I disagree with the above sentiments in every way (no worries, the above posts are only an example, we dont mean any hard feelings to anyone with this thread). I think I can safely say if Quarkhead and otseng were atheists, they would behave much in the same way they do as theists, and in fact their behavior would not resemble in the least the statements which they've written.otseng wrote:Quarkhead wrote:That's interesting, Otseng. In this light, God is the ONLY thing which prevents you from acting in a completely depraved manner.
Bear in mind, I have not given this hypothetical scenario any thought before this question was posed. Also, I'm only speaking for myself, and not for all people in my position.
I wouldn't go quite as far as saying I'd act in a "completely depraved" manner. But, if I did not believe in a God, I would feel no compunction about doing unethical things. The only thing I'd worry about is if I would get caught doing unethical things.
The most simple answer to the concern is simply that the word "atheism" is a word which means "lack of theism". It has nothing to do with a rejection of morality (or worse, and embracing of immorality). In fact, I think most people behave morally for the sake of behaving morally. (I could go off on a somewhat related tangent and describe how "meaning in life" is only limited to what a person wants life to mean, and isnt dependent on theism either, but that can be saved for another thread.)
For the complex answer, I am going to appeal to Lawrence Kohlberg's Three Level (Six Stage) Theory of Transcultural Development (that is long for name of his moral theory):
1. Children begin with this preconventional first level in which morality is largely determined by expected punishment or reward.
2. A more conventional second level where social norms and the need for approval dominate.
3. And finally a third level where the individual is self-motivated to adhere to universal moral principles of justice and equality.
"Right is defined by the decision of conscience in accord with the self-chosen ethcical principles appealing to logical comprehensiveness, universality and consistency. These principles are abstract and ethical; they are not concrete moral rules. At the heart, these are universal principles of justice, or the reciporicty and equality of human rights, and of respect for the dignity of human beings as individauls." - Lawrence Kohlberg, The Child as a Moral Philosopher
With the above quote, Kohlberg describes how his ethical theory is not one which is dependent on subjectivism.
I'd say morality in societies evolves as follows:
1. First is the Theistic Interpretation of Morality (Divine Law)
2. Second is the Metaphysical Interpretation of Morality
3. And finally a Positivistic Interpretation of Morality
The reason I think this (and the primary point of this thread) is for one of the more dramatic debating maneuver used by Christian apologists against atheists, which is to argue that atheists can provide no objective reason for not raping people. This startling claim follows from the apologists' wider claim that atheists can provide no objective moral reasons for anything.
Of course, anyone can easily see why the above is absolutely false when they consider what Plato championed, the Euthyphro dilemma: Does God disapprove of rape because it is bad or is rape bad because God disapproves of it? On the first interpretation of the dilemma theists can provide objective reasons for not raping, but so can atheists (for instance it would be a violation of human rights). On the second interpretation, theists can provide no objective reasons for not raping so that if atheists cannot, they are no worse off than theists (in fact, I think few people see justifying behavior on a basis of "just following orders" as hardly a moral statement at all).
I think the above serves a strong logical justification for the belief atheists can behave morally, but I'm sure the belief atheists can behave morally has more than enough empirical support to stand on its own. At the very least, morality without God is like a fish without a bicycle.
I will not continue quoting but will instead address this part of the post and speak generally of the rest. You seem to agree with my own view that for all people, meaning is something they find or develop themselves. However, what confounds almost every ethical system is the assurance people need that, just as surely as 1 + 1 = 2, anyone departing from common ethical models (murdering, say) is doing something illogical, and forcing 1 + 1 to equal -54. Objective reasons for anything do not exist.
