, y'know, I'm sorry I'm responding to the claim that I set out to respond to, and not making the claim that you'd like me to be making, but that's how it is.

    I'll have to come back to the rest of it later. I type fast, but that's considerably more than I can unpack during a coffee break. So please be patient; I'll be back.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oops. That should say, "Ken Ham page" and not "Ray Comfort page".

      Delete
  25. Okay, I have now read through your entire series of comments. And I must admit, I’m at a bit of a loss. At this point in the conversation, I can’t tell if you’re still missing my point (in which case I’m forced to consider the possibility that I’m just not expressing myself as well as I’d like to), or whether you’re just being deliberately contrarian.

    In the interest of brevity, I am not going to respond to each of your individual statements. I really have no desire to watch the length of our exchanges continue to grow geometrically until they take over the entire Internet and cast civilization back into the Stone Age. At the moment, that’s looking like a very real danger. Well, okay, actually it’s not so much that; it’s more that we’re at the point where we’re repeating a lot of the same basic points over and over, so I’m going to try to consolidate.

    I’m arguing that the Golden Rule offers a consistent basis for morality; that is, it offers a metric by which an individual can judge, to the best of his or her ability, the merits of other moral propositions and actions. Your objection to this, as far as I can tell, is that Golden Rule doesn’t cause people to behave in a completely moral fashion at all times. That would be a valid objection, except that:
    A) by that standard, nobody has a consistent basis for morality, which makes that use of the phrase effectively meaningless. By extension, you’re saying that Ken Ham is right to say that atheists have no consistent basis for their morality, but he’s wrong to specify atheists, since it’s true of everybody;
    B) and also, that’s clearly not how Ken Ham was using the phrase; and since I was responding most directly to his wording, you’re effectively changing the definition in mid-argument.

    So: the fact that people don’t always behave morally does not invalidate whatever core principle they’re using as a basis for morality, as we are using the phrase (“basis for morality”) here. Unless, of course, you’re trying to argue for some sort of Ethical Nihilism, in which consistent morality simply doesn’t exist in the real world. Is that what you're doing?

    Assuming that you aren’t arguing against the very existence of consistent morality, this claim that you’re (only) being obnoxious to prove a point is not only disingenuous, but badly misplaced. If I'd claimed to base my own morality on the Golden Rule (I didn't) and if we agreed that the Golden Rule somehow prohibits me from responding snarkily to your supercilious and accusatory opening posts (we don't), then by responding as I did, I would indeed be violating the Golden Rule. But, again, unless you're arguing for a definition of "consistent basis for morality" that would exclude not only the Golden Rule, but every other basis for morality, ever, in the history of the world... well, my response only proves that I'm imperfect, and we knew that already.

    Frankly, given the fundamental childishness of that whole I'm-Just-Obnoxious-To-Prove-A-Point approach, I think my response was fairly restrained. I did at least wait to see if you actually had a point to make.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Okay, going back to see if there's anything else that I ought to address... Yes, your complaints.

    "You wrote an article about a principle you are able to hold. Then you go on to attack those who don’t agree with you."

    Where was that? Demonstrate, please, that I attacked someone. Making fun of your arguments is not a personal attack; there's a difference.

    "What happened to the Golden Rule? You go on to explain how it’s application doesn’t work (which your behavior already proved). But you don’t allow me that privilege to talk about the application."

    Dude... I'm talking about application because you started insisting that if the Golden Rule doesn't make people behave morally all the time, it can't be considered a consistent basis for morality. And, again, show me where I've denied you the privilege to talk about the application... anywhere. I've said that it doesn't work as a refutation because it misses the point of the article, but I've never once said you weren't allowed to talk about it.

    "So why should I take your writings seriously?"

    Beats me. You're the one who showed up insisting that they were self-evidently crap arguments, then hung around to argue the point.

    "You were rude and made ad hominem attacks on others."

    Ad Hominem? Really? Show me where. (Am I repeating this a lot, or is it just me?) Where, precisely, did I say that your arguments shouldn't be accepted because you were a bad person? That's what an ad hominem fallacy is, you know.

    In response to your arrival, I tweeted this: "Nothing contributes to the overall quality of my blog like drive-by comments from people who don't bother to read the actual post. #Annoyed" Under the circumstances, that seems less like an unprovoked personal attack, and more like a reasonable inference based on the tone and timing of your first post.

    "Then you went on to explain how the application doesn’t work. You allow yourself to mention how it doesn’t work but when I do, I get 'that’s not the point of my article'. What’s fair for you isn’t fair for me."

    Again, I'm answering you. In fact, up to a point I'm agreeing with you. You said (paraphrasing) "the application doesn't work." I'm replying, "I agree that it doesn't work, but I disagree that that's in any way relevant to the article I wrote."

    Then, skipping down quite a bit...

    "Definition of Hypocrisy: the condition of a person pretending to be something he is not, especially in the area of morals or religion; a false presentation of belief or feeling."

    And what exactly is it that you think I'm pretending to be, and what exactly do you think I am? Given the context, I assume you're offering a definition of hypocrisy because I suggested that you remove the beam from your eye. Is borrowing a particularly apt and vivid bit of Biblical imagery incompatible with being an atheist? Because that's what it was: that's all I was doing.

