If you're going to be an atheist, at least get it right

[papau]

http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/jan06/388158.asp

If you're going to be an atheist, at least get it right
By DALE REICH
Posted: Jan. 29, 2006
I know lots of non-believers, and I like a lot of them. They're generally nice people. A few have made fun of me for my beliefs and even implied that I'm intellectually inferior for believing in things as seemingly irrational as God and creation. ("Dale, have you ever been inside a whale? Do you really believe someone could live in a whale for three days?")

snip

Friends, if you're going to be atheists, start thinking and acting like it. Get rid of your own irrational beliefs and embrace the world as you say it is: a purely physical and random place where goodness and evil don't really exist and where the rules set down by organized religion and thousands of years of human history are no more meaningful than two rocks colliding at the bottom of a mountain after an avalanche.

What I learned from my foray into disbelief was that most atheists have it all wrong. They've merely substituted their own irrational belief system for the one I was given from 2,000 years ago.

What's wrong with being atheist? What's wrong with being gay? What's wrong with loving pornography? What's wrong with practicing bestiality? What's wrong with ....... any number of other off the wall propensities?

The answer is nothing that is anybody else's business, provided the adherents of those beliefs and motivations don't get a missionary zeal and try to inflict their aberrance on the rest of us--the normal Christian American heterosexual majority.<snip>
================================================================
Just so we can skip comments previously made at
http://www.jsonline.com/idealbb/view.asp?topicID=26947&forumID=68&catID=21
I have tried to paraphase the Journal Sentinel Newspaper. forum discussion comments of the above editorial opinion below:

“…Atheists in general behave far more morally… equates challenging atheism to criticizing blacks… Prove God doesn't exist or leave!…An obviously futile attempt to hide your insecurity… utter arrogance… feeble attempts at intimidation…Demonstrate you are in touch with reality … You're just insecure in your life-style choice. …too much on logic makes you cold and uncaring. Too much on faith makes you subject to your emotions and chaotic… firmly believing in the god authority ..reduces morality to obedience to authority…”.

”.. Atheism is a religion ( a belief system held to with conviction - webster) and is a choice …”If atheism is a religion, then "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.”….“If you believe it and establish what it "is or isn't" (hence a belief system) and you believe it with ardor or conviction then it's a religion. The fact that people…go out of their way to promote their belief-er-religion-er-agenda on web-sites and in chat forums proves it. And no don't try the lame argument that it's not a "belief". The fact that you claim there were "details" about atheism that the editorialist got wrong in the original post proves a standard for atheism and hence a "belief system"….You think you have a superior intellect and grasp of reality and you are quite gleeful over that aren't you?…the doctrine I embrace surrounding that belief is what I feel is the "system". If you go to atheist web-sites there is doctrine posted there as well-hence a "belief system"… can't "prove" any of them…I'm secure in them enough to base my life on them and I'm at peace with that… If you feel the same about your belief system then fine…. If not, live and let live… Just don't tell me you're the only one smart enough to figure it out (or) I'll respond in kind…...Anyone who declares they are the only one who has it figured out, whether in regards to atheism or Christianity, and if you don't agree you're an idiot is themselves the idiot…”

“…A metaphorical religion is not a REAL religion, (it )shares some qualities with genuine religions, such that some similarities exist, but that's all. .. atheism is metaphorically as "religion" in the same way that baseball is, for some people, metaphorically a "religion."…you can't really contrast Christianity and baseball. Atheism has to be compared and contrasted with theism, not Christianity. If you want to compare and contrast Christianity (a theistic religion) with something, it has to be with an atheistic religion (like some forms of Buddhism, Realians, Scientology) or an atheistic belief system (Secular Humanism, Objectivism)…. theism (by itself) isn't a religion. At the same time, though, I can believe that in casual arguments (i.e., where someone isn't being super careful), a person might not strictly separate "critiques of theism" from "critiques of religion," and thus allow complaints about religion (too much dogma, abhorrent traditions) to seep over onto complaints about theism (which doesn't necessarily have anything to do with dogmas, traditions, etc.)….”

