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]

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

Fair enough.
But do me a solid and please refrain from the charicature of religion at its worst; it's unfair and too easy. Most serious modern and postmodern theology, from schliermacher to tillich to frei to hauerwas, responds to the Enlightenment in one way or the other, usually quite thoughtfully.

Also, please consider that great mythic systems have an ongoing role to play in making morality real. We can respectfully disagree on this, but for all my appreciation for and overlap with humanism, I worry that in its purely secular form it is thin, young, technocratic, coldly rational, lacking a mythic heart, epistemologically reductionistic, deaf to the poetry of symbolism, and overly optimisitic about the role of reason and possibility of progress in human life (regarding the latter, perhaps I need to be more patient and try to think in darwinian time). But religion, an artistic life, and 20 years in advertising have made me embrace an existentialist take on the core of irrationalism in humanity; that was actually my entry point into adult religion. I'm no Jeffersonian. For me it was Nietzsche and Hegel vs. Kierkegaard and Wittgenstein, and the latter won (although I don't share K's radical protestantism).
So I share most of the values of humanism and the enlightenment (save its radical empiriciam and rapid anticlericalism), and I'd CERTAIN I'd love life in Norway or Holland etc, I do have these concerns, and recommend maintaining while reappropriating an ongoing modern religion-mythos as a core element of even an advancing civilization, but disabused of its retrograde, closeminded, triumphalist literalisms. I think it's a worthy cause and I invite others to join in and make common cause, religious and non-religious alike.
BTW, the dalai lama is sounding more and more like a UU!

[David 2.0]

As not to leave any of the folks that commented hanging I will sum up my thoughts..

Perhaps the bible indorses slavery. I am aware of the verses and have seen it used in an argument before.

The bible also seems to strictly prohibit it.

What is the highest state of love thy neighbor?
Fair measure?
Peace?
Being the light?

Greek nor gentile.....

So which verses should I cherry pick?
Which concepts influence morality the most?

Forcing this "type" of theology on christians seems pointless.

Christs moral message is not summed up in, "Sweet, I get a slave.?"
Who believes that.

Post lost weight by one a...(Edit)

[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.

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

OK, I agree with you. Sorry if I missed your main point.

In my first post, I tried to say that for me, as a christian of modern persuasion, I look to the western religious cultural inheritance (values, tools, symbols, themes, etc) as my source, and exist in context with others sources as well. But yeah, traditionalists and triumphalists look to the bible (protestant) or bible-and-doctrine (catholic) as some sort of divine-delivered rulebook that only they have and therefore yours sux. Not good. We agree.
I think Jews get it right; it's an ongoing dialogue, experince and discovery, in community, in a tradition, with reference to that tradition and to its holy books and great sages. But many christians do the same. They're not all bible thumpers and pope quoters! Some are quite sophisticated and wise.

[JohnPaul]

I am sure the 70 to 100 thousand women tortured and burned as witches by Christians in Europe would have appreciated that explanation of Christian love before they died.
John

Do you have any support for this claim? I have spent the last hour on the Internet and have found all manner of claims. Which one did you use and why?

I am sure you know that I received a Moderator Warning for my post above, claiming it did not address the debate, was a one-liner, and was mildly inflammatory.

How does it not address a debate on Christian morality? Only mildly inflammatory? Really? I will try to do better.

I have found many sources which support my claim above, too many to list here. Here is just one example, a brief extract from a long article on witchcraft in my own encyclopedia, "Collier's Encyclopedia, 1961:

Statistics of the number of persons put to death during the three centuries when the witch hunt ran its course can never be accurately known, but estimates given by modern scholars run into the hundreds of thousands.

The article on witchcraft continues with a number of specific figures from various locations in Europe. Please note that these figures include only those put to death. Many other victims were tortured but survived. During my search, I came across many descriptions of Christian torture methods and devices, some of whicn I already knew, but others were new to me and very ingenious. Also please note that these figures include only witch hunts, and do not include the centuries of theInquisition and christian murders of heretics, Jews, etc.

