Morality and Agnostic Atheism

[JM]

Please, if you quote from http://www.infidels.org make sure he gets props, alright?
_______________________________________________________________________

Can an atheist or agnostic atheist be moral? What is the basis for morality? Is having a moral standard inconsistent with atheism and agnostic atheism?

 

[thessalonian]

Totally moral? No. He will compromise God's laws. But can we see evidence of morality in an aethist? Romans 2:15 says that God has implanted his laws on all men's hearts. Yes, that includes the aetheist. So they can manifest moral character. They can relize that lying and stealing are wrong. Some do not want someone taking their wife any more than they would do likewise. Though many will compromise these things. This is not a denial of the grace of God bringing about good behavior because it is only by the grace of God that these laws are implanted on men's hearts. But if they have no belief in God there will be no payement for the sins which they will inevitably committ. So though they may do right in some areas, they are among the damned.

 

[Novum]

Please, if you quote from http://www.infidels.org make sure he gets props, alright?

What's that supposed to mean?

Can an atheist or agnostic atheist be moral? What is the basis for morality? Is having a moral standard inconsistent with atheism and agnostic atheism?

When discussing crimes, one must differentiate between malum in se and malum prohibitum.

Malum in se is a latin phrase that translates into "wrong in itself". Acts that fall under this category are larceny, rape, and murder, and these are wrong in and of themselves. Regardless of whether or not the act is "noticed" or punished, these acts are simply illegal from their very nature.

Malum prohibitum translates into "wrong because prohibited". These are crimes that do not necessarily violate moral standards. For example, insider trading on the stock exchange is simply the act of sharing information; it is illegal because it has a context in a larger framework of regulated trading. Parking violations, speeding, and so forth also fall under this category.

If you were to sit me, the agnostic atheist, down next to the most conservative preacher in town, we would most likely agree nearly 100% of the time on malum in se acts. It is ridiculous to claim that atheists are somehow "okay with murder".

It is on the malum prohibitum crimes that there would be more disagreement. For example, the Jewish tradition of not working on the sabbath day is something that I would not agree with.

But you probably knew all this already, and what you're more interested in discussing is why one does not require a religion in order to avoid malum in se acts. Does what I've said so far make sense?

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

I'd agree with you Novum. I have had frequent conversations with people on things that are objectively wrong and then things that are wrong because of a prohibition. I once toyed with humanism and atheism a little bit (between being baptist and catholic) and had come to realize this distinction. Of course, we part ways a little bit now, simply because I believe that there is a God who tells us what to do and not do for a reason and that violating that is objectively wrong. Just some things I cant prove with simply humanistic explanations...

 

[thessalonian]

If you were to sit me, the agnostic atheist, down next to the most conservative preacher in town, we would most likely agree nearly 100% of the time on malum in se acts. It is ridiculous to claim that atheists are somehow "okay with murder".

I have an agnostic friend at work who I would say is 100% on the same page as me regarding morality. Though I would have to say that some of his reasoning is a bit harsh. To me this only points to the law written on our hearts as spoken of in Romans 2:14-16.

14] When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law.
[15] They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them
[16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

 

[Novum]

I have an agnostic friend at work who I would say is 100% on the same page as me regarding morality. Though I would have to say that some of his reasoning is a bit harsh.

How is his reasoning "harsh"?

 

[Drew]

Atheists and agnostics can indeed be moral. I have come to believe that morality rests in certain properties of "systems of humans" and is not really all that mysterious. In short, moral behaviours are those behaviours which, if engaged in by members of a society, tend to maximize the attainment of certain desirable states - peace, freedom, security, happiness, etc.

The behaviours in questions form a "standard" understandable to all, believer and atheist alike. This standard of morality can be thought of as related to "standards" for good engineering. There are many ways to engineer an aircraft, but some are better than others and, arguably, there exists some unique, truly optimal, set of "engineering behaviours" that maximize the quality of the resulting aircraft.

Same thing with morality - there exists some set of behaviours that maximize goals we all find desirable - peace, freedom, etc. This set forms the standard of morality for that society - and I strongly suspect that the same standard applies to all societies - I can defend this assertion if requested.

By implication, I do not believe that God's character does not define morality - rather God acts according to the standard that I am talking about. He is morally perfect, not in virtue of his "being", but rather in virtue of his behaviour. I realize that this is a position some Christians will take issue with. We can discuss if desired.

 

[Novum]

Well said, Drew!

Much of what Drew is saying is similar to Nietzche's views on morality - basically, viewing morality as a kind of societal construct. If you're interested and would like to read further, I would highly recommend Nietzche.

