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.

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.

I no more believe that Communists are evil than Christians, Muslims, Jews or Capitalists are. But ideology whether political or religious encourages division, and one only needs to look at Ireland historically or Israel & Gaza currently to realise the problems that causes.
While individual atheists have stated wars, I'm not sure that any war has been fought on the grounds of atheism.

One of the beautiful things about being an atheist is that it is not a religious organization. There is no hierarchy or collective set of beliefs. Those people have no right to speak for me or anyone else. They are simply individuals whose opinion is no more important than any other random human’s opinion. They are certainly welcome to contribute to the conversation, but they are just one voice.

One might just as easily blame nationalism - British / Irish - for historical problems in Ireland. I imagine very few of the actors in the recent Troubles are committed Christians of any stripe. With some noisy exceptions.

Likewise its difficult to discern any theological underpinning to the Israel/ Palestine tragedy. It's all about land.

This is probably too simplistic but morality is about right and wrong.
'Would you like X if it was done to you? If not, don't do it.' Is a simple way of distinguishing between the two.

Organised religion is also not just about God (and hence spirituality). It's about governance, conquest, political power.

The latter is often incongruent with morality, or 'doing the right thing' insofar as it involves proving that 'their way' is right to the detriment of others.

I try to do my best to be good and moral because I want to live in a world where people are good and moral.

@pointythings

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.

I don't mean "developing morality" in the kind of way you seem to be talking about, but having a solid and meaningful basis for morality.

I;m not convinced they are distinct issues. More a case of where theory and practice collide. Life isn't lived in theory.

@PorcelinaV how is theism a more solid and meaningful foundation for morality than the essential pillars needed for societal survival? The prohibitions that create social cohesion are pretty much the same across all major faiths and revolve around forbidding courses of actions that are damaging not just to individuals but to groups of individuals. The rest is just window dressing - especially the ridiculous prohibitions around sexuality and the autonomy of women that always seem to spring up and are then touted as 'morality'.

I strongly disagree that atheism in any way indicates lower moral standards. Empirically, i often find the opposite. I know a bunch of Christians who have openly, on different occasions over the years, expressed real surprise that atheists have moral codes they abide by. I've been told, 'If I didn't have God guiding me, I'd do what i like.' Several Christians I know seem to lack any inner moral compass. It is provided by god. not their own inner sense of decency. I also know a staggering number of Cristians who justify deeply unpleasant or selfish behaviour because it was God's Plan for them, which seems in their eyes, to exclude them from having to behave like half decent human beings.

Some of the most moral people I've ever met are atheists and some have faith. Some of the most callous, abusive people I've met are devout., some are not. I think faith and morality are discrete issues. of course faith demands our moral attention. but it doesn't get it as often as it should. The amount of spiteful, casual bullying i hear at coffee time straight after sunday service is testament to that.

@Namechangedatheist

While individual atheists have stated wars, I'm not sure that any war has been fought on the grounds of atheism.

I'm guessing that no war has been fought on the grounds of theism, as in the belief itself.

It would be theism combined with other ideas that could perhaps encourage violence.

Atheism could potentially become mixed up with other ethical and political ideas, and also be dangerous perhaps in that combination. It's not going to be exactly the same obviously, as "atheism" can't command anything.

Maybe theism more easily lends itself to combination with other ideas, (various religions of course), or has been more dangerous in practice.

But then, it can be that theism provides a more solid basis for morality in theory, and also correct that some religious groups are evil and are responsible for much harm.

@TotalOverhaul

I strongly disagree that atheism in any way indicates lower moral standards. Empirically, i often find the opposite.

This is not the issue here as I'm pretty sure the OP quote made clear.

I think theres probably actually a anthropological basis for morality. For a species to thrive they have to be able to co-operate in groups. So a common understanding and standard of behaviours such don’t steal, don’t murder, don’t lie etc would contribute towards group harmony, tribes that don’t have shared standards would eventually break down and disappear. Other primates build trust through stuff like grooming and sharing.

Tbh many religions don’t seem that moral to me.

Sorry my point was that religion codifies and adds extra bells and whistles onto stuff we would have done anyway.

Sure, but if you have theists that will give certain criticism of an atheist/naturalism worldview, and actually some atheists will say the same thing, perhaps there is reasonable grounds for the criticism. At least at first sight, it does give extra weight that there may be an issue.

The 'morals' propounded by the large religions often include extremely nasty repressive elements. Hence 'liberal' sects needing to update them in line with secular values.

Of course, they are as man-made as any secular system of ethics, and have no more solid basis but religious people behave as if they do.
I'd say they have a less solid basis if they're alleged to come from an unproved, unprovable deity.

