One way to measure of a world and life view is to look at the lives of those who have embraced it best. Who have lived it out without compromise. In Catholicism we call these people saints. We can see the beauty of a life lived totally for Jesus. It inspires us.
It occurs to me that atheists don't have these. That is people who embrace atheism fully. People who take the idea that the material world is all their is and push it as far as it can be pushed. To say everything that gives us a hint of the supernatural is just an artifact of evolution. Morality, love, truth, purpose, virtue, miracles, everything is just something our minds made up to give us survival advantages. They may continue to give us survival advantages or not but they are not to be taken seriously as pointing to some greater reality or any reality at all.
When you discuss matters with an atheist they don't defend this position. One of the first statements they make is to declare that they believe nothing on faith and only accept things through reason. The trouble is they see it as a virtue. That arriving at opinions through reason is somehow superior to arriving at them through faith. This may be true but to an atheist it is just one of those properties of the human brain that evolution has left us with and we can ignore. My brain uses method A and your brain uses method B. Isn't that nice? There is nothing more to say because virtue and truth are illusions. Actually you can't say "Isn't that nice?" either because that is an opinion about goodness. Just remark that this state of affairs has a impact on the pleasure centers in my brain. What does it do to yours?
The atheists we have today don't go there. They talk about values all the time. They assert that it is possible for an atheist to be a very moral person. Why should a real atheist care about that? One evolutionary artifact gives me pleasure from being moral. Another one gives me pleasure from eating cheese. Why not assert it is possible for an atheist to enjoy cheese? Why does being moral matter? If Hitler felt like he was doing the world good by killing the Jews then isn't that feeling all that matters? Who cares if it causes the human species to become extinct? That is the way evolution is supposed to work. We do what we do and we either survive or some other species does. Why does any of it matter?
The one thing atheists seem very concerned about is intelligence. They want to be seen as smarter than religious people. Again, this relies on a notion that the intellect is useful for arriving at truth and that truth is inherently good. But this is precisely what is being denied. Just say "I think of myself as smarter than you because it pleases me to do so." Who cares if it is true or not?
There is even the notion that humanity will somehow be better off if religion dies and atheism dominates. But "better" is one of those concepts atheists can't find scientific proof for. Even leaving that aside, where would the work ethic come from? How could the integrity of the scientific method be maintained without participants who value personal integrity?
These un-atheistic ideas flow regularly from even the most celebrated atheists. So atheists really don't have saints like we have. That is people who embrace atheism without compromise. Perhaps it is not possible. Perhaps it is just an inhuman philosophy.
Does this prove atheism is false? No. It does make you wonder though. People who try and embrace true atheism fail. They import some value system from somewhere. But maybe humans are so dysfunctional they can't embrace the truth even if they want to. It is logically possible. As Christians we believe that the agape love God wants us to live out cannot be fully grasped. But people failing to live out higher ideals seems more plausible than people actually refusing to drop to a lower standard.
Think of a diet. We can see why people might not live out a diet even if it is imposed for very good reasons. But why would someone make up a diet for no good reason? Then when they discover the diet is made up they still can't just follow their appetite and eat what they want. That is harder to see.
Just because we don't live up to your moronic and self-serving nonsense about atheism doesn't mean that we fail to embrace true atheism. (And you might want to learn the difference between atheism, skepticism, naturalism and materialism. They are all distinct, although overlapping, concepts.) There are good reasons to act morally, reasons that are not terribly difficult to grasp. Unfortunately, you appear to be too stupid or willfully ignorant to understand them, or are dishonestly refusing to admit them.
ReplyDeleteMorality just consists of giving up an exploitative individual benefit for a mutual benefit. We give up the individual benefit of stealing, for example, for the mutual benefit of having property. We recognize that the mutual benefit of everyone supporting property rights makes everyone better off than if no one supported them, and thus we support social institutions such as governments, police, laws, judges and prisons — rather than ridiculous supernatural fantasies — that encourage and support our mutual benefit.
I will admit that we atheists are often not at all "moral" by religious standards. Religious "morality" has justified slavery, the oppression of women and gay people, and institutions that protect and defend child rapists. That is a morality we can do without and we are proud to abandon.
Dear Randy, I found your article via Larry, the Barefoot Bum. Like Larry, I am a "true" atheist having converted from Catholicism. Like most people who come from profoundly different view points, we have trouble communicating with each other. I think that's why I had such a hard time understanding your point in this article. No offense intended to you, but it's like you were stringing noun-verb-adjectives together in a way that I knew what each individual word meant but were meaningless when put together in that particular fashion.
ReplyDeleteThis is not me claiming to be smarter than you for our misunderstanding, just a statement that I'm having trouble understanding what you mean.
Anyway, out of curiosity, why did you convert to Catholicism. I'm not familiar with reformed protestant. Was your fiance Catholic? Or was it something else like the Church being more "Truthful"?
Scott,
ReplyDeleteThanks for commenting. I am sorry I didn't express things in a way you understand. Unfortunately I am unclear about what it is precisely that you are not getting. If you can point out a couple of sentences I can try and restate things in a language that is perhaps better.
Why did I convert to Catholicism? That is a long story. The short answer is because it is true. I was raised protestant. I accepted Christianity after some periods of questioning. Then I encountered Catholicism and became convinced it is the way Christ wanted Christianity to be. I am married to a cradle Catholic but most of the reasons for becoming Catholic came from my own research.
