I felt I had to respond to a post at Atheism Analyzed. The issue is one I blog about frequently, and I will take any opportunity to voice my two cents on the matter.
Below is the comment I left, which nearly suffices for an entire post of its own (as my comments left on the blogs of others so often are... for which I apologize):
This particular atheist is fairly certain of the existence of truth, right, wrong, good, bad, virtue, and evil. Of course, having a clearly defined moral code hasn’t stopped any criminal who was religious. One’s stance on the matter is largely unimportant when it comes to true “morality,” which is little more than a fancy word for decision making.
The most common measure used for comparing the morality of individuals tends to be incarceration rates, which is very flattering for atheism. However, I suspect the fact that atheists tend to have more education and a higher income than the average Christian to be far more important factors than faith (or lack thereof) when it comes to crime.
Your question is flawed, then. It is not “Can an atheist be ‘good’?” The true question is, “Why are atheists good?” This is not to say ALL atheists are good, nor is it to say Christians are not good, or even “as good.” The majority of Christians and atheists are good, and only a few Christians or atheists are truly bad (in this instance, worthy of being locked up).
From a Christian standpoint, an atheist can never be good. In the terms defined by the Christian faith, the first rule has always been predicated on the worship of YHWH. As an atheist, if I were to define “good” as including “must not believe in god,” I would find myself looking down on Christians as morally inferior, even though I have arbitrarily chosen a matter of taste and decided to judge it as a matter of morality.
One final note: you harp on the fact that you find “good” to have no meaning to the atheist because it is “relative.” Yet, I see Christians who argue daily over the meaning of various passages in the Bible, the true nature of God, even the terms by which eternal salvation is attained. Christianity has no more certainty than atheism, it merely encourages believers to act with certainty on whatever their stance might be, misconceptions and all. Add to this the fallacy that a divine presence is guiding them, and if they screw up they can just ask for forgiveness.
Where is the moral accountability? To this atheist, Christianity appears to be moral credit for the intellectually bankrupt.
Excellent reply Ginx; I guess you could have simply written that part alone and your job would still have been complete:
ReplyDeleteYour question is flawed, then. It is not “Can an atheist be ‘good’?” The true question is, “Why are atheists good?” This is not to say ALL atheists are good, nor is it to say Christians are not good, or even “as good.” The majority of Christians and atheists are good, and only a few Christians or atheists are truly bad (in this instance, worthy of being locked up).
His post is pointless and, just like many other posts I have read from this blog, I still doubt that he ever was a "true" atheist...
If only I knew which part of what I wrote was actually good...
ReplyDeleteIt all seems futile at the time.
I thought this part was funny on Atheism Analyzed.... "What they actually do is to co-opt the Judeo-Christian ethic for their behavior, because that is the dominant ethic and legal structure of the culture in which we live… so far."
ReplyDeleteI thought our legal structure was shaped by the British which were shaped by the Norse? The theocracy experiment at Salem didn't turn out well....
And as for Judeo-Christian morality.
When was the last time you saw a Christian turn the other cheek when it came to political violence?
***
Now I'm not trying to bash on Christianity. But it's downright annoying when Christians attack atheism based on the "atheism" created by other Christians for them to beat.... it's just all strawmen.
Excellent. I think you make a very good point about the link from the educational aspect of atheism to (the lack of) crime (we have to measure morality somehow, right?) ;)
ReplyDeleteDear Ginx,
ReplyDeleteForgive the length of this reply, which I have broken into two parts due to limits outside my control.
You wrote:
"However, I suspect the fact that atheists tend to have more education and a higher income than the average Christian to be far more important factors than faith (or lack thereof) when it comes to crime."
Essentially, I think yours is a meaningless statement. First, I don't think you can compare averages; what is an average Christian? Apparently, there are at least 2 billion of them on the planet. How many atheists are there? Is it not possible that the pool of atheists is much smaller, and that it is very likely that -- and I write half-facetiously -- the average of a few will be "higher" than the average of the many?
Second, the implication of higher education and income, that more of both leads a person closer to atheistic ontologies, is somewhat ridiculous. Are we to believe that the smartest, richest people on the planet will be more complete atheists? That those with less education and income will be slightly less competent thinkers, and thus less competent atheists? Is it true that the dumbest and poorest among us will be the most thoroughly theistic?
I am rather well-educated. I intend to continue to educate myself until I die. And yet I am a theist, even a Christian. Many eminently brilliant and successful people are theists to the core; their beliefs are rational, cogent, and even compelling. How do you explain them? How do you explain Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project?
Of course, I recognize you're talking of goodness, the basis for it. Your question is really foundational: what is the ontological foundation of goodness? How is good behavior judged? How is evil behavior measured? I get it. But maybe I am misunderstanding you. Are you suggesting that Christians behave well because of faith, while atheists behave well because they are better educated and better compensated; that atheists are good because they are thoughtful and reflective, and that theists are good because they are blindly obedient and merely reflexive? Seriously, I am not sure what you're saying here.
Dear Ginx,
ReplyDeletePART II:
Moreover, I disagree wholly with your assessment that "[f]rom a Christian standpoint, an atheist can never be good. In the terms defined by the Christian faith, the first rule has always been predicated on the worship of YHWH." Why do I disagree? Because it is not true.
