Morality in atheism Does morality come from God? Iven Martin 8/3/2013 It is a true dichotomy that either a god or gods exist or a god or gods do not exist, this is fact. Given these two choices we either believe in a god or gods or we do not, this is what makes us either a theist by definition or an atheist by definition. Whether or not a god or gods exist, this world still functions the way it does and we live in a reality/world that seems not to be influenced by some kind of outside force, like a divine being and we have to make decisions in our everyday life. This is the reality I have to live in and I would like to make the best of it while I’m still here, not only that but I would like to make it a better world to live in if at all possible. One of the most known arguments for the existence of a god happens to be divine command as the basis of morality, and it can go in any direction as if we are playing a game of chess. So if I may I would like to expand on the topic of morality for a little bit. Introduction Some issues are easy to agree on as to what is morally right and what is morally wrong; for example, rape and premeditated murder is considered to be morally wrong but there are some situations in which we hit a grey area and it is not as easy to determine what actions are morally right and morally wrong in a given situation. We all have a conscience unless one happens to have some kind of chemical imbalance that does not allow that person to feel empathy toward their victims but I think the question here is how do you determine what is morally right and what is morally wrong? I would like to, if I may, explain from the best of my knowledge how a person can make that decision. I do not believe you have to make an appeal to authority to determine what is morally right and what is morally wrong, but I do however believe that there is a psychological process in which you can determine of what is morally right and what is morally wrong. We have a scientific understanding that the brain releases a chemical that allows us to feel emotion in a given situation and affects how we view a particular action of an individual, I have been questioned on numerous occasions as to why the brain releases these chemicals and allows us to feel emotion in a given situation. In my opinion I believe it is irrelevant to the subject matter as to why our brains releases a chemical in which allows us to feel emotions in a given situation. Yes I believe that evolution is responsible and that there is a very logical scientific explanation regarding how the brain works and why it works the way it does but Christian more often than not brings up this issue in attempt to refute scientific claims and infer god as a cause. But I would like to address the other questions as to who makes the decisions of what is considered to be morally right and morally wrong. I would like to start by explaining what morality is and how it affects others. I would also talk about how morality in atheism differs from morality in religious views. What is Morality? Morality as best described is a psychological process in which you evaluate the results of our actions to determine whether they can be considered right (good) or wrong (bad) et cetera. Morality is not objective for without a mind to observe what is right and what is wrong a system of moral values cannot be established. We can evaluate the consequences of our actions to determine what is right and wrong based on the harm an action or failure to act in a given situation causes. Morality is based on empathy or the ability to understand and share the feelings of others, it also refers to code of conduct whether personal or in a society. How could we live in a society where our standards of living is based on survival of the fittest, and did not care about the feelings of another person or persons? Morality can be based on some outside sources; like for the betterment of a society and what is in the best of interest for a person or persons. Morality if you actually go back and look at it closely enough you will find that it actually comes from the individual looking at a situation and evaluating the consequences of an action. It does not need to come from an external source at all. We can assess a situation and determine whether an action can be deemed right or wrong based on our standards. When we get together and determine what is morally right and what is morally wrong based on a particular set of values this becomes what is known as shared values. It is because of our evolutionary past that we can reason and work together to solve problems, this is what morality is basically for. We have to live in a world where we have to live with others and we are a social species which means that we share a quality of empathy and can understand the feelings of another person. We depend on each other to live a productive life and work together to make this world a better, healthier and safer place et cetera. Our moral assessment is based on our values and our values vary subjectively. That’s where we evaluate the consequences of our actions and determine what is right or wrong. Do we hold the value of empathy? What will happen if I make this decision? Is it worth the consequences based on my set of values? If someone was to break into your home while you have children in the next room, and this burglar poses as an immediate threat to you and your family you have a decision to make. You may have to make that decision in the split of a moment. You know that if you shoot this person you are taking someone’s son or husband or maybe even father away from them and your decision will hurt somebody in some way. If you do not then he will probably end up fatally hurt you or one of the children in the next room. Could it be said to be morally right to take the life of this person in such a situation? Most likely, and the only way anyone else would know if your action could be considered right or wrong would be to evaluate the situation to come to a conclusion about the situation. It’s no mystery to what hurts people and what does not hurt people, the question is do you value the rights of others? Do you care about how others feel? This is going to be a personal question and this is what is going to determine what is morally right or wrong to you as an individual. I also believe that what is known as the golden rule also plays a factor into morality which goes as follows; do unto others as you would have them to do unto you. There is this thing we call reputation, where we can remember how a person has treated others to determine how we will deal with this person later on. Personally I would not want to go out and intentionally hurt another person because I would not want anyone to intentionally hurt me. We have to work together to try and decrease suffering as much as possible and if I saw a person who was in serious need of help I may find it beneficial to go and help this person. Besides maybe needing someone’s help in the near future when I cannot help myself or maybe helping someone will make me feel good about myself. If I was a selfish person and only cared about myself to demand that others do for me to make me feel good and to decrease my own suffering but “screw everybody else I don’t care if you suffer.” Can you imagine if everybody else was that way? We would not be able to live as a society; it would be a complete disaster! We need to be able to work together to make this world a better place if at all possible and maybe even address the starvation issue we have in the world today et cetera. Problem with the divine command theory Divine command as the basis of morality basically goes as follows; If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. Objective moral values and duties do exist Therefore, God exists. Divine command as the basis of morality is a deductive argument that is made up of two premises and one conclusion but the premises does not provide the needed degree of support for the conclusion. First off this is the worst possible way to construct a deductive argument because it injects the conclusion into one of the premises. In a deductive argument if I reject one or more of the premises then I cannot possibly agree with the