 

[ArtGuy]

I would tend to agree with you, Drew. I contend that a perfectly non-empathetic being could still devise a perfectly functional (though not necessarily ideal) system of morality just be force of logic and the principle of enlightened self-interest, starting with the single axiom that human life has value.

I think this is well-evidenced by the fact that atheists don't arbitrarily go around killing people. In fact, I would doubt there's much statistical correlation between crime rates and religious belief.

 

[Novum]

I think this is well-evidenced by the fact that atheists don't arbitrarily go around killing people. In fact, I would doubt there's much statistical correlation between crime rates and religious belief.

Depending on where you look for statistics about prison populations, anywhere from 0.209% to 20% of prison inmates are said to be atheist/non-religious. I spent a few minutes today trying to find a more definitive study, but I wasn't successful. This is the kind of thing about which I'd like to see more detailed studies performed.

 

[reznwerks]

statistics

I would tend to agree with you, Drew. I contend that a perfectly non-empathetic being could still devise a perfectly functional (though not necessarily ideal) system of morality just be force of logic and the principle of enlightened self-interest, starting with the single axiom that human life has value.

I think this is well-evidenced by the fact that atheists don't arbitrarily go around killing people. In fact, I would doubt there's much statistical correlation between crime rates and religious belief.

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/baptist_divorce.html
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/238713.htm
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/206105.htm
"“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.â€Â
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/134674.htm

"Atheists, being a moderate proportion of the USA population (about 8-16%) are disproportionately less numerous in the prison population (0.21%)

Japan (the most atheistic nation in the G-8) has the lowest murder rate while the United States (the most Christian nation in the G-8) has the highest. Japan used to have much stronger religious faith, and a state religion, and guess what: Japan was remarkably aggressive and militaristic when "Shinto" was at its peak, and during WW2, when its Emperor was regarded as a God. "

http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
note that atheists, being a moderate proportion of the USA population (about 8-16%) are disproportionately less in the prison populations (0.21%)."
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:7_s ... =clnk&cd=9
From the Barna Research Group:
If prison statistics in the USA are reliable, religious people are imprisoned by at least 40 times the rate of atheists.

 

[Drew]

Re: statistics

"“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies. The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.â€Â

I do not dispute these statements. However, I believe it is important to be aware of the possibility that many, if not most, if not the overwhelming majority of people who claim to be believe in and worship God are actually not really believers (in any reasonable sense) at all.

It could easily be the case that > 90 % who claim to believe in and follow God are either outright not telling the truth or, more likely, are fooling themselves and are really caught up in a "religious culture" and have no idea what real discipleship means. I think that this is very likely the case.

 

[Novum]

Re: statistics

I do not dispute these statements. However, I believe it is important to be aware of the possibility that many, if not most, if not the overwhelming majority of people who claim to be believe in and worship God are actually not really believers (in any reasonable sense) at all.

It could easily be the case that > 90 % who claim to believe in and follow God are either outright not telling the truth or, more likely, are fooling themselves and are really caught up in a "religious culture" and have no idea what real discipleship means. I think that this is very likely the case.

No true scotsman logical fallacy. It is meaningless to speak of "real" or "true" believers.

On top of that, even if what you say is true, there's simply no way to determine whether these people "really believe". We'll have to make do with the surveys we have until we run better ones.

And on top of that, I find it very hard to believe and extraordinarily unlikely that the "overwhelming majority", as you put it, does not really believe in god.

 

[Drew]

Re: statistics

I do not dispute these statements. However, I believe it is important to be aware of the possibility that many, if not most, if not the overwhelming majority of people who claim to be believe in and worship God are actually not really believers (in any reasonable sense) at all.

It could easily be the case that > 90 % who claim to believe in and follow God are either outright not telling the truth or, more likely, are fooling themselves and are really caught up in a "religious culture" and have no idea what real discipleship means. I think that this is very likely the case.

No true scotsman logical fallacy. It is meaningless to speak of "real" or "true" believers.

On top of that, even if what you say is true, there's simply no way to determine whether these people "really believe". We'll have to make do with the surveys we have until we run better ones.

And on top of that, I find it very hard to believe and extraordinarily unlikely that the "overwhelming majority", as you put it, does not really believe in god.

I do not know what the "scotsman logical fallacy" is, but I am pretty sure my claim is indeed meaningful and suffers no defect of logic. The matter of the difficulty in determining who the real believers are is a conceptually distinct problem from the issue of whether there factually exists 2 categories of "believers" - real and "fake".

As for your difficulty in believing that the overhwhelming majority do not really believe in God, I would ask you to consider what I will call an "operational" definition - the one who believes in the Christian God (for example) is the one who acts accordingly. As Forrest Gump might say "Believing is as believing does". Do you think most N. American Christians act in accordance with the teachings of the gospel?

