Atheism and Morality

[rav]

Before you read the below, keep an open mind, that is all I ask of you. I ask you to challenge all that I write, and clarify (in depth) why you conflict with the reasoning. This is for basically atheists, who believe that this world was created by chance. The logic cannot be used when looking at someone who believes in G-d, but proposes that G-d would create the world using evolution, which I will not even discuss why I believe that cannot be true. I warn you to remember the difference between your "morals" which may be influenced by religion or another source, and the morals that science teachs when viewing the world through such a lens. So let me ask you a question.

What line can people who believe in the theory of evolution draw between eating beef and eating men?

If the criterion is mere power, and men may eat animals because they gained power by accidental evolution, then the evil Nietzsche was right when he approved the oppression of the weak by the strong; and thereby every evolutionist is ideologically a criminal. The murder of weak innocents is but a logical result of the theory of evolution, which can recognize no distinction between cattle-slaughter-houses and the German-Nazi Murder factories, except to the degree of “accidental evolutionary development”.

If a scientist finds himself alone on a desert isle with a weak old man who possesses a chest of diamonds, what is to hinder him from strangling the old man and taking the diamonds? His conscience? He does not admit the validity of conscience for he declared that men are animals which are descended from reptiles, who are descended from slime cells.

He debates inwardly: "True, I do not consider man sacred. I could kill him just as I killed a frog in the laboratory... But if law and order are not maintained, perhaps someone would slay me." Then as he visualizes the glittering stones, he thinks "But no one will ever know. No one will be influenced by my example. The fear that society may eventually be corrupted does not deter me, for the effect will be to far into the future to affect me. Since there is no right or wrong but only usefulness, then surely it is useful to posses diamonds."

Indeed, none of the academics have ever declared it was "scientifically" wrong to vivisect even a man; they have never stated that anything was wrong "scientifically".

The academics take their morals from the Homicide Squad. For the criteria of right or wrong the scientists have no recourse but to rely on the patrolmen and state legislature. If not for these unscientific people, then they could not condemn murder because then the professors who eat beef should be expelled! All I can ask is the same question: What line can people who believe in the theory of evolution draw between eating beef and eating men? Is it because we are stronger? Can anyone be morally secure with the belief that it is okay to eat something that you descend from or are "related to" because of survival of the fittest? We can oppress the weak in slaughterhouses because we are stronger and gained power because of accidental evolution? It is thought provoking.

 

[Woodrow]

Very thought provoking. To me that does raise the question, "Can we really deny that there is a source beyond logic, for morality?"

I have no doubt that most atheists have very high moral standards, but I wonder if they ever think deep enough as to why they have them.

 

[ranma1/2]

im not sure what your stateing.

As i have stated before, morality "ill say what we consider good and bad" to be a social construct. In general it has evolved from what helps society.


Morality also varies from culture to culture and society to society.

 

[Woodrow]

im not sure what your stateing.

As i have stated before, morality "ill say what we consider good and bad" to be a social construct. In general it has evolved from what helps society.


Morality also varies from culture to culture and society to society.

The point that rav has brought out is quite interesting. Us humans are the only creatures on earth that normally do not engage in cannibalism. If you stop and think of it biological cannibalism is very logical as it does guarantee for only the survival of the fittest and does eliminate the waste of protein.

Socially there is no basis for there to be any stigma against it.

So the question arises why is there world wide repulsion about it? What evidence is there of any biological or social reason people do not normally practice it?

To me that is at least evidence that there is a guiding force beyond convenience that shapes human moral values.

 

[جوري]

Before you read the below, keep an open mind, that is all I ask of you. I ask you to challenge all that I write, and clarify (in depth) why you conflict with the reasoning. This is for basically atheists, who believe that this world was created by chance. The logic cannot be used when looking at someone who believes in G-d, but proposes that G-d would create the world using evolution, which I will not even discuss why I believe that cannot be true. I warn you to remember the difference between your "morals" which may be influenced by religion or another source, and the morals that science teachs when viewing the world through such a lens. So let me ask you a question.

What line can people who believe in the theory of evolution draw between eating beef and eating men?

If the criterion is mere power, and men may eat animals because they gained power by accidental evolution, then the evil Nietzsche was right when he approved the oppression of the weak by the strong; and thereby every evolutionist is ideologically a criminal. The murder of weak innocents is but a logical result of the theory of evolution, which can recognize no distinction between cattle-slaughter-houses and the German-Nazi Murder factories, except to the degree of “accidental evolutionary development”.

If a scientist finds himself alone on a desert isle with a weak old man who possesses a chest of diamonds, what is to hinder him from strangling the old man and taking the diamonds? His conscience? He does not admit the validity of conscience for he declared that men are animals which are descended from reptiles, who are descended from slime cells.

He debates inwardly: "True, I do not consider man sacred. I could kill him just as I killed a frog in the laboratory... But if law and order are not maintained, perhaps someone would slay me." Then as he visualizes the glittering stones, he thinks "But no one will ever know. No one will be influenced by my example. The fear that society may eventually be corrupted does not deter me, for the effect will be to far into the future to affect me. Since there is no right or wrong but only usefulness, then surely it is useful to posses diamonds."

Indeed, none of the academics have ever declared it was "scientifically" wrong to vivisect even a man; they have never stated that anything was wrong "scientifically".

The academics take their morals from the Homicide Squad. For the criteria of right or wrong the scientists have no recourse but to rely on the patrolmen and state legislature. If not for these unscientific people, then they could not condemn murder because then the professors who eat beef should be expelled! All I can ask is the same question: What line can people who believe in the theory of evolution draw between eating beef and eating men? Is it because we are stronger? Can anyone be morally secure with the belief that it is okay to eat something that you descend from or are "related to" because of survival of the fittest? We can oppress the weak in slaughterhouses because we are stronger and gained power because of accidental evolution? It is thought provoking.

Thank you for posting this, is one of the best I have read in ages. I find Atheist logic to be too arid, too sterile to appreciate an in depth analysis of human consciousness and the moral psyche!