    Would I be a hypocrite if I quoted scripture to a Christian? I've done it before. It doesn't mean that I think the Bible was divinely inspired or has any holy power, it's just a matter of trying to express things to people in ways that I hope will make sense to them.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Before I reply, you need to provide me the exact link where Ken Ham himself said this because I can't find. There are alot of atheist websites that accuse him but I can't find where Ken Ham himself has made those exact insinuations. I've never heard atheist's morality layed out like that. It usually refers to "objective" moral values. But even if he did, so what? That's his "consistent basis for moral behavior". To lie. Lying isn't immoral for him. Thanks. Then, I will reply. I promise, it will try to make it shorter. As you notice I was quite phiffy in the beginning but since you went into lengthy explanations I thought I would take the liberty too. Remember, you told me to take my time, so I did. Besides, I live by "what's good for the goose it good for the gander". That's my "consistent basis for moral behavior". But you don't seem to like it.

    Oh, and by the way, You made an assumption......I'm not a Dude. We can take topics seriously without being nasty.

    Personal attacks..."Apologist" in this context usually means "evangelist" ... and not infrequently "asshole" as well" AND
    "may conceivably not be the best man to consult on, well, much of anything."

    Sidebar......I just was on a blog where out of 10 comments by atheists I read bullshit, horseshit, bitch and fuck-2'x. So, atheist's morals....show. Atheists don't have problem hating what Christians say but you'all have built a fine reputation for yourselves too.

    ReplyDelete
  28. It's linked at the beginning of the article, from Ken Ham's name, like so: Ken Ham.

    I suspect Ken Ham would say that his consistent basis for morality is, well, following God. At the risk of putting words in his mouth, he seems to feel that doing so provides him with a consistent, objective basis for morality that atheists lack. And I'm not entirely sure he's lying, in the sense of "telling a deliberate untruth"; I think the conclusion proceeds logically from his premises. It's just that I also think his premises are faulty.

    Reply length... Please make your replies as long as you need to; I'm not suggesting that either of us needs to obey some strict restriction on length. Admittedly, I'd like to stay on topic as much as possible, and I'd rather not get bogged down in extraneous detail, but I'm really not trying to set rules for you.

    "Dude" is a masculine construction, but honestly it wasn't meant as an insult, or even an accusation. Nevertheless, if it came across that way, I do apologize. You're right that I've been assuming that you were probably male, but this is the Internet; for all I know you're secretly a super-intelligent house cat in Des Moines. And frankly, I don't much care whether you're male or female, which is why I haven't asked; for similar reasons, I haven't asked about your age, income level, or educational status. I'm curious about your religious/philosophical background, but that's partly because I really don't understand the vehemence of your objection to my original article.

    You mention this: "Apologist" in this context usually means "evangelist" ... and not infrequently "asshole" as well.

    Now, personally I'd consider that a general observation rather than a personal attack. Would you disagree that a lot of the more outspoken evangelists can be... let's be polite, and call it "pushy"... ? I'm not talking about all Christians, here. Not even close. I'm not even talking about all evangelists. I'm talking about the sort of people who think that telling atheists that they have no basis for their morality helps to promote Christianity.

    You also pointed out this: "[Ken Ham] may conceivably not be the best man to consult on, well, much of anything." And... Eh, all right, I can see where you'd consider that a personal attack. I think the man's ideas are silly, and probably doing more harm than good for the very religion that he's trying to promote, and I have a hard time understanding why anyone would take him seriously. Is that a personal attack?

    Let me come back to your sidebar, because I think that deserves a response, too.

    ReplyDelete
  29. O.K. I'm sorry but I just went back and read your links from the top of the article. What stuck me funny in "cousider the source" was two things. One, it had absolutely nothing to do with your "point of your article". Second, when the christians reference the bible when talking to an atheist, they can't do that. But YOU referenced the bible and that was o.k. Should I give the definition of Hypocracy again? Also, your friend Jarred does follow you around or you follow him. He was kind enough to quote the fuck word in his comments from the atheist article. That was sweet. So, what exactly would Jarred do with all the christian scienctists or the atheists that don't agree with homosexuality or abortion. You guys are so funny. Ken Ham's point in his article was about the List for kids to see, not about atheists' inability to have a "consistent basis for moral behavior". It was about the List and the manipulation of it.

    The joke about the cat was too funny. I liked it.

    ReplyDelete
  30. "One, it had absolutely nothing to do with your 'point of your article'."

    Not directly, no. It was part of the lead-in. But, having been told on more than one occasion that I absolutely must believe in God and just be in rebellion against Him (based on one of the Apostle Paul's missives - I can find the reference if you're curious), I thought it was worth reiterating that, when you're wondering why people don't believe in the scripture, going to the scripture for authoritative answers on the topic is a bit problematic. And that is where Ken Ham is going, so the reference is not entirely off-topic, either.

    "Second, when the christians reference the bible when talking to an atheist, they can't do that."

    Yes and no. Again, I don't see it as being as hypocritical as you seem to think. The Bible is generally considered authoritative for/by Christians; it's also (hopefully) a very familiar collection of lessons, stories, and images among Christians. So if I'm trying to communicate an idea in a way that will make sense to Christians, I don't mind putting it in Biblical terms. It's not like I catch fire if lay hands on the book, after all.

