Atheism and moral nihilism

[PorcelinaV]

Would you agree that atheism / naturalism has a less solid basis on which to ground morality?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/mar/09/life-without-god-bleak-atheism

Even more disturbing, perhaps, is the threat of moral nihilism. Atheists are quite rightly keen to counter the accusation that life without God cannot be moral. The British Humanist Association, for instance, claims that "Right and wrong can be explained by human nature alone and do not require religious teaching". But, just as with happiness, there is a need to distinguish the possibility of atheist morality from its inevitable actuality. Anyone who thinks it's easy to ground ethics either hasn't done much moral philosophy or wasn't concentrating when they did. Although morality is arguably just as murky for the religious, at least there is some bedrock belief that gives a reason to believe that morality is real and will prevail. In an atheist universe, morality can be rejected without external sanction at any point, and without a clear, compelling reason to believe in its reality, that's exactly what will sometimes happen.So I think it's time we atheists 'fessed up and admitted that life without God can sometimes be pretty grim.

No absolutely the opposite

Religious people feel they need a big vengeful gif to punish them and disapprove of them in order to do the right thing, atheists think we should do the right thing because it's the moral thing to do.

I want my children to grow up doing the right thing because they want to not because they are afraid of the consequences.

The alternative is people that only do the right thing when they think they'll. be caught

Sorry god not gif, joys of auto correct

I will grant you that life is bleak. There is no magic to make you feel better.

external morality remains terrifying as hell. Only internally derived morality, that intrinsic need to not cause pain or harm, is trustworthy. If a person needs to base their morality on some external being or source, then there is something inherently flawed in them.

This. Absolutely this.

If religious people are more grounded in morality than atheists, then please explain to me why so many of them spend so much time trying to destroy nonbelievers. There is no difficulty for atheists in finding a moral centre based on what is objectively good and what is not. And sanctions come from law and apply in life, not as a threat of eternal punishment after death. Nihilism is borne of desperation, so choose optimism - make it a conscious choice.

So I think it's time we atheists 'fessed up and admitted that life without God can sometimes be pretty grim.

Speak for yourself, I'm fine thanks.

If religious people are more grounded in morality than atheists, then please explain to me why so many of them spend so much time trying to destroy nonbelievers.

That religious people have done bad things because of their religious beliefs, I think is a distinct issue from whether theism or atheism/naturalism provides a more solid basis in theory.

Theism can be a stronger basis compared to atheism in theory, and various religious groups can still be evil.

I'm struggling to understand your point. God doesn't exist. So any moral code that requires God's existence is flawed in its opening concept. The only real morality is the one we negotiate and agree amongst ourselves, as sentient beings that do exist and must relate to each other.

I haven't a clue what the answer is or if there even is one. But new atheists, particularly on the libertarian right , are always keen to point out there are ' no rights in nature' .

And since , in the words of Richard Dawkins , we are all merely ' lumbering robots' there is no free will either. A rather dangerous combination of factors.

I find it such a bizarre that anyone could think humans can only have happiness or a moral compass due to an all knowing deity judging them. I love my kids and teach them to say please and than you. I don't rampage across the country murdering people and kicking puppies. I find happiness in the world around me and the stars above.

I believe that when I die, my energy will go back to the earth, or float away, or be eaten by worms and there will be no soul or consciousness continuing. It's not as comforting as the idea of endless paradise, but a darn sight better than lakes of flaming sulphur to punish me for nicking penny sweets in primary school and never returning that library book.

It seems a lot more wars and devastation are caused by true believers than atheists anyway. I am comfortable knowing that the answers to how it all works are much too complicated for me, but it's fine that there are things that I don't know. I don't need some voice from the clouds with a magic smiting finger to keep me in line.

Would you agree that atheism / naturalism has a less solid basis on which to ground morality?
No. Atheists have to work it out for themselves, they actively come to moral beliefs. The religious just do what somebody else told them to do.

I think atheists come in many flavours. I'm an atheist and I am definitely not right wing or a libertarian, and I think it's dangerous to conflate someone's politics with their spiritual beliefs.

Richard Dawkins is only one flavour of atheism. You can't think of us as a monolith of lumbering robots because many of us absolutely do believe in free will - and in taking responsibility for our own morality rather than acting out of fear of a nonexistent deity.

