Why be "good?"

[wgreen]

I would like to hear from some atheists and agnostics who believe in leading moral lives (helping others, being compassionate, not murdering, stealing, etc.). Why do you lead a moral life?

I don't understand why you would.

Thanks in advance for your input.

Bill

[QED]

I often simply ask myself "What if everyone did what I'm just about to do?". I want to live in a peaceful, clean and charitable world. I understand that I am one of many and that my actions can affect others. So the very least I can do to promote the sort of world that I feel is most likely to be wanted by most people, is to adopt what I would like to see as typical behaviour. Of course I do realise that this behaviour might be offensive to nihilists and death-cultists, but too bad... It's human nature to be selfish.

[harvey1]

I often simply ask myself "What if everyone did what I'm just about to do?". I want to live in a peaceful, clean and charitable world. I understand that I am one of many and that my actions can affect others. So the very least I can do to promote the sort of world that I feel is most likely to be wanted by most people, is to adopt what I would like to see as typical behaviour.

But, I think QED if an atheist really took to heart their atheism, they could easily come to an entirely different conclusion. For example, you know well that not everyone will believe what you believe, and therefore if other people want to be suckers and think that their actions will bring them eternal life, then all the better for society. However, since this fact of people believing this is the case, it gives the atheist ample opportunity to just take advantage of what their atheism provides to them. The key in any atheist scheme must be: don't get caught. If you get caught, then punishment can be worse than if all of society acted badly.

Now, I'm sure many atheists won't think this way because they are still in the clutches of "superstition," but those who know they are free to do anything (i.e., assuming they don't get caught), this lifestyle of living without morals could be very appealing. In any case, an atheist has no grounds to criticize an atheist who chooses their own morals like we choose what clothes we wish to wear. Heck, for most atheists there's not even free will, so here's the real pincher: an atheist who chooses to live life with what they can get away with cannot possibly have done any differently.

So, it seems to me that not only are atheists unable to tell someone else how to live, even if they could tell them they would have no choice in any case. What then morality?

[Cathar1950]

One of the problems Harvey "if an atheist really took to heart their atheism" is assuming there is some heart to atheism that makes them less than human. It seems you have an underlying assumption that there are no reasons to do things unless there is a God, which makes me wonder about the sincerity of your morality, if we can call it morality. Do you only do things because God will get you? Is it fear of getting caught your motive for not doing evil? Is this not just obedience and what would stop some one from doing evil if they believed God told them to do something?

Do we not see believers commit sins and crimes? It doesn’t stop them. I think it was Dan Dennett that points out that we would not masturbate in front of our mothers yet most Christians do in front of God and never think about it. The fear of getting caught does not stop them unless it is a human that might catch them. Is fear of humans more powerful then fear of God?

In any case, an atheist has no grounds to criticize an atheist who chooses their own morals like we choose what clothes we wish to wear.
Is not most people’s belief in God not like someone picking what to wear for you?

an atheist who chooses to live life with what they can get away with cannot possibly have done any differently.
How about a believer that thinks they are fallen or have a sinful nature? They don’t think they can do any better. They ask forgiveness and leave it up to God to fix their problems. How is that moral?

So, it seems to me that not only are atheists unable to tell someone else how to live, even if they could tell them they would have no choice in any case. What then morality?

It seems to me telling someone else how to live is not morality. It seems all you have is obedience. It also seems rather arbitrary.
Who or what you obey seems to have many choices.
It seems to me a theist with an unatural mind would not know what to do or think and just waits for God to tell them what to do. That hardly seems moral or adult.

[McCulloch]

But, I think QED if an atheist really took to heart their atheism, they could easily come to an entirely different conclusion. For example, you know well that not everyone will believe what you believe, and therefore if other people want to be suckers and think that their actions will bring them eternal life, then all the better for society. However, since this fact of people believing this is the case, it gives the atheist ample opportunity to just take advantage of what their atheism provides to them. The key in any atheist scheme must be: don't get caught. If you get caught, then punishment can be worse than if all of society acted badly.

