Dexter wrote:

Dawn wrote: Rejecting multiple 'gods' is not at all the same as rejecting the very (common and worldwide) proposition of a god existing...

But you are not defending merely the proposition that a god exists, you want to defend a particular God as a specific and exclusive source of morality. And from a book that portrays some very dubious morality in which nearly everyone has to reinterpret the nasty parts about murder, slavery and repression of women -- not surprising as it is the creation of a relatively primitive civilization. A Muslim following his book literally would say you are an infidel and are immoral. If an atheist took any major religious text literally, someone would point to it as the height of immorality, and yet you want to claim that an atheist can have no possible source of morals without God.

What then were you suggesting as to your basis for moral claims?

geo wrote: There's a world of difference between 'my God is the one true God' and a more agnostic position of believing god may exist in some form or another. Likewise, an atheist may be absolutely certain that there's no god or have a more agnostic position that rejects the idea of a personal god based on lack of evidence, but is open to the idea that god may exist in some form or another. I seriously doubt that many atheists are actually opposed to the proposition that god exists. They simply see no evidence for such a deity, personal or otherwise, and so only have an absence of belief.

I really don't think you can have a dialogue with those who have absolute certainty either way. They are ideologically entrenched in their positions and no amount of reason or logic will sway them.

Thanks for your clarification on that. Glad we can still dialogue. Clearly all 'atheists' are not alike. I actually saw a study based on a survey of people who called themselves 'atheists'. A significant proportion of them admit that the tag is more of a protest against organized religion than a real disbelief in any kind of god. Have you seen this to be the case?

lady of shallot wrote: Dawn
[quote in what way was Stalin's behavior reprehensible to someone with no god in their worldview?

Now when I read this I have to shake my head in wonder. Are you seriously questioning why I or Dexter, Interbane, Robert Tulip or Johnson, Sam Harris, Christiopher Hitchens and Steven Dawkins would find Stalin's behavior "reprehensible"?

[/quote]

I'm thinking theoretically, no personal insult intended. What I'm (trying to?) saying is...if Stalin believed classic atheistic thought of his time then why not do what he did?
Nietzsche said:

"Equality is a lie concocted by inferior people who arrange themselves in herds to overpower those who are naturally superior to them. The morality of 'equal rights' is herd mentality, and because it opposes the cultivation of superior individuals, it leads to the corruption of the human species".

What relevance does this have to Stalin? This man's teachings were personally presented to Stalin by Hitler... if all men are not equal, if survival of the fittest improves mankind's lot... why not decimate whole populations? And what moral prohibitions did he hold? Where should his morals have originated? His actions were not in conflict with his atheistic point of view. They may be contrary to your morals, but from whom does a moral code get to originate anyway? Who's the judge? Whose cultural mores take precedence? Who's right? These are genuine stumbling stones for an atheistic worldview imo. Any you needn't take this as my judgment on your personal morality. I'm just noting you have to be careful whose company you keep so to speak if you don't wish to be misunderstood.

lady of shallot wrote:

Dawn
in what way was Stalin's behavior reprehensible to someone with no god in their worldview?

Now when I read this I have to shake my head in wonder. Are you seriously questioning why I or Dexter, Interbane, Robert Tulip or Johnson, Sam Harris, Christiopher Hitchens and Steven Dawkins would find Stalin's behavior "reprehensible"?

My point was in no way to personally insult you but to point out the views of 'classic' atheism which don't seem to interfere with Stalin's actions as far as I can see. For instance, Nietzsche said:
"Equality is a lie concocted by inferior people who arrange themselves in herds to overpower those who are naturally superior to them. The morality of 'equal rights' is herd morality, and because it opposes the cultivation of superior individuals, it leads to the corruption of the human species."
This kind of 'survival of the fittest' mentality is a dangerous tool in the hands of an unprincipled man. And where should his moral principles have come from? If there is no absolute standard for morals, only my sense of good and evil, who's to be the judge of what's best for mankind? This is a real stumbling stone to onlookers of atheism. It's this sort of thing that gives atheism a bad name and makes a 'coming out' frowned upon imo.

Dawn wrote:If there is no absolute standard for morals, only my sense of good and evil, who's to be the judge of what's best for mankind? This is a real stumbling stone to onlookers of atheism. It's this sort of thing that gives atheism a bad name and makes a 'coming out' frowned upon imo.

Dawn, this is a very good point that is often lost on atheists. It is something I have raised in slightly different terms in the discussion of The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris, focussing on the relation between facts and values.

Atheism has at least two main currents that are worth distinguishing. The major historical current arises from socialism, from the view that faith is an instrument of class privilege designed to preserve existing social relations - the king in his castle and the beggar at the gate. Because socialism seeks to invert the social order, it rejects faith on political grounds as a bastion of the status quo.

Popular revulsion at the social impact of socialism leads to broader doubt about the merits of atheism. The French Revolution, forebear of socialism, swept to power on an idealistic vision of liberty, equality and fraternity, and enthroned the Goddess of Reason in the Catholic Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris. But in a short time, idealism turned to terror, as those who were dispossessed by the new ideals mounted a reaction and the Jacobins enforced their ideals with the guillotine.

The secondary atheist current is scientific and liberal. It observes that nothing can be demonstrated to exist outside the scientific method, so, in the words of Laplace, has no need of the hypothesis of God. For science, facts are the highest value. Because they are trained in the laboratory rather than the library, such scientists flounder when they step on to theological terrain. They are fine when refuting the falsity of fundamentalism, but entirely out of their depth when relating to a wiser faith. Sadly, wisdom is rare, and dogmatism is pervasive, so the whole tenor of the debate is somewhat deaf, dumb and blind.