    And I really don't have a problem with Christians referencing the Bible, as long as they understand that I don't consider it authoritative. But that's speaking entirely for myself, and I'm not exactly what you'd consider a spokesperson for atheism, let alone any sort of "leader" (ha! as if) in the atheist "community". I'm aware that there are some atheists who consider any mention of the Bible an open invitation to ridicule anyone referring to it, but as a rule they don't show up on this blog.

    Jarred and I (and, actually, a few others who sometimes comment here) do hang around a lot of the same places online. It mostly comes of having similar tastes in online reading. We visit each other's blogs, obviously, but there's also:
    Slactivist (liberal Christianity and social justice)
    Forever in Hell (atheism, feminism, and snarking on certain sorts of fundamentalists)
    Confessions of a Former Conservative (liberal Christianity, liberal politics and social issues)
    The Slacktiverse (Liberal little-bit-of-everything)
    ...And there are probably several others that I'm forgetting.

    "Ken Ham's point in his article was about the List for kids to see, not about atheists' inability to have a 'consistent basis for moral behavior'."

    I was responding to this accusation in particular: "For atheists, there really is no basis for their ethics, therefore they believe they can do whatever they want if they can get away with it. What is 'right' or 'wrong' to such people is all relative." Ken Ham just happened to be the most recent person to mention that idea; he made a convenient example. It's a fairly common belief in some types of Christianity.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Ooh, I forgot to say - I'm giving your sidebar its own post. I'll probably put it up tonight.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Okay, I've been thinking about this some more... First of all, sorry to keep piling up comments like this. You probably don't need to respond to this one, though, for whatever that's worth.

    Just to make sure that we're on the same page:

    1. You do understand that I'm not in any way trying to argue (or even hint) that atheists, in general, are any more moral than anyone else, right? I'm just pushing back against the idea that atheists in general are particularly less moral than anyone else.

    2. You know that this isn't what most people would consider an Atheist Blog, right? I mean, it's a blog, and it's written by an atheist, but mainly it's a Whatever Happens To Come Into My Head blog. Sometimes I write about atheism, or religion, or philosophy; but it's not exactly a central topic around here. For one thing, there's really not all that much to say about it: I don't believe that God exists. I also don't think that golf is a worthwhile activity, or that Ancient Astronauts built the Great Pyramids. But once we've established that, there's not much more to explain, is there? Not unless there's someone actively insisting that I should believe, or I should think highly of golf, or that the ancient Egyptians couldn't possibly have managed the pyramids on their own.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Ken Ham writes an article about atheist’s unethical manipulation of the voting system. You are so offended by the 1st sentence in his article describing the mental unethical condition atheists are under to do this sort of thing. You make no mention for the reason why he thinks you are unethical. You then go on to personally attack him. Now you are trying to convince everyone that you have such a ‘CONSISTENT’ basis in your morality, as an atheist. And you want me to take your moral basis seriously?

    “Assuming that you aren’t arguing against the very existence of consistent morality,”

    Anyone can hold any system of thought or principle for his morals. They can say it all day long. Christians can say they have Jesus’s moral teachings, so what? Just words. You can say you hold the Golden Rule and it keeps you consistent. Again, just words. Why should I believe you? Why should I believe a Christian? So, no, I don’t believe you hold to any consistent basis for moral behavior. Just because you say so doesn’t make it so. I do believe people can be good at time. I do not subscribe to Ethical Nihilism. Most people do some good at different times in their lives. What their “consistent basis for moral behavior” is? I don’t know. But consistently….no. According to your ethical basis you would save Hiiter’s life if he were drowning. Some people are sadists and if they claim to hold to the GR, who are to tell him he is wrong? I believe it’s wrong to rape. I think you do too. Not because it’s the GR but because it’s objectively wrong. Basically, you can’t live by your own ethical system. You don’t have the capabilities to know the entire situation to make an accurate assessment. You could be doing more harm than good. Then the question arises…..who’s moral compass do we use…yours or mine. Of course you haven’t answered that question yet.

    “Is borrowing a particularly apt and vivid bit of Biblical imagery incompatible with being an atheist? Because that's what it was: that's all I was doing”

    No, I think it’s great that an atheist borrows from the bible. But it’s like this….say you wrote an article that was worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize. It was an amazing article that helped to save a lot of people from dying. Say, I read the article and used it but didn’t mention that you were the originator of the idea. I also didn’t believe that you wrote it. I deny the conditions and mindset in which you wrote it under. I went on to win the Nobel Peace Prize with your idea. How would you feel about that? That’s what you are doing. You are using the bible but not giving credit to the writers and the conditions under which it was written. I consider your articles “imagery” as well. I don’t take any of it seriously. Also, you have to use the bible in the correct context and you, as an atheist, you can’t. You wouldn’t like it if I were to take your article totally out of context, would you? If Stalin wrote a book you could use it as reference, for all I care.

    “fundamental childishness of that whole I'm-Just-Obnoxious-To-Prove-A-Point”

    That’s just your opinion. Who are you to say it’s childish.

    “Making fun of your arguments is not a personal attack”

    Those arguments are mine and I thought of them so yes, that would make it personal.