Witchcraft is of special interest to me because my wife, in her younger days during the 1960s when such things enjoyed a spurt of popularity, became a Wiccan Witch. Wicca does not include a worship of Satan, because Satan is an invention of Christianity and worship of Satan by witches exists only in the eyes of Christians. Here is a personal story from my wife to show that Christian witch hunts still occur in America today, although perhaps in a milder form.

My wife was also interested in astrology and while living in Redding, CA (apparently a hotbed of loving Christianity), she did an astrology chart as a favor to a friend. Somehow a Bible-thumper church in Redding learned about this and three women from the church visited my wife. They forced their way into her apartment and tried to force her to kneel and pray for forgivness. My wife was more than a catfighter and she assured me that all three women left rapidly with very bloody faces, one having to be helped out by her friends, and one with a torn flap of cheek that would leave her scarred for life. No doubt the scar will serve as a martyr's badge for her in heaven!

John

[Autodidact]

As not to leave any of the folks that commented hanging I will sum up my thoughts..

Perhaps the bible indorses slavery. I am aware of the verses and have seen it used in an argument before.

The bible also seems to strictly prohibit it.

This is not correct. There is nowhere in the Bible that prohibits slavery. None, zip. It is specifically authorized, and Jesus Himself instructs slaves how to act: with obedience.

What is the highest state of love thy neighbor?
Fair measure?
Peace?
Being the light?

Greek nor gentile.....

So which verses should I cherry pick?
Which concepts influence morality the most?

Forcing this "type" of theology on christians seems pointless.

I'm not forcing anything on anyone. I'm pointing out to you, a non-Christian, that the positive aspects of your morality do not come from Christianity, but to Christianity from you.

Christs moral message is not summed up in, "Sweet, I get a slave.?"
Who believes that.

For centuries, most Christians believed that and worse.

[David 2.0]

I get what you are saying...

"What is the highest state of love thy neighbor?
Fair measure?
Peace?
Being the light?

Greek nor gentile..... "

So in your mind the highest of all these states is to enslave someone?
These moral concepts don't amount to an implied prohibition on slavery?

Anyway without being to much of a distraction to the overall point, my original post was not a blanket statement.

For me christianity was a vehicle that taught me morality and values. I think they nailed it.
Of course everything comes from me.

[Autodidact]

I get what you are saying...

"What is the highest state of love thy neighbor?
Fair measure?
Peace?
Being the light?

Greek nor gentile..... "

So in your mind the highest of all these states is to enslave someone?

No, that's not what I'm saying, and I think you know that. What I'm saying is that Christianity teaches that slavery is right. Christianity is wrong. Enlightenment, secular ethics teaches us that slavery is wrong. They are right.
These modern, secular ethics, have impacted Christianity, thank goodness, so that it is now less wrong than it used to be.

These moral concepts don't amount to an implied prohibition on slavery?

For that to be the case, Jesus, Paul and 18 centuries of Christians, would have to be wrong.

I suppose that might be a possible interpretation, if Jesus had never addressed the subject. However, He did, and he instructed slaves to be obedient to their masters, and masters to treat their slaves well. He never said anything about prohibiting anything. My guess would be that being a first century Jew, the idea that slavery could possibly be abolished never occurred to Him.

Anyway without being to much of a distraction to the overall point, my original post was not a blanket statement.

For me christianity was a vehicle that taught me morality and values. I think they nailed it.
Of course everything comes from me.[/quote]

[cholland]

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.

No, not only what is right for Christians, but what is right. A subjective morality is no morality at all. Advocating individual morality would validate a child molester's actions because he thinks NAMBLA is legitimate. Advocating social morality would validate the Holocaust.

Your point about the parents leads me to believe you still don't understand my point. From my first post: It's not that atheists can't be immoral or Christians are always moral, but that Christianity allows for morals to exist and we are simply discovering them. An atheist parent can teach his child "love your neighbor" just as well as the Christian. But why? Why love my neighbor? Where did that concept come from and why is it "right?" Why can I not hate my neighbor in order to gain more money or power?

