Mailbag: Morality and God, Part 1
Subject: Question: Why do people choose to be atheists?
The issue of morality, in the case of the existence of God, is not whether or not we do good or evil things because there is a God, but the issue is how can we believe in a morality without there being a God. What is the reason or basis for us being good to one another?
The question of what sort of foundation can exist for morality is an interesting and important one, although it starts out here with a slight misconception: just what sense does it make to "believe in" a morality? A moral system might be wise or unwise, effective or ineffective, sound or unsound - but in any case, it does exist. Even the worst possible moral system exists and we must accept that it exists. The only question would be, then, whether we should adopt it and use it ourselves.
So the real question would seem to be: how can we adopt a moral system without there being a God? If God does not exist, is there any basis for ever being moral? That's the fundamental issue when discussing atheistic and theistic morality - not whether atheistic morality exists at all but instead whether any atheistic morality can reasonably be adopted.
This question can actually be rephrased on a more fundamental level, usually referred to as "metaethics." People like Richard subscribe to a metaethical perspective known as deontological ethics. In deontological systems, being morally good is defined as obeying certain moral rules. When you follow those rules and do your duty, then you are good - regardless of any other considerations like whether the consequences of that obedience lead to suffering or happiness. On the other hand, if you ignore or break any of those rules then you are not doing your duty and are morally bad - once again, regardless of any consequences.
Now, if you assume that the only possible moral system that can exist is deontological in nature, we have to ask where those rules and where that duty can come from. If there is a God, the answer would seem obvious - but if there is no God, there wouldn't seem to be a source. If there is no source for the rules to obey (and, by extension, no eternal rewards or punishments for those who obey or disobey), then there would be no reason to obey any rules that might come along.
Given such premises, it would seem reasonable to conclude that if there is no God, then there is no reason to be moral. Must we, however, accept those premises? No. The premises are not unusual, but they are also not unassailable. There is no immediate reason why we should assume that the only sort of reasonable moral system which can exist is one which is based upon obedience to a set of absolute rules which we must accept as a matter of duty.
There are other metaethical perspectives which are at least as valid at the deontological one, with the two principle ones being virtue ethics and consequentialist ethics. Now, a person might have good reasons for rejecting them and preferring deontological ethics - but even if that were the case, that would not alone demonstrate the need for belief in any gods. There are valid deontological systems of ethics which are atheistic in nature, lacking any gods to provide a foundation for the rules being obeyed.
Why would it matter? So we can get along? Why would that matter? It would only matter if we knew that there was some sort of objective morality out there that we knew we should believe in and/or certain moral actions that we knew we should participate in.
Here we can see more evidence for Richard's assumptions about what the proper nature of morality should be. Richard refers to an "objective morality" (which many assume that only deontological systems can be) and "moral actions ... we should participate in." We do, however, have the addition of "Why would it matter?" This is indicative of a deontological morality, but also more.
In the first place, it suggests a deontological morality because in a deontological system, the reason for being moral is generally assumed to be objective and imposed from the outside - that's why being moral "matters." More than that, however, the question of why it should "matter" suggests some set of ultimate "reasons" that, presumably, only a deity can provide. This would be consistent with similar questions asked by many theists: why should love matter? Why should happiness matter? Why should anything at all matter if there isn't a God and a heaven?
The answers to all such questions are fairly similar. First, it need not be accepted that for anything to "matter," then there must be some outside force or entity to make it "matter." Second, it should be argued that if something is going to "matter," that can only occur in the context of some set of values we have. When we value a hot meal, having a hot meal "matters" to us - regardless of any gods or spirits, or anything else. No, a hot meal may seem like a rather trivial example, but the same basic principle holds true for other things of much greater import as well - and the reason is that the very concept of "it matters" is dependent upon what we do and do not value on a very basic level.
Why should getting along matter? It matters if you value your own happiness and the happiness of others. The question is, do you really need some being (like a god) to require that you take the happiness of others into consideration? Do you need to be told to be kind to others? Are you only capable of caring about others when you are obeying orders to care about others, threatened with punishment if you don't but promised with rewards if you do? If so, then perhaps you do need to believe in a God in order to be moral and for morality to "matter." I'm not sure, however, that I would necessarily call that "morality."
Part two of this conversation about God, atheism, and morality continues tomorrow...
More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
Comments
Morales and ethics are from the law of God!!!!!!!!!
Religious people live longer than non-religios people:
http://webcenter.health.webmd.netscape.com/content/article/27/1728_60239.htm?DEST=WebMD_contentSRC_nsmain
Proverbs 3:2 My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments:
Proverbs 3:2 For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee.
You can tell people there are many reasons for morals, but you haven’t told us who morals do you follow. Are your morals from your mother, father, Ben Franklin, or are they based on an issue of Playboy you found as a kid?
Proverbs 3:1 My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments:
Proverbs 3:2 For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee.
http://atheism.about.com/od/bookreviews/fr/HandbkRelHealth.htm
From the WebM.D. article:
“Exactly how religious involvement boosts health is unclear…For example, religious people tend to smoke and drink less.”
