Jared White writes:
The fact is that it’s impossible to live as a true atheist, and the honest atheists who understand the basic tenants of philosophy understand this. True atheism realizes that the concept of morality is completely meaningless in a universe devoid of supernatural origin, mind over matter, and ultimate purpose. Therefore, a true atheist has to say that reality is one way while simultaneously living as if reality is another way. In a sense, they live like theists while denying the merits of theism.
I find it ironic that Jared White would insist that atheists who are "honest" and understand basic philosophy understand that "true atheism" is impossible to live with. If that conclusion is true, then the only "honest" atheist who understands what they are doing isn't really an atheist after all, so they can't be an "honest" atheist in the first place. What White has constructed is a self-contradictory argument here, something that anyone who understand the basic "tenants" [sic] of philosophy should realize.
What's also curious is how White insists he knows what "honest" atheists should be thinking even though he is unwilling to explain how or why. It's clear that Jared White is operating from all sorts of assumptions about what "atheism" is supposed to be and what "atheists" are supposed to believe, but he doesn't come right out and state them clearly. Could this be because he recognizes that these assumptions aren't consistent with reality? The only "true atheism" that can't exist is probably the faux atheism that exists nowhere but Jared White's imagination.
Atheists claim they can live normal lives, kindly doing charitable works and contributing to society. That’s very true — but they do those things not because of their atheist beliefs. They do them in spite of their atheist beliefs.
Some religious theists claim that they have an idea about what "atheist beliefs" are and some even go so far as to explain what they mean. Others, though, avoid stating their assumptions lest they be caught saying and assuming things which are blatantly false or bigoted. One popular bigoted assumption is that atheists couldn't possibly be moral and good so long as they are consistently atheistic.
In other words, only religious theists can be moral; if atheists are moral, it's because they are ignoring or rejecting atheism. This is no less bigoted than saying that Jews can't be truly moral and if they are, it's because they are adopting implicitly Christian standards. I doubt that any Christian would have the gall to say such a thing openly, but many have no trouble saying it about atheists.
They act like it matters to be kind and generous, like it matters to live harmoniously within society, like it matters to accomplish good works, like it matters to put the needs of others at the forefront, like it matters to fight for justice and see truth reign over falsehood. Unfortunately for them, they are completely unable to explain why any of this really does matter. The universe doesn’t care.
It's true that the universe doesn't care what we do. Plants don't care. Plumbing doesn't care. The concept of "caring" requires certain prerequisites that don't exist in most nature — except in us and some higher animals. What this means is that while the universe may not care, we are capable of caring. Jared White apparently thinks that despite our ability to care, we shouldn't care if the rest of the universe doesn't care, but that's a non sequitur. Perhaps the lack of any substantive argument that could possibly support such a position is why he doesn't offer one — he just asserts outright that atheists shouldn't care without giving any reason why.
Religious theists like Jared White seem to believe that we need a caring god in order to have a reason to care, but that only makes sense if he can't find any reason in himself to care on his own. It's like saying that the only reason not to kill and rape is because of a god's orders to refrain, which only works if a person really can't find any reason in themselves not to kill and rape the people around them. I'm willing to believe a person who says this about themselves, but rather than offer a reason to think that atheism is wrong they are only giving reasons to think they are psychopaths.
Jared White seems to assert that without “god” there are no moral facts and that because “god” (whatever that means) does exist, atheists are in denial about the existence of moral facts. A classic circular argument.
If he were to argue more cogently that a moral fact could not exist without “god” and that because moral facts do exist therefore “god” must also exist it would at least be a proper argument. He would of course need to point to a moral fact in order to justify it. Perhaps this was what he was hoping to avoid.
I find in a lot of theists a lack of comprehension about what disbelief in god really “IS” in someone’s head. They really are incapable of stepping into someone else’s shoes or considering another person’s perspective for even a moment.
