Atheism and morality vs. Christianity and morality

[Confused]

I have often heard that atheists are amoral and that Christianity offers the way to morality. This thread is quite simple then I guess.

1) Is there any evidence to link atheism and amorality? What?
2) Is there any evidence to link atheism and morality? What?
3) Is there any evidence to link Christianity and amorality? What?
4) Is there any evidence to link Christianity and morality? What?

[Slopeshoulder]

Now wait a minute.

I've said that religionists have no special claim to morality. And David seems utterly reasonable, emphasizing themes, evolution, practice, culture.

So to reduce religious morality to the worst of biblical literalism and the horrors of the past doesn't seem to playing fair, unless in response to one who had made the claim that christianity is better/perfect/etc. In other words, it's fair game aganst a triumphalist or hard right evangelical (they're not all hard right), but other than that it seems disingenuous.


can't we all just get along?

I am just pointing out that Christian morality progresses, just like any other type of morality. It has nothing to do with 'Christianity' at all.. but rather the society as a whole

I get that, but Christianity is a participant in culture/society/civilization, and is itself a culture. It evolves. It sounds like your defining Christianity in terms of old, rigid, tired, biblicist formulae. By that standard, I could trot out all the evilsm big and small, found in secular and humanist societies, past and present. That seems like a huge waste and distraction. Why not let's just agree that all humans are equally capable of morality, objective morality beyond empathy is pretty hard to come by, and that all culture evolves, including religion, and that there is great overlap and opportunity for discourse in ethical visions. Many religionists are humanists and fans of reason, and most athiests seem to value love and compassion and fogiveness and most like a good redemption story. What's the problem? Let's agree where we do (95%?) and unite against the extremists of every stripe.

[Confused]

At the risk of getting my head bitten off by my atheist friends, I'd like to try to make a subtle point:
While I reject natural law theology, and FULLY embrace ethics based in empathy available to all people, I will give a shout out, or a win on points, to religion in general - not because they are more moral, rather because they are traditions, gathering places, and languages that have developed a mature framework for developing, navigating, and adjudicating ethics. In my secular and technocratic life, I experience the absence of that.

But empathy isn't available to all people. Children diagnosed with ODD, Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, etc... don't understand the concept of empathy and children who progress to having ASPD will never grasp empathy. There are a host of disorders that lack the ability to grasp empathy. So what happens to them?

[Confused]

How does the development of a physical material thing make immaterial concepts exist?

Simply because the physical material brain is capable of imagining immaterial concepts.

Yes, but the question is are they moral? I can imagine a concept such as furthering the human race by exterminating the ones who are not as smart or physical fit, but is it right? Christianity allows for a morality to exist to determine and strive to discover "what is right" while an atheist is left with all moral claims are false...there is nothing inherently "wrong" with scientific racism outside of my own thoughts. An atheist can only stand at the gates of Auschwitz and say "to me, this was wrong. But others, it could be right."

So before Christianity existed, did morality not exist?

[Confused]

I can imagine a concept such as furthering the human race by exterminating the ones who are not as smart or physical fit, but is it right? Christianity allows for a morality to exist to determine and strive to discover "what is right" while an atheist is left with all moral claims are false...there is nothing inherently "wrong" with scientific racism outside of my own thoughts. An atheist can only stand at the gates of Auschwitz and say "to me, this was wrong. But others, it could be right."

Let us take another example: Abortion. There is no mention of abortion in the Christian Bible, nothing in the New Testament on the issue. (Wikipedia). Some denominations are pro-choice, some are pro-life and the opinions are also divided within the denominations. Where are the Christian morals which are supposed to tell us if abortion is right or wrong? Christians strive with this question just as non-theists do. For some Christian denominations abortion is right, for some it's wrong. Where are the absolute morals? Why does Christianity have trouble with defining exactly the same as people have trouble with defining? Because people are responsible for Christianity.

I am not sure absolute morality can exist. Morality seems to evolve with time. What is moral today may very well be immoral tomorrow.

[Confused]

Let us take another example: Abortion. There is no mention of abortion in the Christian Bible, nothing in the New Testament on the issue. (Wikipedia). Some denominations are pro-choice, some are pro-life and the opinions are also divided within the denominations. Where are the Christian morals which are supposed to tell us if abortion is right or wrong? Christians strive with this question just as non-theists do. For some Christian denominations abortion is right, for some it's wrong. Where are the absolute morals?

I've said it at least 3 times:
Christianity allows for morals to exist and we are simply discovering them.
Christianity as a worldview, namely that there are immaterial "things" and concepts above and beyond humanity, allows for morals to "exist."
Christianity allows for a morality to exist to determine and strive to discover "what is right."

Does this mean that I have a master list of morals? No. Does the Pope? No. Does anyone in Christendom? No. We only know some things now, we strive to know more, and hope and look forward to the day when we will know fully. "In that day you will know..." John 14:20 "For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully..." 1 Cor. 13:12

This explains the divisions in the church. Or stances on abortion. This does not mean morals do not exist, but simply we don't know them, but study and pray and ask the person they came from to reveal them. Just because we didn't fully know gravity did not mean it did not exist. Likewise, just because we don't fully know love, for example, does not mean it does not exist.

