Bruce Walker: Atheism is Bad Because it Permits Lying
The hidden horror of atheism is a greater loss than just the grave which faces us all, and the loss of God involves a loss greater than just chastity, charity and security. The loss of God involves the loss of the possibility of truth. Why? If there are no absolute objective moral virtues, then honesty is not an absolute moral virtue. The Judeo-Christian tradition, what I have sometimes simply called “The Great Faith,” demands the absolute moral virtue of honesty, and it shows this demand it ways that surprise unbelievers.
Source: Web Commentary
If honesty is an absolute moral virtue, I think that it would surprise quite a few believers; unbelievers would simply shake their heads in pity. The easy and obvious objection here is, if "honesty" is an "absolute moral virtue," then is it a sin to lie about the location of Jews when the Nazis come knocking on your door? In this case honesty will lead to the torture and murder of innocent human beings; dishonesty, in contrast, saves lives. Jewish believers will surely agree with choosing dishonesty here, as will most moral adults.
At most we might wish that dishonesty wasn't necessary, but it's not a difficult choice which should require a great deal of thought. It's not a choice made simply because it's the easiest way to get what we want. Instead, it's a choice made because it produces the most moral outcome: innocent human beings have a chance to live longer, free of suffering. Anyone who makes honesty an "absolute moral virtue" such that they would consider it immoral to lie to save those lives is not someone who is in any position to lecture anyone about morality.
Atheism, like Allahism (or Sinisterist Radical Islam), by contrast, has no objective moral absolute against lying. People of faith, like everyone, lies sometimes, but they realize that lying is a sin. Atheists simply realize that lying is the easiest way of accomplishing your objective. This does not just mean self-enrichment or self-aggrandizement, but it also means achieving goals which, to an atheist, are “noble.” ...
The consequence is that a marketplace of ideas filled with atheists quickly produces a lot of counterfeit intellectual currency. Why be even-handed in research if you know that you are right and there is no God to worry about? Indeed, why worry about even being right? If you fancy a theory, fabricate findings to “prove” it and then move on (much like Margaret Mead did when she invented findings about Samoa, because it described a reality she preferred.) ...
The answer to rampant lying in our culture, the need for a user id and password for everything, the doubt in our children’s eyes about everything is not because God is not dead, but because atheists have done their best to try to murder consciousness of God. The first social victim of this attempted homicide is truth itself, but after truth dies then those who murdered truth or rejoiced in its convenient death descend into an infinite maelstrom, an eternal descent, to a place devoid of purpose or of hope.
I wonder if Bruce Walker ever thought to maybe do a little research to see if atheists or Muslims actually do lie more than Christians and Jews. If not, then what does that do to his ideas? He might find them appealing as theories, but if in practice atheists and Muslims demonstrate no less honesty than others, then his theory must be wrong. There is in fact some research out there dealing with the apparent increase in cheating and dishonestly in American culture, but they aren't traced to any increases in atheism. Instead, they are traced to the brutal competition in American business and society — a situation which is typically endorsed and justified by America's Christian Right.
I have to wonder if Bruce Walker is perhaps protesting a bit too much when he complains about atheists not feeling a need to be "even-handed" in research and being willing to "fabricate findings" to support a theory that one facies. I suspect that this might have been intended as a swipe at evolution and modern biology, but it's far more relevant to Bruce Walker's own claims about atheists. He seems to "fancy" his theory that atheists can't be trusted not to lie, but he doesn't even try to offer any evidence to support this. It's little more than anti-atheist and anti-Muslim bigotry that we're seeing here, not a serious exploration of morality, truth, or honesty in modern society.
Comments
>If there are no absolute objective moral virtues…
If I adopt a moral code I deem to be immoral, then I’m endorsing what I would label “immorality,” and I would be, therefore, immoral, according to my own standards.
If I adopt a moral code I deem to be moral, then I’m endorsing what I would _already_ label “moral,” and I do not need, therefore, to adopt any external code. I would need only to go about doing what I label as “moral” in order to _be_ moral, according to my own standards.