    “show me where I've denied you the privilege to talk about the application”

    O.K. maybe “deny” was the wrong word. But you sure didn’t like me highlighting how your GR fails.. YOUR BEHAVIOR.

    ReplyDelete
  34. “crap arguments”

    Were you offended?

    “Nothing contributes to the overall quality of my blog”

    a) that’s the internet!!!! b) “overall quality” is subjective. I thought it was good. c) your blog represents who you are and I insulted you. Of course, you won’t like it.

    “it's just a matter of trying to express things to people in ways that I hope will make sense to them.”

    You’re presupposing that you know what will make sense to me. You assume that I would understand the biblical reference but you have absolutely no idea what my worldview is or that I have even read the bible and if I did, that I understand it.

    “I suspect Ken Ham would say that his consistent basis for morality is, well, following God.”

    You suspect…you’ve read one article of his and then you suspect that?

    “I'd rather not get bogged down in extraneous detail “

    So stop it. You used up to 2 entire paragraphs to explain how you weren’t going to engage in lengthy explanations.

    “Nevertheless, if it came across that way, I do apologize”

    Apology accepted. I don’t get offended much by anything anyone says. Unlike atheists do. Jarred got offended real quick but he can justify cuss words used by atheists. Hypocracy.

    “I'm not even talking about all evangelists. I'm talking about the sort of people who think that telling atheists that they have no basis for their morality helps to promote Christianity”

    Atheists have their style of evangelizing ( swearing). They should tell people because it’s true and not to promote Christianity. Christianity doesn’t need promoting. Although, most people know they done terrible things in their past and they still do terrible things. Everyone has objective moral values and subjective ones too. Atheists don’t like to admit objectivity. It’s a cuss word to them. They like to be God of objectivity.

    “The Bible is generally considered authoritative for/by Christians”;

    How do you know that? So what if they do. Unless something about WHAT they are saying bothers you.

    “very familiar collection of lessons, stories, and images among Christians”.

    This comment shows your ignorance. Aren’t atheists the ones who pride themselves with their intellect? I think your articles are just images. Nice little stories. Insignificant lessons.

    “and not infrequently "asshole" as well…..Now, personally I'd consider that a general observation rather than a personal attack”

    Seriously dude, I called your wife an asshole (or something worse), you would not say “hey, I know that was just a general observation so it’s o.k. Go ahead and continue your point”. Can I call her a Bitch or a prick? After all, it’s just my general observation. Atheists say one thing but do another.

    ReplyDelete
  35. “I think the man's ideas are silly, and probably doing more harm than good for the very religion that he's trying to promote, and I have a hard time understanding why anyone would take him seriously. Is that a personal attack?”

    How do you know ? You would have to know all people who read it and the effect it had on them. You travel around atheist circles. Widen your horizons. I think your writing do more harm than good for the atheist cause.

    “But, having been told on more than one occasion that I absolutely must believe in God and just be in rebellion against Him”

    You don’t have to believe in God. You’re probably incapable. Everyone is in rebellion against God. If you were any kind of a deep thinker, you would look at yourself and at others and see that something is wrong with you. You’ve done and said a lot of hurtful things but you probably will never think deeply enough to want to find out why. The mirror is ugly.

    “why people don't believe in the scripture, going to the scripture for authoritative answers on the topic is a bit problematic.”

    YOU quoted from it like it’s authoritative. Why can’t they? Atheists quote the Origin of Species. Others go to the Secular Humanist manifesto. Should I tell them to knock it off. And so what if they do? It’s only problematic if something about it rings true. Would you care if I quoted from Buddha’s teachings? Probably not.

    “a very familiar collection of lessons, stories, and images among Christians. So if I'm trying to communicate an idea in a way that will make sense to Christians, I don't mind putting it in Biblical terms. It's not like I catch fire if lay hands on the book, after all”

    If I were you and I started smelling something burning, I would check my backside. Your’re trying to communicate an idea in biblical terms is like me trying to explain a biology book to biologist. You sure do make a lot of assumptions here. GR is kidding in.
    “And I really don't have a problem with Christians referencing the Bible, as long as they understand that I don't consider it authoritative”

    You’ve contradicted yourself. First you complain that Christians reference the scripture and now you’re o.k. with it. Why does this bother atheists so much? If you don’t consider it authoritative then it shouldn’t bother you. If you are confident in what you know to be true, a Christian quoting the bible shouldn’t bother you, even if they think it’s authoratative If they quoted from the Veggie Tales and thought it was authoritative, you won’t care.

    "I'm aware that there are some atheists who consider any mention of the Bible an open invitation to ridicule”

    Why ridicule? Why not poke holes in the argument. If you’re argument is valid then atheists shouldn’t have a problem. No need for ridicule. When your argument is weak you have to resort to ridicule. Maybe what the Christian is saying is ringing true and that bothers you. Also, it doesn’t warm people up to talking to atheists and hearing their points when they resort to ridicule.

    ReplyDelete
  36. “It mostly comes of having similar tastes in online reading.”

    Do you know how many websites there are that share your tastes and yet the two of you show up together in common websites? Do you two have an “internet marriage”?

    “It's a fairly common belief in some types of Christianity.”