“...Christians often confuse nonbelievers' disagreement with attempts at recruitment…Publishing web-sites dedicated to a belief and actively promoting and defending it in chat forums constitutes recruiting IMO. Plus the actions of the atheist … to remove references to God are plainly evidence of an agenda to promote his belief. That is definitely recruitment…..No, it's not recruitment,..actions aimed at ending the recruitment efforts of Christians, not at recruiting others to atheism…. "Recruitment" is probably unfair. I would say more "active promotion" and if you think about it why promote something if not to convince, i.e. recruit, others to your belief?.. It is political activism under the guise of "it's not fair to me because I'm atheist" which to me implies an agenda….it has nothing to do with "recruiting" and everything to do with restoring American values…”

“..There is no logical consequence of atheism as it is a spiritual concept and logic and spirituality are on opposite ends of the spectrum.(Faith versus observed behaviour)…One would expect exactly the same thing if there were no divine origin for absolute morals, if they were biological, for one of several examples. The fact that certain morals are cultural universals doesn't seem to support the god notion at all. Sure, it's consistent with that notion, but it's also consistent with the atheist understanding of the situation, and therefore doesn't help support one at the expense of the other…we make a moral judgment about a behavior before deciding on a course of action, we have a hundred instances of taking action and then trying to retroactively justify it with moral pronouncements…(but) that applies to mine as well as to yours, so it's not a criticism of your comment.”

“…It's not a lack of logic, it's a matter of being wrong…”.

Now that the first 100 of the usual DU posts are already in the thread (amazing how the newspaper forum reads like DU :-) ), I am curious as to what DUers think (and please - it is a given that the orginal article is a flame to generate responses to the newspaper and is flat out wrong about the lack of morals in atheists - but the discussion I thought interesting)

:-)

:toast:

[HereSince1628]

1. Irrationality protects the individual psyche, its pervasive in humans

When legitimate rationality fails irrationality takes its place.

I can't imagine that atheists or any other group can be completely free of it. We are humans not the Vulcans of science fiction.

[papau]

3. rationality versus irrationality- It's not a lack of logic, it's a matter

It's not a lack of logic, it's a matter of being wrong!

We are all trying to teach each other!

:-)

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. Atheism is not inherently rational

Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods. While many atheists arrive at that position through the use of reason, there is nothing inherent to the lack of belief in gods that requires rationality. After all, "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. (Stephen Roberts)"

[papau]

4. "It's not a lack of logic, it's a matter of being wrong" - Stephen Roberts

would claim there is a "why" that one just does not understand!

:-)

on edit (this was not said by Roberts - the quote is because it was said in the original discussion forum)

[TechBear_Seattle]

5. The point I was reaching for...

Jerry Falwell, Hal Lindsay, Pat Robertson, etc. are almost as much atheist as I am. Why should I be held to a much stricter standard of rationality than them? :hi:

[papau]

7. Totally Agree!!!! :-)

:-)

[trotsky]

6. The original article was horribly insulting.

A Christian pretends to be an atheist, then bashes them because he thinks pretending to be someone is good enough to know what they really think. :eyes:

[papau]

8. I agree :-)

:-)

but I found the discussion interesting.

[On the Road]

9. This Comment I Will Have to Use:

"If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby."

[Beetwasher]

11. That's Great!

Love that anology!

[beam me up scottie]

20. Atheism is a religion like the lack-of-measles is a disease.

[papau]

13. Add it to bald is a hair color! :-) But some folks will still see a

religion being practiced when they review atheism!

Remember it takes all types!

:toast:

[Goblinmonger]

10. So if organized religion is the source of "morals"

let's do a count of those societies that are absent morals and see how they did. I posted this elsewhere, but how did those nasty native americans every survive long enough without organized religion to be genocided by the Christians?

And I'm betting the original deal you quote from is talking about Christianity since the reference is to "organized religion and several thousand years of human history" (odd that those two are seperated since my point above is that A LOT of human history is without organized religion).

[papau]

14. It certainly is a source of an ethical view - and claims to know morality

I thought the original article a simple flame - and stupid - but I liked the discussion!

