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.

@ErrolTheDragon

Why should you spend much time thinking about not believing in a thing that requires belief?

Regardless of whether it's worth doing, that's not what I said.

I didn't say they should be spending their time examining their worldview.

I said that perhaps a lot of atheists aren't doing that, and if so, the writers that hopefully have spent time thinking about the issues, may be a better representation of atheism in a way.

"I'm not sure you answered it. Why should anyone spend much time thinking about not believing in something that requires belief? I'm sure there are many things other people believe in that Christians don't give a thought to."

@ErrolTheDragon, ok, I'll have a go. I do think about other beliefs from time to time. I like to draw connections and think about the origins of beliefs, similarities and differences, their permutations and the consequences of certain beliefs. I'm not a professional though, I don't write books on it or engaged in a formal study. I think the reflection about such things has to be balanced with rest and being ok with things as they are in the here and now along with a hope there are better things to come.

"@heyhohello I think believers and non believers do tend to think about their beliefs. Self reflection is part of growing as a person. However, I don't think that it is necessary to go into the esoteric philosophical realms advocated by OP - that's for professional atheists who write books about it."

@pointythings, yes, I agree there has to be a balance. No good only giving someone lofty advice on 'spiritual matters' when they are in dreadful need and crying out for practical support! (The Bible does mention this also 😉)

@JustKen

Finally I think your demands of atheists to explain their beliefs & defend them is ridiculous. Some atheists still consult their horoscope. Some atheists wonder about if there's an afterlife. Some atheists dabble in the occult or volunteer to be a godparent. Well, so what? That's got nothing to do with you or anyone else!

No one is "demanding" they do anything. They are free to think about such issues or not.

But you can't expect to be taken very seriously if you aren't interested in supporting your claims.

If you say, "I'm an atheist, and I also believe X, but I haven't thought about it much, and I'm not interested in defending how atheism is compatible with X", that's great for you. That's fine. You don't have to spend time on such things if you don't want to.

But no one has to take your position seriously or think it's representative of atheism/naturalism, other than in the limited sense that some atheists may be like this.

In the same way, if you claim that you're a Christian but that you believe that Jesus was a time traveller who used super advanced technology to perform his "miracles", well great for you.

But without a solid justification for those ideas, and if you aren't interested in defending the viewpoint, it's not going to be taken seriously by other people and it's not really representative of the Christian religion. The idea just isn't going to fit with Christianity.

@JustKen

I don't expect all Christians to believe the same thing, and Indeed they don't...

I check myself constantly when making assumptions about a person from a certain faith because I think it's offensive. In the same way OP, I find your assumptions of atheists to be offensive.

I was willing to be critical of atheists for not being consistent with the worldview.

Just as, I may be critical of Christians for not being consistent with the Hebrew Bible. I know they may disagree with me on this.

But I'm happy to tell them that they are being inconsistent with their own worldview, that many Jews agree with me, and I don't care if they are offended by that.

"But you can't expect to be taken very seriously if you aren't interested in supporting your claims."

@PorcelinaV, since you aim this accusation at Christians and atheists alike I will answer.

How do you understand 'supporting your claims'? You only seem to refer to this in terms of reasoned argument. However, we all should know eristicism only serves to glorify self. Like a metaphorical 'pissing contest' which only results in everyone getting very wet and frankly stinks.

If we are really interested in seeking truth (which lies with God according to my faith) it necessitates humility. The acknowledgment that we may not see or understand everything perfectly ourselves and that other people may have got something right and acknowledging that. Acknowledging other people's experiences. Other people and how they see things are valued. Even if we disagree with their perceptions or these perceptions are not our own we seek to understand them and find common ground and connection with which to hopefully build a relationship and friendship in which we can learn from each other.

This, as a Christian, I feel is compatible with my faith. It is about love, respect, humility and forgiveness.

So sometimes, I will not engage in argument when I sense it is starting to become more about winning then a means of seeking truth. Simply because very little is achieved.

And I will admit I am as guilty as many others on here for wanting to 'flex'. However, this ultimately can feel quite frightening. You can end up feeling like you could argue yourself in and out of most positions.

Can you guess I have also suffered many times from analysis paralysis? Faith cannot be proved. It is faith because there is no absolute physical proof. Faith has to be chosen beyond reasoned argument.

And as for non belief, absence of belief? I'm not certain but from posters on this thread there seems to be a peace found within an absence of concern over things which cannot be proven and therefore the engagement in attempting to prove a lack of proof seems nonsensical. It's a straw man as faith acknowledges lack of proof.