It is not quite that simple. Anyone knows that there is aways the risk of getting caught. So an atheist working under this kind of thinking, would estimate the risk of getting caught, and the punishment associated with that against the cost of cost of not acting badly.

Now, I'm sure many atheists won't think this way because they are still in the clutches of "superstition," but those who know they are free to do anything (i.e., assuming they don't get caught), this lifestyle of living without morals could be very appealing. In any case, an atheist has no grounds to criticize an atheist who chooses their own morals like we choose what clothes we wish to wear. Heck, for most atheists there's not even free will, so here's the real pincher: an atheist who chooses to live life with what they can get away with cannot possibly have done any differently.

Some atheists believe that we, the human species, have evolved a set of morals. Human societies which adopt sets of morals best suited to the long term survival of their own group, tend to thrive and grow, human societies which adopt sets of morals not well suited to the long term survival of their own group, either change or fade out. Those of us who behave morally do not do so because of some kind of superstition, but because it is the right thing to do. We tend to evaluate what is the right thing not by a fixed moral code handed down from a spiritual being, but by what is best for humanity. When I do good it is not for recognition and reward by a distant unknowable God, but because it makes me feel good. It makes me feel good to be good because that is how we evolved, not because of some imagined deity.

So, it seems to me that not only are atheists unable to tell someone else how to live, even if they could tell them they would have no choice in any case. What then morality?

Here is the paradox of free will and determinism. Our behaviour may well be determined, since we are composed only of parts all which behave in a determined way. But we, ourselves, are not aware of nor can we possibly dream of calculating our own behaviour. So, we behave as if we had free choice. The fact that an omniscient being, is such existed, would know exactly what we would do given the entire set of circumstances, does not change the fact that we don't and must make our own decisions.

[QED]

But, I think QED if an atheist really took to heart their atheism, they could easily come to an entirely different conclusion. For example, you know well that not everyone will believe what you believe, and therefore if other people want to be suckers and think that their actions will bring them eternal life, then all the better for society. However, since this fact of people believing this is the case, it gives the atheist ample opportunity to just take advantage of what their atheism provides to them. The key in any atheist scheme must be: don't get caught. If you get caught, then punishment can be worse than if all of society acted badly.

I cannot presume to know what strategy others are really employing. For instance, the systemic problems of child abuse by Catholic Priests sheds a great deal of doubt on the notion that a belief in God is an effective force for self moderation. For this reason it seems to me that the only safe strategy is to behave at the very least as I would hope others would when faced with my decisions.

It really can be as simple as saying "what if everyone did this?". Of course McCulloch hits the nail on the head when he reminds us that it often "feels good" when we conduct ourselves in accordance with behaviour that has evolved as a successful strategy for living in societies. Obviously if doing things that are necessary for long term survival "felt bad", we would see less survivors.

Now, I'm sure many atheists won't think this way because they are still in the clutches of "superstition," but those who know they are free to do anything (i.e., assuming they don't get caught), this lifestyle of living without morals could be very appealing.

What a thing to say. Any atheist who is still in the clutches of superstition does not deserve to be labelled as an atheist if they are anticipating supernatural judgment over their actions. So having dispensed with all but a handful of raving loonies, we find ourselves with, for all practical purposes, every living atheist being presented with what you term a very appealing lifestyle. Yet, IIRC, atheists are not overly represented in prison populations.

In any case, an atheist has no grounds to criticize an atheist who chooses their own morals like we choose what clothes we wish to wear.

What? There's plenty of grounds on which to criticise the morals of others. Are you suggesting that it takes God to point out all the things people ought not do if we and our children are all to live safe and healthy lives?

Heck, for most atheists there's not even free will, so here's the real pincher: an atheist who chooses to live life with what they can get away with cannot possibly have done any differently.

I think that free will is a purely philosophical concept with no practical application in the real world. Perhaps you could direct me to an argument that refutes this idea.

So, it seems to me that not only are atheists unable to tell someone else how to live, even if they could tell them they would have no choice in any case. What then morality?