[Goblinmonger]

15. But isn't that like saying

I think racism is stupid but that KKK group makes some good points. No they don't. They're idiots. If the discussion should focus on "is religion the only source of morals and ethics," then I guess we could have that discussion, but it seems pretty inane to have on a progressive board. Of course organized religion is not the only source of morals and ethics. That is shown through a lot of examples.

[papau]

17. Sort of - bad people can do good things - it is the thing that is done

that I judge.

I'll judge the good and bad of a person based on my value judgements of course - but the event - the thing = the statement said - stands on its own to be judged, again based on my value judgement - as good or bad.

[Skinner]

12. This article is ridiculous.

Basically, his point seems to be: If you don't believe in God, then you're a hypocrite if you act in an altruistic way. What a complete crock.

On a purely philosophical level, I agree with the point that there is not such thing as absolute or universal morality if there is no God. Before I get flamed, let me explain. It should be obvious to any fair-minded observer that are large numbers of non-believers who adhere to a strong moral code, just as there are large numbers of believers who do not. By "absolute or universal morality" I mean this: without a god figure to dictate a universal moral code to all of us, there can never be agreement among humans regarding the nature of that universal morality, and humans are left to decide for themselves what constitutes moral behavior (and whether they choose to adhere to it).

I think it is obvious from observation that right now -- even among believers -- there is no universally agreed-upon standard for morality. I think it is fair to conclude that for all humans -- believers and non-believers alike -- moral issues are to some degree personal. While a believer may say that their morality comes from God, they are still exercising their own free will when they decide which version of God's morality they are going to embrace as their own. Do believers embrace the vengeful and xenophobic morality, or a tolerant and altruistic morality? Obviously, believers embrace all different shades of morality, just as non-believers do. To me, at least, the conclusion is clear: Morality is what man says it is.

So, is it irrational for a non-believer to act in an altruistic way? In a purely "old-school Darwinian" sense, yes it is "irrational." (This is the part of the discussion where I could easily veer off into a paragraphs-long dissertation on "neo-Darwinist" selfish gene theory, and the evolutionary roots of altruism. I'll spare you the lecture. The bottom line is that altruism is adaptive, and is not "irrational" to the genes that make us act in an altruistic way.)

But we are human beings with (some) free will, and we are not captive to the dictates of our genes. We have big brains that evolved (in part) to allow us to make value judgments. As far as I know, we are the only animal that is capable of thinking about so-called "moral issues." We can rise above our base impulses if we want to. And large numbers of us -- believers and non-believers alike -- do want to.

Thinking about morality, and sympathizing with others, and thinking about how we interact with other people is a deeply embedded human impulse. If God were to disappear tomorrow, morality would remain.

So, can moral behavior be "rational"? Of course it can. Rationality means more than "does it help me in the Darwinian struggle for survival." Rationality suggests an internal consistency to a moral code -- and (if I may be so bold) I think that moral systems that ar honest about their man-made origin are (in general) more likely to be internally consistent than those that claim to come straight from the almighty himself/herself.

But ultimately, all systems of morality must begin with an underlying assumption -- a "leap of faith" if you will -- regarding what is "good". This underlying assumption cannot be proven to be correct, because "goodness" is ultimately a value judgment. It's kind of like what we would call a "given" in 9th-grade Geometry proofs. All of the dictates of that system rise from that underlying unprovable assumption.

There are many different underlying assumptions of what is good or moral, such as:
- The Bible/Koran/God dictates what is good.
- Treating other people how I would like to be treated is good.
- Maximizing happiness is good.
- Minimizing suffering is good.
- Saving people from eternal damnation is good.
- Maximizing freedom is good.
- Staying out of other people's business is good.
- Etc, etc.

From that underlying assumption, a full moral system is built. I would argue that in cases where god dictates morality, there is no need for internal consistency or rationality of any kind. It is my humble opinion that fundamentalist religious morality is tends to be the least rational and most likely to conform to the pure old-school Darwinian "me first" precepts. By contrast, enlightened faith-based morality and non-religious morality tend to be more internally consistent and rational, and are more likely to be based on "altruistic" underlying assumptions like "treating other people how I like to be treated is good."