Most importantly: IF I adopt a moral code–how do I determine whether it not it is a moral or immoral code–if not through personal assessment of some kind? If I cannot/do not personally assess it–then on what grounds can I call it moral?
If I say, “god dictated this, and god is moral,” can that statement have any meaning if I lack any sense of morality?
Euthyphro.
I either call god moral because anything god does is moral. And in that case nothing can be considered immoral (since anything goes so long as god endorses it). In other words, I have no actual “grounds” to label anything immoral in that case. I can’t call pedophilia immoral, for example, except via a claim god said it was wrong. Employing things like, “It’s cruel,” or “it harms children,” would be rendered irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if it causes harm. It is only immoral because “god said so,” not because there’s anything really inherently _wrong_ with the act itself.
On the other hand, if I say, “I know god’s instructions are moral, and god is moral, because I recognize ‘moral’–and I can see god aligns with what is right and good,” then we have a case where the person has a personal sense of right and wrong that renders god’s commands and gods dictates irrelevant, since the individual can tell what is moral.
Either I know god is moral because I have a moral compass of my own–and therefore don’t need an external dictate for my morality. Or I trust god is moral with no way of gaging morality (just accepting authoritarian dictates without the capcity to verify their “rightness”)–in which case “moral” has no real measure.
I’ve never seen a decent (or even sensical) response to Euthyphro.
Austin, you’re right on as usual.
I wonder what Bruce would say about all those people, including all of his ancestors, who lived before the Judeo-Christian “gospel” surfaced roughly 3,000 years ago. If I may venture and take a guess and say that Bruce is a caucasian American, I would suspect that his ancestors probably worshipped Thor, or Wotan, or Odin. Did that make all of his ancestors, by default, dishonest liars, simply because they did not have the codified Xian “gospel” in hand? I doubt it.
Pagans can be moral too, Bruce. And so can atheists.
tracieh, that is brilliant stuff. Thanks for quoting it.
Nowhere in Bruce Walker’s statement do I see him claiming that Atheists/Muslims lie more often than other groups. Your argument of the Jew lying to save lives during the Holocaust is only valid to a point. Those of us that believe there is a source (God) of morality, also believe that he is forgiving. Yes, those lies would be sins just as much as one that was told simply to save face (”it wasn’t me that took the last cookie”). The difference becomes apparent when you see that the person telling the lie is repentant of such. Also as believers in an all powerful, all knowing God, it is believed that he can work all things to good. This does not mean that because he allows immorality that he is himself immoral or incapable of deciding what is moral. It is believed that God has designed us with freewill. He gave us everything we need in order to find him with our souls, however, he also gave us the ability to make the final choice to believe or not to believe.
This is the truth that Bruce speaks of which is constantly under asult by people that would rather trust personal assessment to find a moral compass. To you, I pose this question: What is the template to which you compare the outcome of your personal assessment? Without a guide, can you not simply cause your answers to conform to what you feel is most comfortable in your opinion? If that’s the case, then, as Bruce says, there is no truth, only what you want to believe. In such a fashion, this blog proves his point.
I just couldn’t ignore this article. Any ethical behavior recognizes the differences between what is good and what is evil. To assume that any deity, that murders, destroys, punishes, etc. is the source of morality, begs for an explanation of how this dichotomy even got started.
Is the worship of said deity, even excusable? What accounts for the deliberate lying and cheating of said Christians that leads them to believe, anything done, even though a sin, is fine,as long as you confess or repent or say the eight words? That’s really been a sore point with me. Remember Jim Bakker?
One only has to cite some of the recent debacles perpetrated by some of our own upstanding, moral Christian politicians, as
examples. What about child molestations by clergy of various religions?
So much for “truthiness” of religious beliefs.
To assume that religion equals morality, is a completely false assumption. One which requires, if you will excuse this, “a huge leap of faith”.
I personally take great offense to being called a liar. My desire not to lie is not rooted in a christian upbringing but rather a desire to be who I am and not have to lie about it, to keep things simple in life.
I just don’t understand how not believing in gods = someone who would lie if they wanted to.
Perhaps his morals are tied into some organization he is a part of, one that can be changed as the organization feels necessary, but mine are based on a desire to treat others with respect and not hurt others to get what I want.