Well, the first can be reduced to absurdity by any number of simple examples. The second is simply not reflected in real life, not unless it's God's will for people to be atheists. How much simpler it is to see morality in terms of evolution and game strategy. And let's face it, both these factors are going to have an inevitable and overwhelming effect on things anyway.

[harvey1]

It seems you have an underlying assumption that there are no reasons to do things unless there is a God, which makes me wonder about the sincerity of your morality, if we can call it morality. Do you only do things because God will get you? Is it fear of getting caught your motive for not doing evil? Is this not just obedience and what would stop some one from doing evil if they believed God told them to do something?

I think you misunderstand me Cathar. I'm not saying that an atheist needs the threat of eternal punishment to be moral (or that a theist has this threat and so is moral), rather I'm saying morality has objective meaning. It is not entirely subjective. Just like I think that mathematics is discovered and not invented because it has objective meaning, so also I think about morality. If one actually believed mathematics to be just a game invented by humans, then they don't have to play along if the game is cumbersome. They can make their math problems much easier if they just construct the game so that it is advantageous to them. There's no reason why the math nominalist should be a slave to a religious conception of math. That could very well be seen as superstitious by them.

Do we not see believers commit sins and crimes? It doesn’t stop them.

And, there are mathematicians who make errors in their math, perhaps some do it to trick the class they are teaching. That doesn't change the fact that math is best not conducted as a subjective enterprise by those who wish to find their "own math" (or their own morality).

I think it was Dan Dennett that points out that we would not masturbate in front of our mothers yet most Christians do in front of God and never think about it. The fear of getting caught does not stop them unless it is a human that might catch them. Is fear of humans more powerful then fear of God?

There are mathematicians who are very careful about not making mistakes in their submitted papers, but they aren't concerned about making mistakes in front of their friends who know math. Perhaps they think that their friends are more forgiving of their mistakes...?

an atheist who chooses to live life with what they can get away with cannot possibly have done any differently.

So, is it okay if an atheist kid reads what you say and does anything at all? I mean if they read your comment and stole money from a poor widow, I suppose they couldn't have done anything to prevent it according to your view, right?

How about a believer that thinks they are fallen or have a sinful nature? They don’t think they can do any better. They ask forgiveness and leave it up to God to fix their problems. How is that moral?

It's not moral unless they reform their ways.

It seems to me telling someone else how to live is not morality. It seems all you have is obedience. It also seems rather arbitrary.

So, is it wrong for parents to teach their kids not to lie, not to steal, etc.? If the kids listen and follow their parents instructions, you don't think they are living morally?

It seems to me a theist with an unatural mind would not know what to do or think and just waits for God to tell them what to do. That hardly seems moral or adult.

I don't see any comparison between someone having a "supernatural" mindset and someone with a spiritual mindset. (Actually, I don't know what you mean by someone having a supernatural mindset.) A spiritual mindset is someone who is in love with Christ's nature, and wants to live a life that is pleasing to God.

[harvey1]

It is not quite that simple. Anyone knows that there is aways the risk of getting caught. So an atheist working under this kind of thinking, would estimate the risk of getting caught, and the punishment associated with that against the cost of cost of not acting badly.

Well, let's say that neighbor's child said to you, "McCulloch, I've thought about you being an atheist for a long time, and I realize now that you are right. Atheism is the way to go. I especially like the part where I can choose my morality like I choose to color my hair purple today. So, I've decided to start a life of heinous crime. Don't worry neighbor McCulloch, I'm not going to get caught. I am absolutely convinced." Now, as much as you try to tell them that they could get caught, they tell you that they are convinced that they won't get caught. Doesn't that justify their immoral actions? Afterall, why is immorality any different than getting caught for doing the right thing when it is actually against the law (e.g., helping potential Nazi victims to escape Nazi arrest in WWII)?

Some atheists believe that we, the human species, have evolved a set of morals. Human societies which adopt sets of morals best suited to the long term survival of their own group, tend to thrive and grow, human societies which adopt sets of morals not well suited to the long term survival of their own group, either change or fade out. Those of us who behave morally do not do so because of some kind of superstition, but because it is the right thing to do.