But as I said before, I do believe reflection, self and otherwise is useful in order to learn and grow but we all need rest from it sometimes. Especially in the context of this causing conflict.

For me atheism isn't just an absence of belief. I've actively chosen.

I don't want to believe that an all knowing, omnipotent being, claiming to love everyone could allow children to suffer in the way they do in this world. I understand the arguments of free will, but as a parent I wouldn't allow my child to hurt themselves by touching the stove, nor would I allow them to hurt others whether by accident or deliberate if I was able to prevent it. We have free will but morally we have a responsibility to prevent harm if we are able to.

This supposed omnipotent god is a worst parent than I am, as a fallible human.

I can't imagine worshipping a being that chooses to allow children to be harmed when it could be prevented.

So I choose atheism

I choose to behave well towards others, and try to be kind to myself (that's harder)

I'm curious about whether there is anything more after death, but don't believe in heaven or hell. In my view being open minded about it gives me a relaxed approach to death as I get older, I am not afraid to die.

@HesDeadBenYouCanStopNow, ah yes, I understand your type of atheism is distinctly different to simply having no belief. An active rejection of any God/deity is more an anti-theism as I understand it.

And anyone would have to be very insensitive indeed not to grieve over the suffering of children and I certainly feel your grief although I do not share your perspective on God as a Christian. My faith I find is a source of solace, comfort and hope amongst suffering which I have experienced too.

However, I don't think I have words enough to heal the hurt you feel. I'm sure you have heard people say many things about Christianity in an attempt to comfort you. The fact remains Christianity is a faith which you can choose to reject and have.

All I can do in this situation is in share your (and other's in your situation) grief and hurt if and when you care to share it, offer an ear to hear it, acknowledge suffering, offer support and practical help to meet physical needs / find justice and protection.

I agree with @HesDeadBenYouCanStopNow in the sense that my atheism is a belief I have chosen because it gives me the strength and the comfort to cope with the world I find myself in, to see the goodness and beauty that is there and to deal with the horrors that happen. For me the choice is to believe that there is an all powerful entity who is happy to sit back and allow atrocity, war and oppression under the guys of 'free will, not my job, guv', or to believe that the good and the bad is a combination of the enactment of free will, chance, the laws of nature - all of that. I'm not going to get into the argument of whether or not there has to have been a Creator - because if there has to be a Creator, then there has to be someone who created the Creator and it would never stop. So I choose to believe there is no god, and I choose to believe that I have to do what I can as a little human being to leave this world a better place than I found it.

And sharing the burden of suffering can be difficult, it does take its toll. So I think it is important too to acknowledge the need also of people to move past it, rest for a while and concentrate on good things. And forgive people when they seem avoidant of empathy.

@heyhohello taking time to concentrate on the good things is absolutely key - we call it 'the joys of small things' and learning to find them in your everyday life is powerful. Some people get there through prayer, others through mindfulness or meditation. My DS writes poetry (published on a small scale in his uni town) and it is a theme that runs through his writing frequently.

@pointythings thanks for acknowledging that, it is something that means a lot to me. 🙂

I describe myself as agnostic. It's commonly misunderstood as fence sitting but in simple terms it's the belief that the secrets of life are unknowable.

I also believe that morality is necessary behaviour to ensure survival and that it predates the invention of religion.

We need others to survive and if fully ostracised, we'll die. Morality is an inherent necessity in humans.

@heyhohello

since you aim this accusation at Christians and atheists alike I will answer.

How do you understand 'supporting your claims'? You only seem to refer to this in terms of reasoned argument.

Well it is a philosophy forum, so maybe we should be giving some weight to reasoned argument.

If Christianity is criticised on the grounds of inconsistency, then of course there are apologists that will try to show that the religion is consistent. So it will be both attacked and defended using reasoned argument.

Now there may be room for "faith" also, (not sure of your definition), but should Christian apologists just give up? So: "We aren't defending the belief system, it's just something you need faith for". Well OK, but why pick religion 7 rather than religion 8 then? If we are ignoring things like consistency then maybe we just pick the religion that lets us sleep around every other weekend.

And actually, the Hebrew Bible, when it comes to people claiming to speak for God, it doesn't tell you to simply have "faith", but rather judge them on certain criteria. So presumably that requires some reasoned assessment and consistency within the religion.

@PorcelinaV,

"Now there may be room for "faith" also, (not sure of your definition), but should Christian apologists just give up? So: "We aren't defending the belief system, it's just something you need faith for". Well OK, but why pick religion 7 rather than religion 8 then? If we are ignoring things like consistency then maybe we just pick the religion that lets us sleep around every other weekend."