    Have you spoken to all types of Christians. Which “type” are you referring to?

    “I'm giving your sidebar its own post. I'll probably put it up tonight.”

    Don’t forget to mention your “asshole” comment.

    Have you read the article that Denzel Washington wrote about atheists. You aren’t going to like it. But go ahead and take it out of context. You seem to be good at doing that.

    I think atheists in “general” of course, not any particular “type” of atheists, don’t have the emotional, spiritual and intellectual capacity to think any other way but atheism. Self-centered and selfishness prevents accountability. Atheists don’t seem to like accountability. Case in point….your article on atheists’ politeness. Atheists are holier-than-thou.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Okay, I have a couple of questions before I try to respond further.

    1. You're a Christian. What's your denomination/tradition/background? How would you describe your beliefs?

    2. What exactly does the word "atheist" mean to you?

    3. Are you, in fact, here to argue that atheists are Bad People? Is that basically your thesis?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Forgot #4: What's your goal, here? What exactly do you hope to accomplish?

      Delete
  38. Look Michael, I’m not here to cause a fight or put you down. When I first read your blog, it bothered me. We are smart people but as human beings if we don’t acknowledge that there is a big problem, how do we fix it? You talked about a system, if done right, works. Your personal system works. I’m trying to tell you that it doesn’t. There are children starving, being sexually abused, being sold as sex slaves (here and in the world). We are putting guns in their hands and they are killing. Our kids are shooting up drugs so much that they won’t think twice about robbing you or your wife. You guys make it sound like it’s just a minor inconvenience. Look, I’m sure you're good guys. But there is a problem out there and it’s a big problem but you all think it’s a minor issue in the social contract. The awful things that are going on in the world today will affect you and your kids, one day. There is a film maker, who only has his camera, his talents, his voice and his genius mind, and in 30 minutes has changed the world. If you haven’t seen kony 2012, please do. One man, one camera, one brain, one cause. I think you can be like the film maker with your writing talents. I don’t know if the film maker is a Christian or an atheist. I don’t really care. He is doing something so amazing. He is saving thousands of children, all in 30 minutes. I think you are a very talented writer. I also think you have a great avenue where you can do much good and help those who don’t have a voice. You spend your time and skills talking about Ken Ham or the girlfriend you had when you 5 years old or whether saying “Jesus Christ” is using His name in vain. Instead you spend your time mocking it. Whether you believe in Jesus, you are mock a man that has changed hardcore bikers who used to sell drugs to kids and raped women and now who serve at a homeless food shelters. Go up to one of them and use Jesus as a cuss word or any cuss word, see what happens. They are my friends. I went on atheist charity websites to see what kind of charity they are engaged in because they brag about it all the time. Some of them are doing great work feeding the hunger and going to places where people need our help. But 90% of them are about political activism (which is good) but their causes are crazy. I don’t want to pay for a girl who has a lot of money and a boyfriend, for her birth control when I can feed a young child with that money. She has the means to pay for it herself. I just bought a whole bunch of winter hats and mitts for kids who don’t have heating in their homes. There are elderly people who have no heat in America. I know they freeze in the winter. That’s where I want my money to go. I hope you understand. I am not who you think I am and I’m not the person in these comments. I’m trying to open your eyes to a problem. It’s a big problem. I want you to use your voice to help.That’s all. You can't if you think the problem is small. If you think that you and Jarred are o.k. and things are o.k. then how can you help? You guys were so hell bent (sorry for the pun) on insisting you're good. I keep hearing atheists say there is no meaning to our lives and I say….go tell that to the kid holding the gun and he will go in and start shooting at your kids in their schools. The poor in American are in the top 8% of the wealthiest people in the world. I’m sorry if I said some stuff that bother you. I am sure your wife is a great person. Tell Jarred, it’s o.k. that he gets offended but he should put that offence in a much more worthy cause than me. Get offended by those who are hurting our children. People like the pedophiles on the internet. Get offended by that. That’s all I have to say. Please watch Kony 2012. I took the long way around to get to this point. You were too defensive earlier and you dismissed the problems of the world. You still might and that's fine too. You can keep on thinking you're good and not think about what I said. Either way, you decide.

    ReplyDelete
  39. “Look Michael, I’m not here to cause a fight or put you down.”

    Permit me to doubt you. Again, look at your first two comments. Neither reflects the approach of someone who wants a reasoned exchange of ideas, or someone who would like to share an alternate perspective, or someone who wants to point out that if we’re trying to be better people, there’s a lot of work to be done to reduce the amount of misery in the world. Instead, those comments look like you got mad about something I said and decided to try and teach me a lesson.

    “When I first read your blog, it bothered me. We are smart people but as human beings if we don’t acknowledge that there is a big problem, how do we fix it? You talked about a system, if done right, works. Your personal system works. I’m trying to tell you that it doesn’t.”

    Yes, you keep saying that, but you have yet to demonstrate it in a way that doesn’t indict every other basis for morality just as thoroughly and immediately.

    “There are children starving, being sexually abused, being sold as sex slaves (here and in the world). We are putting guns in their hands and they are killing. Our kids are shooting up drugs so much that they won’t think twice about robbing you or your wife. You guys make it sound like it’s just a minor inconvenience. Look, I’m sure you're good guys. But there is a problem out there and it’s a big problem but you all think it’s a minor issue in the social contract. The awful things that are going on in the world today will affect you and your kids, one day.”