And if a god can’t seem to stay in existence if a small percentage of people don’t believe, I wonder why I would worship that god in the first place.
If you can’t convince your children that your religion is the true one or that a god exists, don’t blame it on other people who express their lack of belief in god / religion logically.
I didn’t say he did. What I did say is that if those groups don’t lie more often than Christians, then this undermines what he does claim.
When it’s a sin to save an innocent life, then that’s a good sign that one’s “moral” system is corrupted.
I can’t make any sense out of that question.
100% correct. The immoral actions of human “representatives” are in complete contradiction to their self-professed beliefs. It is, however, still an act based on human needs/fears/desires and not one grounded in the faith they claim to hold dear.
Truth never changes. Those who claim truth and act not upon it are without truth. These are the people/groups that make it difficult for people like myself to be Christians. We don’t emulate, perpetuate, or sponor any of this behavior. We are few and far between, unfortunately. I am an honest man and can tell you that you will be hard pressed to find anyone as open and honest about the “pitfalls” of their beliefs while still being capable of understanding.
What causes you to believe that you make the right decisions after you have completed a “personal assessment?” You either have to base this on emotions or a previously decided route. When based on emotion, it is left to you to decide what’s right and wrong. In that line of thought, there should be no governing force for anyone. Whatever makes you feel like you are doing the right (moral) thing in your own world is what you should do. You wanna talk about unleashing complete chaos? That would just about work.
Every year my true age changes.
Experience. Reason. Empathy.
These are same foundations upon which I make an assessment of what is probably the most moral course of action. They are also the same foundations generally used by everyone, including theists — it’s just that I don’t try to justify my conclusions or actions by shoving responsibility for them off to some absent deity or infinitely-interpretable ancient text.
Then please, go on with your explanation of the origin of your “Experience, Reason, Empathy.” Be specific. You like to ask for proof. Now prove your point. Give an example.
Josh says: These are the people/groups that make it difficult for people like myself to be hat causes you to believe you have made the right decision? PerChristians.
This is the No True Christian fallacy.
Josh says: What causes you to believe that you make the right decisions after you have completed a “personal assessment?”
How do you know your god makes the right decisions?
I am an atheist and i agree with Bruce Walker. Oh wait, I’m lying.
On another note, if God is supposed to supply some sort of moral compass, please explain how Christians upheld slavery for so long? It’s because we create our own gods and therefore what those gods want.
The origin of experience is…. experience. The origins of reason and empathy are the normal functioning of a human brain.
Prove what, exactly? Give an example of what, exactly?
Josh says:
The difference becomes apparent when you see that the person telling the lie is repentant of such.
But why should god expect repentance for protecting lies? This still makes lying an absolute immoral deed, which just doesn’t make sense, at least to those of us who care about the consequences.
Reason and empathy are learned, not inheirent. If it’s not, please explain how you developed your reason and empathy and be sure to leave out any external influences such as parents or any other part of the society you live in. My guess is this cannot be done. My point in saying this is that if you follow that logic through your ancestry, you should eventually get to someone that points to a guide of some sort, whether it be a god, the God, many gods, or something that was “always there” and lacks explanation. Without that, we are the creators of our own rules (the point I’ve been making)which means we can change them at anytime to fit our desires/needs/fears. Again, this has no result other than chaos. To explain that, imagine that…oh wait, there’s no need to imagine, please refer to history. Ancient Babylon, Pompeii, etc. All of these civilizations have grown to appreciate your very point of view. Humanism was their “religion.” Pay attention to the fact that all of them are no longer civilizations. Some have been rebuilt only to fall again or they have never risen to previous status again. All this to say that America has a choice to make. Continue down this path, following these ancient civilizations, or turn from these ways and return to the values and beliefs of our founders. I believe that no matter what you choose to believe now, it is apparent what the founders of this great country traversed the Atlantic to find the freedom to practice. Eventually, they defended that freedom and decided that we needed to be a sovreign nation based on these beliefs. All this so that you would have the freedom to mock the very basis of the country that allows you to start a blog to glorify your chosen ignorance.