I would not describe the Catholic church as more "truthful." That sounds like the protestant churches I was involved with were somehow dishonest. They were not. They tried to find the truth and live the truth as best they knew how. I would say Catholicism has been given the truth more clearly and more completely. What Catholics do with that truth is not always better than what protestants or atheists do with the truth they have. But you want to base your life choices on what is really true.
Larry,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the comment. I am glad to see opposing views here. I do hope we can discuss these matter without using phrases like "moronic and self-serving nonsense." I like to have logical discussions about what is true. These kinds of phrases are what is known as an ad hominem fallacy. I want to avoid all logical fallacies but especially that one. It tends to damage feelings and destroy discussion.
And you might want to learn the difference between atheism, skepticism, naturalism and materialism. They are all distinct, although overlapping, concepts.
You are right. I understand the differences at least to some extent. I did use some words interchangeably because I did not want to point out all the differences in this post. One problem is these differences are not defined anywhere. Catholics have the bible and a catechism that defines what we believe. Nothing of the sort exists for atheism so anything you say about them is likely only going to describe some subset of them.
There are good reasons to act morally, reasons that are not terribly difficult to grasp. Unfortunately, you appear to be too stupid or willfully ignorant to understand them, or are dishonestly refusing to admit them.
I do grasp some of them. I was assuming the main one was that people feel good when they do good. That you might help a disadvantaged child for that reason. But there is a deeper question. Why do you want to be seen as moral? Why does concept even matter. Why not say morality is just something we used to survive while we were evolving. We may or may not want to keep using it.
Morality just consists of giving up an exploitative individual benefit for a mutual benefit. We give up the individual benefit of stealing, for example, for the mutual benefit of having property. We recognize that the mutual benefit of everyone supporting property rights makes everyone better off than if no one supported them, and thus we support social institutions such as governments, police, laws, judges and prisons — rather than ridiculous supernatural fantasies — that encourage and support our mutual benefit.
I would not call this morality. It is more a social structure. People respect property for fear of the police or some social punishment for being labeled a thief. Morality would be what prevents somebody from stealing when there is no way they will get caught.
Even then we would not say atheists don't have that. They might feel bad when they steal. We would say there is a spiritual dimension to that but there is also a social dimension. Atheists would have both but could only admit to the social one. So that isn't the problem. What is? Maybe I need another post to explain this.
Moral feelings are sometimes overridden by logic. But there needs to be some absolute. That is out of the reach of logic. Otherwise we can rationalize anything.
I will admit that we atheists are often not at all "moral" by religious standards. Religious "morality" has justified slavery, the oppression of women and gay people, and institutions that protect and defend child rapists. That is a morality we can do without and we are proud to abandon.
This seems like throwing mud. We can discuss all these issues if you want. But you characterize religious morality in a way that religious people would not accept. We don't accept that we oppress women and gays. We don't see child rape or slavery as moral. So why attack a straw man? Tell me where Catholics are wrong but try and get the Catholic position right. I can help with that but you have to at least try.
Randy, I can only spend a minute so please forgive me. You finished your post with "But you want to base your life choices on what is really true."
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me the physical world is more "true" than the transubstantiation for the host for example. Isn't reality in some sense more "true" than all the mysticism of the Catholic church? Isn't it better to start with reality and materialism and approach the supernatural only so far as the evidence allows?
On an aside, have you ever read GODLESS by Dan Barker or THE DEMON HAUNTED WORLD by Carl Sagan? I'm sure you're comfortable in your faith so these might not interest you much but if you have the time, in my opinion, they're both well worth reading.
Not problem Scott. I do not think what is physical is more true than what is spiritual. Propositions are either true or false. There is no such thing as more true or less true. There are degrees of certainty. We have ways of becoming very certain of physical truths. We have different ways of becoming certain of spiritual truth. But we can get there.
ReplyDeleteIt is not a matter of either/or. All people must make certain judgments about the physical world and about the spiritual world. To say it does not exists or if it does exist it can be safely ignored is a proposition that can be true or false. We need to make a judgement. Questions of morals and questions of the meaning and purpose of life are hard. Initially at least we might be unsure of our answers. But that does not mean we should not address the questions. We are capable of thinking at a high level. So maybe we are supposed to do that and not just limit our thoughts to the physical. Again, just answering that question requires we go beyond the physical world.
I did make another post to deal with morality question more fully.
ReplyDeletehttp://ephesians4-15.blogspot.com/2011/06/atheists-and-morality.html
I would say Nietzsche in the Genealogy of Morals address your question about an atheist morality. A car is designed to drive, a good car is one that drives and drives well. A bad car is a car that cannot be made to drive well. A good hammer is one that pushes nails into a board, a bad hammer is one that doesn't.
ReplyDeleteAnimals similarly have objectives like finding food and reproducing. A good animal is one that is able to maintain and expand its ecological niche over multiple generations. A good society of humans is one that helps humans maintain and expand their ecological niche over multiple generations.
A good morality is one that helps individuals in a society act in ways that enable the society to fulfill its objectives. Because most societal objectives are biologically based, and most societies are based on other societies morality tends to be relatively stable across time and place. And this allows us to talk about morality as if it were an objective universal, mostly. To address the exceptions we talk about morality "developing" or "growing". As to why I as an individual should be moral, it is because I value the benefits of the society that produced the morality.
Transcendant morality in the Christian sense is the morality that can be derived from the purely biological nature of the good.