So the hand of God is reaching out to smite unbelievers via the Phillip Morris Tobacco Company?
More Evidence that Religion is Healthy
http://www.dukemednews.org/av/medminute.php?id=1603
“So the hand of God is reaching out to smite unbelievers via the Phillip Morris Tobacco Company?”
Why do you think religious smoke less? What do they know that the unbelievers don’t? Maybe God!!!!!!
“Do you need to be told to be kind to others?”
C’mon, your mother/father/grandparents never told you that?
Unlike emotions(happines, love), Morals are learned, you were taught your morals from someone who loved you. BTW, where did your mother/father/grandparents get their morals?
Shouldn’t Darwin’s comments be in the forum? I didn’t think this was the place for a debate or a full blown discussion, just a chance to briefly comment on the article.
Darwin, more people will see your comments in the forum. That alone is a good reason to post there and not here. Just a suggestion.
BTW, if you are going to start a discussion on an article about morality, you might want to address the article itself. You have not refuted anything Austin said, but merely repeated the same, basic idea as the letter, and then quoted a statistic that is only distantly related at best. We atheists can find statistics too. You’ll want to think of something better if you hope to make an impression on any of us. I personally believe the statistic (if it is a statistic and not someone’s opinion) is suspect to begin with. It reminds me of the one about prayer helping sick people get well, which turned out to be bunk.
Where did you get the name Isaac?
Find me an article on nonreligious people living longer than religious people. I can’t find one.
Proverbs 3:1 My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments:
Proverbs 3:2 For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee.
Refute it, I’m waiting!!!!!!!!!
I don’t wish to argue with you, IsaacJ, but I have noticed that the forum appears to be primarily used for serious discussions supported by facts, while the semi-coherent declamations of foaming at the mouth religious fanatics are generally posted in the “Comments” section.
“Darwin” should read Phil Zuckerman’s book “Society Without God: What the Least Religious Nations Can Tell Us About Contentment”, which describes the author’s findings from a 14-month stay in Denmark and Sweden.
Louis Bayard’s review on Salon.com summarizes it very nicely: “[Zuckerman] tells of a magical land where life expectancy is high and infant mortality low, where wealth is spread and genders live in equity, where happy, fish-fed citizens score high in every quality-of-life index: economic competitiveness, healthcare, environmental protection, lack of corruption, educational investment, technological literacy … well, you get the idea. Zuckerman (who has explored the sociology of religion in two previous books) has managed to show what nonbelief looks like when it’s ‘normal, regular, mainstream, common.’ And he’s gone at least partway to proving the central thesis of his book: ‘Religious faith — while admittedly widespread — is not natural or innate to the human condition. Nor is religion a necessary ingredient for a healthy, peaceful, prosperous, and … deeply good society.’ ”
Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.
To follow up on this tangent only obliquely related to the original article, my dissertation research from 15 years ago or more examined effects of social connectedness on health and longevity, in this case, in older folks. So I am fairly familiar with related literature. In an earlier comment, John cited WebMD, which speculated an effect from, essentially, habits related to better health, such as refraining from smoking or heavy drinking.
My research from that time and much of the rest of it shows positive health and longevity benefits just from being in on-going stable social relationships. Church or other organized religious involvement is one such arena for those relationships. So, yes, church is good for you (health and longevity wise), but so is membership in clubs and other voluntary organizations, being married, having kids, maintaining networks of friends, and being employed. Phyllis Moen, who did similar research in the late 1980s and 1990s found a robust general effect from a variety of stable role relationships, but the one that stood out in her sample from upstate New York was club and voluntary organization membership. My sample, from central North Carolina had active religious membership as being more important than other social relationships , but not dramatically so. This is not surprising given the location. Some work has been done on teasing out the details of these effects, which is piecemeal and challenging. But the very robust finding of this kind of research is that most kinds of stable social connections are beneficial in most circumstances. Active religious affiliation is certainly part of that, but, in terms of health and longevity benefits, does not seem to stand out particularly.
Then would someone please explain to me why, if you look under the rock of religiosity, you find pedophilia, child abuse, witch torture, burning people at the stake, the inquisition, the Crusades, Salem, genocide, and a host of other goodies too numerous to name?
Don’t tell me these aren’t “True (fill in your favorite choice here)”. They are still part of whatever one you mention. When you actually read the bible, god is a psychopathic egomeniac and sadist (think of poor Job). If I gave all the biblical examples of god’s horrific deeds, this post would take forever to finish. So, I will spare you that.
I haven’t seen any atheistic leanings toward any of the above. Who has any evidence of inquisitions, witch hunts, stake burnings, etc. in the name of atheism?
So, who actually is the most “immoral” of individuals? Perhaps, believing in a god, any god, creates more immorality. Certainly when Carl Sagan or Einstein will spend eternity in hell, while a “Son of Sam” or Hitler (I know, godwin) will go to heaven if they repent and say the right words, that makes perfect sense. Riiight!!!
I contend, true morality is ethical behavior, and needs no god as a guide. As a matter of fact it is the belief in gods of various kinds, including the Christian one, that causes more problems.