Well, evolution doesn't say that adaptation is "right" or "wrong," it just says this is what is the case of what happened and why that species survived or evolved into a fit species. We know there's examples from the natural world where lions will kill the cubs of another lion if they mate with their mother (i.e., less competition for their offspring), so isn't that right? Or, if you need an example from human evolution, I think that adultery has been around an awfully long time. Perhaps it's part of our evolutionary history. Is it okay to commit adultery since evolution makes right?

We tend to evaluate what is the right thing not by a fixed moral code handed down from a spiritual being, but by what is best for humanity. When I do good it is not for recognition and reward by a distant unknowable God, but because it makes me feel good. It makes me feel good to be good because that is how we evolved, not because of some imagined deity.

I would disagree with you a little. Sure, I think we do feel good about our moral actions, but I also think that is because we see our moral actions as meaningful. In a world where humanity will someday be history, and traces of our existence are all but blotted out by natural processes, there is no objective meaning to our actions. If we could time travel to the time when humans are no longer here (perhaps in a few decades...?), then all the events in history really do not matter. Does it matter that an ant gave a crumb to its queen a few seconds before yesterday's tsunami hit Java? I don't see how it was meaningful in the least to our universe. It was no more meaning than an ant being stepped on shortly before the tsunami. Stuff happens. It has no meaning either way if you really grab hold and cherish the intentionally immoral atheist's perspective.

Here is the paradox of free will and determinism. Our behaviour may well be determined, since we are composed only of parts all which behave in a determined way. But we, ourselves, are not aware of nor can we possibly dream of calculating our own behaviour. So, we behave as if we had free choice. The fact that an omniscient being, is such existed, would know exactly what we would do given the entire set of circumstances, does not change the fact that we don't and must make our own decisions.

Well, God knows our free will acts because God is omnipresent in the future where we do those freewill acts. However, in the case of the denial of free will, there can be no responsibility taken for immorality. If an atheist neighbor comes to perceive atheism as liberating them from moral acts, then there is no way they could have possibly done anything about that.

[Cathar1950]

I'm saying morality has objective meaning.

It would seem to me if it has objective meaning it would be true of theist and atheist. This would make you idea that atheism rather fruitless.
This is what you wrote:

if an atheist really took to heart their atheism, they could easily come to an entirely different conclusion. For example, you know well that not everyone will believe what you believe, and therefore if other people want to be suckers and think that their actions will bring them eternal life, then all the better for society. However, since this fact of people believing this is the case, it gives the atheist ample opportunity to just take advantage of what their atheism provides to them. The key in any atheist scheme must be: don't get caught. If you get caught, then punishment can be worse than if all of society acted badly.

Now if it is objective why would not an atheist see things the way a theist would? If it is so objective why would they come to different conclusions? Not all Christians or theist come to the same conclusions?
This makes your atheism just a rhetorical remark to enhance your theism while making an ungrounded assumption concerning what an atheist would do. You think that atheist must have some scheme about getting caught while it seems Christians just say you must get forgiven. It seems like your saying we are going to get caught so we better ask forgiveness is better then “don’t get caught”. Fear is not any more moral for atheist of theist. You are making less sense then I am trying to figure out your point.

Now, I'm sure many atheists won't think this way because they are still in the clutches of "superstition," but those who know they are free to do anything (i.e., assuming they don't get caught), this lifestyle of living without morals could be very appealing. In any case, an atheist has no grounds to criticize an atheist who chooses their own morals like we choose what clothes we wish to wear.

So your superstition is the only thing holding you back?
It could be appealing but it doesn’t seem to be the case for most atheists I know. While Jesus forgives me is appealing to the most evil of people. A thist is just wearing clothes. In fact Christians shroud themselves in the blood of Jesus. Where is the morality there?

Well, let's say that neighbor's child said to you, "McCulloch, I've thought about you being an atheist for a long time, and I realize now that you are right. Atheism is the way to go. I especially like the part where I can choose my morality like I choose to color my hair purple today. So, I've decided to start a life of heinous crime. Don't worry neighbor McCulloch, I'm not going to get caught. I am absolutely convinced." Now, as much as you try to tell them that they could get caught, they tell you that they are convinced that they won't get caught. Doesn't that justify their immoral actions?

