Are Atheists Potentially Morally Superior to Theists?

[Danmark]

The proposition is that atheists have the potential of being morally superior to theists because to the extent the atheist does good works, he does them because he wants to, because she thinks it right. Whereas the theist acts out of religious necessity or compulsion; the threat of hell or deprivation of heaven.

[EduChris]

The proposition is that atheists have the potential of being morally superior to theists because to the extent the atheist does good works, he does them because he wants to, because she thinks it right...

You seem to assume that the non-theist actually has some sort of subjective, conscious "free will" (or volition or agency). I'm not sure the non-theist's worldview provides adequate justification for such a concept.

You also seem to assume there is some actual, objective standard of what is "right" and what is "wrong." Again, I'm not sure the non-theist's worldview provides adequate justification for such a concept.

Given non-theism, it seems to me that the most we can say is:

1) as materialist automatons, we are compelled to act as we do in every situation
2) as materialist automatons, our compulsions derive either from random chance or impersonal necessity
3) as materialist automatons, we have an autonomous response of justifying our actions according to some ultimately meaningless standard

...Whereas the theist acts out of religious necessity or compulsion; the threat of hell or deprivation of heaven.

To me, it seems that theism alone provides adequate justification for genuine subjective agency, the ability to consciously choose the course of our self-actualizing lives. Theism alone provides justification for the notion that our actions can be self-initiated in some way other than mere random chance or compulsive necessity. And theism alone provides the basis for an objective moral standard--i.e., genuine, mutual, other-regarding relationships of love.

[Danmark]

The proposition is that atheists have the potential of being morally superior to theists because to the extent the atheist does good works, he does them because he wants to, because she thinks it right...

You seem to assume that the non-theist actually has some sort of subjective, conscious "free will" (or volition or agency). I'm not sure the non-theist's worldview provides adequate justification for such a concept.

You also seem to assume there is some actual, objective standard of what is "right" and what is "wrong." Again, I'm not sure the non-theist's worldview provides adequate justification for such a concept.

Given non-theism, it seems to me that the most we can say is:

1) as materialist automatons, we are compelled to act as we do in every situation
2) as materialist automatons, our compulsions derive either from random chance or impersonal necessity
3) as materialist automatons, we have an autonomous response of justifying our actions according to some ultimately meaningless standard

...Whereas the theist acts out of religious necessity or compulsion; the threat of hell or deprivation of heaven.

To me, it seems that theism alone provides adequate justification for genuine subjective agency, the ability to consciously choose the course of our self-actualizing lives. Theism alone provides justification for the notion that our actions can be self-initiated in some way other than mere random chance or compulsive necessity. And theism alone provides the basis for an objective moral standard--i.e., genuine, mutual, other-regarding relationships of love.

Thanks Chris, I'm glad to see you weigh in on this.
First, a couple of things, I'd like your opinion of the thought experiment I drafted wherein the hypothetical creator god was either amoral, or simply a 'might makes right' god who let his creatures figure things out on their own.

I also made an observation that I thought was counter to my own OP proposition. The gist of it was that for whatever reason one begins acting altruistically, whether theist or not, the behavior is self perpetuating as the actor either continues out of habit, or because he is rewarded in ways he did not anticipate, or both.

I don't understand making a distinction between theists and non re: where they are on the free will/determinist continuum. I don't see any reason why a non theist is any less likely to '...consciously choose the course of our self-actualizing lives.'

I don't believe random chance operates with any more force depending on whether or not one is a theist. In either case the actor has the illusion of choice, if not in fact a choice. As I hope I demonstrated in the thought experiment, it does not take much effort to see how natural selection favored the groups and individuals who became team players, thus moral codes could have evolved without any assistance from a hypothetical supernatural being.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 139:

I would call this rank hypocrisy.

Call it what you will, my concern is how the observer considers it all.

I asked you for genetic evidence, indeed pointed to the human genome project, and asked for a explanation of how the genetic evidence that we check, which indicates little support to your theory ... well, why is your theory viable at all then? Where we expect to find evidence ... its not there.

As I said, I feel no need to educate you here.

You said there was "no moral gene".

I offered a rebuttal, with supporting documentation, and feel confident the observer's gonna think I'm closer to it than you.