Mmm… I think that these kind of people need to belive atheism has a total lack of ethics and morality because otherwise they would stand in a world where their views might be callenged… by reality itself. By showing them their Big Daddy is not necessary, and that fear of Big Daddy is not what moves some people to do the right thing.
Josh said: “Eventually, they defended that freedom and decided that we needed to be a sovreign nation based on these beliefs. All this so that you would have the freedom to mock the very basis of the country that allows you to start a blog to glorify your chosen ignorance.”
These comments are so totally contrary to history. The USA was NOT founded on Christian beliefs and it is most emphatically NOT the basis of this great country.
Furthermore your confusion about morality is based on several logical fallacies, not the least of which is that of the argument from authority.
Josh, I fail too see the point you’re trying to make with your ancient civilizations example. Empires fell, so what? Many other empires that held absolute dogmatic morality fell too. The most “pious” of which now make up the secular European nations. Will the EU last forever? If history shows us anything, of course not. But there is nothing to suggest that they’d last any longer if the Vatican held the power if had so long ago, when the nations of Europe were constantly at war with one another.
And like Eric said, your comments on “what the founders wanted” is irrelevant. Even if they did intend this to be based on Judeo/Christian morality, (which most scholars agree they did not) it wouldn’t mean a damn thing. You know why? Because the founding fathers also thought it was fine and dandy to keep human beings as property and deny women full rights as citizens. Keep what the framers had in mind as it pertains to the Constitution, and nothing else. Holding the cultural norms from 200 years ago as it should apply today is just asinine.
Please support that assertion. You should point to social and psychological studies which demonstrate that children have to be taught reason and empathy rather than demonstrate any inherent skills in these areas.
Please support that assertion.
Prove it.
Prove that the religion of ancient Babylon, Pompeii, etc. was “humanism.”
Reason and empathy are learned, not inheirent.
Please support that assertion. You should point to social and psychological studies which demonstrate that children have to be taught reason and empathy rather than demonstrate any inherent skills in these areas.
From a secular site on raising children:
(http://www.parents.com/toddlers/development/behavioral/toddlers-behaving-badly/)
Should I Discipline My Toddler?
Let’s face it: Raising a 1-year-old is a constant challenge. Your child is old enough to start doing things on his own. But a lot of what he wants to do is dangerous, messy, hurtful, or downright maddening. And he’s really not old enough to know better. The truth is, kids this age aren’t being willfully defiant — they simply need to hear a command numerous times before it sinks in. But you can also use these difficult moments as an opportunity to teach and discipline him.
Discipline? At this age? Yes, that’s right. While it’s much too early to start taking away privileges, this is the perfect time to lay the foundation for better behavior. “Your toddler is constantly testing what’s acceptable and what’s not,” says Cheryl Erwin, coauthor of Positive Discipline: The First Three Years. “By setting basic rules and following through, you’re helping him learn.” The key is to use the right discipline method. Check out these smart ways to correct four common toddler transgressions.
(http://www.parents.com/toddlers/development/behavioral/toddlers-hits-bites/)
Is Your Kid a Bully?
Three-year-old Caden Branchflower is occasionally guilty of hitting his younger brother, Ridge. This might seem like bullying — after all, he’s a big boy hitting a smaller child. Luckily for Caden, that’s not how his mom, Erin, sees it. “He doesn’t know how else to express himself at this age, so I just step in quickly,” says Branchflower, of Fort Collins, Colorado. “I explain that we don’t like that behavior and it’s not okay.”
She has the right attitude. While many parents of hitters, biters, and spitters panic when their toddler acts out, they shouldn’t feel too bad. Technically, a child this young can’t be a bully. “Two- and 3-year-olds don’t yet fully understand their emotions or anyone else’s, so they don’t intentionally hurt someone’s feelings,” says Edward Carr, PhD, leading professor in the department of psychology at the State University of New York at Stony Brook.
Toddlers are constantly testing cause and effect — “If I do this, what will happen?” They’re also using the only tools they have, says Theodore Dix, PhD, associate professor of human development and family sciences at the University of Texas at Austin. “They don’t have the skills to get what they want in a reasonable way, so they may act pushy or overly defiant,” he says.
