Atheists and Accountability

[whatsthestoryinbalamorytoday]

Hi

My MIL is an athetist and I've had atheist friends in the past. They are the most morally corrupt people I've ever met.

People who believe in God or some form of higher being and an ultimate judgement day or reward (even through reincarnation) live by a certain set of rules e.g. 10 commandments. In a way it makes you aware of a higher being or that you will eventually be held accountible for your actions and should (in an ideal world) stop you doing bad things.

People like my MIL sleep around and do whatever they please regardless of who they hurt or how immoral the act is. As long as she's not breaking any laws of the land (and adultery is not one of them) she thinks it's fine to get away with it. Because she doesn't believe in God, she believes that she has in fact "got away with it".

What are your opinions on this? How do atheists enusre they don't do bad things? Whih set of rules/principles do you follow?

Was about to post the same point as meowmix - and if you read Dawkins' back catalogue you can see how his experience in science, biology in particular, led him to his current area of interest.

Although I know I should let it lie, I have to disagree with Balamory's suggestion that
"Scientists follow their own faith-the belief that science will prevail and that through science they will find an answer/cure. That belief [...] shows it to be a form of religion simply because they all follow the same set of principles with a passion e.g. the laws of relativity and theory of evolution. In the same way Christian/Muslims/Jews etc have the same belief and follow a similar set of rules i.e. the 10 commandments."

Science is not a belief system or a 'faith in finding an answer', it is simply and solely the seeking of knowledge about the world around us.

Scientists don't all follow the same set of principles with a passion - in fact science insists that they don't, and that things are questioned and tested and not accepted unquestioningly.

I'm leaving the thread now as I have to do some genuine questioning science, but I couldn't let that one go.

yes BUT - your original question was where morals come from if you have no religion. His whole thing is about how certain behaviours are dictated by inherent genetic things - that whole selfish gene bit. To me that has more validity than your chinese whispers analogy especially as many aetheists have discarded religion so have a pretty damn clear idea of what its all about.

however, I'm getting tired of the patronising tone so I'm off. Shame as this could have been an interesting discussion.

I know I parped myself off this thread but I can't stay away. Balamory, you are now purporting to discuss the Dawkins book based on reading some Amazon reviews. This is ridiculous. If you want to discuss what he says, go and read the book, then come back and start a new thread. And I totally agree with MrsBadger, BTW - Balamory's assuming that science is a substitute for religion, a belief system to follow. Scientists question and test hypotheses - they don't blindly follow. That's the whole point of science.

Science changes with discovery too - eg doctors used to believe that "bleeding the humours" would cure diseases, which we now know is not true.

So how is that different to Catholicism where the Pope determines what will and won't be changed from the current set of rulings?

What is religion if not the "seeking of knowledge about the world around us". Do not all religions have theories about how the world started. Scientist's theories involve the Big Bang, other faiths believe in it being created in 7 days etc.

Scientists discover things by research & development. The Pope decides what rules will and will not be enforced by decision (either his or the General Synod/Vatican/whatever).
Some religious decisions are not necessarily for the greater benefit of its followers (eg condoms issue, the treatment of women, dietary considerations)

Yes "Scientists question and test hypotheses " but they still have the blind faith that they will somehow, oneday, find the answer. e.g. we will find a cure for cancer/AIDs one day.

Iklboo

If that were true, scientists would not be continually disproving theories. They first have a theory, with agreement, it is turned into a fact. Why do you think they thought the world was flat? They made this into a scientific FACT before they discovered that it was false. Same as the Big Bang theory-it is exactly that, merely a theory. One day, this may also be disproved.

It's only a sweeping statement if it's not true or if you can disprove it.

Just because you can't respond to what I've written, does not make it a sweeping statement.

Yes, they're continually disproving theories BY using research & development.
Science & religion don't mix.
This thread seems to have veered wildly from the OP

I can disprove that. Not all scientists are doing cancer research (semantics, sematics I know). Similarly though, you can't prove it's true either.

no-one said that all scientists are doing cancer research!!!!

Scientists do have a blind faith that they will ultimately find an answer though, otherwise they wouldn't dedicate their whole life to the field!!!

My brother is a surgeon and my other brother is a chemical engineer. I have untold friends who work in the science/medical industry.

I'm winding you up! You're using the generalised "they" again, like in the OP.

And stop with the "just because you can't respond to what I've written to" attitute, please?

"Yes "Scientists question and test hypotheses " but they still have the blind faith that they will somehow, oneday, find the answer. e.g. we will find a cure for cancer/AIDs one day."

Now, that was a sweeping statement.
And I can prove it isn't true:
(watch carefully now)

I am a scientist. (with me so far?)
I do not have blind faith that one day we will find a cure for AIDS.

So, to say, as you did, that 'scientists have blind faith that we will find a cure for AIDS' is a sweeping statement and untrue.

For what it's worth, I have a great hope that we will find a cure for AIDS, but that hope rests on the hard work and rigorous research of thousands of scientists like me. It's not 'blind faith'.

