Atheists and morality

[matgb]

Hell's Handmaiden:

If the assumption of God is dropped, we have to conclude that humanity has generated its moral codes in the absence of God. That is, if we drop the undemonstrable proposition that God is responsible for morality, it becomes apparent that humans have always done precisely what certain apologists claim is not possible– live by moral systems not derived from God, though frequently attributed to a God or gods.

-"Atheists are bad, bad people… man" Pt one, two and three

(via strange_stuff)

I've always had a huge problem with the "atheist can't have morals" argument. No, atheists don't, necessarily, share your morals, but most of us, especially the Humanists, have very strong morals, thank you very much. Some even subscribe to a common pool of ethics. Morality is personal. You make your own moral choices according to your own moral compass. If you only ever do something (or not do something) because some religion tells you it's right or wrong, how is that "moral"? You're not making a choice that it's the right thing to do, you're being a sheep and doing as your proscribed ethical code says.

I know a number of religious people with very strong morals, and I know atheists with very few. But, mostly, the atheists I know also tend to be amongst the most moral. Of course, my fairly anarchistic "harm not others, do as thou wilt" moral code doesn't fit as "moral" to many, but then, it's them misusing the word, not me. When was the last time you heard a leader calling for a war in the name of atheism? Yet we have modern calls for "crusades" and "jyhads" all the time.

Vegetarianism (and veganism) is essentially, a personal, moral, choice. I can't eat meat. Paul can't see animals exploited at all (I can, if it's not cruel). I'm a committed atheist. If I've no morality, how can I have made such a strong moral choice and stuck to it for 14 years?

Comments

[jackthomas.livejournal.com]

I of course refer to you to my ramblings oin morals, which I am sure you have read :) http://jackthomas.livejournal.com/95145.html

Anyone who says that an athiest is not capable of coming up with morals clearly does not have a good grasp of maths, emergent systems and economics if we are willing to accept the premise of self reglating systems. Ant colonys for example are a wonderful way in which small interactions between individuals build up to be a formidable co-ordinated hive with no central point of control. The rules of interaction between ants are goverened between a balance of best for self and best for the group as both are needed for survival.

The same can be applied for humanity, but forcing the last mileniums moral code onto todays hive will not work, moral code is a dynamic adapting thing and is self regulating.

[jackthomas.livejournal.com]

Talking of Ants...

http://www.mcrit.com/Complexity/applets/boid.html

[silentgreeneyes.livejournal.com]

I agree. Morality is entirely personal. True, christians have a morality given to them within the bible, and these are claimed to be from God directly.
This is stil a moral code that is either agreed with or not, and therefore a personal choice as to whether the morals are followed.
Some seem to have forgotten ths :)

[thapunkprincess.livejournal.com]

"God is Dead" because God no longer sits at the centre of a philosophical worldview that requires Him in order to function intelligibly. Humanism is partly about replacing this missing centre with Man, and morality is derived thereof - humanism is intimately tied morality. Obviously suggesting that you still need God as a prerequisite for morality is a hangover from the Judaeo-Christian language of ressentiment, and should be rightly ignored and/or ridiculed!

I'm an anti-humanist, which I think provides more scope for a moral worldview as it overcomes the mistakes of humanism - its reliance on a vision of the active, unified and rational agent acting in accordance with his own free will. This sort of Cartesian perspective has been fully displaced by the philosophical tradition that runs through Nietzsche, Marx, Freud, Foucault and so on - this is why I find your avatar a little puzzling. Humanism ignores the ways in which regimes of truth are constructed at the level of discourse, the ways in which the unconscious impinges on conscious actions, and the structuralist interpellation of subjects. In this way I think it limits its scope for moral thinking, but hey - that's why you don't find many humanists around these days.

Purpose of creation....?

[(Anonymous)]

The purpose of creation is a topic that puzzles every human being at some point in his or her lifetime. Everybody at some time or another asks themselves the question “Why do I exist?” or “For what purpose am I here on earth?”

The variety and complexity of the intricate systems which constitute the fabric of both human beings and the world in which they exist indicate that there must have been a Supreme Being who created them. Design indicates a designer. When human beings come across footprints on a beach, they immediately conclude that a human being had walked by there some time previously. No one imagines that the waves from the sea settled in the sand and by chance produced a depression looking exactly like human footprints. Nor do humans instinctively conclude that they were brought into existence without a purpose. Since purposeful action is a natural product of human intelligence, humans conclude that the Supreme Intelligent Being who created them must have done so for a specific purpose. Therefore, human beings need to know the purpose for their existence in order to make sense of this life and to do what is ultimately beneficial for them.