Still, that’s not a free pass to sit back and let your child be mean. If you don’t intervene now, he may become a real bully as he gets older because he won’t know another way to express his needs. Here’s how to end aggression now.
In both of these articles, I see a requirement for direction. Neither seem to believe that a child developes reason and empathy without guidance.
Like yourself enough to watch sunsets:
Atheists, let us shout from the mountain top, “Ghosts (holy ghost) do not exist!” therefore a ghost cannot teach honesty. hello? only witches believe in ghosts -or holy ghost. all religious folk are witches directly or indirectly.
Most FEAR texts (holy texts) try to assert that all rebellion or sin is wickedness. I’ve found most Revolts or disobedience usually create a positive. Slaves can revolt for Freedom, right? Amen?Amenhotep!
This distorted definition of the word wicked makes seers (believers) look down on atheists as “the unenlightened”. Yes, atheists “revolt” against the teachings of seers/believers but it does not follow that atheists lie MORE than seers. you have to laugh somewhat.
Examine this: although it is a sin not to tithe it is not immoral to not tithe? EVERYONE lies so, there’s no sense in trying to prove atheist don’t lie to a bunch of witches.
I am way too busy to act as advisor for all human morals at this time. sorry. ha ha! But seriously, no decent human would try to define an absolute. get real. I assert that harming yourself or others is normally wrong. In a broad sense I think lying is harmful. Lying is a disregard for human emotions and intellect but sometimes it is necessary for a greater cause.
Apart from theory of evolution -I assert that earth is completely ghost/god free. Whether DNA evolved 2% or not, we atheists can assert that earth is ghost/god FREE. epoche. moralfinite Amen- amenhotep!
Interesting, but not particularly relevant. I specifically said that you need to provide reference to sociological and psychological studies — i.e., science. I’ve never said that children have nothing to learn, and even if reason and empathy are inherent, this doesn’t mean that education isn’t also critical. Language ability is inherent, but you still have to learn a language.
So, where is your evidence that reason and empathy are not inherent in the (normal) human brain? Citing others’ ideas and inferring their opinions just isn’t relevant.
I suppose I should be happy, though, that you at least addressed that issue. You simply ignored the other three.
Josh you seem to be saying that you can lie all you want and God will forgive you because you repent. Why have morals and a moral giver? Neither seems to matter.
Also you are saying that on your own you do not know right from wrong and need to be told. That’s sad.
If religion has a monopoly on morality then how do you explain all of the crimes perpetrated by clergy and religious leaders that fill our newspapers?
And finally moralfinite your writing style is annoying.
What isn’t mentioned here is how often Christians lie to make a point. As a small newspaper editor, I received a fax a few years back from some sort of biblical “institute” saying that the ossuary (bone box) of Caephus (sp?), the high priest at Jesus’ biblical trial had been found and that proved the biblical story was true. Furthermore, DNA testing had proved that the bones were that of the said high priest. The only trouble with that is that DNA testing cannot prove such a thing. You need two samples for comparative testing before DNA can prove anything. In other words, this was a bald-faced, made-up, out-of-whole-cloth LIE, told by a Christian to try to mislead people into believing there’s more than there really is to the faith.
An atheist moral code is: If it hurts someone else, it’s wrong. If it does no harm,, it’s all right (even if it might not be “right” for everyone).
Don’t hurt, don’t judge, don’t lie. Pretty simple, really. Similar to what Jesus said in the Golden Rule (also said in just about every other religion).
Good point jgaul. Lying for God is written into Christianity.
“Do you see the advantage of deceit? …
For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind …
And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived.” - John Chrysostom
(Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1).
“We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity.” -Eusebius
(Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2).
Hey Austin - dogs have empathy without being taught it. Maybe you could point that out to Josh. Sorry to point that out if you’re enjoying watching him squirm.
(There are some especially vicious trolls on community forum.)
My experience of atheism is that most people feel an awakening because they finally see through so many lies. The actual physical experience of the world is improved. It is almost like recovering some of the beauty and intensity of childhood.