“True atheism realizes that the concept of morality is completely meaningless in a universe devoid of supernatural origin…”
I know plenty of atheists, and none of them would accept this as a correct statement. The fact is that we have plenty to base our values upon. And if even dogs can create social values and moralities in the wilds of the world, I fail to see why human beings can’t figure it out.
I also fail to see how White feels that anything supernatural would have anything to do with offering morality to people, as Euthyphro destroyed that idea pretty soundly. If god provides us morality, then the idea of morality as we tend to understand it, is solidly emasculated. Raping babies is moral so long as god calls it moral—since moral means nothing more than “whatever the authority says.” If we have any personal sense of morality—any means whatsoever to work it out on our own. If we can, in effect, judge the “Authority’s” edicts as “good” rules or “bad” rules through any personal mechanism, then there is no need of external morality, as we are the authors of our own morality, illustrating we can work our moral dilemmas on our own and judge for ourselves what is moral and what is not—without an external authority.
Organisms have, by and large, a will to survive. That right there is a basis for a system of ethics. Humans, in particular, need the support of a group in order to survive. That adds another layer to our choices, values, decisions—as we now have an inherent mechanism that prompts us to value our own survival as well as the survival of those we consider key to our own well being. Now it’s just a matter of working out what the group can live with and executing that plan. If that’s how it works, we should expect rules in different cultures to differ—and they do. What a shock. Meanwhile, if morality is only the word of a god—then we should expect what is “good” to be the same everywhere we go—which is certainly not the case. Ah—but that’s because man is hosed up and can’t really trust his own moral compass.
Interesting dilemma. If I can’t trust my moral compass—on what grounds do I declare that god’s commands are “good” or “moral”? And if I can say god is good, then why can’t I say that I am capable of saying other things, acts, ideas, are good?
> they do those things not because of their atheist beliefs. They do them in spite of their atheist beliefs.
He’s right in the first idea, and wrong in the second. He doesn’t know why I do charitable work. In fact, I do charitable work with animals, because I despise cruelty toward things that are weaker than people or that have no voice or power to help themselves. I _empathize_ with animals. I see myself in them, and I think “What if I needed help and couldn’t ask for it? Wouldn’t I wish someone would help me?” Not everyone has this feeling of empathy with other species. It’s not at all inherent to people. But whatever about my genes or my upbringing, I have this. I assume if it was from god, we’d all have it, as it would seem unfair to endow some of us with empathy and not others, and then make moral judgments about our actions on Earth.
I clean up the street as part of the Keep Austin Beautiful program. I have to live on the planet, and it’s not good sense to live where you sh*t, to put it bluntly. So, I do what I can to try and make my little section of the world a bit nicer. I know not everyone feels this way—or else I wouldn’t have to keep going back out to clean that street. New garbage comes from somewhere, right? And again, how odd that god would endow some with concern and not all. Very unfair.
I donate blood every 8 weeks because I’d done it a few times before, and wanted to make it a habit. It’s just a couple hours of my life every couple months, and it can help several people each time I do it. My husband needed surgeries and needed blood. And I can give back in this way. It supports my “group”—my species—of which I am a part, and upon whom I rely for my own quality of life. If people aren’t willing to give—and only want to take, that will leave us with a scary deficit. I don’t want to go to an ER one day to hear that they are short on my blood type, because not enough people gave that period.
There’s nothing “supernatural” required to feel sympathy or empathy for someone or something else. Even little children will freak if they see a favorite doll being “harmed.” You almost have to drill empathy out of people for the most part. We have it because we’re a social species. Other social animals have it as well. It’s not a function of soul. It’s a function of biology.
> Unfortunately for them, they are completely unable to explain why any of this really does matter.
He hasn’t looked for an answer to his question, or he’d be responding to the arguments I just presented. In fact, these same responses flood the Internet for anyone who really cares enough to actually do some research before they sit down to explain why others do what they do. I would suggest that White actually go to the immense trouble of actually asking some atheists about why they do certain things or how they view particular ideas the way they do. Then his articles could respond to actual perspectives instead of his own personal fantasies of what they might be.