Your response is the highlight of arrogance, indicating that you need to educate me about how genetics work?

I'm far too handsome to feel the need to be arrogant.

I presented my rebuttal to your claim, and can't help it upset you that I did.

Once again, why is it atheists, who are educated by in large in the same schools we are, think that they are priviledged to insights that others are not based solely on their faith choice?

I have an eighth grade education, I find it higly unlikely you and I ever set foot in the same school.

Your "privileged to insights" here is hilarious, considering all the god talk I've seen you present.

I got straight A's in every science class I ever took Joey.

So you say, while offering nothing by which we can confirm you ever set foot in the first'n.

I understand the science, and I understand that arrogance on display in thinking that just because someone has faith ... they automatically don't understand science.

Naw, I'm saying your posts tell it, not your thinking there's a god involved.

What you wrote was little more than an insult.

I can't help about the insult deal, but do feel confident the observer'll see through our exchange that your claim of there being "no moral gene" is sufficiently countered by none other'n the National Academy of Sciences.

Please try again.

I propose if you really did get so many "straight A's in science" as you state or imply, I wouldn'ta hadda done it for the first time.

[stubbornone]

From Post 139:

I would call this rank hypocrisy.

Call it what you will, my concern is how the observer considers it all.

I asked you for genetic evidence, indeed pointed to the human genome project, and asked for a explanation of how the genetic evidence that we check, which indicates little support to your theory ... well, why is your theory viable at all then? Where we expect to find evidence ... its not there.

As I said, I feel no need to educate you here.

You said there was "no moral gene".

I offered a rebuttal, with supporting documentation, and feel confident the observer's gonna think I'm closer to it than you.

Your response is the highlight of arrogance, indicating that you need to educate me about how genetics work?

I'm far too handsome to feel the need to be arrogant.

I presented my rebuttal to your claim, and can't help it upset you that I did.

Once again, why is it atheists, who are educated by in large in the same schools we are, think that they are priviledged to insights that others are not based solely on their faith choice?

I have an eighth grade education, I find it higly unlikely you and I ever set foot in the same school.

Your "privileged to insights" here is hilarious, considering all the god talk I've seen you present.

I got straight A's in every science class I ever took Joey.

So you say, while offering nothing by which we can confirm you ever set foot in the first'n.

I understand the science, and I understand that arrogance on display in thinking that just because someone has faith ... they automatically don't understand science.

Naw, I'm saying your posts tell it, not your thinking there's a god involved.

What you wrote was little more than an insult.

I can't help about the insult deal, but do feel confident the observer'll see through our exchange that your claim of there being "no moral gene" is sufficiently countered by none other'n the National Academy of Sciences.

Please try again.

I propose if you really did get so many "straight A's in science" as you state or imply, I wouldn'ta hadda done it for the first time.

Well, there you have it, the demonstration of the mastery of genetic evidence by providing none whatsoever.

As several of your atheism pals have reminded me - you need to back up claims ... not make increasingly screeching personal attacks.

Post reported.

In the mean time, THERE IS NO MORAL GENE.

That is indeed a problem for those claiming a genetic and evolutionary origin for morality.

The fact that you put quotation marks around the phrase 'moral gene' while claiming that others don;t understand how genes work is highly ... insulting, and barely ignores even the most simple rules of logic.

Indeed, things that HAVE A GENETIC OR EVOLUTIONARY base HAVE genetic origins that are demonstrable, from the simple, cystic fibrosis, a single genetic marker which is testable, to the complex, like our vulnerability to .. alcoholism.

What we do not have is any sort of genetic marker that indicates that we are more or less likely to be moral people. Indeed, if we DID have that, we would be able to screen for it wouldn't we Joey?

We do have sociopaths, but even sociopaths, with a clear genetic predisposition to ignore morality, can CHOOSE to be moral - belying you thesis entirely.

But heh, you claimed arrogantly that I don't know what I am talking about whereas you .. with such a cogent argument OBVIOUSLY understand the science?

[Clownboat]

However, now we have the opportunity to get rid of religion once and for all as more and more people are capable of using logic, reason and common sense instead of belief.

Wow....Very deep words. And of course this will better your life and countless of people....Knowing that ....This is all there is?