The point that rav has brought out is quite interesting. Us humans are the only creatures on earth that normally do not engage in cannibalism. If you stop and think of it biological cannibalism is very logical as it does guarantee for only the survival of the fittest and does eliminate the waste of protein.

Socially there is no basis for there to be any stigma against it.

So the question arises why is there world wide repulsion about it? What evidence is there of any biological or social reason people do not normally practice it?

To me that is at least evidence that there is a guiding force beyond convenience that shapes human moral values.

These are too dynamic pieces, yours and Rav, and in need of some deep reflection. I am afraid I can't assault my senses with another piece about spaghetti monster or Gandhi' hell, so will unsubscribe to this thread, having enjoyed something palatable for a change that is satisfactory to both vital organs ...

peace

 

[Trumble]

As far as "the reasoning" goes, rav, you seem to be confusing 'science', in the context of biological/evolutionary processes and social science. The "theory of evolution", in the sense you are using that phrase, has nothing to do with the development of morality; you seem to be suggesting it as the only alternative to the moral sense in us being created by God, but it is not a plausible one even for evolutionists (and has never be claimed, to my knowledge).

Morality 'evolved' not as the result of biological/evolutionary processes, but as a result of social interaction. As to how the taboo on cannabilism developed nobody can be, or ever will be sure, but it's easy enough to take an educated guess.

Most moral rules arose as a result of the fundamental desire of individuals to protect person and property. It was that desire that first led to the development of societies, as within societies co-operation and pooling of resources allowed significantly enhanced chances of preserving both. For societies to function, 'rules' were needed, initially 'moral', but then later codified and formalised into 'laws'. The latter allowed the introduction of 'punishment' to help ensure those necessary rules were followed. Cannibalism became (generally) taboo because it's absence was clearly in everybody's best interests. If your objective is to protect your life and that of those dear to you, that objective is significantly helped by the assurance that others do not consider you and them to be a potential meal. As time went on, the principle would be expanded into the interaction between multiple societies; as long as over food sources were available (i.e, the beef), cannabilism was in nobody's best interests. Hence the moral taboo.

Nietzsche doesn't enter into it for several reasons. Firstly, whoever is 'strong' today may be 'weak' tomorrow. Secondly, even the weak could 'poach' a few people. Thirdly, where such power differentials did exist historically, the usual result was slavery, not a meal. Humans were simply too valuable a commodity to 'waste' as food (you ate their cows and grain instead) although by that time historically the cannabilism taboo would have been well entrenched anyway.

Science does not teach morals at all, that is not its purpose. Criticising it for failing to do so is as absurd as criticising a cookery class for not teaching quantum mechanics. That does not mean it does not have its own system of ethics, that is necessary to maintain the integrity of the scientific method. Scientists, evolutionists or otherwise, have morals in just the same way as everybody else, and acquire them in the same way as anybody else. Sometimes they must be applied in relation to what the scientific method is called upon to do.. whether it should use animal experiments, develop nuclear weapons and so on. The science itself, though, is not morally dependent. The physics behind a nuclear weapon is the same whether you research, design and build one or not. Likewise, the science as to how human flesh would be digested, and how that digestive system evolved, remains the same whether we choose to eat people or not!

BTW, while obviously not being in the same league as cannibalism I personally believe eating beef to be immoral. There's a whole new can of worms there in that morality is essentially a relative, not an absolute, anyway. Many moral positions are more-or-less universal (murder, theft, rape, etc), others are not (vegetarianism, ecological issues, animal experimentation, etc). Any argument for our fundamental moral sense coming from God must account for such differences. If it did, He certainly left room for significant variation... and that variation has led to an awful of pain and misery over the years. I would point out as well that the cannibalism taboo was not universal; the practice was accepted as part of some cultures until relatively recently.

 

[rav]

im not sure what your stateing.

As i have stated before, morality "ill say what we consider good and bad" to be a social construct. In general it has evolved from what helps society.


Morality also varies from culture to culture and society to society.

Shalom (Peace),

I understand your point, but the subject I am discussing is different. Atheism does not acknowledge the validity of such things like the “soul” or the “conscience”. Therefore, if we lived in a purely atheistic society, what would be the consequences? How would we define morality? Remember, it is not “scientifically wrong” to murder others. On the contrary, we can oppress the animals and slaughter them in cattle-slaughter-houses just like it can be done to humans because scientifically we can recognize no distinction between cattle and humans except to the degree of “accidental evolutionary development”. Essentially, we accidentally became superior to you, so now, we are able to tyrannize you because of our strength.

Scientifically, there is nothing wrong with murder. Perhaps it was developed to be “wrong” because of a social construct which decided that murder was wrong because the safety of all. "True, I do not consider man sacred. I could kill him just as I killed a frog in the laboratory... But if law and order are not maintained, perhaps someone would slay me." Therefore, that is my point. But if the actions of the "scientist" will not create a situation which could threaten him or society like “him and an old man on an island alone”, he has no worries, because according to science there is no difference in the killing, and since the factor of anarchy by his actions is removed, what is to stop him? His conscience? He does not admit the validity of such an object.

Can anyone be morally secure with the belief that it is okay to eat something that you descend from or are "related to" because of survival of the fittest? We can oppress the weak in slaughterhouses because we are stronger and gained power because of accidental evolution?

Scientifically is there a difference between a Nazi gas-chamber, and a Cattle slaughtering-house? Maybe the lives being destroyed in them are different, but that is only based on “accidental evolutionary development”.

Now what kind of society would such an ideology bring us? A happy, moral one? Many atheists will assert that religion is what causes wars, genocide, persecution, and many other appalling things. If religion was removed from the world, then would the world really be that much better off?

The Soviet Union was officially secular, supported atheist ideology and suppressed religion throughout its existence. By far, the consensus figure for those that Joseph Stalin murdered when he ruled the Soviet Union is 20,000,000.

That is right. The most recent country to be run by an atheist ideology killed over twenty million people.

