I am seriously questioning my atheism

[Haven]

Disclaimer: This post may be out of place on the Christianity and Apologetics forum (even though it does have some relation to Christianity), if it is, I apologize and ask that it be moved to a more appropriate place on the forum. However, I do intend this thread to be a discussion, if not a debate, so I felt this was the best place for it.

As many of you know, I am an ex-evangelical Christian and a current atheist. By "atheist," I mean I lack belief in god(s) of any kind, although I do not assert that there are definitely no gods. Since departing from Christianity, everything has made so much more sense: an eternal Universe (defined as the totality of natural existence) explained existence, evolution explained the diversity of life on earth, the absence of god(s) explained the problems of evil, inconsistent revelation, and so on.

However, there is one thing that I have been unable to account for under atheism: morality. Atheists almost invariably state that moral values and duties are not objective facts, but are simply subjective statements of preference and have no ontological value. That is, of course, until we are presented with cases of true evil, such as the Holocaust, the atrocities of Pol Pot, or the horrible psychopathic serial killings of individuals like Jeffery Dahmer. Then we as atheists tacitly appeal to objective moral values and duties, saying that individuals who commit should be severely punished (even executed) for doing "evil," saying that they "knew right from wrong." But if right and wrong are simply statements of subjective opinion, then how can we say that others knew "right from wrong" and are accountable for their actions? If relativism is true, they simply had differing opinions from the majority of human beings. However, it seems obvious to me (and to the vast majority of others, theist and atheist alike) that this is absurd -- the monsters who carried out the aforementioned acts really, objectively did evil.

Given this, the only reasonable conclusion is that moral facts and imperatives exist.

However, atheism appears to offer no framework for moral facts. Because of this, a few weeks ago, I started up a discussion on Wielenbergian moral realism, which states that objective moral values are simply "brute facts" that exist without any explanation. However, others rightly pointed out that the existence of "brute facts" is ontologically problematic and that the best explanation (on atheism) is that morality is simply subjective. Additionally, even if atheistic moral facts existed, the Humeian problem of deriving an "ought" from an "is" would preclude them from acting as moral imperatives; commands which human beings are obligated to follow.

In light of these airtight logical objections to atheistic moral realism, I was forced to abandon my position on moral facts and tentatively adopt moral relativism. However, relativism still seems problematic. After all, if morality is subjective, no one person can accuse another of failing to recognize the difference between "right and wrong," however, it is obvious to me (and, I would suspect, to other atheists as well) that right or wrong really objectively (not subjectively) exist.

The only rational conclusion I can seem to come up with is that there is a (are) transcendent moral lawgiver(s) who both grounds moral facts and issues binding moral commands on all humanity; i.e., God(s). This echoes evangelical Christian philosopher William Lane Craig's moral argument, which syllogism reads:

Premise 1: If God does not exist, then objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Premise 2: Objective moral values and duties do exist
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists

Premises 1 and 2 seem bulletproof -- (1) was demonstrated earlier in this post, leaving (2) as the only premise to attack. However, (2) seems to be as obvious as a hand in front of my face. The conclusion necessarily follows from (1) and (2), so is there any rational reason for me to reject the conclusion of the argument?

Remember, I am no believer of any kind. I am a staunch, educated, informed atheist, and I am well aware of the philosophical arguments against God(s), such as the problem of evil, the dysteleological argument, the problem of omniscience, etc. I'm also well aware of the plentiful empirical evidence against the existence of God(s), for instance, evolution, mind-body physicalism, etc. These are the reasons I reconverted from Christianity in the first place. However, I don't see way around this problem other than to accept either that our apparently obvious sense of moral facts is somehow mistaken, or that (a) theistic being(s) exist.

Debate question: Are my issues with atheism legitimate? Can atheism provide a coherent moral framework other than nihilism, relativism, or subjectivism? Do these problems really present evidence for theism? Is William Lane Craig right? Is this a real problem for atheism, or are my (our) emotions simply overriding my (our) rationality?

Feel free to present evidence for or against atheism, Christianity, or any religious or nonreligious perspective in this thread.

[Artie]

This idea is satisfactorily explained by idea that we are made in God's image and in fact have a intrensic moral compass. (which can be ignored or followed)

Well, let us all then follow God's moral compass that shows us we are supposed to kill adulterers, homosexuals and people working on Sunday. How wonderful it is to have such a moral compass.

"And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. -- Leviticus 20:10"

"Six days shall work bedone, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. -- Exodus 35:2"

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Leviticus 20:13"

[Bust Nak]

response to Answer 4: Yes but whatever constitutes a team is still going to kill all competing groups if possible. Why would it be beneficial in evolution to retain team members that can't contribute little if anything.

I can think of many reasons for why a team will not wipe out competing teams. I would guess the most important one being that in the process of wiping out a weaker team, you weaken your own team and also make you an obvious target for others.

Either way, for us human, instead of wiping out other teams, it seems those who focused on making their team larger became more successful than those who focused on slaying other teams.

I fail to see why this would stop racism as it obviously exists.
Favored races is just another way of saying the stronger group which would then eliminate the weaker competitors. Your statement just attempted to redefine group but it doesn't change the principal.