To quote Steven Weinberg — 'With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.'
I'm an atheist - I try to live by the tenet of 'do as you would be done by', similar to the communist view of 'from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs'

For purposes here, ignore your personal opinion about God, and imagine both (1) if theism is true, and (2) if atheism/naturalism is true.

Religion is like politics, full of the most morally bankrupt people you'll ever have the misfortune to meet.

I like to avoid both.

I totally think you can have joy and morals without a God. A religious framework can be nice I suppose in terms of feeling you have an external moral scaffold, as it were. I say this as an atheist Jew - people often assume all religions function like Christianity, as a faith, but for a lot of Jews like us and I think most of the specific community we belong to, we follow our religion as a cultural and spiritual tradition, not as a faith in God.

@Namechangedatheist

To quote Steven Weinberg — 'With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.'

Firstly, I'm not sure if this is true.

Perhaps what it takes for good people to "do evil" is actually ideology, whether that's religious ideology or secular ideology.

You mention a communist principle, and I think that's a good example here.

Communists aren't necessarily "evil" people; they may be completely convinced that they are working for the good. But that can result in horrific levels of evil when they try to build their "better type" of society.

Secondly, even if religion did have an issue here, I think you would also need to consider whether theism had advantages as a basis for morality. For a fair assessment you maybe need to look at strengths as well as any weaknesses.

This may be correct, but it's a distinct issue from the ability to ground morality.

Certainly questions about ethics and meaning are simpler if you believe in God. But it’s possible to find meaning and strive to live morally even if you don’t, if you believe all our actions are predetermined and ultimately we’re all just waiting for the heat death of the universe so none of it matter anyway. I find the metaphor of a dance a very useful one.

I think you're right to expand the drivers of human evil beyond religion and into ideology. People do things in groups that they wouldn't contemplate doing as individuals, no matter what it is that forms the underpinning principle of a particular group.

I'm not sure where you're going with the question of whether theism has advantages in terms of developing morality - as opposed to what, non theism? If that is the question than no, it doesn't. Theism is one way to develop a coherent morality that forms the glue of a society, but the underpinning ideas that faiths have in common are those that make evolutionary sense in terms of the survival of a species or a community. Theism is one mechanism of achieving that, but because the ideas of not permitting actions which are destructive to a society are essentially matters of common sense, theism isn't the only way and nor is it better or worse than any of the others.

@pointythings

Richard Dawkins is only one flavour of atheism. You can't think of us as a monolith of lumbering robots because many of us absolutely do believe in free will

I don't know any "big name" atheists that would defend a strong form of free will?

Daniel Dennett has a compatibilist position, but that would destroy moral responsibility just the same as Sam Harris' position.

I'm sure there are some lesser known atheists that will defend a strong form of free will, but that would seem to require arguing something like (1) a physical system can have an emergent property that somehow becomes outside of the ordinary physical processes and acts independently, or (2) you need a more complex metaphysics, so maybe the physical world sometimes generates something (consciousness) that is of a fundamentally different nature. So the argument would be that not only can the physical world generate a different type of thing, but that this thing then becomes "alive" to control the other type of thing that is producing it.

Imo, it does seem likely that atheism/naturalism would undermine moral responsibility here.

What an atheist may try to say, is that a stronger form of free will doesn't make sense for anyone, whether atheist or theist. So the concept doesn't make sense. I think such an atheist has clearly accepted a form of moral nihilism.

I don't know why you're trying to put words in the mouths of other people here... What does 'a stronger form of free will' even mean?

If you think you're a moral nihilist, you do you. But I'm not. And nor are other atheists.

@pointythings

I don't know why you're trying to put words in the mouths of other people here...

That's nonsense. I didn't put words in anyone's mouth.

I said that hypothetically an atheist could try to say such a thing. I'm allowed to anticipate possible responses. But I'm not saying anyone here is actually saying that.

I'm also allowed to give the view that such a position is a form of moral nihilism. Again, that's not putting words in anyone's mouth.

@PorcelinaV well, all I can say is that I know many atheists and I have never heard one say anything of the sort. Mind you, I'm fully aware that there are dogmatic atheists who miss the point completely by elevating their non-belief to a form of faith. I don't hang out with them, because I don't hang out with zealots of any kind.