conclusion, think about it, the god question is already the proposition of a debate! There is a quote by Christopher Hitchens and it is now known as the Hitchens razor which goes as follows “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” It begs the question by assuming that anything God says is morally right, so how does it become morally right? Does it become morally right just because a God says so or does he just so happen to say what is morally right? Does morality happen to be just a standard of what one should do and what one should not do, set by some higher authority i.e. God in this argument? Sure we may obey Gods word if we could establish that a god does happen to exist and that he had created a hell for those who do not obey his every command. So what morality means to a person making this argument is a really good question to rise and asking their opinion about morality will tell you more about their basis for this argument. Epicurus had this to say about the subject; Is God willing to prevent evil but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? Tracie Harris on The Atheist Experience January 6, 2013 had this to say; “You either serve a god who sends child rapists to rape children or you have a god who simply watches it and says “when you’re done I’m going to punish you” If I could stop a person from raping a child, I would. That the difference between me and your god.” And then she expanded by saying “If I were in a situation where I could stop a child rapist, I would. That’s the difference between me and you god. He watches and says “I’m shutting the door, and you go ahead and rape that child, and when you’re done, I’m going to punish you” If I did that, people would think I was a freaking monster.” I will present these two quotes in a debate when the topic is the divine command theory and then I will ask the question “Do you believe in an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent god, meaning that he knows of child rape is willing to prevent it and is able?” Any kind of argument used to defend the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent god despite the problem of evil is known as a theodicy. Evil is very basically a descriptive term for an action that is harmful or undesirable, so therefore morality is completely based on opinion. If there happens to be an objective morality then one of us happens to be wrong so who are we to judge god one may ask, my question to that person would be who am I not to judge god? If I would judge another person for not stopping a child rapist from raping a child why should I hold god above those standards? An unexplained claim of exemption from principal is called special pleading. It is by our language system in which we communicate ideas from one mind to another and by our definition do we call an action or negligence immoral, and it is by our standards in which we judge. I think anyone would agree that if another human being could stop a child rapist but instead shut the door and let it happen would be immoral so why should we hold god above those standards, especially if you view god as one who knows of it happening and can prevent it? Some would like to argue that it is a false dichotomy and does not account for free will. In my opinion that only goes to show that god is either not omnipotent or that he is malevolent assuming that a god does in fact exist. Some argue that god will not interfere with earth’s affairs and some will even go further and say “unless he is asked”, but that sounds to me like he does not care. Some will say that he cannot interfere with earth’s affairs for, whatever reason and that goes back to omnipotence. It really doesn’t matter what they say they end up eliminating one or more of these attributes of god unless they just completely deny such evil. And sometimes they will even argue that an atheist cannot have moral values because they do not have a basis of morality i.e. god. Some will even argue that God allows evil for some kind of greater good; we know that there are starving children in third world countries and they do not have a good ending. Sometimes the buzzards will eat these children alive because they have been starving to death. It’s the same when talking about evil acts of other human being, sometimes there is no greater good in a situation. Most if not all religions have a set of standards in which a person believes one should live their lives or they will not enter eternal bliss, in fact they believe the individual will be tortured forever and will never see a happy ending. Conclusion “You don’t need religion to have morals. If you can’t determine right from wrong then you lack empathy, not religion.” -Anonymous Let’s not confuse correlation with causation, there are some good people that happen to be religious and there happen to be some good people who happen to be atheists and vice versa. But sometimes religion happens to be the cause of people doing very immoral things such as cutting people’s head off in the middle of the street for no good reason or forcing rape victims to marry their attacker et cetera. This is seen on the news and in the newspapers and even YouTube has some videos showing these events taking place. It isn’t religion that makes someone a good or bad person, if you say it is I would have to ask why. Assuming that god is real and that he knows of this happening and has the power to prevent such acts, since we know of this actually happening why would I want to serve him? So let’s assume that there is an objective morality that happens to be the command of a higher authority, only I wouldn’t call it morality only arbitrary and very specific rules from a monarchy. It’s basically you do this and do that or I will punish you, how do you know what this god really wants? What if the Muslims happen to be right? What if nobody happens to be right and maybe some long lost religions belief does hold the truth? Is it possible to know the truth of the matter? People from all different religious beliefs claim to know that their religious belief is “the right one”. So if a set of rules are written in stone, what about converse accidents? Sam Harris said “I would like to challenge anyone here to think of a question upon which we once had a scientific answer, however inadequate, but for which now the best answer is a religious one.” I think it fits even for this discussion as well. I think Christians use the same psychological process when determining what is right and what is wrong but when they get involved with debate in which they have to defend their positions they are being intellectually dishonest with themselves when they say “If I found out tomorrow I would go do whatever I wanted to do even if that means to go out and kill a bunch of people, why not, I’m not going to hell anyway” for example. Honestly I think it would be much more pleasant when talking to theists if they could be honest with themselves and with me as well in debate, saying things like that only make themselves look foolish and I have no desire to talk to them when they go that route. I have seen Christian apologetics base their arguments on the idea that atheist have no basis of morality by pointing out a few atheist that has committed atrocities; such as for example, Joseph Stalin, Jim Jones and Jeffery Dahmer. Christians even say that Adolf Hitler was an atheist in attempt to poison the well, but whether Adolf Hitler was an atheist or not is another debate in which I consider irrelevant to the subject matter. They attempt to point out that atheism is a slippery slope that leads to atrocities and similar actions as these famous people. My reaction to these claims is emotional, but I would also argue that these arguments are fallacious and do not provide the needed degree of support for the conclusion that morality comes from god. My argument is based on the idea that there is no sufficient evidence that morality comes from God. I strongly believe it is possible that we can base morality on values; such as for example, empathy and compassion et cetera and morality comes from the psychological process of the mind rather than from God.
Posted on: Sun, 04 Aug 2013 00:35:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015