    What you’ve listed here? That is not “a problem.” That’s a long list of problems, some of which are more urgent and widespread than others. And I’m not at all sure I understand what makes you say that I “think it’s a minor issue in the social contract”. In point of fact, I do think those are genuine, important problems; they just don’t happen to be the focus of what I was writing about here. And frankly, I don’t think you know enough about me to judge whether or not I’m doing enough to help, even if it were your place to approve or disapprove.

    “There is a film maker, who only has his camera, his talents, his voice and his genius mind, and in 30 minutes has changed the world. If you haven’t seen kony 2012, please do. One man, one camera, one brain, one cause. I think you can be like the film maker with your writing talents. I don’t know if the film maker is a Christian or an atheist. I don’t really care. He is doing something so amazing. He is saving thousands of children, all in 30 minutes. I think you are a very talented writer. I also think you have a great avenue where you can do much good and help those who don’t have a voice.”

    Look, if you want to suggest that I ought to promote a particular cause, or talk about a particular issue, or even help out with a particular charity, go right ahead. But if you’re going to tell me that I shouldn’t be writing my blog the way I’m writing my blog, then… no. This blog exists to amuse me, and hopefully other people as well; insofar as it’s meant to do good, it’s meant to do good by occasionally brightening someone’s day. And, again, since you know nothing whatsoever about what I do outside of the blog, you lack both the right and the necessary information to judge whether my contributions are good enough.

    ReplyDelete
  40. “You spend your time and skills talking about Ken Ham or the girlfriend you had when you 5 years old or whether saying ‘Jesus Christ’ is using His name in vain. Instead you spend your time mocking it. Whether you believe in Jesus, you are mock a man that has changed hardcore bikers who used to sell drugs to kids and raped women and now who serve at a homeless food shelters.”

    First of all, I do not “spend my time” mocking Ken Ham. It’s remotely possible that I’ve mentioned him before, but he’s not the topic, or even a topic, of this blog. He’s only obliquely even a topic within this article. He just happened to be the latest example I’ve run into of this pernicious misperception that atheists have no basis for their morality.

    Second of all, whatever the good Ken Ham has done in the world, he doesn’t have some holy status that makes him exempt from criticism, disagreement, or even mockery. I find it worrisome that you seem to think he does. And when it comes to science and scientific knowledge, Ken Ham says some very silly things. Similarly, his approach to the Bible seems to overlook or avoid a great deal of the nuance and complexity contained in those books.

    Now, feel free to disagree with me about those things. If you think Ken Ham has a better understanding of scientific knowledge than the general consensus of scientists, by all means say so. If you think his approach to reading the Bible is perfectly valid and uncommonly insightful, let us know. If you feel that I am being rude or uncharitable, tell me. But if you’re trying to tell me that I shouldn’t make fun of a public figure who actively promotes some extremely silly ideas, well… I’m willing to listen, but I’m not likely to agree.

    “Go up to one of them and use Jesus as a cuss word or any cuss word, see what happens. They are my friends.”

    You know, I kind of hope I’m misreading you. Are suggesting that these reformed ex-drug-dealer, ex-rapist friends of yours have been so morally improved and uplifted by their exposure to Ken Ham that they would threaten violence or be violent to anyone who uses words they disapprove of?

    If that’s what you’re saying, then I’m less than impressed with how “changed” they are. I suppose that's still an improvement over dealing drugs to children and raping everyone around, but it's not exactly a moral ideal, either.

    “I went on atheist charity websites to see what kind of charity they are engaged in because they brag about it all the time. Some of them are doing great work feeding the hunger and going to places where people need our help. But 90% of them are about political activism (which is good) but their causes are crazy. I don’t want to pay for a girl who has a lot of money and a boyfriend, for her birth control when I can feed a young child with that money. She has the means to pay for it herself.”

    So, wait, what? Your objection isn’t that they aren’t trying to help people, it’s that they’re trying to help in ways that don’t live up to your standards? That sounds like what we used to call “making the Perfect the enemy of the Good.”

    And even if their help isn’t going to the people who absolutely need it the most – which, yes, could be a significant problem – surely you’d get more done suggesting areas and causes more desperately in need of their help?

    ReplyDelete
  41. “I just bought a whole bunch of winter hats and mitts for kids who don’t have heating in their homes. There are elderly people who have no heat in America. I know they freeze in the winter. That’s where I want my money to go. I hope you understand.”

    Actually, yes. You're... kind of preaching to the choir, with that one. But, again, that's not a sign of outstanding moral character on my part. It's more a matter of basic human empathy.

    “I am not who you think I am and I’m not the person in these comments.”

    I don’t understand what you mean by that.

    “I’m trying to open your eyes to a problem. It’s a big problem. I want you to use your voice to help.That’s all. You can't if you think the problem is small. If you think that you and Jarred are o.k. and things are o.k. then how can you help?”

    And once again, in addition to presuming to judge me yourself, you’re making wholly unwarranted assumptions about what I am and am not doing already.