Bottom line: The author's basic point that non-believers must to abandon altruistic or moral behavior, and instead act in a manner that is selfish, in order to "get it right." Even if we accept the author's assumption that morality does not exist without God (and I obviously don't), his point is still way off base. He's saying that in a world without universal morality, then it is "right" to act in a manner that is selfish. This is just wrong. If there is no universal morality, then there is no concept of "getting it right" either. Human beings have the freedom of conscience to decide for themselves what constitutes moral behavior. And thankfully, most human beings reject the author's notion that selfish behavior is required.

[papau]

16. Well said - and well written - but internal consistency - like "good"

is not a measure of something that one can give to a moral code as if it was a grade. As you say "There are many different underlying assumptions of what is good or moral" and "all systems of morality must begin with an underlying assumption -- a "leap of faith" if you will -- regarding what is "good". This underlying assumption cannot be proven to be correct, because "goodness" is ultimately a value judgment."

So I will go out on a limb and claim that religious morality is not in any way a lesser morality than the morality of non-believers who also behave in an altruistic way.

[Skinner]

18. That is a value judgment.

"will go out on a limb and claim that religious morality is not in any way a lesser morality than the morality of non-believers who also behave in an altruistic way."

It's just an opinion. So there can never be any conclusive universal agreement about whether your statement is right or wrong.

Personally, I would vigorously disagree with your opinion. It is my opinion that there actually is a huge difference between moral systems based on the underlying assumption "because an authority figure said so" and those based on the underlying assumption "treat other people how I would like to be treated."

Note that the distinction I made is not religious versus non-religious systems. Religious moral systems can be and often are based on the idea of "treat other people how I would like to be treated," just as some non-religious moral systems can be based on "because an authority figure said so."

Put more bluntly: I believe that the morality of Jerry Falwell and Osama bin Laden is most certainly lesser than the morality of non-believers who behave in an altruistic way. Because I believe altruism is pretty much the highest measure of morality, whereas Falwell and bin Laden do not.

[papau]

19. I agree as to altruism and that there is not a religious/non-religious

split as such.

As to a "huge difference between moral systems based on the underlying assumption "because an authority figure said so" and those based on the underlying assumption "treat other people how I would like to be treated", perhaps we can just agree that some religious "moral" systems like those of Robertson, Falwell and bin Laden's do not make the cut to being graded "moral".

[Skeptor]

24. This effectively rebuts the original proposition and raises the stakes on

quality of rational argument. The original author appears to be wanting to justify a prejudice that all 'godless' people are without a basis for moral guidance and may therefore be dismissed as a lesser variety of human being. He'll be 'saved' by blithely following instructions from an ineffable source; the rest of us be damned, or submit to moral imperialism by an evangelizing army.

The 'evolution revolution' is seen as the enemy by religious fundamentalists principally because it makes merely quaint their creation myths, including those concerning how the putative creator inocculated humanity with moral sensibility. But as Skinner has discussed, Darwinian ideas offer up further complications.

Evolution can present the fundamentalists with (at least) three fears or threats, depending upon how deeply they analyse it.

The first fear/threat is that evolution by natural selection suggests God is unnecessary. If nature 'did it' and nature arises from fundamental forces (even if those forces can be understood to have 'come from God'), then the stories as related in the holy books are denied. (That fundamentalists fail to see the bald materialism of this perspective is an enormous irony, but alas, one lost on them.) Not merely the threat, but how to make use of the fear with which it is associated, is encapsulated in the following call-to-arms by the founder of the modern 'intelligent design' movement, Phillip Johnson:

"The objective is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God.

The second fear results from a gross misrepresentation suffered by Darwinism since its earliest expression, namely that the term 'survival of the fittest' implies all behaviour is motivated by an instinctual and cumpulsory selfishness. As Skinner has explained, it takes a modicum of exploration of evolutionary science to dispell this notion, but ("alas" again) people within the fundamentalist fold rarely make the journey, and so are left to contend with an imaginary enemy (but even imaginary enemies can be of use in a crusade).

