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.

[olavisjo]

First , show me that 'objective moral values and duties exit'.
Next, show me that 'Objective moral values and duties are dependent on God existing.

I am sad that after all this time, you would still ask.

Is it not true that the Germans in 1930-45 should have treated the Jewish people with respect and even love and not hate?
Is there anything in the natural world that tells us that we must love one another?
Is there anything in the natural world to compel us to feel empathy to others?

You did read the list about animal altruism several have posted in this thread right?

I just don't see the connection between...

Dogs often adopt orphaned cats, squirrels, ducks and even tigers.

And

...we must love one another.

It is true that dogs adopt other animals, but there is no reason why they "must". And neither is there any reason, in the natural world, why humans must love one another. But as a command from the supernatural "we must love one another" resonates in all but the most wicked of humans.

[Haven]

Dogs often adopt orphaned cats, squirrels, ducks and even tigers.

And

...we must love one another.

It is true that dogs adopt other animals, but there is no reason why they "must". And neither is there any reason, in the natural world, why humans must love one another. But as a command from the supernatural "we must love one another" resonates in all but the most wicked of humans.

You're right. On naturalism, there is no reason why we must love one another. It's a personal choice that many people find good, but it's not a universal command.

[Artie]

First , show me that 'objective moral values and duties exit'.
Next, show me that 'Objective moral values and duties are dependent on God existing.

I am sad that after all this time, you would still ask.

Is it not true that the Germans in 1930-45 should have treated the Jewish people with respect and even love and not hate?
Is there anything in the natural world that tells us that we must love one another?
Is there anything in the natural world to compel us to feel empathy to others?

You did read the list about animal altruism several have posted in this thread right?

I just don't see the connection between...

Dogs often adopt orphaned cats, squirrels, ducks and even tigers.

And

...we must love one another.

It is true that dogs adopt other animals, but there is no reason why they "must". And neither is there any reason, in the natural world, why humans must love one another. But as a command from the supernatural "we must love one another" resonates in all but the most wicked of humans.

I think I see where the misunderstanding lies. "Mongooses support elderly, sick, or injured animals". "Bonobos have been observed aiding injured or handicapped bonobos." "Vervet Monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked." As we are evolved animals ourselves, we have inherited these evolved behaviors. We call them moral codes and have formulated them into words like in the Ten Commandments or the Golden Rule. A supernatural command such as " we must love one another" from a deity is obviously not necessary to explain such behaviors. I hardly think bonobos support elderly, sick, or injured animals because they have read that they should do so in a religious text or because they believe in a deity?

[olavisjo]

Yes, where does that moral knowledge come from? Why conclude that there must be a supernatural source? Some things make sense, therefore there must be a God? Is that the argument?

We are conflating moral ontology and moral epistomology. Moral ontology deals with the reality of moral values and duties; moral epistemology deals with how we come to know what moral values and duties there are. source

Moral knowledge could have come from evolution, education and a number of other places. How we acquired our moral knowledge is not the issue. What we want to determine is whether or not it corresponds to something in the real world.

So, to answer you question, morality exists objectively in the real world, therefore there must be a God. That is the argument.

For example, did the Nazis do something objectively wrong or is it just wrong because evolution has made us think it is wrong. And evolution could have and may still make Nazism right because Nazism will at a future date help societies survive.

[Artie]

Yes, where does that moral knowledge come from? Why conclude that there must be a supernatural source? Some things make sense, therefore there must be a God? Is that the argument?

Moral knowledge could have come from evolution, education and a number of other places. How we acquired our moral knowledge is not the issue. What we want to determine is whether or not it corresponds to something in the real world.

So, to answer you question, morality exists objectively in the real world, therefore there must be a God. That is the argument.

I think you mean "morality exists objectively in the real world, therefore there must be a" God, Allah, Brahman or other deity establishing an objective morality? Or would this morality be subjective depending on which god established it? Is Allahs objective morality different from Gods or Brahmans objective morality?

[olavisjo]

You're right. On naturalism, there is no reason why we must love one another. It's a personal choice that many people find good, but it's not a universal command.