It would seem to me that atheists would be more apt to be truthful when you consider we rely upon scientific fact before we come to our conclusions. Much unlike Christians who use a fairy tale book to substantiate their way of thinking and their outlook upon the world.
When someone shows you their newborn and it looks like Winston Churchill, you certainly wouldn’t say so! So you lie and tell them it’s a beautiful baby. What’s the harm in that? Who does that hurt? But, I have found a great deal of discomfort in telling the little white lie myself. I usually say something about the baby being lovely or wonderful rather than beautiful or cute. I remember when the Catholic Church had their “sin categories” - venial & mortal. Little white lies would invariably fall into the venial sin category. Could never figure out how many venial sins added up to be the equivalent of a mortal sin. To the christian god, if you show remorse for your sin, it doesn’t really matter; you’re slate is clean. But, even if you show remorse, how does that undo any possible negative consequences on others and society? According to christians, you walk free and the recipients of your lying are stuck with the consequences. How convenient. Hey, maybe those christians have something there after all! Sounds like a great deal.
If you consider how many christians there are in the world compared to atheists, and you look at all the horrible things that happen from lying and dishonesty, you must conclude that the christians bear most of the brunt of the responsibility for that behavior. It’s just that the christians have an “out” and we atheists don’t!
Treat yourself to some flowers.
The point I want to make is
telling the truth purely to avoid being cursed or going to hell is not a valid reason.
The motivation behind honesty should not be based on fear of ghost/god.
The motivation behind any moral principle in my opinion has to be rooted in reason. That is my working definition of morality.
Whether honesty is learned, inherent, or both, cannot be proven absolute by anyone ever. seems silly to try.
anybody can quote or list every bad deed done by christians, fine.
but is that really identifying the problem?
See, if one states that theist have morals then that implies that morals don’t have to be based on reason. I guess I’m saying that all seers/believers have is a pseudo-morality.
Epoche. Amen? amenhotep.
Israel -ISis Ra EL moralfinite.
I’m not writing for a style competition. pathetic thinker.
We like to think there is a natural relationship between the words we use and the world around us, and superficially there is when words are representative of specific persons, places, and things with which we have intimate contact (e.g., my face, my house, my child, my car). Beyond this knowing interaction, most representational words are abstract and generic (e.g., tree, dog, car, lake) while non-representational words are nothing more than mental proxies for multi-worded definitions (e.g., God, Heaven, Hell, Sin, Soul, Afterlife, Truth, Morality, Evil, Fact).
While I can point to my face in the real world and I can point to a tree in the real world, the only place I’m able to point to God or Heaven or Soul are…where? Only as words in books, because terms like God or Heaven or Soul exist by definition and are not based on anything measurable or falsifiable. They rely on subsets of other abstract definitions in order to be ‘known’ and cannot be known without these definitions.
When a person claims that ‘God is Omniscient’ or ‘God is Omnipotent’ or ‘Heaven or Hell await us when we die’, was this information derived from interaction with the physical world or purely from language? If I remove language I can still point to my face, I can still point to a tree, but I am unable to point to God or even the the terms used to define God’s attributes (e.g., Omniscient, Omnipotent). In other words, God is defined by terms that exist themselves only by way of definition, as mental constructs, and not as anything mensurable in the real world. God, therefore, is only a word and literally ‘defined’ into existence.
Saying ‘God is Omniscient’ is as meaningful, therefore, as saying ‘Galfaloon is Omnispritely’ since in both cases the subject and object rely on interior definitions alone (i.e., neither ‘God’ nor ‘ Omniscience’ or ‘Galfaloon’ nor ‘Omnispritely’ are found anywhere outside of abstract language). What an ingenious trap! Using subsets of artificial terms to argue the character of other artificial terms.
But this is the counterfeit nature of language, since all subjects and objects rely on artificial subsets for definition. Whether one accepts or rejects these definitions is ultimately subjective and always has been. Terms like absolute, moral, and virtue are by necessity aritificial since in the absence of language they are nowhere to be found.
An atheist moral code is: If it hurts someone else, it’s wrong. If it does no harm,, it’s all right (even if it might not be “right” for everyone)
Amen to that.
(I came across this several months ago, but left it until now to respond, such is my wont).