Because what the logic in being alive and learning.....If you're just going to die?

Many people are actually happy just being alive and learning. Having a finite time here on this wonderful planet makes life all the more precious. It is a shame to have all that knowledge just disappear, but then maybe on my deathbed I'll look on the bright side and be content about all the time I spent day dreaming instead of learning to conjugate verbs.

Very sad....I thank God everyday for making himself known to me. I know when I die, what I experienced will be used for my next lesson in life.

How someone can live believing that this is all there is....You really have to be brainwashing yourself.

Oh the irony and the projection!

First you admit to a daily brain washing technique, then you project your own brainwashing and claim others must be doing it.

[stubbornone]

The proposition is that atheists have the potential of being morally superior to theists because to the extent the atheist does good works, he does them because he wants to, because she thinks it right...

You seem to assume that the non-theist actually has some sort of subjective, conscious "free will" (or volition or agency). I'm not sure the non-theist's worldview provides adequate justification for such a concept.

You also seem to assume there is some actual, objective standard of what is "right" and what is "wrong." Again, I'm not sure the non-theist's worldview provides adequate justification for such a concept.

Given non-theism, it seems to me that the most we can say is:

1) as materialist automatons, we are compelled to act as we do in every situation
2) as materialist automatons, our compulsions derive either from random chance or impersonal necessity
3) as materialist automatons, we have an autonomous response of justifying our actions according to some ultimately meaningless standard

...Whereas the theist acts out of religious necessity or compulsion; the threat of hell or deprivation of heaven.

To me, it seems that theism alone provides adequate justification for genuine subjective agency, the ability to consciously choose the course of our self-actualizing lives. Theism alone provides justification for the notion that our actions can be self-initiated in some way other than mere random chance or compulsive necessity. And theism alone provides the basis for an objective moral standard--i.e., genuine, mutual, other-regarding relationships of love.

Thanks Chris, I'm glad to see you weigh in on this.
First, a couple of things, I'd like your opinion of the thought experiment I drafted wherein the hypothetical creator god was either amoral, or simply a 'might makes right' god who let his creatures figure things out on their own.

.

Well Danmark, how about you share your own views on that subject, as you introduced the subject, and your thoughts might be relevant to the discussion rather than asking others to do for you.

[Danmark]

From Post 139:

I would call this rank hypocrisy.

Call it what you will, my concern is how the observer considers it all.

I asked you for genetic evidence, indeed pointed to the human genome project, and asked for a explanation of how the genetic evidence that we check, which indicates little support to your theory ... well, why is your theory viable at all then? Where we expect to find evidence ... its not there.

As I said, I feel no need to educate you here.

You said there was "no moral gene".

I offered a rebuttal, with supporting documentation, and feel confident the observer's gonna think I'm closer to it than you....

I missed that the first time you posted it Joey. I don't know if you mentioned the 'Scientific American' article in their 10/05/2011 issue:
Morality is often considered to be the domain of philosophers, not biologists. But scientists have often wondered what role our genomes play in directing our moral compass. Today, a paper was published in the open access journal PLoS ONE which found moral decision making was influenced by different forms of a single gene.
logs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/2011/10/05/a-moral-gene/

A few weeks ago there was a '60 minutes' segment that surprised the researches at what a young age, way before speech, babies seem to make moral judgments. I didn't look for a cite or site, but someone here may be familiar with it.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 143:

Well, there you have it, the demonstration of the mastery of genetic evidence by providing none whatsoever.

Let's look at what got us here, from my Post 131...

I isolated the statement I sought to get at...

...
There is no moral gene. The Human Genome has been mapped.
...

And I responded...

That depends on what you mean by "moral gene". Does the gene need to act in a moral fashion, or does the gene's expression result in a more moral individual. Upon who's moral authority are we to determine such things? I contend that as we look at humans, a clearly social species (with expected outliers), we should expect being prosocial to be, if I may, the "highest form of morality". With that in mind...

I explained what at least I considered to be a "moral gene", and offered support that there was indeed such a "moral gene", by referencing the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

To which stubbornone responded...

When YOU are claiming that there is a genetic basis for morality, YOU can explain how it works.

The human genome has been mapped, and provides no clues as to how your thesis might operate.
...