I believe Christian morality exists to discover what is right for "Christians". Not the world population. Morality can be found everywhere. Not just in Christianity. It can be taught by ones parents void of Christianity. It can be learned void of Christianity.

Doing what is "right" is a very subjective concept. What may be "right" for you may be "wrong" for me. Just because scripture deems it right doesn't mean scripture is right.

[Slopeshoulder]

At the risk of getting my head bitten off by my atheist friends, I'd like to try to make a subtle point:
While I reject natural law theology, and FULLY embrace ethics based in empathy available to all people, I will give a shout out, or a win on points, to religion in general - not because they are more moral, rather because they are traditions, gathering places, and languages that have developed a mature framework for developing, navigating, and adjudicating ethics. In my secular and technocratic life, I experience the absence of that.

But empathy isn't available to all people. Children diagnosed with ODD, Aspergers Syndrome, Autism, etc... don't understand the concept of empathy and children who progress to having ASPD will never grasp empathy. There are a host of disorders that lack the ability to grasp empathy. So what happens to them?

VERY good point. I don't have all the answers there.
From what I gather, there are three things floating around:
- dangerous types (sociopaths) are confined and controlled; they are fully human but not fully enfranchised; they are the outsider because they lack empathy. (BTW, I just last week succeeded in a lawsuit against a genuine psychopath, and wish that he would be contained because he will hurt others again. I also have a brother who ia an evil bastard who is clinically diagnosed along these lines).
- benign types like those you reference, who have reduced moral agency and in a sense have this provided to them by proxy via caregivers.
- and I imagine there is also a movement to honor and understand the unique gifts of these people as well, to learn from them and not just impose on them.
But I think these are the exceptions that proves the rule. Order, as opposed to dis-order, involves basic empathy. After studying ethics, meta-ethics, sociobiology etc for years (albeit years ago), hardwired empathy seems to be the best we've got. Take that away and all we have is perception and power, a goebels-meets-hobbes nightmare with a fascist solution. Yikes!
(BTW, I heard a story on the radio yesterday about a study identifying empathy in rats done at the U of Chicago recently; I'm going with empathy).

[Confused]

Now wait a minute.

I've said that religionists have no special claim to morality. And David seems utterly reasonable, emphasizing themes, evolution, practice, culture.

So to reduce religious morality to the worst of biblical literalism and the horrors of the past doesn't seem to playing fair, unless in response to one who had made the claim that christianity is better/perfect/etc. In other words, it's fair game aganst a triumphalist or hard right evangelical (they're not all hard right), but other than that it seems disingenuous.


can't we all just get along?

I am just pointing out that Christian morality progresses, just like any other type of morality. It has nothing to do with 'Christianity' at all.. but rather the society as a whole

I get that, but Christianity is a participant in culture/society/civilization, and is itself a culture. It evolves. It sounds like your defining Christianity in terms of old, rigid, tired, biblicist formulae. By that standard, I could trot out all the evilsm big and small, found in secular and humanist societies, past and present. That seems like a huge waste and distraction. Why not let's just agree that all humans are equally capable of morality, objective morality beyond empathy is pretty hard to come by, and that all culture evolves, including religion, and that there is great overlap and opportunity for discourse in ethical visions. Many religionists are humanists and fans of reason, and most athiests seem to value love and compassion and fogiveness and most like a good redemption story. What's the problem? Let's agree where we do (95%?) and unite against the extremists of every stripe.

I must ask, what would you say happened in the case of my son who suffers Aspergers Syndrome and Autism? 7 Churches turned their backs on him. I was told it was impossible to minister to him yet if he didn't learn the path to God, he was going to hell and it would be my fault. Where was the participation of Christianity to society in this case? The churches ranged from very large to very small congregations of various denominations of Christianity. How exactly do I turn to a religion that threw my son to the wolves simply because he didn't fit their "ideal" member? See, that is the problem. These weren't extremists that turned their back on him (which ultimately turned my back on them). These were moderate churches. I am suppose to agree to what? That religion offers salvation? That is hard to do when my own flesh and blood, created by the very same God these churches worship has been deemed beyond redemption. By the way, he was 5 when this nightmare with the churches started.

[Autodidact]

For you christian morality includes slavery.

When I was a christian it did not

As an atheist I have come to the conclusion that for most christians slavery is not part of there morality system.

Saying that christian morality includes slavery seems pretty pointless.
I have yet to meet one that would profess this as a moral underpinning?

That's because the modern Christians that you have met actually live a secular, Enlightenment morality that has nothing to do with the Bible or Jesus. They may call it Christianity, but it doesn't come from the Bible, or from historic Christianity.

500 years ago, slavery was part of every Christian's moral system. Now it's not, because the enlightenment value of human equality--which is not in any way Christian, quite the opposite--has conquered religious morality, and holds sway. So now it influences and shapes what is taught in church, not the other way around.

The morality you were taught in church is in fact a secular, enlightenment morality, based on equality and compassion. Jesus preaches that slaves should be good slaves, and masters good masters. That's the Christian value.

