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?

[AquinasD]

For the atheist these might be natural or non-natural facts, and they may or may not be brute, unexplainable facts.

Just as an aside, the recourse to brute facts is a tacit admission of failure.

But if theists rely on self-interested reasons to stay in line

What is wrong with morality being grounded in self-interest? As Plato says, the good of another is always the good of the self. You can't avoid helping yourself if you are helping another.

Granted, there can be better reasons to be moral other than the avoidance of punishment (i.e. in order to attain the beatific vision), but the avoidance of punishment is a legitimate reason to act morally nonetheless.

That's all I have for this topic, I only came in to see what Adamoriens had written.

[johnmarc]

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

I am interested in your personal stories if they can be verified and if they support or challenge the subject at hand. This one doesn't seem to fit either category.

[Adamoriens]

For the atheist these might be natural or non-natural facts, and they may or may not be brute, unexplainable facts.

Just as an aside, the recourse to brute facts is a tacit admission of failure.

Replace with "necessary."

What is wrong with morality being grounded in self-interest? As Plato says, the good of another is always the good of the self. You can't avoid helping yourself if you are helping another.

Granted, there can be better reasons to be moral other than the avoidance of punishment (i.e. in order to attain the beatific vision), but the avoidance of punishment is a legitimate reason to act morally nonetheless.

That's all I have for this topic, I only came in to see what Adamoriens had written.

It's a happy coincidence to have moral action aligned with self-interest, but it's no blow to moral obligation to point out that sometimes it sucks.

[JohnPaul]

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.

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.

In my experience I have never met a Christian who said that Abraham Lincoln had just been elected president either. It is amazing what superior military force and 700,000 young American soldiers killed in the Civil War can do to change some Christian's morals.

John

[cholland]

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.

How? How can there be moral facts in a material world? Morals are immaterial concepts. If an atheist wants to be good, he must first determine what "good" is. To a Nazi it is exterminating Jews. To a NAMBLA member it is molesting a boy. Christianity allows us to go beyond our own, personal minds and say there is another immaterial person whose "being" these morals came from. These morals exist. Granted they don't have to be written in a book or scroll, but they exist in this world and they are beyond each of our own, individual minds. A Chinese person, Jew, atheist, and Christian can meet and say "yes, love your neighbor."

Given only atheism, there are no moral facts outside of your own mind. A Nazi, NAMBLA pedophile, Christian, and atheist are either good or bad depending on your perspective.

[Adamoriens]

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.

How? How can there be moral facts in a material world? Morals are immaterial concepts. If an atheist wants to be good, he must first determine what "good" is. To a Nazi it is exterminating Jews. To a NAMBLA member it is molesting a boy. Christianity allows us to go beyond our own, personal minds and say there is another immaterial person whose "being" these morals came from. These morals exist. Granted they don't have to be written in a book or scroll, but they exist in this world and they are beyond each of our own, individual minds. A Chinese person, Jew, atheist, and Christian can meet and say "yes, love your neighbor."

Given only atheism, there are no moral facts outside of your own mind. A Nazi, NAMBLA pedophile, Christian, and atheist are either good or bad depending on your perspective.

Atheists are not committed to there being only material things, only that there aren't supernatural persons like God etc. My understanding is that ethical naturalists tend to believe that moral facts reduce to non-moral facts somehow, just as velocity is a real property of objects but not a material one.

[Autodidact]

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.

I've met several right on this forum. They have to; their Bible says so. They will usually explain that it's a different kind of slavery, much nicer, almost like employment, and a kindness actually for the poor slave who would otherwise have starved to death, and needs the protection of his owner, but yes, they defend it. What choice to they have? Their god authorizes it.

[McCulloch]

How can there be moral facts in a material world? Morals are immaterial concepts.

Love, justice, fairness, beauty, kindness, good taste, courage, and their opposites are all abstract concepts. According to the common Christian stereotype, we atheist materialists, must somehow exist without any of these attributes. I am an atheist and a materialist, but I believe that these abstract concepts do have meaning in this world.

If an atheist wants to be good, he must first determine what "good" is.

I agree. What is good is an important philosophical topic. However, this statement is not general enough. I say, "if a person wants to be good, he or she must first determine what good is." For the theist, the concept of good ties in with the concept of god, one of two ways. If god defines what is good, then all a person needs to do to determine what is good is to find out what god says about it. Ethics and morality are merely a subset of hermeneutics. However, is god is defined as the ultimate good, then good has been defined independent of god and should be accessible to an atheist. Even so, the Word of God, should be an infallible guide to the believer as to what is or is not good.

For an atheist, ethics requires deeper thought. We have no unquestioned source. We must think these matters through. They have not been handed down to us from on high, we have to work them out for ourselves. Can an atheist consistently claim that genocide or pedophilia are morally wrong? Yes, we do and we can! Morality is about going beyond our own personal interests, not to some imagined immaterial being, but to the whole of humanity. Humanity is not better off by genocide. Humanity is not served by pedophilia. They are wrong. Not because the self-appointed spokesmen for some distant immaterial Father God says so, but because it is demonstrably harmful to human well-being.

[cholland]

How can there be moral facts in a material world? Morals are immaterial concepts.

Love, justice, fairness, beauty, kindness, good taste, courage, and their opposites are all abstract concepts. According to the common Christian stereotype, we atheist materialists, must somehow exist without any of these attributes. I am an atheist and a materialist, but I believe that these abstract concepts do have meaning in this world.

You just reiterated what I said, except for the stereotype. I've said now 4 times that atheists can exist with morals, but my question is how? A common atheist stereotype is anything immaterial must be seen with skepticism since it cannot be seen, touched or tasted. So a materialist who says "genocide is wrong" across all of humanity is inconsistent. Morals are immaterial and cannot exist outside of one person's head.

If an atheist wants to be good, he must first determine what "good" is.

I agree. What is good is an important philosophical topic. However, this statement is not general enough. I say, "if a person wants to be good, he or she must first determine what good is." For the theist, the concept of good ties in with the concept of god, one of two ways. If god defines what is good, then all a person needs to do to determine what is good is to find out what god says about it. Ethics and morality are merely a subset of hermeneutics. However, is god is defined as the ultimate good, then good has been defined independent of god and should be accessible to an atheist. Even so, the Word of God, should be an infallible guide to the believer as to what is or is not good.

For an atheist, ethics requires deeper thought. We have no unquestioned source. We must think these matters through. They have not been handed down to us from on high, we have to work them out for ourselves. Can an atheist consistently claim that genocide or pedophilia are morally wrong? Yes, we do and we can! Morality is about going beyond our own personal interests, not to some imagined immaterial being, but to the whole of humanity. Humanity is not better off by genocide. Humanity is not served by pedophilia. They are wrong. Not because the self-appointed spokesmen for some distant immaterial Father God says so, but because it is demonstrably harmful to human well-being.

Yes, I have heard of this consequentialism. The problem with utilitarians - "good is the greatest happiness for the greatest number" - or hedonists - "good is our own individual happiness and well being" is it assumes that their particular end is good in itself. They begin with faith in their own particular immaterial concept as good and go from there. Yet then turn around and attack Christians for doing the same.

[Artie]

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.

And Gods morality validates genocide as in the Flood. I don't think drowning practically every human and every animal on the planet can be seen as moral under any circumstance. Would such morality be any better?

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?"

This concept existed long before Christianity because people who loved their neighbor were likely to be loved in return and therefore had a better chance of survival. So they were selected for by evolution. it is "right" because people who live by this concept are more likely to survive than those who don't.

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?

Of course. Just read this link: http://www.youramazingbrain.org/lovesex/sciencelove.htm