So what kind of a sordid society would we live in, if we defined the universe the way Atheism defines it? If we view everything through the scientific lens that acknowledges nothing but accidental evolution on humanities part, an unsettling product is revealed. “What’s the difference between that Jew and that animal that we are doing tests on?” said the Nazi scientist.

Shalom Trumble,

As far as "the reasoning" goes, rav, you seem to be confusing 'science', in the context of biological/evolutionary processes and social science. The "theory of evolution", in the sense you are using that phrase, has nothing to do with the development of morality; you seem to be suggesting it as the only alternative to the moral sense in us being created by God, but it is not a plausible one even for evolutionists (and has never be claimed, to my knowledge).

You’re confusing the overall point of my post. What kind of social order would we live in if it was run by the ethics Atheism teaches, hence the title “Atheism and Morality”.

Morality 'evolved' not as the result of biological/evolutionary processes, but as a result of social interaction. As to how the taboo on cannabilism developed nobody can be, or ever will be sure, but it's easy enough to take an educated guess.

I’m not exactly of the point you are trying to make. I’m not speaking of morality in the sense that you are in the points you are referring to. What I am saying is that Atheism lacks morality, and if we used the process of thinking at Atheism teaches, our civilization will be doomed.

The reason an Atheist would say cannibalism is immoral, would be because the chance that if he acts in a certain way, others will act in the same way, which could lead to he himself being eaten. That is the only way you can look at it when you reject the conscience, and view all of humanity under the light of the logic that Atheism teaches.

Most moral rules arose as a result of the fundamental desire of individuals to protect person and property.

That is what Atheism teaches. I strongly disagree. I believe that inside all of us, we know when we are doing something wrong. Murder is bad. We all know this, and this is not because, if we all were murderers we would all die because of societies actions, but instead because murder is inherently wrong. But according to atheism it is not wrong. Atheism must define the entire world through the lens of evolution, because according to atheism, we are here by accident. That is our worth. Therefore, morals and society in general under atheism will function according to that logic.

Nietzsche doesn't enter into it for several reasons. Firstly, whoever is 'strong' today may be 'weak' tomorrow. Secondly, even the weak could 'poach' a few people. Thirdly, where such power differentials did exist historically, the usual result was slavery, not a meal. Humans were simply too valuable a commodity to 'waste' as food (you ate their cows and grain instead) although by that time historically the cannabilism taboo would have been well entrenched anyway.

Your incorrect because Nietzsche writes in the First Treatise Nietzsche traces religious morality to what he calls the "slave revolt in morality", which is born of the resentment experienced by the weak members of society in respect of their strong, aristocratic masters. Therefore, it can be in both physical and social strength. This is the origin of what Nietzsche calls the "slave revolt in morality", which according to him begins with the Jews.

Another controversial aspect of Nietzsche's worldview comes into play when he expressly insists that we cannot hold beasts of prey to account for showing their strength through force. We should not blame them for their "thirst for enemies and resistances and triumphs" (§13). We are not to hold the noble responsible for their actions because, according to Nietzsche, there is no metaphysical subject. Only the weak need the illusion of the subject (or soul) to hold their actions together as a unity. But they have no right "to make the bird of prey accountable for being a bird of prey".

Science does not teach morals at all, that is not its purpose.

I never said it did. However, the morality that atheists will hold if they are to “free themselves” from all these religious “myths” is the morality an ideological criminal holds. They view everything like murder and sin wrong only because it may effect society around them, and therefore lead to there own downfall. But what if society is not effected? Nothing is wrong then.

Atheisms defines the entire world through the view that everything was an accident and there is no purpose. Who would be comfortable living in a society where such a morality is the norm?

 

[Trumble]

Shalom (Peace),

I understand your point, but the subject I am discussing is different. Atheism does not acknowledge the validity of such things like the “soul” or the “conscience”.

Soul, possibly, but since when did being an atheist disqualify someone from having a conscience?

Scientifically, there is nothing wrong with murder. Perhaps it was developed to be “wrong” because of a social construct which decided that murder was wrong because the safety of all.

Exactly. Except for the first sentence which, for reasons I explained earlier, simply makes no sense. The forensic evidence relating to a murder is in the realm of science. The motive for murder is within the realm of psychology. The question as to how man has the capacity to murder is within the realms of social science and philosophy, including religious philosophy.

His conscience? He does not admit the validity of such an object.

As above. Since when? Although such behaviour (not breaking taboos, even in the absence of possible retribution) is easily explained purely psychologically.

Scientifically is there a difference between a Nazi gas-chamber, and a Cattle slaughtering-house? Maybe the lives being destroyed in them are different, but that is only based on “accidental evolutionary development”.

Nope. The science is the same whether you kill people or cows. You are confusing the science/technology involved in designing and building such facilities with the purpose for which they were built. That purpose was decided by politics and 'ethics' (or lack of them) not science. Another example. You could use a nuclear weapon to destroy a city, killing millions. You could also use one, Armageddon style, to destroy an asteroid speeding towards earth, and save the lives of billions. The science is the same in both cases.

Now what kind of society would such an ideology bring us? A happy, moral one? Many atheists will assert that religion is what causes wars, genocide, persecution, and many other appalling things. If religion was removed from the world, then would the world really be that much better off?

The Soviet Union was officially secular, supported atheist ideology and suppressed religion throughout its existence. By far, the consensus figure for those that Joseph Stalin murdered when he ruled the Soviet Union is 20,000,000.

That is right. The most recent country to be run by an atheist ideology killed over twenty million people.

A total straw-man. Stalin's actions were not determined by "atheist ideology". He was one man and a total (and totally amoral) nut-job to boot. People tended to do what he wanted as the only alternatives were usually death or the Gulag. As an argument that only has validity if it can be shown that vast majority of happy atheist Soviet citizens would have agreed with Stalin's actions had they been aware of them, and their consequences.

"What’s the difference between that Jew and that animal that we are doing tests on?” said the Nazi scientist."