What kinds of imaginary scenario do you got going here? Is it any difference picking the bible verses you want to take to heart then picking a moral stance? This just sounds like a pathetic sermon for the mentally challenged.

Just like I think that mathematics is discovered and not invented because it has objective meaning, so also I think about morality.
You are wrong about mathematics so why not be wrong about morality?

So, is it wrong for parents to teach their kids not to lie, not to steal, etc.? If the kids listen and follow their parents instructions, you don't think they are living morally?

You don’t think atheist tech their children the same things. Your analogy with math is as poor as your arguments. You sure have a lot of “what ifs” that don’t seem much different for either atheist or theism.

I don't see any comparison between someone having a "supernatural" mindset and someone with a spiritual mindset. (Actually, I don't know what you mean by someone having a supernatural mindset.) A spiritual mindset is someone who is in love with Christ's nature, and wants to live a life that is pleasing to God.

I am not impressed with your ability to compare. I guess you can say what ever you like. I have yet to see what you mean by a spiritual mindset except it isn’t natural or real.

[harvey1]

the systemic problems of child abuse by Catholic Priests sheds a great deal of doubt on the notion that a belief in God is an effective force for self moderation. For this reason it seems to me that the only safe strategy is to behave at the very least as I would hope others would when faced with my decisions.

But, I don't see the issue as what makes you a better person: theism or atheism. Granted, I believe for the most part that a converted life to Christianity makes someone a better person than what they would have been otherwise (with notable exceptions such as priests who are denied normal sexual expression). I see the issue as to whether there is an objective moral code or not. If not, then I'm thinking about the individuals who realize this. I'm not saying it is good they recognize this, far from it. Rather, I think it is evil for someone to really think and behave like this. (It is evil to practice immoral behavior, right?)

It really can be as simple as saying "what if everyone did this?". Of course McCulloch hits the nail on the head when he reminds us that it often "feels good" when we conduct ourselves in accordance with behaviour that has evolved as a successful strategy for living in societies. Obviously if doing things that are necessary for long term survival "felt bad", we would see less survivors.

I'm talking about the enlightened atheist who feels they have an option to do evil and you recognizing their right to do so as a person who understands the subjective nature of morality. You can certainly ask them if they ever feel good about helping others, but you can't condemn them if they tell you that they took used hypnosis to cure them of this psychological vestige of evolution.

What a thing to say. Any atheist who is still in the clutches of superstition does not deserve to be labelled as an atheist if they are anticipating supernatural judgment over their actions. So having dispensed with all but a handful of raving loonies, we find ourselves with, for all practical purposes, every living atheist being presented with what you term a very appealing lifestyle. Yet, IIRC, atheists are not overly represented in prison populations.

Again, you want to talk about where atheism has been. But, atheists are not always philosophically well-informed about the implications of their beliefs. I'm talking about the atheist who becomes enlightened about their newfound immoral freedoms and the benefits that they see those freedoms providing to themselves.

In any case, an atheist has no grounds to criticize an atheist who chooses their own morals like we choose what clothes we wish to wear.

What? There's plenty of grounds on which to criticise the morals of others. Are you suggesting that it takes God to point out all the things people ought not do if we and our children are all to live safe and healthy lives?

But, you are using your moral code inherited from religion (or so says the enligtened atheist who is reasoning with you). They say that they thought it over and realized that we are but ants living on a beach before a tsunami. There is no reason, they argue, for going out of their way to behave restrictively in this scenario.

I think that free will is a purely philosophical concept with no practical application in the real world. Perhaps you could direct me to an argument that refutes this idea.