The third threat, for those fundamentalists who contemplate the matter more deeply, is that evolution offers an alternative paradigm for considering the origin of morality. They understand that evolutionary theory does not simply imply the invalidation of morality as a concept, 'reducing man to the level of the beasts', but that it offers some rational explanations that look a whole lot less like magic and inexplicable dogma than their own prescriptions. What's more, it suggests that, within some natural limits, people are either genuinely free to make up their own minds, or not free at all (the no-free-will proposition), and that if there is some ultimate arbiter, he/she/it, being ultimately culpable, will have to be a whole lot more flexible in making judgement than they themselves are prepared to be. Also implied in the naturalistic view of morality is that there are many possible paths to 'grace', whatever that might be taken to mean.

Hence the vigour with which some fundamentalists can be seen to pursue their cause, ignoring the centuries of spiritualism of their own religious traditions that, quite consistent with rationality, enable the same mind to contemplate and accept both God and Nature. To quote another ID knight, William Dembski (who finds this impossible):

"Intelligent Design opens the whole possibility of us being created in the image of a benevolent God. The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ. And if there’s anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ as the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view."

*Sigh*

[genie_weenie]

26. So could you type up the

paragraphs-long dissertation on "neo-Darwinist" selfish gene theory.

No. Seriously.

Awesome post, well thought out and incisive as to the false premise/false conclusions offered by the author. I never understood the general meme held by believers that atheists are inherently barred from being moral/good.

[NMMNG]

21. I already replied to this stupid article in the A&A forum

Rather than go through it again, here is this handy link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=263x15047 (See post #7)

[Skeptor]

22. Something for Dale

To quote
"What I learned from my foray into disbelief was that most atheists have it all wrong. They've merely substituted their own irrational belief system for the one I was given from 2,000 years ago."

That might be, and some proclaimed atheists certainly do seem to use their perspective as a means of justifying bahaviours that might easily offend a lot of people, if not do harm to themselves in the long run by way of diminishing their self-respect. But there are those who call themselves humanists, or universalists, and who adhere to a life philosophy and code of behaviour that is pretty much indistinguishable from, and even as strict or stricter than, that of a liberally-minded adherent of a god/spirit-centred religion.

Then (and these are by no means mutually exclusive categories)there are those who find enlightenment through the occasionally rational workings of science. In attempting to understand the mix of sentiments we call moral conscience, as an alternative to declaring "I'll just do what the preacher/Bible tells me is the right thing" (which in the best case becomes a prompter to genuine reflection and self-direction), it can be instructive to take note of the behaviours and social lives of animals, particularly those most similar to humans, and/or to reflect on our evolutonary prehistory.

That's a bit of a Catch-22 of course for Biblical literalists. But anyone prepared to make the foray in a genuine spirit of inquiry will find at least some attempts to make plausible explanation for moral sentiment and social rules that takes things back way longer than 2,000 years and goes a whole lot deeper than "because that's what it says in the Bible."

Call it the evolution religion, if you like, but recognise at least that it contains a clause that requires adherents to accept that the text is subject to change without notice, on the evaluation of emerging factual evidence. And that of itself, it provides no guidance in moral matters. That's one for your ir/rational conscience.

[SidDithers]

23. Why do theists have such an overwhelming need...

to define how atheists should think and behave? It really is a compulsion.

I wonder if it's a "the lady doth protest too much, methinks" kind of situation. Like some fundy obsessions with same-sex relationships.

Sid

Not directed at you, papau. Thanks for posting the article, I think. :)

[varkam]

25. My .02.

A few years ago I made a distinction in my own life and beliefs that might be helpful for others and for this discussion. This might be obvious to all of you, or might not, but either way I'm still tossing in my .02.

I think that there is a distinction between knowledge and belief. Knowledge entails some aspect of truth, whereas belief does not entail an aspect of truth necessarily. E.g. I can know and believe that I am wearing blue jeans right now, both of those things I would say are true. However belief does not necessarily entail knowledge or truth. I can *believe* that 2+2=5, but that does not demonstrate truth or knowledge.