Who was as likely to have been a Christian as he was an atheist. Historians still argue whether Hitler himself was 'Christian', atheist, or neither, and WW2 Germany was more a 'Christian' country than it is today.

 

[August]

Thought provoking post, rav. I was an atheist during my teenage years, but it was my logical problems with where morality comes from that led me to conclude that there is a God. What you said about killing animals vs. killing people is especially true. I have a friend who is an atheist vegetarian, he believes that killing an animal is just as bad as killing a person. Ok, fine. But he also believes that, given the choice between saving one person or saving two cows, he would save the two cows.

 

[rav]

Shalom Trumble,

Soul, possibly, but since when did being an atheist disqualify someone from having a conscience?

They of course are not “disqualified” from having a conscience. They obviously do have one. However, they hold that the idea of a “conscience” implanted in the human body is a mere myth.

Exactly. Except for the first sentence which, for reasons I explained earlier, simply makes no sense. The forensic evidence relating to a murder is in the realm of science. The motive for murder is within the realm of psychology. The question as to how man has the capacity to murder is within the realms of social science and philosophy, including religious philosophy.

We are not speaking of science here Trumble. We are speaking of “Atheism and Morality”. Atheism draws all morality on what they can find based on science. Since science does not say murder is wrong, because “it is wrong”, that is how Atheism defines murder, based on the scientific explanation of such. Murder is wrong according to Atheism not because it is different than murdering an ape or cow, since we are no different from them at all, except for accidental evolutionary development. But murder is wrong, because if people murder, then they may get killed.

What I am suggesting is what if you’re on a deserted Island and there is no variable that you could be hurt in anyway from killing an old man. But you have much to gain if you do kill him. What is wrong with doing so? It is just like killing an ape or cow right? Why can we not test chemicals on humans? What’s the difference? We are stronger?!? The difference is that someone may end up testing chemicals on the atheist. That is why it is “wrong”. Unless of course, you admit the validity of the conscience that defines, certain things are wrong.

Nope. The science is the same whether you kill people or cows. You are confusing the science/technology involved in designing and building such facilities with the purpose for which they were built. That purpose was decided by politics and 'ethics' (or lack of them) not science. Another example. You could use a nuclear weapon to destroy a city, killing millions. You could also use one, Armageddon style to destroy an asteroid speeding towards earth, and save the lives of billions. The science is the same in both cases.

Exactly Trumble! It was decided by “ethics” or lack of them. The ethics the Nazi’s used were that the Jews in general were no different then the animals they tested and killed. That is the scientific view, and that is where Atheism draws its own morality.

A total straw-man. Stalin's actions were not determined by "atheist ideology". He was one man and a total (and totally amoral) nut-job to boot. People tended to do what he wanted as the only alternatives were usually death or the Gulag. As an argument that only has validity if it can be shown that vast majority of happy atheist Soviet citizens would have agreed with Stalin's actions had they been aware of them, and their consequences.

Really, his actions were not of the “atheistic ideology”? Fair enough. You’re not some one naïve enough to blame religion for death and destruction, so your not someone I will argue this point on.

One problem though. You wrote As an argument that only has validity if it can be shown that vast majority of happy atheist Soviet citizens would have agreed with Stalin's actions however, most atheists do not understand that if they abandon all of the so called "religious myths" of morality, and base their views soley on atheist ideology, that is where it would lead them. To a society void of morals and good judgement, where men and cows are the same, but we treat the two differently because the way you treat humanity is the way you will be treated one day, like if you allow murder, you will be murdered possibly, so that is why animals and humans are treated differently. It is wrong to test on humans but not on animals because the scientists if they allowed human testing could one day be tested on! Now if we remove the effects of society and use our "Island scenario", now society if not effected and Atheism morality is revealed.

 

[Trumble]

What I am suggesting is what if you’re on a deserted Island and there is no variable that you could be hurt in anyway from killing an old man. But you have much to gain if you do kill him. What is wrong with doing so? It is just like killing an ape or cow right? Why can we not test chemicals on humans? What’s the difference? We are stronger?!? The difference is that someone may end up testing chemicals on the atheist. That is why it is “wrong”. Unless of course, you admit the validity of the conscience that defines, certain things are wrong.

To answer that you really need to address my earlier comments on the relative nature of morality. Why are you happy to eat cow? Or why are some happy to conduct painful experiments on animals? Because we are stronger? That is precisely why .. we would not eat cows or experiment on monkeys if their mates were likely to turn up the next day with Uzis and hand grenades. So what IS the difference... other than the fact that you are (I assume) a carnivore and I am not? Its our conscience that tells us, but what it tells is unique to each of us, and develops from our own personal experience within the culture in which we exist.

however, most atheists do not understand that if they abandon all of the so called "religious myths" of morality, and base their views soley on atheist ideology, that is where it would lead them.

I don't think it's a case of "not understanding" the argument, it's one of disagreeing with it. I certainly disagree with it, and have already explained why. Atheism is not an ideology, BTW, it is a philosophical position. While there are atheist ideologies, that is ideologies that incorporate atheism, they can be vastly different in other respects, which are frequently far more influential on the way the behave than religion (or lack of it).

 

[rav]

Shalom Trumble,

To answer that you really need to address my earlier comments on the relative nature of morality. Why are you happy to eat cow? Or why are some happy to conduct painful experiments on animals? Because we are stronger? That is precisely why .. we would not eat cows or experiment on monkeys if their mates were likely to turn up the next day with Uzis and hand grenades. So what IS the difference... other than the fact that you are (I assume) a carnivore and I am not? Its our conscience that tells us, but what it tells is unique to each of us, and develops from our own personal experience within the culture in which we exist.