It is my contention that by defining what I consider to be a "moral gene", and then by linking to folks who are saying, "and there it sits", my work is done.

I should not be beholden to explain "I contend there is one, and here it sits" is sufficient for me to say "I contend there is one, and here it sits".

Stubbornone offers nothing by way of refutation, other than for me to explain what the stuff is I've presented to him.

I am not a teacher, I'm not qualified to teach in any reputable school on this planet.

I can't help folks don't understand what I say, or what the sources I present in support say.

When there's an actual challenge to a given claim I or my sources present, I'll be glad to offer such, or I'll plow it under like I had to do the last old lady that left me, and I miss her, but I ain't having no old lady of mine doing her own thinking.

As I said, I feel confident the observer will think I'm closer to supporting my contention when I say, "I consider a 'moral gene' to be 'this', and don't it beat all, the folks at the National Academy of Science seem to agree".

Post reported.

I don't blame ya for it, as I think you just simply don't understand the data being presented to you.

In the mean time, THERE IS NO MORAL GENE.

I remind the observer that by bigulating a claim, that claim must for now, and for all time to come, be considered accurate.

That is indeed a problem for those claiming a genetic and evolutionary origin for morality.

While I contend it's a bigger problem for those who don't understand the data.

The fact that you put quotation marks around the phrase 'moral gene' while claiming that others don;t understand how genes work is highly ... insulting, and barely ignores even the most simple rules of logic.

I place the double quotaters 'cause double quotaters mean someone actually said it, or I use single quotaters to indicate some sorta emphasis or uncommon definition. As you only speak of "quotation marks", I can't tell which applies here, but feel confident you can sort it out without it getting you too much more upset than ya already are.

Indeed, things that HAVE A GENETIC OR EVOLUTIONARY base HAVE genetic origins that are demonstrable, from the simple, cystic fibrosis, a single genetic marker which is testable, to the complex, like our vulnerability to .. alcoholism.

As I contend the National Academy of Sciences has done.

What we do not have is any sort of genetic marker that indicates that we are more or less likely to be moral people. Indeed, if we DID have that, we would be able to screen for it wouldn't we Joey?

Not necessarily, considering some folks'll just say such as, "Your data offends me, and I'm offended you'd have the temerity to present it".

Or, other factors such as nurture or even other genetic conditions come into play.

We do have sociopaths, but even sociopaths, with a clear genetic predisposition to ignore morality, can CHOOSE to be moral - belying you thesis entirely.

A sociopath, by definition, ain't one until he presents with certain (here undefined) immoral behaviors. Until then he's a "potential sociopath".

With 'pologies for the quotaters there, for those such use gets 'em upset.

But heh, you claimed arrogantly that I don't know what I am talking about whereas you .. with such a cogent argument OBVIOUSLY understand the science?

Actually, I said that I'm far too handsome to waste my time on arrogance.

What I will contend, and I present our exchange as evidence, that you declaring there are - forgive me here - "no moral genes", even if you bigulate it when you do, is no reason for us to conclude you've got it right.

[Clownboat]

Your conclusion is unwarranted. More importantly your attitude toward the natural cycle of life and death surprises me. How sad for you.

Attitude is everything.

Don't you agree that this can be a wonderful world and a world of wonder?
It's a joy just to be alive, to learn, to explore, to travel. The more nature is revealed, the more wondrous it seems. There's so much to do and yet it's great to just relax.

If you close your mind to the suffering that exist.....Everything can be great.
And that because you have it good.

I'm blessed to live where I do, with easy access to rivers, forests and mountains. As much fun as it is to go camping with friends, sometimes I like to go out alone, to pitch a tent beside a clear mountain stream and enjoy a good book. Other times I find myself just sitting and drinking in the beauty, enjoying it without words.

This goes to " Drink, enjoy, be merry because this is all there is"

It's as if the beauty of nature radiates palpable goodness, nourishing the mind as if by magic. And sometimes it is good to just lie down . . . to sleep, letting consciousness quietly slip away. Someday it will slip away and the comforting rest will be dreamless.

Yet...again...You live in a dream world where everything is roses then you die.
If a person can't be outside enjoying the lilies of the fields like you....Well tough, better luck next time! Wait there is no next time so the the homeless must just enjoy his limbs being frozen. While you grasp in your lottery.