The idea that women should be equal to men is very modern, maybe 200 years old in popular culture, and still not accepted worldwide. It is not in any way a Christian value. It is another example of enlightenment, humanist morality, which is based on human equality. If you believe in it, you are rejecting Christian morality in favor of a secular, enlightenment morality.

It's not an either-or. You're ignoring a HUGE amount of post-enlightenment theology and practice, a HUGE shift and evolution to what christianity is today outside or retrograde circles. You're also ignoring the degree to which western humanistic values were influenced by religious values for centuries before. It's all blended together; the conflict is largely at the extremes. A modern humanist christian is still a christian; dang I thought I had made that much clear. Now the hard athiests and hard evangelicals are making common cause against the modern rational spiritual middle? I give up.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm acknowledging it, and its source. Its source, the moral progress, comes from Enlightenment humanist values, not from religion itself.

I think these modern values derive from religious values only in part. To be more specific, I think that morality itself tends to progress. The idea that we should love our enemies rather than kill them is moral progress. The idea that human beings should have equal rights is further progress. I guess I would say that as we progress, we leave religious morality behind in favor of secular morality.

What we need today is an approach to ethics which makes no recourse to religion and can be equally acceptable to those with faith and those without: a secular ethics.

--Dalai Lama

[Slopeshoulder]

I must ask, what would you say happened in the case of my son who suffers Aspergers Syndrome and Autism? 7 Churches turned their backs on him.

I'd say that is terrible!!!!! I don't get it! Turned their backs??? What the hell! Shouldn't they be working harder to embrace him? He is, in christian terms, one of god's children, and if you'll permit me, one who has special needs, someone vulnerable and poor in a way (although I imagine also gifted)! It sounds like they have forgotten all that and made a fetish and an idol of moral agency and uttering propositional truth claims. Were these "bible" churches? I'm outraged.

I was told it was impossible to minister to him yet if he didn't learn the path to God, he was going to hell and it would be my fault.

Ah, they were "bible" churches. Fundamentalist, biblicist, closedminded, protesant extremist. The kind I live to fight against. Let your experience be a witness to their perversion. Let me assure you I know many churches (catholic, episcopalian, unitarian, mainline) that would rush to embrace him, while being limited by the usual human foibles. Please ignore the vile nonesense you were told.

Where was the participation of Christianity to society in this case? The churches ranged from very large to very small congregations of various denominations of Christianity. How exactly do I turn to a religion that threw my son to the wolves simply because he didn't fit their "ideal" member? See, that is the problem. These weren't extremists that turned their back on him (which ultimately turned my back on them). These were moderate churches.

Yikes!!! Unholy hell!! With respect, I find this very hard to believe. But I will believe you. And now I am more outraged. Was it the pastor who said this? They have so put the cart before the horse and lost the forest for trees. If they can't or won't find a way to accomodate their religion to your son's relational/communication/emotional challenges, welcome him, minister to him, include him, and honor him, then they are morally and theologically bankrupt, condemned by the core message and best values of their own tradition! Wow. I'm so so sorry. And stunned. This is just terrible.

I am suppose to agree to what? That religion offers salvation? That is hard to do when my own flesh and blood, created by the very same God these churches worship has been deemed beyond redemption. By the way, he was 5 when this nightmare with the churches started.

All I can say is that I agree. PM me, where are you located? Maybe I or people I know can help find a sane, welcoming, and honorable church (if you're interested, I'm not sure I would be, I would've gone jewish or buddhist by now)?
This has me so angry and upset.

[Goat]

Now wait a minute.

I've said that religionists have no special claim to morality. And David seems utterly reasonable, emphasizing themes, evolution, practice, culture.

So to reduce religious morality to the worst of biblical literalism and the horrors of the past doesn't seem to playing fair, unless in response to one who had made the claim that christianity is better/perfect/etc. In other words, it's fair game aganst a triumphalist or hard right evangelical (they're not all hard right), but other than that it seems disingenuous.


can't we all just get along?

I am just pointing out that Christian morality progresses, just like any other type of morality. It has nothing to do with 'Christianity' at all.. but rather the society as a whole

I get that, but Christianity is a participant in culture/society/civilization, and is itself a culture. It evolves. It sounds like your defining Christianity in terms of old, rigid, tired, biblicist formulae. By that standard, I could trot out all the evilsm big and small, found in secular and humanist societies, past and present. That seems like a huge waste and distraction. Why not let's just agree that all humans are equally capable of morality, objective morality beyond empathy is pretty hard to come by, and that all culture evolves, including religion, and that there is great overlap and opportunity for discourse in ethical visions. Many religionists are humanists and fans of reason, and most athiests seem to value love and compassion and fogiveness and most like a good redemption story. What's the problem? Let's agree where we do (95%?) and unite against the extremists of every stripe.

No, that is not my point at at. The difference between the claim Christian morality, and the claimed morality of society at large is that many Christians claim their morality is from God.. and the bible.. and the same morality from others is not.


It's the same morality (for the most part). There is just a diffrerence in the claimed source for the morality