But to an Atheist there is not such thing as a conscience. My religion and people who are “theistic” in general hold that it is wrong to murder a human, and it is wrong to kill an animal for “hunting”, however, there is a major difference between killing the two. Animal testing and hunting are not good because morally they are “wrong”, in the strongest sense of the word. Killing humans and testing on humans are wrong because they are “wrong”. They are immoral. That is why they are “wrong” to me. However, science disagrees, and so does the philosophy atheists hold, (since an atheist must believe that the world was created by an accident, or random occurrence), that means that atheists must, if they believe in evolution abide by a certain number of ideologies. Since the world was created by an accident and we are here because of a mere accident, we are stronger consequently because of this as well. That means that since they hold by the theory of evolution they must hold that they eat animals and treat animals differently, although they are only stronger because of “accidental evolutionary development”. When they eat animals and test on animals it is because they accidentally became “stronger”, but in reality, what they are doing to animals could be done to humans as well, with no problem. But then they may be tested on, so that is the reasoning of why they treat animals differently than humans. Not because animals are “weaker” or because they are animals, since they believe we in fact are “animals” as well. They treat them differently, because in the long run, the effects their actions could have on society, would lead to their own downfall. If you legalize murder, that means you may get murdered.

Now why is the ideology of a criminal? I will explain. Since NOTHING is “wrong” with the action because atheists deny that we are somehow different than animals other than our “stronger” status, this means that killing an animal is the equivalent of killing a human (except that your removing a “stronger” member of the animal kingdom) when the variables that your actions will have an effect on society and may lead to effect you in the future are taken away.

What kind of morality is that? Would YOU be comfortable living in a society that teaches such an ethics system? It is a society where all believe in Ethical nihilism, a philosophical position which argues that the world, especially past and current human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. That is the Atheist society, unless atheism begins to come to the realization that some things are “wrong”, simply because they are. Not because of social constructs. Not because of science. Not because of anything, except that it is wrong, and we are naturally inclined to believe it is wrong because we were created different than animals.

I don't think it's a case of "not understanding" the argument, it's one of disagreeing with it. I certainly disagree with it, and have already explained why. Atheism is not an ideology, BTW, it is a philosophical position. While there are atheist ideologies, that is ideologies that incorporate atheism, they can be vastly different in other respects, which are frequently far more influential on the way the behave than religion (or lack of it).

Are you saying that a Philosophical position cannot be an ideology? Of course most Atheists do not hold to what I am saying, but it is inerrably still Atheism. The fact of the matter is that the majority of Atheistic simply reject the existence of a Creator of Infinite Intelligence. That is all they do. However, they do not actually think about how their actions can be interpreted since they all believe in an “accidental earth”. Atheists simply do not connect eating beef and their views on the world’s creation to have any association. That does not mean the two have no connection. It means they live their life oblivious to the hypocrisy, and “morality” their own belief systems reveal about themselves.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings rav,

I can't say I've got the time or the inclination to go through every point you've made in this thread (Trumble seems to be doing a good job of that anyway), but I would like to address a few things that have come up in your argument:

This is for basically atheists, who believe that this world was created by chance.

Please rememeber that atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). That's it. As soon as you start talking about other ideas and then call them 'atheism', you're arguing against a straw man.

I warn you to remember the difference between your "morals" which may be influenced by religion or another source, and the morals that science teachs when viewing the world through such a lens.

Science does not teach morality. What gives you the idea that it does?

If the criterion is mere power, and men may eat animals because they gained power by accidental evolution, then the evil Nietzsche was right when he approved the oppression of the weak by the strong; and thereby every evolutionist is ideologically a criminal.

What makes Nietzsche evil, out of interest? Are you familiar with his work on more than a passing-interest level?

Indeed, none of the academics have ever declared it was "scientifically" wrong to vivisect even a man; they have never stated that anything was wrong "scientifically".

Precisely - because it is not the job of scientists to teach morality. (I'm assuming you mean 'morally wrong' here - a scientist would obviously state that the idea that frogs are made of cheese was wrong...)

What line can people who believe in the theory of evolution draw between eating beef and eating men?

(I'm not sure why someone's views on the theory of evolution would determine their answer to this question. Is it not possible for a religious person to believe in evolution? I know loads of them who do.)

For myself, I think both acts are wrong, but eating beef less so. That's probably due to the influence that the prevailing views of the society I live in has had on my understanding of morality. It's perfectly possible to make a convincing argument that if we condemn one we ought to condemn the other. I would argue that the difference simply derives from the different views we have on a member of our own species and another. We can relate to and sympathise with our own species much more easily than we can with another, so object to the murder of humans more than we (most of us) do to the murder of animals.

Atheism does not acknowledge the validity of such things like the “soul” or the “conscience”.

Some atheists believe in the soul and conscience, some don't. Some believe in one but not the other. These ideas have nothing to do with atheism itself, which, as I've said, is the lack of belief in god(s).

Therefore, if we lived in a purely atheistic society, what would be the consequences? How would we define morality?

Morality, where it comes from and what kinds of act should be considered moral all form the basis of the study of ethics. The fact that ethics continues to be studied shows that morality is not an area that is clearly defined and understood.

Remember, it is not “scientifically wrong” to murder others.

That's a bit like saying 'it is not "factually incorrect" to murder others'. Science's job is to investigate and explain, not to cast value-judgments. I hope this idea is beginning to sink in.

Scientifically, there is nothing wrong with murder. Perhaps it was developed to be “wrong” because of a social construct which decided that murder was wrong because the safety of all. "True, I do not consider man sacred. I could kill him just as I killed a frog in the laboratory... But if law and order are not maintained, perhaps someone would slay me." Therefore, that is my point. But if the actions of the "scientist" will not create a situation which could threaten him or society like “him and an old man on an island alone”, he has no worries, because according to science there is no difference in the killing, and since the factor of anarchy by his actions is removed, what is to stop him? His conscience? He does not admit the validity of such an object.

Many scientists believe in the existence of conscience, don't they? The fact that it isn't understood or fully explained doesn't mean it's automatically excluded from the possibility of existing. No-one can give a satisfactory, complete and authoritative definition of 'religion', or a full acount of how it works. Does that mean that scientists therefore don't believe in the existence of religion? Of course not.