Just to clarify one point. I mentioned how not everyone has empathy, then I wrote:
>There’s nothing “supernatural” required to feel sympathy or empathy for someone or something else. Even little children will freak if they see a favorite doll being “harmed.” You almost have to drill empathy out of people for the most part. We have it because we’re a social species. Other social animals have it as well. It’s not a function of soul. It’s a function of biology.
I do believe people, for the most part, exhibit empathy in some for or another, to varying degrees. But I also think some people don’t have it–and I can’t imagine why some might not be born with it.
It would be like being born with any other attribute. We should expect some people to have more, some to have less, and some to apparently have none–which is the case. As a social species, however, it should be observed a prevailing trait so long as it’s required to keep the species going.
However, if god endows us with it–everyone should have it equally from birth, although, I suppose, it could be abused out of someone later? Again, it would seem unfair to put some children in homes where empathy will be fostered, and others in homes where it will be destroyed, and then judge them as either moral or immoral agents. Or, if we are to come to god because of his great love and mercy, what of a child who is made to not love itself, and then told it will suffer Hell if it doesn’t learn to accept love and being loving? That just seems like piling abuse upon abuse in my book.
Tracie. Why would I need to explain why it matters?
tracieh,
“…I can’t imagine why some might not be born with (empathy).”
I don’t play poker, but I have a friend who does. I asked him about bluffing. How does he know when to bluff? My friend said about 1/3 of the time when he is running up the amount of the pot it is a bluff. He said any more often and people will call all his bluffs and he won’t be able to bluff at all, but any less and he is missing oportunities to win with a hand that has nothing in it.
I think evolution works in much the same way. Being empathetic and knowing others will be empathetic helps society function smoothly. Since most people can be counted on to have empathy (or some other moral property) a certain percentage of the population can get away with “bluffing”, getting the advantage of a society where empathy is common but having none themselves. Of course, if too many bluff, no one can get away with it, but society also does not function as well.
(I can’t imagine why some might not be born with (empathy).
In the military, There is an effort to dehumanize the enemy to make it easier to kill. BUT, You are told that if you are taken prisoner, you must get eye contact with your captor as quickly as possible.
Ron:
You wrote: “Tracie. Why would I need to explain why it matters?”
I wrote quite a lot–I’m not sure what part your question refers to what part of what I wrote? Why would you need to explain why _what_ matters?
John:
You are right, of course, that there is an individual benefit to playing the empath in a society where empathy is common. With regard to evolution, there is always the exception to the rule, you are also right. This genetic diversity is what makes evolution work.
Tracie. From your post #2. (Unfortunately for them, they are completely unable to explain why any of this really does matter). Ron
tracieh,
Exactly, you can see evolutionary pressures both for and against empathy at the same time in the same population.
It’s pretty conceited to think your arbitrary reasoning is the only arbitrary reasoning available, not mention to think that principled reasoning is faulty.
Ron:
That was a quote I pulled from the article Austin used. White made that statement. I was responding to it, to say that atheists _have_ explained their positions, clearly and often, but he obviously hasn’t even tried to look and see if anyone’s offered an explanation–before saying none has been offered.
Atheists are free of most religious tyrants, but they still have to deal with a longer leash.
I am a 73 years old male and was never badgered by my parents to go to Sunday school or church as a child.
I was a policeman, in good standing, for 30 years in a large city in Alberta, Canada. I have never been to church for anything other than weddings and funerals.
I totally disagree with Jared White’s
statements about what it is to be an atheist. He is obviously a total moron
who has no idea what life is all about.
If he wants to live with his head up his ass, so be it, but he should get his facts right before he goes around making
stupid statements like these.
It’s little wonder we have problems in society today when we have these kind of
brainwashed individuals running loose and in government.
Huckleberry Hucabee wants to change the American Constitution to suit his delusions how the people in the US should live. Americans beware of this guy and his nut-job sponsor, Pat Robertson.