We can often read about the "gay lifestyle," a label used by evangelicals for all things "gay" in order to frame homosexuality as a choice that can be rejected rather than an orientation that is part of who someone is. Some are now also criticizing an "atheistic lifestyle."

Chad McIntosh writes:

There is truly nothing virtuous about living an atheistic lifestyle (as far as it’s actually livable), and there certainly isn’t anything even remotely worth moral appraisal. It’s truly hysterical to see atheists captivate an audience using terms that should only have value within the cogency of a theistic worldview. There should by no means, given atheisms rationale, exist concepts such as love, self-sacrifice, respect, honor, good, right, meaning, virtue, etc. Given the castration of like terms withinn the framework of life, it’s not hard to see how atheism inevitably skips dangerously down a path of nihilistic philosophy.

I'm not quite sure what an "atheistic lifestyle" is really supposed to mean; as with the "homosexual lifestyle" I suspect that it's supposed to refer to whatever the writer doesn't like. Let's assume, though, that it's simply a matter of living your life without belief in or reference to any gods — a life where theism plays no personal role.

Is there anything virtuous about it? Not necessarily. Such a person might be very moral or very immoral. There's nothing inherently virtuous about being an atheist — if there is any intellectual "virtue" in atheism, it only exists because of how one arrives at it. None of this means, however, that such a "lifestyle" isn't livable. Many atheists — moral and immoral — live without gods quite easily.

Does moral terminology only have "value within the cogency of a theistic worldview"? Of course not. If that were the case, then it wouldn't be possible to write anything sensible about ethics and morality without relying upon theistic concepts. Hundreds and thousands of books, papers, and articles have been published on ethical issues generally and the topics McIntosh lists specifically, but without gods and theism playing a role in them. This proves beyond a shadow of doubt that we can write about and discuss morality in a coherent and valuable manner without using a theistic worldview. Saying that we need theism to discuss ethics makes as much sense as saying that we need theism to discuss epistemology.

The general subject of McIntosh's post, by the way, is William Lane Craig's "The Indispensability of Theological Meta-Ethical Foundations for Morality." Craig argues that God is necessary for morality and McIntosh thinks that Craig is right. That Craig is unquestionably wrong is made evident by the fact that there have been many, many cultures in existence where people have been moral but haven't believed in Craig's or McIntosh's god.

 

Update: Chad McIntosh responds, sort of...

First, a quick word should be said about what constitutes a “lifestyle.” The term ‘lifestyle’ has always seemed a bit slippery in its various usages. Simply put, a lifestyle is “a style of living that reflects the attitudes and values of a person or group.” Working under that definition of lifestyle, the term ‘atheistic lifestyle,’ as I have used it, is simply a referent to the style of living that reflects the attitudes and values of an atheist.

Right away, without further investigation, we can see unambiguously that Chad really doesn't know what he is talking about. His definition of "lifestyle" is fair, but if he knew what he was talking about he would know that he couldn't apply it to atheists. Why? Because there is no single "style of living that reflects the attitudes and values." What sort of "lifestyle" do atheistic humanists, Raelians, Buddhists, Jews, and Scientologists have in common? None, obviously — talking about an "atheistic lifestyle" is a bit like claiming that atheism is a philosophy, ideology, or religion.

Now, it doesn't need to be so wrong. There are atheistic philosophies, for example — philosophies where theism plays no role. In theory, there could be "atheistic lifestyles," which would be ways of life in which theism plays no role. Chad McIntosh's problem is his use of the singular here: the atheistic lifestyle, the attitudes and values of an atheist. He presumes that there is just one such set. He objects to my comparing his use of "atheistic lifestyle" with "gay lifestyle," but this is precisely why the analogy is apt: a single over-arching "lifestyle" is presumed, thus creating a straw man that is easier for opponents to attack.

I say there is ‘nothing virtuous’ about the atheistic lifestyle simply because atheism cannot account for the existence of virtue in the first place.

This is true. However, what Chad McIntosh misses is the fact that mere theism also cannot account for the existence of virtue. When theists try to account for the existence of virtue, they go well beyond theism and rely upon philosophy, theology, and particular religious belief systems. To expect mere atheism to do the same, when atheism isn't a philosophy, ideology, or religion, is to be disingenuous at best.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s grant that the atheist can, in some way, account for the existence of values. Even then it seems to me that the values that would arise from such a naturalist etiology would be so exceptionally different as to hardly merit the term virtuous (at least how it’s currently defined). Indeed, given an evolutionary picture, the values painted then would be selfishness, oppression, and whatever else would contribute to the organism’s survivability.

Chad McIntosh needs to read up on research done about morality and ethics in an evolutionary context. It's nothing more than a straw man created by ignorant Christians that evolution is incapable of producing "morals" that go beyond selfishness. William Lane Craig is not an authoritative source that can be cited on evolution.

...if atheism and Christianity differ so greatly in their philosophy (of value in particular), we don’t see radically different lifestyles? ... The typical atheist doesn’t admonish the pragmatic outworking of his own worldview. Instead, he has to borrow from mine to remain coherent. Unless Mr. Cline considers hypocrisy a virtue to be had in one’s lifestyle, it seems then there is, in fact, “truly nothing virtuous about the atheistic lifestyle.”

Chad McIntosh makes three egregious errors here. First, he assumes that there is a single "atheistic worldview" which is common to all atheists and which should be immediately recognizable by how an atheist acts. Second, he assumes that whatever this worldview is, the consequences for how a person acts would be radically different from how atheists act now. Third, he assumes that Christians' behavior now is a reflection of a consistent adherence to a single Christian worldview.

None of this is correct. As noted above, there is no single atheistic worldview. We should expect different atheists to behave differently. We should not expect atheists to behave differently than they do now because there is no good reason to think that atheists' worldviews are inconsistent with their current behavior. Chad McIntosh assumes that this must be the case on the basis of faulty understandings of atheism, but he never advances an argument for it. Finally, there is a great deal of variability in Christians' behavior, and this can be explained first by the fact that there is no single Christian worldview and, second, that Christians are guilty of the hypocrisy which Chad McIntosh wants to accuse atheists of.

What is the issue, as was made clear in the article by Craig I cited in my initial post, is that there doesn’t exist a philosophically coherent metaethical theory apart from one that involves the existence of God, regardless of freelance theorization.

Once again, Chad McIntosh airs his ignorance for the world to see. There are lots of metaethical theories which do not take any gods into existence; indeed, most of those which have been written about in philosophy over the past couple of hundred years have nothing to do with any gods. No one with even a passing familiarity with recent philosophy could make a claim like what Chad McIntosh here makes. Moral realism does not need to take any gods into account. Moral relativism does not need to take any gods into account. Moral non-cognitivism does not need to take any gods into account. Moral skepticism does not need to take any gods into account.

Now, Chad McIntosh might argue that all of these theories have flaws, and he'd be right — but that's a problem with all metaethical theories, not just those which don’t take gods into account. Notice that McIntosh doesn't take these metaethical theories and demonstrate how they are incoherent. This is necessary in order to claim that none of them are coherent. He would then have to demonstrate that the presence of his particular god is necessary for metaethics; again, also something which he doesn't do.

Note: Chad McIntosh's post has been removed due to "technical difficulties."

 

What is Blogsnark?

 

Want to Comment on this? Post in the Forum

 

 

Read More:

• Atheism 101
• Defining Atheism
• Questions About Atheism
• Myths About Atheism
• Atheism in Society
• News About Atheism and Atheists
• Rebuttals to Attacks on Atheism