Many atheists will assert that religion is what causes wars, genocide, persecution, and many other appalling things. If religion was removed from the world, then would the world really be that much better off?

People caused those things. Maybe they were inspired by religious ideas, or maybe they weren't, but it's ultimately down to people, who have shown themselves to be capable of some pretty horrific things throughout history.

The Soviet Union was officially secular, supported atheist ideology and suppressed religion throughout its existence. By far, the consensus figure for those that Joseph Stalin murdered when he ruled the Soviet Union is 20,000,000.

What gives you the idea that there is a necessary connection between these two things? Surely there are too many factors at play here. Stalin's ideology consisted of many things besides atheism. For instance, he favoured Socialist Realism in the arts, and vigorously suppressed all avant-garde or abstract forms of art. Couldn't we just as easily make the argument that it was this that led to the murder of 20 million people?

What kind of social order would we live in if it was run by the ethics Atheism teaches, hence the title “Atheism and Morality”.

Atheism doesn't teach ethics. It is - one more time for the world! - the lack of belief in god(s).

The reason an Atheist would say cannibalism is immoral, would be because the chance that if he acts in a certain way, others will act in the same way, which could lead to he himself being eaten. That is the only way you can look at it when you reject the conscience, and view all of humanity under the light of the logic that Atheism teaches.

Cannibalism is harmful to the society as a whole, therefore it is wrong. What's wrong with that?

I believe that inside all of us, we know when we are doing something wrong. Murder is bad. We all know this, and this is not because, if we all were murderers we would all die because of societies actions, but instead because murder is inherently wrong. But according to atheism it is not wrong.

I'm not sure that we do all have these inherent moral feelings. A child raised in the wild will behave according to the patterns it learns from animals.

Your incorrect because Nietzsche writes in the First Treatise Nietzsche traces religious morality to what he calls the "slave revolt in morality", which is born of the resentment experienced by the weak members of society in respect of their strong, aristocratic masters. Therefore, it can be in both physical and social strength. This is the origin of what Nietzsche calls the "slave revolt in morality", which according to him begins with the Jews.

Another controversial aspect of Nietzsche's worldview comes into play when he expressly insists that we cannot hold beasts of prey to account for showing their strength through force. We should not blame them for their "thirst for enemies and resistances and triumphs" (§13). We are not to hold the noble responsible for their actions because, according to Nietzsche, there is no metaphysical subject. Only the weak need the illusion of the subject (or soul) to hold their actions together as a unity. But they have no right "to make the bird of prey accountable for being a bird of prey".

This is just a hotch-potch of ideas that don't answer the points raised by Trumble together with a few lines copy-pasted from wikipedia.

Have you actually read Nietzsche, or are you only pretending to understand him?

Science does not teach morals at all, that is not its purpose.

I never said it did.

You have implied throughout your posts that both science and atheism, sometimes together, sometimes alone, 'teach' some form of morality, one that you do not like. Indeed, that is the entire thrust of your argument.

Atheisms defines the entire world through the view that everything was an accident and there is no purpose.

Atheism doesn't define the world as anything at all. It is - shall we try this again? - the lack of belief in god(s).

Peace

 

[rav]

Shalom czgibson, here are a few statements you made, that I must disagree with:

Science does not teach morality. What gives you the idea that it does?

Please rememeber that atheism is the lack of belief in god(s). That's it. As soon as you start talking about other ideas and then call them 'atheism', you're arguing against a straw man.

I never proposed that science teaches morality. I am explaining that when you are an atheist, an automatic postulation is made that the person believes not only in the theory of evolution, but the conviction that the theory of evolution was not guided by G-d, but instead is completely an accident. Therefore, an atheist who decides that there is no Creator, and believes in the theory of evolution than also believes that we and apes are no different apart from accidental evolutionary development. So why can we do testing on apes? Why not on humans? Simply, because it could effect them if we allow humans to be tested. As I said before, "True, I do not consider man sacred. I could kill him just as I killed a frog in the laboratory... But if law and order are not maintained, perhaps someone would slay me." Atheism and science are connected in the way that the theory of evolution proclaims man to be the same “but stronger”, than other animals, so we eat other animals only because we became stronger. We do not eat each other, because of our own interest in survival, so according to this ideology, everything we do is for our own survival, not because “it’s the right thing”. If our society was entirely run by such an ideology, I think you would want to get out as soon as possible as would I.

I understand that Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. How many atheists believe in the theory of evolution, and accidental development? I would venture that 99.9% of atheists hold that the world was created by an accident and we are superior to apes only because of accidental evolutionary development. So that is an atheistic belief. No creator = Accidental evolution. So now I am explaining why in MY belief, it is a terrible belief when you look at the actions of humanity through such a lens. Under such a lens, men are like apes, frogs… exactly the same. Yes, we may develop a love for our own species, yet is such a love developed in any other species? As Woodrow said:

Us humans are the only creatures on earth that normally do not engage in cannibalism. If you stop and think of it biological cannibalism is very logical as it does guarantee for only the survival of the fittest and does eliminate the waste of protein. Socially there is no basis for there to be any stigma against it.

So the question arises why is there world wide repulsion about it? What evidence is there of any biological or social reason people do not normally practice it?​

For myself, I think both acts are wrong, but eating beef less so. That's probably due to the influence that the prevailing views of the society I live in has had on my understanding of morality. It's perfectly possible to make a convincing argument that if we condemn one we ought to condemn the other. I would argue that the difference simply derives from the different views we have on a member of our own species and another. We can relate to and sympathise with our own species much more easily than we can with another, so object to the murder of humans more than we (most of us) do to the murder of animals.

What causes such an emotion that other animal don’t have it? Of course, the morals you hold, prevent you from such actions, but if you abandoned all morals created by “religious myths” as you would probably label them and your morals were purely atheistic, then it would be different. You hold by the morals of your own society which has religious influence, but let us say that you would only hold by atheism, which humanity by the scientific view that we are animals as well, but “stronger” ones.