Perhaps that's a poor example with respect to theism / atheism, but I'm getting there. My basic thought is this: It is *impossible* for one to know whether or not there is a God. I think it's widely agreed that this notion of God is what a lot of people ascribe to the creation of the universe. An ancient Greek philosopher, Anaximander, was concerned for discovering the "arke", or creation principle. What he came up with was the idea of the infinity principle which holds that the "arke" can only exist outside of the universe which it created. Many of the pre-socratics were thinking that things like water, earth or fire serve as the "arke". The basic thought for the infinity principle, as I understand it, is this:

Substances which are observable to us have been created by something (i.e. earth was created from something, etc.)
Substances which are observable to us cannot create themselves.
Since substances which are observable to us are within the set of things inside the universe / world, and since we can observe the universe / world, the arke must rest somewhere on the other side of our perceptive powers.

The Neo-platonics also arrived at a similar conclusion, holding that the notion of God is unreachable via our cognitive abilities. If you accept that God created the universe, and if the infinity principle holds, then it seems to me that the Neo-platonics are right. That's my justification for saying no one can "know" whether or not God exists.

Now belief is an entirely different matter. One can certainly "believe" in a God, but that has nothing to do with the truth of the matter as I outlined. In addition, we use evidence to form our beliefs. If you see evidence that someone has broken into your home (e.g. broken window and stuff missing), then you wold believe that someone had, in fact, broken into your home.

Attempting to prove where the evidence lies with respect to God's existence is not only not the point of this post, but way beyond my abilities. What I really want to get to is simply this phrase from an old psychology textbook of mine:

"Once a hypothesis is accepted, anything can be interpreted to support it"

In other words, if you accept the hypothesis that God exists then you can interpret anything you see to support the claim (for example, the complexity of physical existence). Likewise, if you accept the alternative hypothesis, you can also interpret anything you see to support that claim (for example, the evil that is present in the world).

So I think, for those of us that refuse to acknowledge the possibility of the existence of a God, and those of us who refuse to acknowledge to possibility that God does not exist may have jumped the gun on the whole "knowledge" thing. Belief, however, remains an entirely different matter.

How does all this babbling relate to the OP? IMO, this is a man who accepted the hypothesis that God exists long ago - and it is disingenuous of him to proclaim he can cast all that off. It would be as if myself (an atheist) proclaimed that I believed in God for a week and found it completely ridiculous, and used that as evidence that it was false. Just my .02.

[FM Arouet666]

27. Oh, please you will have to do better than this.

Atheists, practice what you preach? How little understanding is conveyed in your post. Refusing to believe in a supernatural or a god does not preclude the atheist from understanding the concepts of good and evil, right from wrong. How arrogant of you to suggest otherwise.

Good and evil do exist, as defined by a human community at a particular time and place. Accepting a scientific world view does not mean that an individual ignores thousands of years of human history. Morals are derived from human history, how we treat one another is important, there is a right and a wrong in many cases, but shades of grey in others. No absolutes, no covenants, no bibles, no mandates from god, just a bunch of humans with the same fears and ultimate destinies which are trying to live together on this planet.

Our existence and the existence of this planet and solar system is no more important to the universe than two molecules colliding in interstellar space. The universe will shed no tears with the extinction of humankind, the only tears shed will be our own, if we do not care about our fellow man, how can we expect a supernatural god or cold apathetic universe to care?

I love your 'Whats wrong...' line, so Rick 'Man on dog' Insantorum. Please explain to me how you come to the conclusion that 'If it is ok to be gay, it is ok to have bestiality?' Oh yeah, I forgot, we atheists don't have morals, we ignore human history, everything is random. I guess my penis can randomly enter a woman, man, dog, perhaps even Rick after a few beers and a night out at cabaret, yep that is what I believe. As I said before, you will have to do better that this............

[charlie]

28. Found this in another editorial of his

concerning the Lotto:

So here's the deal. Since your chances of winning the big one are diminished by every person who buys a ticket, I hereby pledge not to buy any tickets, thus giving you even better odds of someday receiving a check with more zeros on it than you have fingers and toes.

And this yokel teaches at a college.

The letters in response to his smug little snit are online:

http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/feb06/389735.asp

So far, opinions are unanimous -- he's a doofus.