Throughout the ages, however, there has been a minority among humans who have denied the existence of God. Matter, in their opinion, is eternal and mankind is merely a chance product of accidental combinations of its elements. Consequently, to them, the question “Why did God create man?” had and still has no answer. According to them, there simply is no purpose to existence. However, the vast majority of humankind over the ages have believed and continue to believe in the existence of a Supreme Being who created this world with a purpose. For them it was, and still is, important to know about the Creator and the purpose for which He created human beings.

If you are interested in reading more, please visit our blog http://thejourney2islam-team.blogspot.com/

Re: Purpose of creation....?

[thapunkprincess.livejournal.com]

What a load of old proverbials! Is this like the Islamic version of the Intelligent Design thesis? Calling it 'design' is hugely presumptuous of humans. Perhaps 'Unintelligent Accident' is more appropriate.

Re: Purpose of creation....?

[tiredstars.livejournal.com]

And I never understood how people can go "look at the marvellous universe, it must have had a creator" but never apply the same logic and go "look at the marvellous God, it must have had a creator".

[matgb]

catching up
This sort of Cartesian perspective has been fully displaced by the philosophical tradition that runs through Nietzsche, Marx, Freud, Foucault and so on - this is why I find your avatar a little puzzling. Humanism ignores the ways in which regimes of truth are constructed at the level of discourse, the ways in which the unconscious impinges on conscious actions, and the structuralist interpellation of subjects. In this way I think it limits its scope for moral thinking, but hey - that's why you don't find many humanists around these days.

To be honest? You're doing a Masters in higehr end theory (my former housemate paulatpingu has something similar). While I enjoy reading philosphy and political theory, I really suck at it, and always need it explained to me in low end terms.

But point me at some public choice theory, or electoral mechanics, etc, and I'm pretty good. So, generally, you won't find me quoting the great thinkers often; I'll simply get on with what seems right, and ask advice from those that do get the thinkers.

Same applies for economics, etc; I'm a pretty good generalist, good at melding things together, but the higher end stuff in any specific field tends to lose me. We're all good at what we're good at.

I describe myself as a Humanist because what I've read of humanism seems to make sense to me as an outlook on life, but largely it's irrelevent.

Still, the anonymous god-botherer didn't come back, which is a good thing, I dislike Anon. Why they can't use OpenID is beyond me, maybe because LJ doesn't explain it well?

Having said that...
reliance on a vision of the active, unified and rational agent acting in accordance with his own free will

I actually like that approach anyway. If everyone acted like that, it would make the math easier anyway...

[raksaksa.livejournal.com]

I'm pretty sure this has been written about in great detail (hence the reason I believe it, although I can't immediately think of a good resource), but I've always gone along the lines of each person has their own personal set of morals, whether or not they go along (or collide with) another moral code, such as those in religion.

Hypnosis is a good example of this. If you place someone under hypnosis and get them to do something they would not normally do, they either resist your suggestion or snap straight out of the trance. Their conscious mind refuses the suggestion because (contrary to popular belief) the hypnotised subject is in complete control of what goes on and their mind compares the suggestion to their moral code...if it doesn't fit, it doesn't happen.

People cannot automatically assume that you are immoral because you do not stick to the rules of a particular religion. I regard my religion as Christian, but I don't regularly attend church or pray to my God. I'm pretty sure I've broken almost all of the ten commandments in some way, shape or form and I'm not opposed to gay people getting together. Yet I do consider myself to be moral because I stick much closer to what I believe is right and wrong. If I break my own moral code, it makes me feel lousy.

I've always believed that each human being is their own and a set of rules cannot possibly be written that applies to all of us, ergo we've had to make our own.

[thapunkprincess.livejournal.com]

Don't you think it's a banality to point out that 'every human being has their own moral code'? People do not spontaneously generate moral codes, they take them from pre-existing moralities. It would be more correct to say that moral codes have their own human beings.

[raksaksa.livejournal.com]

No, no. If people take their moral codes from pre-existing moralities, then they essentially construct their own code.

If this is the case, than a human has their own code. My point still stands.