I believe it is “wrong” to murder humans. It is wrong to do so, because it is just wrong. Not because it will create chaos in our society, but because the act itself is wrong. When you hold that we are basically apes that evolved, can you really see a difference between killing apes, humans, cattle, etc? The murder of weak innocents is but a logical result of the theory of evolution, which can recognize no distinction between cattle-slaughter-houses and the German-Nazi Murder factories, except to the degree of “accidental evolutionary development”. To view life in such a light is according to my opinion “Morally wrong” because when you remove society and dangers it presents to our world, what used to make it wrong is no longer a variable, so therefore, is it not wrong anymore? Of course we may look at life completely opposite of eachother so your welcome to hold your own views. We will have to agree to disagree.

What makes Nietzsche evil, out of interest? Are you familiar with his work on more than a passing-interest level?

Imagine a society where all adhered to his views. Would you ever wish to live in it?

(I'm not sure why someone's views on the theory of evolution would determine their answer to this question. Is it not possible for a religious person to believe in evolution? I know loads of them who do.)

There is a difference between one who claims it was all an accident, and one who claims a divine force guided evolution and the creation of man into existence.

Some atheists believe in the soul and conscience, some don't. Some believe in one but not the other. These ideas have nothing to do with atheism itself, which, as I've said, is the lack of belief in god(s).

Really? Some atheists believe in the soul? The “immaterial part of a person; the actuating cause of an individual life.” I have never heard an atheist claim they believed in the theory that all humans have a “soul”. I have never heard an atheist claim they believe that there is such a thing as a conscience. When I say “conscience” I am usually referring to the definition which states: “The inherent knowledge or sense of right and wrong.”

I’d be fascinated if you have any reading material on such atheistic beliefs.

That's a bit like saying 'it is not "factually incorrect" to murder others'. Science's job is to investigate and explain, not to cast value-judgments. I hope this idea is beginning to sink in.

I never said it was sciences job to teach us “Morality”. I am saying that when you believe the theory of evolution (accident, not Deity guided) to be true, then your view of humanity is the view that we are the same as animals, in that killing an ape is the same as killing a human, other than the fact that you put your own personal interests in risk, and your killing a “smarter” animal. Since if you eat beef, then you’re making the statement that one can be morally secure with the belief that it is okay to eat something that you descend from or are "related to" because of survival of the fittest because the murder of weak innocents is but a logical result of the theory of evolution.

I presume the Atheists, who claim that that the theory of evolution did not occur, would obviously be left out of the above generalization.

Many scientists believe in the existence of conscience, don't they? The fact that it isn't understood or fully explained doesn't mean it's automatically excluded from the possibility of existing. No-one can give a satisfactory, complete and authoritative definition of 'religion', or a full acount of how it works. Does that mean that scientists therefore don't believe in the existence of religion? Of course not.

We may have a different definition of what the “conscience” is. Atheists I have encountered reject the conscience as a “religious fairy tale”, which spreads in their belief a “myth” that all humans built into their inner being or soul, have something telling them that things like murder are wrong. Something the animals that we “evolved” from do not hold to the best of my knowledge.

Atheism doesn't teach ethics. It is - one more time for the world! - the lack of belief in god(s).

Exactly. So where do Atheists get their own ethics from? They take their morals from the Homicide Squad. For the criteria of right or wrong they have no recourse but to rely on the patrolmen and state legislature. Murder to them is “wrong” because it would destroy society. Unless of course you admit such things as a force telling you inside of your heart that a certain action is naturally “wrong”, although, naturally, in the wild, nothing really is wrong with it, as the animals we are related to, do it. The problem I have is that when you remove society from the equation, chaos, and destruction of society are not factors. So is it still wrong? If it is, then why? If you wish to tell me you can reject the notion of a Creator, but believe that all humans are born with a conscience, then I will of course retract my statement labeling all atheists together.

What gives you the idea that there is a necessary connection between these two things? Surely there are too many factors at play here. Stalin's ideology consisted of many things besides atheism. For instance, he favoured Socialist Realism in the arts, and vigorously suppressed all avant-garde or abstract forms of art. Couldn't we just as easily make the argument that it was this that led to the murder of 20 million people?

Obviously this is the case. I only wish all the atheists that make the claim that religion causes “war” would look at the other factors as well. Without religion, war and death would be just as common.

You have implied throughout your posts that both science and atheism, sometimes together, sometimes alone, 'teach' some form of morality, one that you do not like. Indeed, that is the entire thrust of your argument.

The conclusions that all atheists draw from scientific discovery, mainly from the theory of evolution, are ones that are morally wrong when you consider their other actions such as eating beef because your stronger and they cannot threaten you, although you are related and differ only in your accidental evolutionary development (we both tend to say the same phrases in our posts a lot ). I view that ideology as criminal. Maybe you do not.

Cannibalism is harmful to the society as a whole, therefore it is wrong. What's wrong with that?

What is wrong with that statement is that if you remove the "society" from the equation, then it is no longer wrong, since your actions if you chose to be a cannibal no longer effect society "as a whole".

 

[Woodrow]

Quoting czgibson

Cannibalism is harmful to the society as a whole, therefore it is wrong. What's wrong with that?

Quoting Rav

What is wrong with that, is that if you remove the society from the equation, then it is no longer wrong, since your actions if you chose to be a cannibal no longer effect society as a whole.

Expounding a bit on this. I really doubt that cannibalism would be harmful to society from a scientific and socialogical view. In fact socialy it could be highly beneficial.

The cost of maintaining prisons would be eliminated, simply serve convicts at the local McPeople.

No more costly funeral expenses. A very strong incentive to breed stronger and healthier people. Only the best could survive and only the second best would be suitable for lunch.

I have to agree with Rav. there is some reason cannibalism and murder are considered an abomination by nearly all people and it goes beyond evolution biologial or socialogical. Socialy and scientificaly murder and cannibalism make sense and I believe would be the order of the day if there was not some factor that causes us to see it as an abomination.