The problem shared by both these currents, as you note, is the source of values. As Dostoyevsky's Karamazov said, without God all things are possible. (note on source). Factual description of the world does not contain within it any normative statement on how we should live.

So it is fine for atheists to say they believe nothing, if they accept the corrolary that no one should trust them with moral responsibility.

My view on all this is that Christianity contains within it a sound evolutionary natural ethic, but this has been corrupted by supernaturalism. An atheist faith sounds like a paradox, but that is what is needed, and what can be found by stripping Christianity back to its original hidden natural core, before the fantasists and careerists took over. Combining the ethics of the sermon on the mount with scientific focus on evidence and observation and logic seems to me the best way forward. The result is that all the supernatural stories of the Bible are reinterpreted as allegory, so the valid ethic of faith can be rebased in reality.

"

Dawn:
Nietzsche said:
"Equality is a lie concocted by inferior people who arrange themselves in herds to overpower those who are naturally superior to them. The morality of 'equal rights' is herd morality, and because it opposes the cultivation of superior individuals, it leads to the corruption of the human species."

But Dawn, what Nietzsche warned against is exactly what Stalin did. His society or that in Communist China would not "cultivate superior individuals" but instead those of a herd mentality.

I can understand why you seem confused about atheism as some say (Robert Tulip) that there are forms or schools of atheism and that these need to be coalesced in some sort of Utopian version of atheism that he imagines will replace current theological faith and itself be a "faith"

It appears that people like members of this group, myself, George, Interbane and Johnson do not agree with Robert Tulip's vision of how atheism should be (and actually is) expressed.

For myself and others I know who are atheistic, it is actually much simpler. Some don't even identify themselves as atheists, they simply do not adhere to any religious beliefs. Most of these people actually attended church services when I first met them in their younger adulthood. As they matured their interest in belief systems just simply fell away.

You ask where do moral values come from for those who are atheistic? Very simply, from observation. Like my knitting friend who makes caps for cancer patients. How difficult is it for her or a religious person to see the pain and suffering of these people? Why would there be a difference? I remember once we wanted to discard a playhouse we had in the yard for our grandchildren. When we tipped it over, we saw three small mouse infants. It saddened me that as a consequence of our action these mice would die. I certainly don't want mice in my house but it doesn't please me to kill them.

Why would a belief in something simply made up by men determine one's value system? In fact it would or could alter and debase the instinctive charity we feel for each other. I know you read and did not like Harris' "End of Faith" but remember what he said about "honor" killings among Muslims? Do you respect those? And yet they are practiced among the very most devout believers in God.

lady of shallot wrote:You ask where do moral values come from for those who are atheistic? Very simply, from observation.

I think you're right - morality can be arrived at from reason alone. For me, this sequence would work perfectly well:

1. All sentient creatures accept that suffering is undesirable and happiness is desirable.

2. Therefore I seek happiness in preference to suffering.

3. I observe that others also seek happiness in preference to suffering.

4. Therefore I should create happiness for as many others as I can and given that condition as much happiness as possible.

I think this would provide a workable basic framework for morality and social justice. So to my mind, yes one could arrive at morality by reason (although whether anyone actually does is a different question).

Squelch - your logic here is the main argument by Sam Harris in The Moral Landscape as he seeks to base values on facts.

Lady of Shallot - your comments make good sense, except that I detect in your argument a sort of Buddhist detachment, a sense that rather than wanting to change the world you want to find a private enlightenment.

The clash of ideas in the world is the clash of rival faiths. For one side to say our view is a non-faith leads others to assume that side does not know what it is talking about, does not have the courage of its convictions, does not have a coherent cosmology and framework of moral values.

A scientific faith is not a bad thing. For example, I have faith that the universe as described by science actually exists. In my view faith is needed to overcome the paralysis of skepticism, the absurd assertion that we have to doubt everything and believe nothing. I believe in science.

Buddha also taught non-faith as a method to escape this vale of tears and find nirvana. Modern liberal atheism has much in common with Buddhism in its intellectual form. But, as I see it, the great problem of the world is moral transformation, a shifting of the foundations from supernature to nature. This means looking into the sources of existing religion, especially Christianity the great transformative faith, and finding what coheres with a modern scientific understanding. There is vastly more than many atheists assume.

Robert Tulip wrote:Squelch - your logic here is the main argument by Sam Harris in The Moral Landscape as he seeks to base values on facts.

So I gather.

I actually first came across a simpler version in the Dalai Lama's writings. It appears in The Heart of the Buddha's Path if I remember rightly.

The only element it missed was a distributive rather than a purely subjective perspective, which is why I draw on John Rawls' formulations of social justice.

robert Tulip

Lady of Shallot - your comments make good sense, except that I detect in your argument a sort of Buddhist detachment, a sense that rather than wanting to change the world you want to find a private enlightenment.

Neither, Robert. I am not aware of any desire within myself to find a private enlightenment. I also have no wish to change the world. I content myself with doing what I can to change my little corner of it (and sometimes not too successfully either)

I also would like to think I have a positive influence on the few people whose lives are very entwined with mine. That would be my descendants. I successfully prevented them from the confusion of any religious persuasion. Other than that their path and seeking is open to them to follow.

Personally my own moral code is more comprehensive (in my opinion) because it isn't confused with things that are just strictures and credos of a particular faith or belief system. Allows me to look around me and become more aware.