If there is one issue (other than the utter lack of scientific knowledge among christian apologists) that annoys me to no end, it is christian apologists' claims that atheists have no source for morality. These very confused (and often bigoted) individuals further claim that in order for there to be an objective source for morality their god must hand down these supposed 'objective' laws. Of course, as I exposed in my refutation of Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker's book Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God, these claims are without foundation.
It's even more glaringly obvious that many christians don't understand morality when one actually accused me recently of an extreme lapse of "morality" (at least in his distorted view) on par with the mass murders of the 20th Century! What did I do that was supposedly as bad a mass murder? I published a debate I had through an exchange of emails and they never wrote me back when I asked to publish the discussion on my blog. Instead of doing the ethical thing and kindly ask me to remove the emails (because up until the author's post about me I didn't know his feelings on the issue), the christian apologist slanders me on his website and calls me highly immoral. Of course, the guy's post is dripping with bias and incorrectly states why I published the emails to begin with, even though I stated why right in the post. Not to mention completely botches and misrepresents years of actual scholarly research into the true motivations of the Communists by people who know more about it than him (and even myself).In the christian apologists' (distorted) view of the world, they seem to think it's a damning blow against atheists when they argue that because they are materialists, agree that evolution is the true and accurate way through which all species have come to exist, and because they believe this happened without any kind of divine intervention, an atheist must accept an equally materialistic ethical philosophy in order to be logically consistent. Usually this means some kind of evolutionary ethics, no doubt because of the long history evolution has in being used for horrible purposes, eg. Social Darwinism.
However, it has never seemed to dawn on theists (or even atheists it seems, since I haven't seen this counter argument elsewhere, but if anyone has please let me know) that just because an atheist holds to a materialistic view of the world doesn't mean they must get their ethics from evolution. The reason is because an atheist is simply someone who rejects theistic dogma and does not have any belief in any gods. It is perfectly consistent for an atheist to follow any kind of morality so long as it is not theistic. It seems this fact goes way over most (if not all) christian apologists' heads.
Other than our innate morality, humans have been developing secular moral systems for centuries that do not rely on any kind of supernatural source. Such systems are the following: Utilitarianism, Egoism, and my personal favorite, the Social Contract, among many others.
Through the use of our natural, innate instincts, logic, and reason, an atheist is perfectly capable of coming up with rules of conduct which man can live by. Yes, these rules are relative, but that's no argument against them because the theist is in the exact same position as an atheist as I'll show in the second part of this post.
It is not my intention to lay out an entire system of ethics, but to show that atheists have a source of morality that is at the very least just as good, if not better, than theistic morality.
In this first part I've exposed many christian apologists' flawed thought process about what an atheist should follow regarding morality in claiming it must come from evolution. In part two I'm going to explain why I feel the atheist, rather than the theist, is in the better position morally.
For Part 2 Please See Christian Apologists Just Don't Understand Morality, Part 2
This is a very good topic. It never ceases to amaze me that theists argue that ... since I believe in the invisible magic friend, I am better than everyone who does not, even though his will is inscrutable, his existence unprovable, and his ways mysterious. But a bunch of wild-eyed middle-eastern cranks wrote all about it in an incoherent book I think is sacred, thus I have objective morals. QED
ReplyDeleteNice post!
ReplyDeleteI have been following your blog for only a very short time, but I find it interesting and thought provoking.
I will be a regular reader.
I am also an Arizona atheist, and there are times when I think that Arizona is every bit as screwed up as Texas or Alabama.
Cheers!
Thank you for the comments Rex and Mr. Braun. I'm curious what people will think of my argument once I get to the second part. Stay tuned!
ReplyDeleteRex, I greatly appreciate your readership. Thank you!
Another good post. It's nice to see that some blogs have some thought put into them, and though should be a more highly regarded asset.
ReplyDeleteHi, you might like to read on Epicurus for an interesting and valuable guide to ethics without deities. His name has now become synonymous with gluttony, which is a rather strange distortion given that he lived what seems a fairly frugal existence.
ReplyDeleteOh yeah, have added your blog to my A World Beyond Belief aggregator.
Hi Mr. Manne,
ReplyDeleteThanks for visiting and adding me to your blog list. I've done a little reading of Epicurus but more certainly couldn't hurt. : ) Take care.
I jumped over here from Carnival of the Godless. Here's my take on this: Our capacity for ethical behavior and evaluation of it is a product of our evolution. Our cultural ethos is an environment-normed product of our sociality, which is a product of our evolution.
ReplyDeleteAs an individual, I got my ethics from my family, early caregivers, and the vague notion, "everything you need to know, you learned in kindergarten". As an adult, I am able to evaluate the effectiveness and benefit of the ethical frameworks I employ, and (one would hope) change them if need be.
Good topic!