    “You guys were so hell bent (sorry for the pun) on insisting you're good.”

    I can’t tell if you’re still missing the point of the article, or if you’re just being imprecise, but no. I am arguing (with you) that atheists as a group are not particularly better or worse than Christians as a group. The article that caught your attention was even more specific; it was written to help explain how that’s possible. Nothing more.

    I did like the pun, though.

    “I keep hearing atheists say there is no meaning to our lives and I say….go tell that to the kid holding the gun and he will go in and start shooting at your kids in their schools.”

    What sorts of atheists have you been talking to? I’m not doubting you, but that’s really not something that I hear atheists say – and as you might expect, I know quite a few. Granted, atheists as a rule don’t believe that there’s any overarching divine plan or eternal meaning, but that’s not the same thing as saying that there’s no meaning. In fact, at least in my experience, most atheists would follow up by saying that this is precisely why it's important to find - or create - meaning for ourselves.

    And the part where we think that this life is all we get? That's even more reason not to waste it, misuse it, or take it from someone else.

    ReplyDelete
  42. “The poor in American are in the top 8% of the wealthiest people in the world. I’m sorry if I said some stuff that bother you. I am sure your wife is a great person. Tell Jarred, it’s o.k. that he gets offended but he should put that offence in a much more worthy cause than me.”

    I’m pretty sure he’ll see your comment; I certainly didn’t mention anything to him about it when you first arrived.

    And while I can't speak for Jarred - and even if I could, I wouldn't try - I think you're misreading both his response to you, and the motivation behind it. Among other things, I seriously doubt you offended him.

    "Get offended by those who are hurting our children. People like the pedophiles on the internet. Get offended by that. That’s all I have to say. Please watch Kony 2012. I took the long way around to get to this point. You were too defensive earlier and you dismissed the problems of the world. You still might and that's fine too. You can keep on thinking you're good and not think about what I said. Either way, you decide."

    ...Annnnd, you're still not listening. The point of this article was not that I'm good. It wasn't even that I'm good enough. The article was about this recurrent claim, most recently espoused by Ken Ham, that atheists have no moral compass and therefore do whatever they want unless someone stops them. Anything else you're bringing into it is your own baggage.

    And that's fine, as far as it goes. I don't mind tangential discussion. I don't mind Topic Drift. If you'd presented this point as anything along those lines, you'd have had my sympathy, my full attention, and quite possibly my admiration. So if I was "too defensive", it's precisely because you were too offensive - not in the sense of "Oh, you hurt my poor widdle feelin's," - you didn't - but in the sense of "involving or having to do with an attack."

    Your approach here gave no hint whatsoever of someone trying to recruit a potential ally. Instead, you presented yourself as someone confronting an established enemy with the intent to convert, drive away, or eradicate. And I'd like to point out that I still followed up to see if you had an actual point under all that hostility. So I'm actually rather pleased to see that you have one.

    ReplyDelete
  43. You know, I just re-read all that - again - and it occurs to me that I may have missed a transition. You weren't saying that Ken Ham has redeemed drug-dealing rapist bikers; you were saying that Jesus has. And, of course, you were saying that I spend my time mocking the name of Jesus Christ. Right?

    Only that actually makes even less sense than what I thought you were saying. I spend my time mocking Jesus? Really?

    Okay, look. Here's the thing. I'm an atheist. I don't think Jesus, as any sort of divine entity, exists. God either, for that matter. I'm not even entirely convinced that Jesus was ever an actual, living man, though it's certainly possible.

    So I don't mock Jesus. Why would I? As far as I can tell, there's nothing there to mock. And, again, take a look at my blog. Even if you count oblique, qualified references, Jesus is only barely more of a topic than Ken Ham. So, again, where are you getting this?

    ReplyDelete
  44. No one is oppressing you. No one cares what you think. No one is out to get you. If anything, it's the other way around. You radical leftists have always used censorship to silence others. If you ask me, you're suffering from paranoia and should seek help. BTW, even Einstein said atheists were more arrogant and radical than the most religious zealots. Normal people tend to be agnostic. Again, seek help, comrade.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, and you're not really an atheist. You believe God exists, and you hate him. You hate him for the same reasons you hate the USA. You hate his power and influence and wish you could have the same. You see God as a despised competitor. Another left wing trait: pathological narcissism.

      Delete
  45. ...And now I am laughing. Thanks, I needed that.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I thought the golden rule was more like this:

    "Do unto others before they do unto you."

    Or like this:

    "It's only wrong if you get caught."

    The massive flaw in simply "the golden rule and cooperation" is the power to enforce it. We have already tried it plenty in history because on paper it is a great system. In reality we learn that we are all far too selfish, egoist, and opportunistic for it too work. We commonly call that 'paper perfect' system communism. Historically, that has produced the likes of Stalin and Mao, and variations of it made the likes of Hitler and Castro. Yeah, it's great. It's just that no one wants the rules to actually apply to them.

    Further, what's my motivation to help you do anything. I don't give a damn. Only because I might need your help one day? If you have nothing to offer me now I don't see how you can offer me anything in the future that I can't get else where. That is one insurance policy I am not buying. So I guess I'm kicked out of the town now (which ironically breaks the golden rule because who wants that), but I don't care because I can survive just fine without it. I only want to be around people because I like it, possibly because of a psychological need for companionship. I do not need anybody for survival until I am old but that's what kids are for which leads to the real golden rule that still some don't follow:

    "I only care about me and my own."