It won't stop racism, I didn't bring up human as a single race to stop racism. Just to clarify what Darwin meant by race. Again, being a big bully can be an effective way of survival. It's just not one that we've evolved.

One of your cohorts earlier got so upset that I even suggested that evolution comes with some very distasteful implications that he/she refused to discuss it.

I don't know which conversation you are referring to exactly, but I think one could rightly get upset if you insist that according to evolution we should be big bullies. We don't have to be, there are many other tactics for survival.

[Kismet]

This idea is satisfactorily explained by idea that we are made in God's image and in fact have a intrensic moral compass. (which can be ignored or followed) Or you can attempt by doing intellectual speculation that atheistic materialism (being amoral) produced morals. An argument against evolution benefitting from morals might be that the most desperate (for survival in most cases or profit) individuals resort to immoral behavior to meet their needs.

I don't see why it needs to be "explained" by any appeal to the supernatural. That is, human "morality." Everyone has a self-image, whether "good" or "bad" and that self-image determines practical actions. One can even be a mafioso, and adhere to at least a kind of morality or "ethic" as one famous book points out... Even in the animal kingdom we see aspects of territoriality and contests of pride, head banging and so on. This isn't peculiar to humans at all.

You do raise a good point though about the validity of these "morals." If they are simply contingent on having a given practical identity, as a result of an adventitious process, then why in the first place own up to it? If you are already fully identified with it the question should not come up. But the very fact that it does come up shows that, some of us, at least, have dissociated from our human identity and gotten a "meta" point of view. As someone totally disaffected by the demands of morality, it is reasonable to think instead of accepting a pair of slacks he would simply shun them, having gone over to the edge in terms of his identity.

Furthermore, wouldn't the acceptance of a moral identity be an instance of psychological rape? After all, none of us chose to be inducted into this human identity or human way of life. Morality seems undercut again, unless one might find another footing, other than the human...

[1robin]

This idea is satisfactorily explained by idea that we are made in God's image and in fact have a intrensic moral compass. (which can be ignored or followed)

Well, let us all then follow God's moral compass that shows us we are supposed to kill adulterers, homosexuals and people working on Sunday. How wonderful it is to have such a moral compass.

"And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. -- Leviticus 20:10"

"Six days shall work bedone, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. -- Exodus 35:2"

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Leviticus 20:13"

All these laws applied to a distinct society and time frame. The social approval of a system is not what determines it's validity. No one today is required to follow these rules. You also selectively quoted parts of the bible that don't apply today and ignored that the message of Jesus christ is:
He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine.
No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes.
He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.
– James Stewart, Scottish theologian

"[The character of Jesus] has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."

THIS IS FAR MORE RELEVANT AND APPLICABLE THAN WHAT YOU SITED.

[1robin]

response to Answer 4: Yes but whatever constitutes a team is still going to kill all competing groups if possible. Why would it be beneficial in evolution to retain team members that can't contribute little if anything.

I can think of many reasons for why a team will not wipe out competing teams. I would guess the most important one being that in the process of wiping out a weaker team, you weaken your own team and also make you an obvious target for others.

Either way, for us human, instead of wiping out other teams, it seems those who focused on making their team larger became more successful than those who focused on slaying other teams.

I fail to see why this would stop racism as it obviously exists.
Favored races is just another way of saying the stronger group which would then eliminate the weaker competitors. Your statement just attempted to redefine group but it doesn't change the principal.

It won't stop racism, I didn't bring up human as a single race to stop racism. Just to clarify what Darwin meant by race. Again, being a big bully can be an effective way of survival. It's just not one that we've evolved.

One of your cohorts earlier got so upset that I even suggested that evolution comes with some very distasteful implications that he/she refused to discuss it.

I don't know which conversation you are referring to exactly, but I think one could rightly get upset if you insist that according to evolution we should be big bullies. We don't have to be, there are many other tactics for survival.

I am not suggesting anyone act like bullies. I am saying that evolution theory results inescapably to the conclusion that the stronger group imposes it's will on the weaker. I believe the bible which teaches the opposite. How can any theory which can't justify the sanctity of life be benificial to individuals. Hitler and Stalin made comments suggesting that evolution justified what they did, even though they were motivated by other factors because if atheistic evolution is true then their actions are reasonable. This is still true even if you could prove not suspect that some groups behave in a more benevolent manner.

In The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt wrote of Darwin and Marx, "If one considers, not the actual achievement, but the basic philosophies of both men, it turns out that ultimately the movement of history and the movement of nature are one and the same."

This helps clarify why, under Hitler's and Stalin's regimes, what Arendt called "total terror" was the predictable result. The only morality was that of the law of history's movement, whether seen in biological or economic terms. Either way, if you opposed it, you were an enemy and qualified for destruction.

[1robin]

This idea is satisfactorily explained by idea that we are made in God's image and in fact have a intrensic moral compass. (which can be ignored or followed) Or you can attempt by doing intellectual speculation that atheistic materialism (being amoral) produced morals. An argument against evolution benefitting from morals might be that the most desperate (for survival in most cases or profit) individuals resort to immoral behavior to meet their needs.