Definition of faith:

Hebrews 11:1
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (KJV)

there's a pretty fundamental difference between Judaism and Christianity. Faith in Christ.

Galatians 2:16
"Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified." (KJV)

"Well OK, but why pick religion 7 rather than religion 8 then? If we are ignoring things like consistency then maybe we just pick the religion that lets us sleep around every other weekend."

Yet many people don't. Maybe people choose their religion because of their experience of it? It's the reason I continue to choose Christianity. There are no pressures from other people upon me to.

"Well it is a philosophy forum, so maybe we should be giving some weight to reasoned argument."

@PorcelinaV but also a religion forum. The two are not the same.

I think you have an extremely odd view of atheists. The majority of people I know are atheists. Atheists range from good to bad, from intelligent to stupid, from intellectually and philosophically curious to the opposite, and from moral to amoral, just like theists. I also think you're very mistaken if you think that the average religious thinks deeply about morality and the basis of their faith any more than atheists reflect on such things. Atheists aren't a different type of human being. We just don't believe in the deities that people made up.

And arguing about the consistency regarding matters of faith is nonsensical since you are essentially arguing about things for which there are no proof for by definition.

These type of arguments become simply an exercise in wielding intellectual power. Who can quote the most, who has read a lot commentaries. They have nothing to do with (exploration of) actual faith in Christ which is central to Christianity.

@AllProperTeaIsTheft

I think you have an extremely odd view of atheists. The majority of people I know are atheists. Atheists range from good to bad, from intelligent to stupid, from intellectually and philosophically curious to the opposite, and from moral to amoral, just like theists.

I think you may have misunderstood the point of the thread.

What does this have to do with anything?

Is there something I said about atheists that you are responding to?

I also think you're very mistaken if you think that the average religious thinks deeply about morality and the basis of their faith any more than atheists reflect on such things. Atheists aren't a different type of human being. We just don't believe in the deities that people made up.

Let's assume this is correct. I don't see why it's relevant here?

It can still be the case that theism has theoretical advantages as a basis for morality, regardless of whether the average religious person thinks about such questions.

@heyhohello

there's a pretty fundamental difference between Judaism and Christianity. Faith in Christ.

As I mentioned, the Hebrew Bible, which is accepted as scripture by both Jews and Christians, tells us to assess supposed "prophets" on certain criteria.

So you aren't supposed to just have "faith" in someone like Jesus, if you are following the Biblical standards.

If a religion tells you something like that, then I'm thinking that following its standards would be important.

As I mentioned, the Hebrew Bible, which is accepted as scripture by both Jews and Christians, tells us to assess supposed "prophets" on certain criteria.

@PorcelinaV
Yes, and this is what both Jews and Christians do and have done. However, there are enough complexities for each religion to have a different perspective regarding Christ. That's where faith comes in.

So you aren't supposed to just have "faith" in someone like Jesus, if you are following the Biblical standards.

The thing is if a person truly has faith in Christ, they believe in Him and what He stands for, they are in agreement with this, then their views and decisions should begin to align more and more with those of Christ. Their faith results in good works. They become more Christ like.

This way round people (start to) have a heart do do the good works, meet 'the standards'. It's the opposite of feeling alienated from their works or not understanding or being on board with the rules. Or doing things just to look good and show off or for money but not really caring about the work itself and doing the bare minimum to get the reward.

@heyhohello

And arguing about the consistency regarding matters of faith is nonsensical since you are essentially arguing about things for which there are no proof for by definition.

So let's assume that the Christian faith isn't supposed to be "provable".

Why would you consider the consistency of the religion?

Because it can be strong evidence that the religion is false. That something can't be "proved", doesn't mean it can't be "disproved".

Or a little bit different example, imagine if a supposed "scripture" tells us that a miracle happened, that it rained Jelly Babies on a particular day at a particular place to feed the starving inhabitants, and that we should have faith in this miracle.

You may not be able to prove that such a thing happened, and let's assume no video recording or news reports or eyewitness testimony available.

However if you do your research, and you find out that the miracle story contains all sorts of factual errors about the location in question, and wasn't even inhabited at the time of the supposed miracle, then that is pretty good evidence that the story is false.

@PorcelinaV, I'm simply not interested in attempting to prove or disprove religion. Or win an argument. I believe as I do through (an experiential) faith.

Christians seek (and experience) God through prayer, worship, the sacraments and study within this context. It is not the same as simple literary criticism or studying history. Because perspective affects analysis.