Christianity is not about goodness; it damns "goodness", nailing it to the cross. No one is good: neither Christian nor non-Christian, "neither Jew nor Greek." Goodness is not a prerequisite for salvation. It is not a primary condition of the moral life. In fact, there really is no absolute sense of a moral life in Christianity independent of that which is an act of gratitude for God's salvific gifts: we are "good" only as an act of thanksgiving to God's goodness to us. All men have sinned and fall short -- that's the beginning of Christian ethics. Everything in the Christian life that is "good" is contingent on God's love toward us; goodness is an aspiration, not a status one possesses in this life. God alone is good, and I give him and everyone else my best because I want to show him I am grateful for his gift, that I love it. Indeed, it's all like being given a beautiful garment for my birthday: I did not make it, I did not give it to myself, I did not earn it. Wearing it does not make me the maker of it; wearing it does not make me deserve it. But I wear it because I love it, and I want to make the heart of the person who gave it to me happy, proud, glad. (Salvation is a gift all people can receive -- if they will. It is not a reward for "goodness." God is not so easily blackmailed: "You MUST love me God, because I am good!" God scoffs at goodness, really.)
And no, I don't think, like Ella does, that we have to "measure morality." It strikes me as absurd: does anyone want to step forward and quantify goodness? Besides, let's talk about incarceration rates for a moment. Most of the Jews in Germany in 1943 were incarcerated; can we infer anything from this about goodness -- or morality? What of freedom-fighters and revolutionaries in countries ruled by oppressive tyrants: Can we draw ANYTHING helpful from the "incarceration rates" in those countries?
Lastly, let me stipulate your final point: "Christianity appears to be moral credit for the intellectually bankrupt." OK. Fair enough. But now I have to ask: Since you believe you're NOT a member of the set of the intellectually bankrupt, how do you achieve "moral credit"? You can't say that you achieve moral credit because you are better educated, or that you are intellectually intact. Those are circular or nearly-circular responses. They will not suffice. Besides, there are supremely brilliant Christians who are far-better educated than you, and they are not intellectually bankrupt.
Just some thoughts. Peace.
BG
Hey Bill,
ReplyDeleteI hope you don't mind if I reply to your comments; I am in no way attempting to reply for Ginx, it's just that I feel like your comments can lead to interesting discussions!
Got to be quick for now though because I am at work...
...the implication of higher education and income, that more of both leads a person closer to atheistic ontologies, is somewhat ridiculous...
Not at all ridiculous; you never saw % of religiosity vs education?
Is it true that the dumbest and poorest among us will be the most thoroughly theistic?
Yes of course. On a large scale, it's obvious that poorer country, i.e. with bad education systems, tend to be more religious. So, among us, of course it's going to be the same... Why? Because when you get a better education you tend to be more critical, less gullible, and accept beliefs that are based on evidence rather than faith.
But don't take me wrong, it's not both ways. I mean that I would never consider a person who is a theist, like you, to be unintelligent, never ever. So, that would lead to answering your other question...
Many eminently brilliant and successful people are theists to the core; their beliefs are rational, cogent, and even compelling. How do you explain them? How do you explain Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project?
No matter how you present that, the fact that people are brilliant and intelligent is in no way a supportive argument for any of their beliefs. If they happen to believe in a magic man in the sky (no offence intended), it's still irrational, no matter how smart they are. Francis Collins is indeed a great example. But why is he a theist? Is it really because of a rational thinking process? From what I understand, not at all. He became a theist for emotional reasons (not knowing what to reply to dying patient asking him about an afterlife) and decided to investigate this emotional need and found that one religion happened to be closer to what he felt is right. I admire his work as a researcher and would never call him idiot, but I still think he has a few irrational beliefs.
Are you suggesting that Christians behave well because of faith, while atheists behave well because they are better educated and better compensated; that atheists are good because they are thoughtful and reflective, and that theists are good because they are blindly obedient and merely reflexive?
Personally I think that both Christians and atheists are good for the same reason; their personal evaluation of what's good/bad. The problem is that Christians will claim that this knowledge of good/bad must come from an external source of knowledge, i.e. a god, while atheists say what I just said... we are the ultimate judge of what's good or not. I don't believe in any absolute morality, but as a Christian, I think you have to.
to be continued...
Bill,
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry that demographic studies do not support the lie that Christianity is necessary for morality. Is incarceration the end all, be all method for measuring morality? Clearly you have some example you don't mind comparing to our incarceration system. There is indeed bias in our system, and it heavily punishes those who abuse illegal substances. Perhaps Christians just self-medicate more often, and it has nothing to do with morality. I'm sure being stoned all the time helps one believe that stuff...
Regarding statistics in general: atheists have a higher education on average. If you fail to understand what this means, you make it difficult for me to believe your claim of being well educated. The very concept of averages implies no "rule" by which all things are determined, and your ignorance (whether feigned or legitimate) is amusing. You should also stop pretending like every word in every post needs to be defined seperately, as if atheism is a rejection of language.
The old "everyone is damned" argument is nonsense. You and I both know Christians believe in a cut-off point for moral acceptability that is calculated after death. Your faith may be so absurd as to allow an individual to commit every sin in the book and still "pass," so long as they beg forgiveness, but that just highlights the ridiculous nature of the system. A murderer begging forgiveness given preference over Gandhi... even if Christianity was "right," I would want nothing to do with a belief system that retarded.