I don't see why it needs to be "explained" by any appeal to the supernatural. That is, human "morality." Everyone has a self-image, whether "good" or "bad" and that self-image determines practical actions. One can even be a mafioso, and adhere to at least a kind of morality or "ethic" as one famous book points out... Even in the animal kingdom we see aspects of territoriality and contests of pride, head banging and so on. This isn't peculiar to humans at all.

You do raise a good point though about the validity of these "morals." If they are simply contingent on having a given practical identity, as a result of an adventitious process, then why in the first place own up to it? If you are already fully identified with it the question should not come up. But the very fact that it does come up shows that, some of us, at least, have dissociated from our human identity and gotten a "meta" point of view. As someone totally disaffected by the demands of morality, it is reasonable to think instead of accepting a pair of slacks he would simply shun them, having gone over to the edge in terms of his identity.

Furthermore, wouldn't the acceptance of a moral identity be an instance of psychological rape? After all, none of us chose to be inducted into this human identity or human way of life. Morality seems undercut again, unless one might find another footing, other than the human...

But there is no reason it isn't explained by a (supernatural as you put it) explanation. The rest of the above sounds so meta-wierd that I don't know what you are saying and so I can't agree or dissagree. The last point is incorrect because you can choose to obey at your own peril that inherent morality or not. That's like saying physics is somehow unjust because if you bang your head against the wall physics unjustly may cause injury (as you didn't choose it either, you simply found it in operation and decided to ignore it or take the precautions that it suggests.)

[Goat]

Look at it this way: instead of searching for an answer to why people should be moral, look at how people really are moral in real life? It's because they have a moral identity to begin with.

If you were to have a dream where you went to work in your underwear, you would feel embarrassed. Someone would then give you a pair of slacks and you would take them eagerly. Why? Because you are human and you own up to that identity - and act like humans act.

What if you went to work and you realized you were missing not just your underwear, but also your skin, muscles and everything but your skeleton? Would you want to be human in such a case?

Even if we are "free" our being moral depends on certain thought-adjuncts we identify with. If we don't have such, then it is useless to tell someone to be moral. They can only keep on rebelling, because that is their fully free nature.

This idea is satisfactorily explained by idea that we are made in God's image and in fact have a intrensic moral compass. (which can be ignored or followed) Or you can attempt by doing intellectual speculation that atheistic materialism (being amoral) produced morals. An argument against evolution benefitting from morals might be that the most desperate (for survival in most cases or profit) individuals resort to immoral behavior to meet their needs.

Well, for me to accept we 'Are made in God's image', you have to show me that God exists.. Can you provide tangible and objective evidence for this?

[Artie]

This idea is satisfactorily explained by idea that we are made in God's image and in fact have a intrensic moral compass. (which can be ignored or followed)

Well, let us all then follow God's moral compass that shows us we are supposed to kill adulterers, homosexuals and people working on Sunday. How wonderful it is to have such a moral compass.

"And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. -- Leviticus 20:10"

"Six days shall work bedone, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. -- Exodus 35:2"

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Leviticus 20:13"

All these laws applied to a distinct society and time frame.

Are you actually saying that once upon a time it was moral to kill adulterers, gays and people working on Sunday?

[Artie]

I am not suggesting anyone act like bullies. I am saying that evolution theory results inescapably to the conclusion that the stronger group imposes it's will on the weaker. I believe the bible which teaches the opposite.

So I take it you haven't actually read the Old Testament then, with the story of how the stronger group because they have God on their side imposes it's will on the weaker even slaying women and children on their leader's command? Is this behavior a result of evolution?

How can any theory which can't justify the sanctity of life be benificial to individuals.

I can assure you that adulterers, gays and people working on a Sunday find the theory of evolution much more palatable than one where they should be executed.

[Bust Nak]

I am not suggesting anyone act like bullies. I am saying that evolution theory results inescapably to the conclusion that the stronger group imposes it's will on the weaker.

I know you are not suggesting anyone act like bullies, but you are suggesting that evolution say we should act like bullies.

I believe the bible which teaches the opposite. How can any theory which can't justify the sanctity of life be benificial to individuals. Hitler and Stalin made comments suggesting that evolution justified what they did, even though they were motivated by other factors because if atheistic evolution is true then their actions are reasonable. This is still true even if you could prove not suspect that some groups behave in a more benevolent manner.

That can be said for all scientific theories. Non of them can't justify the sanctity of life. That's a ethics issue. The theory of evolution benefit individuals in many practical ways, but even if you ignore all of its real life uses, the mere fact that it increases human knowledge is a benefit.

In The Origins of Totalitarianism, Hannah Arendt wrote of Darwin and Marx, "If one considers, not the actual achievement, but the basic philosophies of both men, it turns out that ultimately the movement of history and the movement of nature are one and the same."

This helps clarify why, under Hitler's and Stalin's regimes, what Arendt called "total terror" was the predictable result. The only morality was that of the law of history's movement, whether seen in biological or economic terms. Either way, if you opposed it, you were an enemy and qualified for destruction.

Social Darwinism isn't the product of Darwin though. Totalitarianism and racial purity both existed long before evolution.