(And re the Big Bang and Flat Earth post - good science acknowledges that many things are only theories that haven't been conclusively proved, they're just the current best guess, as it were.)

Can we infer from your "scientists having blind faith" bit, that you also view science as a kind of religion - in tha same manner that followers of some religions have "blind faith" in the tenets/doctrines/teachings of their chosen religion?

(I'm interested, not having a go or anything. It's a vaild point)

"What is religion if not the "seeking of knowledge about the world around us". Do not all religions have theories about how the world started. Scientist's theories involve the Big Bang, other faiths believe in it being created in 7 days etc. "

Balamory, I do find that an extremely odd way to describe religion. Individuals may seek knowledge through religion, but the institutions of religion are most certainly not primarily about furthering knowledge; they generally have more to do with transmitting belief, rather than improving the knowledge we have, which is completely different.

The claim that scientists have blind faith that they will find an answer otherwise they wouldn't devote their lives to looking - er, no, they believe the odds are good enough, and the benefits potentially great enough, for it to be worth looking. How is that blind faith?

As for what is meant by scientific fact: most scientists would, I think, agree, that what 'scientific fact' means is the best model to fit the state of knowledge available at the time. All scientists know how far their knowledge is provisional, because it's absolutely key to scientific method to be aware of that. Big Bang theory will likely be improved, but that's not the same as it's being disproved, and the same with evolution - there will likely be aspects which will be better understood in the future and some assumptions which will turn out to be wrong, and eventually another model may be suggested for our understanding of these processes, but Big Bang theory will remain the 'best fit' with what we know at present. I think it was Isaac Newton who said that thing about seeing further today because we stand on the shoulders of giants - scientific knowledge improves because it is cumulative and constantly revised.

Oh it's all gone quiet at the back!

If I have killed the thread, Connie, I will not mourn for it

Balamory, have you never read the works of St Thomas Aquinas? Even he, one of the greatest theologians to have ever lived recognised that religion and morality must be distinct, otherwise morality and God becomes arbitrary? (If I do an action that is good because God says it is good, then it is no longer actually 'good' it is just doing what I am told.) Hence, the whole thinking behind Natural Moral Law - whereby Aquinas argued we gain our sense of morality from our reason, not directly from God. Although, it did lead poor Aquinas to making a few 'gaffs' in his theory (Like he believed masturbation was a worse 'sin' than rape... hmmm not very moral eh?).

But simply, it is a very naive view to simply equate morality with religion, and too often I find people think that modern Chrstian morality is the same as that of the Bible. WRONG! Do a theology degree and you will soon see that many of the concepts that we have today in Christianity and ethics actually come from the Greeks, and not the Bible. Besides, there are lots of commandments from the Bible that many Christians would like to forget (such as the commandment to execute any priest who gets drunk and any teenager who disrespects their parents, and of course how could we forget God's commandment to the Hebrews to commit mass genocide after they discovered the promised land?) Haven't got Bible verses at the ready, but could easily supply them if you want. But simply there are many aspects to the Bible that we like to 'forget' about because they don't fit into our modern sense of morality, so simply equating religion and morality as being more moral is a very naive and simplistic view, which not only shows a lack of understanding of modern secular ethics, but also shows a lack of knowledge of the rich tradition and evolution the Bible has provided the moral sphere.

Fascinating post, rarrie. I want to read Thomas Aquinas now

Message withdrawn

How the fillyfonkstolechristmas - What did Ann Widdecome do to be on your list?

Believing in a God because he/she tells you the right way to behave and gives you a moral framework for living is (in my view) getting everything the wrong way round.

I don't choose to believe in the existence of God I just do, it is a bit like falling in love - out of my control.

My belief in God is separate from my moral values. I would still have moral values even if I didn't believe in God.

For me the belief in God is also separate from how I choose to worship him. A specific religion just gives me a framework and discipline within which I can become closer to God. I don't think an organised religion is necessary for this but e I find it useful as discipline is one of my weak points and a relationship with God (like all relationships) requires work after the initial falling in love stage.

I certainly don't try and do the right thing because I believe I will be punished if I don't.

I try and do the right thing to please God in the same way I would try and please anyone I love.

This is a long thread, don't have to time to read it all, and I think some postings have been removed so it's difficult to follow BUT I have been thinking about this re Adolph Hitler. The most fiendishly successful mass murderer of all time, few would describe his behaviour as moral. How did he justify it to himself? Well, he talked about "Providence", or whatever the German is for that word. In his early life before he came to power, he was (amazingly) described by one commentater as "a good Catholic". However,after he came to power, any Catholics who didn't agree with him were persecuted in the 3rd Reich.
So were Protestants (Dietrich Boenhoeffer is a good example), but there was one evangelical protestant church (don't know who) that actively supported him. I have just read Hitler 1889 - 1936 - Hubris by Ian Kershaw, a great book.
It is not often I come across the biog of some one with so few saving graces.