I don't think the fact that theists like to criticise atheists and that some of these criticisms overlap with those of a small subset of atheists is actually evidence of anything. I mean, theists are coming from a position of feeling that their beliefs are the best, so they would say that, wouldn't they?

I mean, theists are coming from a position of feeling that their beliefs are the best, so they would say that, wouldn't they?

The flip side of that is, "Of course many atheists will try to deny the criticism as they don't like theists etc. being critical of their belief".

So theists are biased. And atheists are biased.

But some atheists can go against their own natural bias.

Unless someone can think of an argument why some atheists would have an agenda in play here.

Which part exactly haven't you heard them say?

What's your personal view here?

Imagine that someone committed murder, but it was always inevitable that it would happen.

So the laws of physics combined with starting conditions that existed before a person was born, will always lead to person A murdering person B at a particular time.

(Ignore possible randomness in modern conceptions of physics.)

Does such a person have free will?

Are they morally blameworthy for something that was always going to play out like that?

I hear you, but the fact of the matter is that there is no evidence for any of the things you are saying. They're all purely theoretical. Perhaps you feel that you are prone to moral nihilism. If that worries you, do something about it. Me, I don't feel at all that I am prone to moral nihilism.

Your theories also treat atheists as a monolithic block, and there are probably as many streams of atheism as there are of faith. It's a conversation that isn't without interest, but it's on a hiding to nowhere.

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.

This is the bit I have never heard any atheist I know say. So I don't know any atheists who have accepted that particular form of moral nihilism.

I do not understand your scenario concerning inevitable murder. Murdering someone is a choice. Murder is by (legal) definition premeditated and therefore something a person chooses to do. Your scenario is contrived and implausible.

I do not believe in any kind of predestination.

Noted that Netanyahu has cited the Bible as he says "this is a time for war".

Just waiting for him to cite Psalm 137 v 9.

I would actually say the opposite. I think many people became atheist after seeing just how fucked up religious ‘morals’ are.

If religious people also continue just to have morals because they are told to, and those morals are from a very outdated book, should they even be classed as ‘things that are moral or immoral’?

Ardent atheist here. No, we don't have free will, because of legal, social, & cultural constraints either self-imposed, or imposed upon us. I think most humans have an innate sense of right vs wrong, of justice and fairness. Many animals species do too.

I do not believe that being religious gives you a sounder moral platform than being an atheist. Atheist or religious, both have proved to stretch the meaning of what is right and moral. Being religious may have imposed rules written down but atheists are a bit freer to decide for themselves what is morally correct. Even though I'm an atheist, I actually agree with the Christian story: Don't cheat. Don't murder. Don't steal. But did my CofE primary school ram that into me, did my parents and peers, or did I come to that conclusion myself? I would say mostly my time at primary school and my outside influences in my formative years instilled my morals, but as I got older I realised that it just made sense not to do bad stuff to other people.

Ultimately I do believe life is meaningless, but with caveats. To take a humanist view, I am supposed to do good without God. I'm not going to heaven, because I don't believe it exists. So if I want to make a mark, I have to do it whilst I'm alive. Some people leave behind great art, or music, or written words like plays or TV shows or books. These can be shared with people still alive, and so those people can find value in them. I might work for a charity, or start a charity, and help other people, and the effects of that ripples to even more people, who find the benefits of my work. I might be a scientist, who cures an incurable illness. I might even be a politician, who fights for change in their constituency, to make living in that area easier & more pleasant. So whilst I do my good work, others benefit, but do I benefit? Apart from the sense of "doing the right thing", the accolades and feeling a bit self-satisfied, I don't think so, no. So why do it? Because of that innate feeling, because it's the right thing to do. Justice. Kindness. Altruism. Morality. Being a Good Person. Most of us want to ve remembered in a positive light after we've gone, don't we?

Religion feels to me like a late addition or post-action justification in most human lives. Wars are always about resources, a straight scrap for something X wants and believes Y has. Imposing a religious framework on life and on war just makes us feel better about it - that does seem morally nihilistic. However, it certainly doesn't mean that universal atheism would result in no wars, as we can see from the history of atheist regimes. Religion is just not very relevant to most humans, the number of people who actually do something major because of their religious beliefs or lack of them is tiny.

What I am reading from many of the atheist posts is that they are coming from the stance of feeling, as atheists, they are good.

However, what happens when dealing with people's flaws? Are flawed people intrinsically considered bad?

When governments, education systems, justice systems and doctors don't have the answers where do atheists place their hope?

I find hope in my faith and feel life without hope would be pretty bleak. I have also gone through some pretty traumatic events in my past and it has been my faith that has helped me to have the hope required to keep going.