Why so eager to rain on parades? It's as if you aren't happy unless others are miserable. I've worked with people who were quadriplegics. I've seen some who were miserable, others who triumphed over their circumstances by sheer attitude.

I am indeed privileged. I have been lucky to have friends and family who are delightful. What father would not be proud to boast he has a daughter who graduated from Harvard Law school? I have work I enjoy that affords me the opportunity to visit those in pain and in jails. Some of them are better off in jail than what awaits them outside, so I am hardly unaware of pain and suffering. Helping them is tonic for me. I've worked since I was 4 years old and not always at tasks I enjoyed. Now I get to enjoy some of the fruits of that labor.

Everyone has pain and suffering in this world, it is how they meet those challenges that counts. These bodies of ours have not finished evolving from walking on all fours, so many of us suffer sciatica and other lower back issues, a fact I understand better than I would have liked. But I am grateful for what I have, rather than I consider what I lack.

You really have a problem with any of that?

What the hell does this post have to the with the OP?

Seems more like simple contrarianism, wherein anything Tex says ... Dan finds some random opposite to preach about.

Thesis, support it ... if you can.

You guys crack me up. Go off topic (allegedly) then complain when your question is answered. Even a post on being happy and enjoying life gets cranky rise out of the doom and gloom crowd. Not a particularly good recommendation for your belief system.

And YOU, complaining about 'contrarianism' and 'preaching'. More projection.

I have to congratulate you tho', you managed to get thru a post without saying 'silliness' or 'victim.' Well done.

... Tho' I have to knock off a point for cursing.

Yes, when starting thread alleging that atheism magically makes you superior, its best not to make a case, but to generally just insult other people's faith through simple cruelty and misdirection.

Atheism ... definitely morally superior.

Please attempt to make a case. Its a debate forum, not a crap on Christians forum.

Thanks for providing evidence that atheists may have better reading comprehension. Or at the very least, yours is lacking.

My evidence is in bold above. Readers you decide if the OP says "atheists are magically superior". If it doesn't, you next can decide if stubb's reading comprehension is truly as poor as he indicates.

Stubb, please note, this is directed at your reading comprehension and not an attack against the reading comprehension of all Christians. Just thought I would address that before you try to straw man what I say next.

[EduChris]

...I'd like your opinion of the thought experiment I drafted wherein the hypothetical creator god was either amoral, or simply a 'might makes right' god who let his creatures figure things out on their own...

To me, the god-concept(s) you propose are incoherent. God cannot be amoral or indifferent, for this would necessitate some arbitrary limitation within "God" (with respect to God's causal efficacy or God's ability to handle and process information). And if arbitrary limitations apply to "God," then such "God" cannot be the source and fount of all possibility (i.e., if the limitations were arbitrary, then there would need to be possibilities other than those which find their source in God).

In order for God to be a God who creates, God must be intrinsically, inherently, eternally dynamic and relational and other regarding--and for this to be the case, creative freedom must coinhere with other-regarding love. An amoral or indifferent "God" is a contradiction in terms.

...I don't understand making a distinction between theists and non re: where they are on the free will/determinist continuum. I don't see any reason why a non theist is any less likely to '...consciously choose the course of our self-actualizing lives.'...I don't believe random chance operates with any more force depending on whether or not one is a theist. In either case the actor has the illusion of choice, if not in fact a choice...

Since I believe we do in fact have genuine subjective agency, I agree that we have genuine subjective agency regardless of whether we believe we have it or not, and regardless of whether we believe it to be actual or illusory. My point is merely that in order for the non-theist to cogently claim "moral superiority," the non-theist must allow that objective moral standards do exist, and that genuine subjective agency does exist. But to admit such things is to pull the rug out from under the non-theist's own feet (because it entails that the non-material can and does make a real difference in the material world).

...natural selection favored the groups and individuals who became team players...

You are describing a scenario where what is deemed "right" is tied to "whatever confers pragmatic advantage." In this case, I don't see how the non-theists' "morality" is any better than that of the theist who, per your stipulation, performs "moral behavior" only for the sake of some supposed pragmatic advantage (and of course I do not actually accept that stipulation).