If you need a sky daddy to tell you right from wrong, then I feel sorry for you. If you cannot formulate truly ethically based morality without your holy rule book, or your god, than you are indeed lacking in true morality.
BTW exactly what is so moral about discouraging people from using condoms to help prevent AIDS, or helping women not to have unwanted pregnancies with proper birth control means and family planning?
What’s moral about millions of poor, homeless neglected, unwanted, unloved children left to try to survive because they’ve been abandoned?
More side-effects of boneheaded religious tenets that make no sense but are blindly okayed because of religion. More reasons to affirm that I, indeed, am content to be an atheist, and make no apology for it.
OK, I was staying out of this one, but Sojourner dragged me in.
I just wrote a 4 page essay which I’ll be submitting, tomorrow after I proof and make minor changes to it, addressing a minor issue that seems to get very little publicity these days. I say very little publicity in comparison to the gravity of it’s importance and I say “minor” issue with a sense of sarcasm that defies words that the OED can provide.
I would like to shut down the Catholic Church. I know it sounds like lunacy and I recognize that but I will post my essay on my website and let you read it.
Tell me, what other organization do you know would be allowed to condone, foster, cover up, hide from prosecution, disregard attorney generals, prosecuting attorneys and victims of rape, THOUSANDS of children raped and abused and still stay in business?
You can’t.
Ireland just released a 2600 page report of the systematic abuse, rape and beatings of over 50 state funded, Catholic run orphanages that detail the worst perversions ever cast on the Catholic Church, dating back to the 1930’s, and all the KNOWN serial rapists and sadists that the church kept moving around.
The church hierarchy said on Wednesday that they were “sorry, ashamed and some other word of insignificance”, but then made it clear that they would turn over the names of the abusive priests, dead or alive to the authorities.
How long will people let these sick people keep preaching about the sin of homosexuality when the run the largest homosexual pedophile ring in the world?
People, help me do something. I’m sending my writings into every major magazine and I’m going after Congressmen, Senators, Newspapers, etc. I know I’m fighting a losing battle, but just imagine if it were virtually anyone else.
Also, just imagine how much they have gotten away with.
Lastly, just imagine if it was your child, relative, grandson, nephew or and other loved one.
@Zayla:
I would like to see all churches closed down, though that’s not likely either. I just wanted to add a small addenda. Although the Catholic Church may be rife with homosexuals as well as pedophiles, most pedophiliacs are not homosexuals but are very warped heterosexuals.
If you Google the subject, there’s probably actual statistics about the subject. I’m straight, if it matters, but I’ve known many gays in my life, and pedophilia is as repugnant to them as heteros. This myth is primarily a result of more religious bigotry and hatred against gays in general.
Find me an article on nonreligious people living longer than religious people. I can’t find one.
“Proverbs 3:1 My son, forget not my law; but let thine heart keep my commandments:
Proverbs 3:2 For length of days, and long life, and peace, shall they add to thee.
Refute it, I’m waiting!!!!!!!!!”
One should be a moral(in the religious sense) person because one would, thereby, live longer, healthier life on earth? This strikes me as a rather odd justification for morality in the context of Darwin’s religiosity; selfish even. I would have been more impressed if Darwin had suggested that we be moral because OTHER people would live longer happier lives. This would seem to be more consistent with his position - one is supposed, if I understand matters aright, to achieve a state of grace and so enter heaven. But perhaps Darwin’s rhetoric is designed to appeal to what he considers be the atheists necessarily materialistic outlook? Does he think we are children who can be bribed with lollipops?
There are plenty of good reasons to be “good” that have nothing to do with “God” but I wouldn’t dream of suggesting that one of them is the fact that Betrand Russel survived a plane crash and lived well into his 90’s!
Sojourner:
I’m speaking only of the pedophile ring the Catholic Church runs, which is roughly 90-95% homosexual. Whether it be by access and opportunity or choice, that’s the way it’s always been.
I’m not talking about church’s in this case, I’m talking about the hierarchy, bishops, archbishops, cardinals and the Vatican. That’s where the crimes start. They’re all guilty, but of different crimes but this, as an “organization” has no business still functioning. NONE.
Religion MAY lengthen the lives of some people who have been lucky enough to have been born in the right place and time. It DEFINITELY cuts off the lifespan of the unlucky, say, Ethiopian who is browbeaten away from the contraception that could stop him from contracting aids. You can assume that if someone can blame everyone else for their problems, or pretend a magic fairy is looking out for them, it may reduce stress and have an impact on lifespan. If morality came from the bible exclusively, we would still be stoning everyone to death. We have matured despite religion, not because of it.
Religion has nothing to do with longevity. Spirituality does, and ANY spirituality works as good as the next. Feelings of inclusion, of oneness and well being, whether Zeus, Buddha, the Sun, (Jesus,Horus,Mythra) the church has just rabidly crushed, killed and destroyed all of the competition so it could lay claim to spirituality. Derwin has his money on the bronze-age. Place your bets, ladies and gents! Lets pull out Derwin’s family tree… I assume they were all godly and lived to a ripe old age. Or were they punished with death? Is your god just, or is he playing craps? If you use the “mysterious god’s will” statement just stop guessing and pretending you know anything.