 

[Novum]

Re: statistics

I do not know what the "scotsman logical fallacy" is, but I am pretty sure my claim is indeed meaningful and suffers no defect of logic.

You can read about the No True Scotsman fallacy on Wikipedia.

The matter of the difficulty in determining who the real believers are is a conceptually distinct problem from the issue of whether there factually exists 2 categories of "believers" - real and "fake".

Certainly. But we can only speak of the former after we've established the latter. And that's where the logical fallacy comes in.

As for your difficulty in believing that the overhwhelming majority do not really believe in God, I would ask you to consider what I will call an "operational" definition - the one who believes in the Christian God (for example) is the one who acts accordingly. As Forrest Gump might say "Believing is as believing does". Do you think most N. American Christians act in accordance with the teachings of the gospel?

I don't believe that question is answerable, for the simple reason that we cannot determine the true teachings of the gospel.

By that, I mean that there are hundreds of different denominations active in the United States, and therefore there are at least that many interpretations of the gospel. When you consider that interpretations of the gospel can also vary on an individual basis, I don't think it's unreasonable to state that we may have hundreds of thousands or, more likely, even millions of interpretations of the gospel.

The vast majority of Christians, from the nutjobs in Fred Phelps' Westboro Baptist Church to the Mormons and Amish, would consider themselves "true" believers. This is why it is meaningless to speak of "true" believers.

 

[Drew]

Greetings Novum:

Let me try to express my position on the "true believer" issue a different way.

Underlying Assumption 1: God factually exists and has certain attributes. God factually wants people to behave in certain general ways (e.g. he wants people to be compassionate). In other words, there is an objective truth regarding what human behaviours satisfy God's wishes.

Underlying Assumption 2: God communicates his desires in regard to these behaviours to human beings (e.g. through writings such as the Bible and through direct "mind to mind" revelation).

While it is indeed true that there exists a wide range of definitions of what constitutes a true believer, these definitions exist in the minds of human beings and do not change the fact (if you accept Assumption 1) that God factually has a "checklist" of behaviours that He wants people to engage in. By virtue of His communicating these "desired behaviours" to us (by assumption 2), every human being has some insight into the "mind of God"/

Under such assumptions, it is not meaningless to talk about the distinction between true believers and "pretend" believers. The former act according to the revealed desires of God, while the latter, while they know what God factually wants by virtue of revelation (as per Assumption 2), choose not to do so.

This is the essence of my position on the matter. If there is a factual truth about what behaviours (and beliefs for that matter) God wants people to have, and if he "lets us know" then it simply follows that, in an objective sense, some people act and believe more in closely with God's wishes than others.

This could all be true even though no one person can, to the satisfaction of eveyone, determine whether another person is a "true" believer or a "pretend" believer.

 

[JM]

I see a lot of folks using their college debate book [which comes off sounding arrogant and pompous] I hope you'll see my point.

Two inductive fallacies can be found in the stats posted on the first page of this thread, first is “hasty generalization.†The samples are not explained and we are unable to conclude the samples as valid, thus, the poll is too quick to assume those who claim to be Christian are Christian.

I wonder if we did a polled to ask how many were innocent, could be expect the same honestly or do we probe to find out if they really are innocent? Did they become Christian before prison, or while in prison?

Side note to Christians: The Bible tells us that demons believe, if we have a Biblical worldview we must accept that at least two kinds of believers exist, those who are saved and those who believe and are not.

The second fallacy Christians need to be aware of is that of “unrepresentative sampling.†We have no idea of what kind of faith those being surveyed have, if they'er saved or unsaved. What the atheist has done is another inductive fallacy called “exclusion.†If the atheist accepts that different kinds of faith exist [one is true saving faith the other is a mental accent], it would change the outcome of the information presented. A category error is made, which is another fallacy, called “composition.†Assuming that anyone who calls himself a Christian must be a Christian. False. By doing this you ignore differing categories within the group.

See how arrogant and pompous I sound? [Please, no comments about how good at it I am. : ]

Peace,

JM

 

[Novum]

I did not claim to have found scientifically accepted, representative, valid surveys. I assume you are instead referring to reznwerks.

Secondly...

What the atheist has done is another inductive fallacy called “exclusion.†If the atheist accepts that different kinds of faith exist [one is true saving faith the other is a mental accent], it would change the outcome of the information presented.

You are making a completely unjustified assumption when you assume that the people running these polls are atheist.

Unless, again, you're referring to reznwerks. Stop overgeneralizing.

 

[Novum]

Double post. :

 

[JM]

Can a moral atheist be justified in holding to a moral opinion when we consider what the atheist believes?

Can the moral atheist sustain consistency within their worldview?

Does the atheist borrow from the Christian world view to prop up their own sense of moral justice?