Contrary to popular belief cannibalism has never been a wide spread acceptable practice and in the few areas where it was practised it was part of a bizarre religious ceremony and not a food source. ( I am excluding obviously mentaly deranged people, and speaking of the norm)

 

[Woodrow]

Quoting czgibson

Cannibalism is harmful to the society as a whole, therefore it is wrong. What's wrong with that?

Quoting Rav

What is wrong with that, is that if you remove the society from the equation, then it is no longer wrong, since your actions if you chose to be a cannibal no longer effect society as a whole.

Expounding a bit on this. I really doubt that cannibalism would be harmful to society from a scientific and socialogical view. In fact socialy it could be highly beneficial.

The cost of maintaining prisons would be eliminated, simply serve convicts at the local McPeople.

No more costly funeral expenses. A very strong incentive to breed stronger and healthier people. Only the best could survive and only the second best would be suitable for lunch.

I have to agree with Rav. there is some reason cannibalism and murder are considered an abomination by nearly all people and it goes beyond evolution biological or socialogical. Socialy and scientificaly murder and cannibalism make sense and I believe would be the order of the day if there was not some factor that causes us to see it as an abomination.

Contrary to popular belief cannibalism has never been a wide spread acceptable practice and in the few areas where it was practised it was part of a bizarre religious ceremony and not a food source. ( I am excluding obviously mentaly deranged people, and speaking of the norm)

 

[KAding]

I don't understand this thread. I don't base my morality on science, I don't know an atheist that claims they do. At best science helps me understand the world and thus make more moral choices, the same function it has for religious people really. Empathy and an understanding of what suffering is is the most fundamental part of morality IMHO, neither of which has anything to do with science really. I don't think nature is moral at all.

 

[Trumble]

Are you saying that a Philosophical position cannot be an ideology? Of course most Atheists do not hold to what I am saying, but it is inerrably still Atheism. The fact of the matter is that the majority of Atheistic simply reject the existence of a Creator of Infinite Intelligence. That is all they do. However, they do not actually think about how their actions can be interpreted since they all believe in an “accidental earth”. Atheists simply do not connect eating beef and their views on the world’s creation to have any association.

Yes, I am saying that. An ideology can incorporate assorted philosophical positions, but one of those cannot by itself form one unless in a very limited context (a 'religious ideology', an 'economic ideology' and so forth). I would argue that a simple disbelief in something can't be one even in that limited context - you have built an interesting structure on top of atheism but I don't accept it as sound. In an odd way it's reminiscent of the ongoing 'trinity' debate where our muslim friends keep insisting on telling the Christians that they should believe something that they obviously don't. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

We do not eat each other, because of our own interest in survival, so according to this ideology, everything we do is for our own survival, not because “it’s the right thing”. If our society was entirely run by such an ideology, I think you would want to get out as soon as possible as would I.

Again, it isn't an 'ideology', and the world clearly doesn't work like that. It wouldn't even if atheists were in charge of everything. People do do "the right thing", atheists and all, and morality, conscience and all the rest of it are a fact. The question is how those things 'evolved' in the first place, and atheists (and myself) have a plausible explanation that does not require divine intervention. As such an explanation is available, there is no need to accept the beef-creation association that you suggest.

I understand that Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. How many atheists believe in the theory of evolution, and accidental development? I would venture that 99.9% of atheists hold that the world was created by an accident and we are superior to apes only because of accidental evolutionary development. So that is an atheistic belief. No creator = Accidental evolution. So now I am explaining why in MY belief, it is a terrible belief when you look at the actions of humanity through such a lens. Under such a lens, men are like apes, frogs… exactly the same.

The obvious response to that is that there were plenty of atheists before Darwin! They 'believed' in neither, just that - as czgibson keeps saying, there is no God. Obviously evolution is likely to appeal to atheists, but it actually appeals to many theists as well... it is not an "atheistic belief" in itself. Evolution does not deal with the creation of life.

Your comments on superiority I find odd, in that believing we are 'superior' to other species is historically a theist trait, not an atheistic one. It is principally the theistic religions that claim that man is somehow 'special'. Some muslims believe man was created by God while other species evolved. Virtually all theists believe animals have 'souls' and no animals do. Large numbers of theists believe that everything in the natural world was somehow put there by God to be exploited for our own benefit. In short, many atheists do not believe we are inherently 'superior' at all.

I believe it is “wrong” to murder humans. It is wrong to do so, because it is just wrong. Not because it will create chaos in our society, but because the act itself is wrong.

So do I. So, no doubt, does czgibson. The question is why do we think that? Atheism is only guilty of what you ascribe to it if no other explanation than divine intervention can be provided. But it can.

Let me try another approach. Buddhism is essentially atheistic. I say essentially as many Buddhists do believe in gods of some sort (subject to the same laws of cause an effect as humans), and my only personal views do contain a significant pantheistic element influenced by daoism (with a dash of Spinoza)... but in the sense you mean atheistic is accurate enough. I don't know how much you know about Buddhism, but try and imagine a society founded on, and living by, purely Buddhist belief. Would it degenerate into the sort of society defined by "atheist ideology" that you picture? Somehow I doubt it... certainly it is no more likely than in a Jewish, Christian or muslim theocracy. Buddhists have their own religious reasons for behaving in moral fashion that are a little different from those of theists, but those reasons do not depend on God or imply at any stage the existence of God to somehow create them. As soon as you admit to the existence of one alternative, even in a purely religious context, you open the door to a multitude of others.

 

[August]

I don't understand this thread. I don't base my morality on science, I don't know an atheist that claims they do. At best science helps me understand the world and thus make more moral choices, the same function it has for religious people really. Empathy and an understanding of what suffering is is the most fundamental part of morality IMHO, neither of which has anything to do with science really. I don't think nature is moral at all.

What do you base your morality on? If your moral code differs from society at large, how do you know which moral code is correct?

 

[Philosopher]

Rav, maybe this video will help you understand Jewish morals:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkXOwBIRX7Y