    Where my own is a small group of less than ten commonly called the family. This can and is commonly appended "and I will kill anyone to get me and my own what we need."

    ReplyDelete
  47. That's pretty much the same argument that the anonymous commenter above spent pages and pages making, and it's true as far as it goes: the Golden Rule is not a some sort of magic talisman that causes people to behave morally once they understand it.

    I never said it was.

    When I say "basis for morality", what I mean is root-level metric that allows you to evaluate whether an action is moral or immoral. The Golden Rule is one such metric. A "basis for morality" is not a fully developed moral system, let alone a complete society.

    I would argue, for example, that the basis of Christian morality is twofold: love God; and love your neighbor as yourself. ("On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.") However, Christian morality as a whole is vastly more complex than just those two rules; and Christian morality as it gets applied by real people in the real world is even more nebulous, messy, and complex than that.

    My argument was simply that it's perfectly possible to have basis for morality - and, by extension, a full and robust system of personal morality - built entirely on materialistic, inter-subjective reasoning, without any appeal to the supernatural.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see. I guess I missed that in the article (the distinction between basis for morality and a full and robust system of personal morality).

      I would say that no one who has studied ethics and morality (as argued by the greats such as Aristotle and Kant) would say that a basis for morality must be supernatural. It really can be anything. Would you say how you envision the golden rule is much like ethical egoism or ethical altruism?

      But maybe there is an issue here either way that I tried to illuminate previously. Your article paints a sort of communism picture (maybe I am wrong here). That's fine with me. Communism has worked well for small populations of 100 or so. But the issue exponentially complicates as you add persons and history shows multiple times that it just does not work and can lead to terrible things. I am trying to show the idea that we, the human mind, cannot comprehend society beyond 'my own' without largely generalizing that definition. Religion does that very well with 'Christian' and 'Muslim' and the like. They are believers they are my own. Patriotism does that too, but not to the same effect. But we cannot neglect that there is much amoral behavior among those very groups. I think this is why tribal nature is so prevalent in the lesser developed areas of the world. It is just too much to view 'my own' as bigger than a few hundred.

      Delete
    2. I suspect that I didn't do enough to clarify the focus of this article, or provide a better context for my thoughts. (Generally, if multiple people misread the same article in similar ways, it doesn't pay to assume that the problem is with the readers...)

      But, yes:
      1. I'm responding to the explicit accusation that atheists don't (and can't) have "any consistent basis for their morality", which is nonsense. Unfortunately, it's a pernicious and persistent sort of nonsense, which is why I don't just laugh it off.
      2. The goal here was simply to refute that claim by pointing out that, in fact, you can have a "consistent basis" for personal morality without any sort of belief in God or the supernatural. I'm not in any way trying to build my very own complete moral system, let alone establish a methodology for constructing a just and orderly (or even just sustainable) society.

      "Would you say how you envision the golden rule is much like ethical egoism or ethical altruism?"

      I don't know. I'm not an ethicist by any sort of formal training, and Philosophy classes were a couple of decades ago, now. I actually tend to think of the basis of my own morality not as the Golden Rule per se, but as a sort of enlightened self interest. That is, I try to be pleasant and treat people fairly because I find it substantially easier and vastly more enjoyable to live in an environment where people treat make the effort to be pleasant and fair.

      As far as the communism angle... eh? Like I said a moment ago, the article wasn't intended to recommend any sort of communist morality or social system. That said... the article is an attempt to refute the idea that {you must have a belief in God in order to have morality} by pointing out that, no, all you really need is an acknowledgement that we are communal beings. So I can see how it would look that way.

      I would completely agree that our tribal instincts (and the limits of our capacity for social perspective) are problematic in terms of both morality and maintaining a stable social structure.

      Delete
  48. The massive flaw in simply "the golden rule and cooperation" is the power to enforce it.

    The thing is, morality is not meant to be enforced. There's no way to make another person be moral. They have to choose to be moral for themselves. All that anyone else and society as a whole can do is choose how to respond to the individual who chooses to be immoral and the damage that individual causes with their choices.

    So I guess I'm kicked out of the town now (which ironically breaks the golden rule because who wants that)

    Only in regards to you. On the flip side, protecting those you would hurt and use from you is well in line with the Golden Rule, I'd say. And that's what makes morality so complex despite any relatively simple basis: Sometimes multiple moral considerations come into tension or even direct conflict.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Morality is not meant to be enforced."

      What exactly is a law then? Is it not something you should or should not do? All government action is an attempt to legislate morality. There would be no laws if it was not. Any government will tell you that a law that cannot be enforced is no law at all. I think you are splitting hairs. We want laws (morality edicts) that are enforceable because usually we personally have little to no recourse to take when we are done wrong.

      See my answer above about being kicked out of the town and why we are tribal by nature.

      Delete

Feel free to leave comments; it lets me know that people are actually reading my blog. Interesting tangents and topic drift just add flavor. Linking to your own stuff is fine, as long as it's at least loosely relevant. Be civil, and have fun!