You are in the same position that C.S. Lewis and Francis Collins were before they converted. This was the issue that they could not resist, I would suggest you read their works, you may like it.

Here is an interview of Collins.

Here is the text of Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis.

[Artie]

You're right. On naturalism, there is no reason why we must love one another. It's a personal choice that many people find good, but it's not a universal command.

You are in the same position that C.S. Lewis and Francis Collins were before they converted. This was the issue that they could not resist, I would suggest you read their works, you may like it.Here is an interview of Collins.

Interesting interview. He says that evolution is true and that everything is descended from a common ancestor because that is what the evidence shows. However, then he unfortunately seems to get very confused and incoherent. He only talks about the Christian God and doesn't seem to be aware of all the other religions with different gods, and when asked about what happens when we die he doesn't answer like a believer in God would but says nothing coherent. Presumably because he has no scientific evidence to present? This just seems like a very confused man looking for answers and when there's something he doesn't understand he just gives God the responsibility.

Here is the text of Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis.

I haven't got the time to read all this now but maybe at a later date.

[arian]

Well in fact I'm not looking for any detailed description of life between lives, and I even don't expect it would make much sense to run after such descriptions, because I think anyway these things are largely beyond understanding and quite diverse between people, so that whatever the description, even the most correct one possible, the reality will surely appear quite different once there.

I think we are on Earth to work for different purposes that we can find to do on Earth, especially contributing to make the Earth a better place, but that among these many possible purposes, the research on what happens between lives does not have a significant place. Life in the beyond will care for itself.

I agree with you on this Spoirier, you are so right, Life in the beyond will care for itself!
HERE in this physical realm, in this physical body is the only place that we have to chisel-out, or form a character for our souls, and with that character we formed, we come before the Great Judge, on That Day to see what we have done with what we have been given.

I also remain a sort of skeptic: I can be interested to examine different propositions and claims of testimonies, but as long as I have no evidence for something (either about the trustworthiness of the author or the subjectivity or partiality of his experience), I abstain from believing them 100%, and I refuse to invest myself in the study of any long single-author report or revelation that might as well be a hoax, an illusion or anything like this. Also because I happen to have more important troubles an things to do in life...

Amen to that too, beware who you believe:

Matt 7:15-16
"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16 You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?
NKJV

Acts 20:29-31
29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. 31 Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.
NKJV

[1robin]

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.

I am sorry to hear that you had or have lost your faith. If you don't mind I would like to clarify if your faith was based on an intellectual consent or a relationship that included a born again experience?

You are right in seeing a conflict within objective morality in a universe with no God. I won't bother explaining what other philosophers have done already. Some good ones to research are (Ravi Zacharias or Rabbi Boteach).

I will mention a point I noticed in your original statement above. You point out that some people behave in ways so absolutely evil that it is mind boggling. I would suggest that the seeming infinite level of evil that humans can exhibit that doesn't seem to exist in the animal kingdom would be an argument for the biblical narrative and not for atheistic evolution. Sure a tiger wants to kill a deer but has a tiger ever decided to wipe out every deer on earth. Another point would be why do people that exhibit these extraordinary levels of violence or malevolence make satanic references and exhibit characteristics consistent with demonic activity.

In answer to one of your questions: I can't believe that anyone who denies any transending intelect (like God) would argue that Objective moral values exist.
The only answer that an atheist could reasonably put forward is there are no objective morals. If thats true were all screwed.

God Bless

[Artie]

I will mention a point I noticed in your original statement above. You point out that some people behave in ways so absolutely evil that it is mind boggling. I would suggest that the seeming infinite level of evil that humans can exhibit that doesn't seem to exist in the animal kingdom would be an argument for the biblical narrative and not for atheistic evolution. Sure a tiger wants to kill a deer but has a tiger ever decided to wipe out every deer on earth.

Good point. Of course it is the Christian God who has committed the greatest genocide known so far by drowning practically all humans and animals on the planet.

Another point would be why do people that exhibit these extraordinary levels of violence or malevolence make satanic references and exhibit characteristics consistent with demonic activity.

You mean they should be referencing God instead?