Can I see, touch, taste "love"? Can I put it under a microscope to examine it and verify it around the world? Can I prove it with evidence? No. It is an immaterial concept and to a secular philosopher it cannot exist outside of their own mind. When they die, love dies with them.

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?

Trying not to beat a dead horse, but this is exactly my point (and I think Slopeshoulder). Does love not exist because children with ODD don't understand it? Slopeshoulder says no, it is "available to all people." It is there. We can't see it, but it's there. It doesn't matter if some people know some of it more than others or not at all. There is a "right" and we strive to find it.

[David 2.0]

I get what you are saying...

"What is the highest state of love thy neighbor?
Fair measure?
Peace?
Being the light?

Greek nor gentile..... "

So in your mind the highest of all these states is to enslave someone?

No, that's not what I'm saying, and I think you know that. What I'm saying is that Christianity teaches that slavery is right. Christianity is wrong. Enlightenment, secular ethics teaches us that slavery is wrong. They are right.
These modern, secular ethics, have impacted Christianity, thank goodness, so that it is now less wrong than it used to be.

These moral concepts don't amount to an implied prohibition on slavery?

For that to be the case, Jesus, Paul and 18 centuries of Christians, would have to be wrong.

I suppose that might be a possible interpretation, if Jesus had never addressed the subject. However, He did, and he instructed slaves to be obedient to their masters, and masters to treat their slaves well. He never said anything about prohibiting anything. My guess would be that being a first century Jew, the idea that slavery could possibly be abolished never occurred to Him.

Anyway without being to much of a distraction to the overall point, my original post was not a blanket statement.

For me christianity was a vehicle that taught me morality and values. I think they nailed it.
Of course everything comes from me.

[/quote]

A little throw the baby out with the bath water for my tastes but I can see your point.
If all moral propositions are nullified because of the slavery issue than so be it.

I will repeat this...
In my experience I have never met a christian that said christianity teaches that slavery is right? Nada-zero-zilch.
If I run into one I will post the results here.

[Adamoriens]

Your point about the parents leads me to believe you still don't understand my point. From my first post: It's not that atheists can't be immoral or Christians are always moral, but that Christianity allows for morals to exist and we are simply discovering them. An atheist parent can teach his child "love your neighbor" just as well as the Christian. But why? Why love my neighbor? Where did that concept come from and why is it "right?" Why can I not hate my neighbor in order to gain more money or power?

Can I see, touch, taste "love"? Can I put it under a microscope to examine it and verify it around the world? Can I prove it with evidence? No. It is an immaterial concept and to a secular philosopher it cannot exist outside of their own mind. When they die, love dies with them.

I'm currently reading a book that challenges this very argument, and I agree with the author that atheism and theism do not usefully distinguish whether there are such things as moral facts. Given only atheism, a person is well within his rights to believe that there are moral facts, values that we ought to follow if we want to be or instantiate good. For the atheist these might be natural or non-natural facts, and they may or may not be brute, unexplainable facts. And they may or may not be perceptible by humans, though admittedly most atheistic moral realists believe that we do have moral knowledge (ie. moral facts are perceivable in principle). It would be a sad thing if there were moral facts and we couldn't know them.

Your other question is about whether we should care about our moral obligations. It seems to me that this challenge is relevant to both theists and atheists? Why should I care about God's commands or desires? Because he'll hurt me if I don't? Why should I care about being hurt? The funny thing about questions like yours is that you appear to be asking for self-interested reasons to be selfless; a comically Quixotic request. But if theists rely on self-interested reasons to stay in line (ie. the promise of eternal punishment), then they are in little place to say that atheists have it wrong by following the same principle (ie. doing whatever prevents your society punishing you).

The answer, I think, is that we simply ought to do some things, and this can override all non-moral considerations without our needing further explanation to do so. Just as a theist might pursue development toward the image of Jesus as an end in itself, an atheist may pursue justice as a similar self-explaining end.