Oh, I think this example is pretty hilarious if not for the reality of what occurred:

On August 22, 1924 Darrow gave his famous twelve hour closing statement, bringing tears to the eyes of the presiding judge and saving his clients from the death penalty. Here are two excerpts from the summation:

Why did they kill little Bobby Franks? Not for money, not for spite; not for hate. They killed him as they might kill a spider or a fly, for the experience. They killed him because they were made that way. Because somewhere in the infinite processes that go to the making up of the boy or the man something slipped, and those unfortunate lads sit here hated, despised, outcasts, with the community shouting for their blood.

You might also read the essay here, because if Western legal systems would accept it, it would affect every argument made before a court. I think many would hold that the effect would only apply to the death penalty, but I disagree. It would have far-reaching implications as to what people do knowing that they don't have any choice for their actions according to the legal system.

So, it seems to me that not only are atheists unable to tell someone else how to live, even if they could tell them they would have no choice in any case. What then morality?

Well, the first can be reduced to absurdity by any number of simple examples.

Well, give some simple examples.

The second is simply not reflected in real life, not unless it's God's will for people to be atheists.

I don't accept the premise that there's no free will, so I think atheists should and very ought to repent of their rejection of God. They can choose, and they should do it. (How strongly can I put this? )

How much simpler it is to see morality in terms of evolution and game strategy. And let's face it, both these factors are going to have an inevitable and overwhelming effect on things anyway.

Sure, but games don't have to be played by those more interested in acting in their own behalf. That's my point.

[harvey1]

It would seem to me if it has objective meaning it would be true of theist and atheist. This would make you idea that atheism rather fruitless.

How so? I think that atheists are under moral law even if they deny they are under moral law. I just think the consequences of not living morally may not be fully apparent.

Now if it is objective why would not an atheist see things the way a theist would?

Well, it depends not just on theism or atheism, it depends mostly on their spiritual insight and conversion. There's many objective facts that many of us don't see because we are resistant to those facts.

If it is so objective why would they come to different conclusions?

Objective reality is not easily discernible.

This makes your atheism just a rhetorical remark to enhance your theism while making an ungrounded assumption concerning what an atheist would do. You think that atheist must have some scheme about getting caught while it seems Christians just say you must get forgiven.

That's not what I argued, Cathar. I said that an atheist could justifiably decide to choose their morality which was in their most selfish interests, and there's no epistemic ground for the atheist to disagree who believes that morality is entirely subjective.

It seems like your saying we are going to get caught so we better ask forgiveness is better then “don’t get caught”. Fear is not any more moral for atheist of theist. You are making less sense then I am trying to figure out your point.

Try to avoid making this discussion about me, and instead focus on the argument. I specifically stated that morality is akin to mathematics. It is objectively meaningful. That is, we and society around us can find actual meaning by being moral while making the world more meaningful.

So your superstition is the only thing holding you back?

Please pay close attention to what I write. I was writing from the opinion of the so-called enlightened atheist who finds morality deeply engrained with religion.

It could be appealing but it doesn’t seem to be the case for most atheists I know.

I'm talking, of course, about the kind of atheist who finds that morality is religious, and who has no need for religion. The fact that most atheists, from the perspective of such a conceived atheist, don't see their religious umbilical cord to religion doesn't mean that this person is wrong.

In fact Christians shroud themselves in the blood of Jesus. Where is the morality there?

What do you mean? Those Christians who see that they must repent of their alcoholism, abuses, etc., are certainly acting and being moral in their repentance.

What kinds of imaginary scenario do you got going here? Is it any difference picking the bible verses you want to take to heart then picking a moral stance? This just sounds like a pathetic sermon for the mentally challenged.

I didn't see your response to this neighbor... (Nice try though...)

You don’t think atheist tech their children the same things. Your analogy with math is as poor as your arguments. You sure have a lot of “what ifs” that don’t seem much different for either atheist or theism.

Your arguments are missing my point. My argument isn't that atheists are these terrible people. My argument is that atheists open pandoras box of morality that cannot be shut.

I am not impressed with your ability to compare. I guess you can say what ever you like. I have yet to see what you mean by a spiritual mindset except it isn’t natural or real.

Cathar, you're responding way too much to the poster as a person instead of the poster as a poster. Instead of trying to make comments about me, make comments about responding to the text of the post.