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.

[Mithrae]

Who is an Atheist to call something "evil"? Unless you believe in Moral Absolutism, how can you call something "evil"? And by your next response, you seem to believe in Moral Absolutism, but WHO says what is moral? You? What is "evil"?

I agree, and this is exactly why I am seriously questioning my atheism.

Help me understand this. In a theistic system, who determines what is evil? If, as Knight and others say, God determines this and determines it based on his "nature" I still am not hearing an answer. Did this god create its nature? If not, then the nature of god allegedly determines what's moral and what's immoral, god had no choice in the matter. But what was it that gave this god its nature? Is it that God is naturally good? What's good? If god's nature happened to be that good to it was rape and murder, would they be good?

They would, yes I realise it's not directed at me and Haven probably won't share my answer. So I guess that mostly I'm just throwing in my two cents that if he's looking for truly, really, honest-to-Zeus objective morals independant of any mind or perspective (except his own, of course), theism is a wild goose chase. But then, I'm one of the folk who reckon that the Matrix is at least as good as 'reality,' and about as easy to understand.

[Artie]

Some people need absolutism. Most people use logic, reason and common sense to figure out what's right and wrong and moral and understand that it depends on a plethora of different factors. Some people might not be capable of using logic, reason and common sense to figure out what's right or wrong in a particular situation so they look for some authority figure like a deity who can tell them with absolute certainty. So the basic moral principles such as "thou shalt not kill" are made absolute by attributing them to a deity. "Thou shalt not kill" is right whether it is attributed to a deity or not so why the need for the deity?

[McCulloch]

Some people might not be capable of using logic, reason and common sense to figure out what's right or wrong in a particular situation so they look for some authority figure like a deity who can tell them with absolute certainty.

Yes, they claim to rely on divine revelation and not on human reasoning. However, the reality is that they are like all of us reliant on human reasoning. How does one decide between the various claimants of being a revelation from the God: the Tanakh, the New Testament, the Qur’�n, the Guru Granth Sahib or the Book of Mormon. There is not one who makes this decision without invoking human reasoning.

[Shermana]

Some people need absolutism. Most people use logic, reason and common sense to figure out what's right and wrong and moral and understand that it depends on a plethora of different factors. Some people might not be capable of using logic, reason and common sense to figure out what's right or wrong in a particular situation so they look for some authority figure like a deity who can tell them with absolute certainty. So the basic moral principles such as "thou shalt not kill" are made absolute by attributing them to a deity. "Thou shalt not kill" is right whether it is attributed to a deity or not so why the need for the deity?

Did the Huns not use logic, reason, and common sense to figure out that pillage and plunder was a great way to survive? Do Headhunting Cannibals in Africa and Papua New Guinea not use logic, reason, and common sense to figure out that hunting enemy tribes was a great way to reduce competition and ensure survival of their own?

[Thatguy]

Did the Huns not use logic, reason, and common sense to figure out that pillage and plunder was a great way to survive? Do Headhunting Cannibals in Africa and Papua New Guinea not use logic, reason, and common sense to figure out that hunting enemy tribes was a great way to reduce competition and ensure survival of their own?

And did they not say that their gods commanded it?

[Shermana]

And did they not say that their gods commanded it?

The evidence so far says that Hunnic religion of Tengriism was not anymore "command" oriented than the Romans had their "gods" command them to conquest. I.e. It seems they were out to conquest with or without their gods' approval, and their god was more of a support than a cause for it. The closest I can find to anything close would be:

There appeared many legends surrounding the life of Atilla. He was said to have found a sword of the war god Mars buried in the ground of a field, with which he was an invincible warrior. Atilla probably did find a sword of some dead warrior and believed it to be a sign that he was destined to rule the world.

http://www.hyperhistory.net/apwh/bios/b3atilla_p1dz.htm

http://www.bookrags.com/research/hun-religion-eorl-06/

[Autodidact]

Why should a man not murder, rape, defraud, lie, or steal, if he feels it benefits him and he has the ability to get away with it without a trace?

Because due to our inescapable nature, it does not in fact benefit him, even if he could get away with it.

[Shermana]

Why should a man not murder, rape, defraud, lie, or steal, if he feels it benefits him and he has the ability to get away with it without a trace?

Because due to our inescapable nature, it does not in fact benefit him, even if he could get away with it.

What do you mean by inescapable nature? There are plenty of "sociopaths" who have no guilt whatsoever at the thought of causing harm, and some if anything relish it.

Do you think any of the power players who profited off means that caused the economy to crash are racked by guilt?

[Thatguy]

And did they not say that their gods commanded it?

The evidence so far says that Hunnic religion of Tengriism was not anymore "command" oriented than the Romans had their "gods" command them to conquest. I.e. It seems they were out to conquest with or without their gods' approval, and their god was more of a support than a cause for it. The closest I can find to anything close would be:

Indeed, I debated that "commanded" but then decided to go with it for rhetorical flourish. From what I've read in my studies (ok, in the last few minutes) their shamanistic/spirit filled religion seems to have favored the idea of heirarchy, the spirit world or heaven or whatnot favoring the leader and the success or failure of the leader being an indication of whether he had the support of the spirits or what have you. Therefore, the supernatural world favored strong leaders seeking the benefit of the particular group. So the supernatural did favor, in their view, the morality that they lived by.

As with all groups, their supernatural entities happened to agree with the moral codes their society developed.

[Autodidact]

It seems to me that "morality" is being used ambiguously in this thread. Does "morality" refer to the set of that which is good or the [alleged] fact that men ought to do that which is good? As a theist, I would argue that there is a distinction between "goodness" and "oughtness," although the concepts overlap.

To illustrate this distinction, I would ask the secularists (irreligious) in this thread who favor "objective morality" to define the nature of good. Then:

All people seek happiness and to avoid suffering.

(1) If the answer is some list of choices, actions or consequences, why anyone ought to follow such a list?

Because you will be happier.

Even if, for the sake of argument, one were to grant the definition of good, there is not, within the definition, any intrinsic justification of the authoritativeness which a command to follow such a list would presuppose. Example: ignoring other obvious problems with Utilitarianism, defining good as “that which causes the greatest pleasure to the most people� does not, without further ado, explain why one should endeavor to do what is good – in this case, cause the greatest pleasure to the most people. Here, the distinction between the what-question (“good�) and the why-question (“ought�) is clear.

I'm not a utilitarian.

(2) I imagine, however, that a secularist could define good as “that which one ought to do.� But in this case, what is the "that"? It is only necessary to reverse the above process: instead of asking why one ought to follow a list of what is good, as in point (1), ask what is the list of choices which fall under the purview of what is "good" and how one knows such. How does one know that, say, Utilitarianism is "good" (i.e. that which one ought to do)?

I'm not a utilitarian. I don't find "ought" helpful. If you want to be happy, to live a good life, then here is some wisdom about how to do it.

If it helps, you can think of it as an Aristotelian approach to virtue, in which virtue is seen as the science of happiness, and ethics as wisdom about how to live the good life. I don't find lists of prohibitions from imaginary beings to be helpful in this regard, rather confusing and often wrong-headed.

(3) Kant’s categorical imperative provides, as a final example, how the secularist may provide an answer to the question of the nature of good which, at first glance, may appear not to fall under either of the above categories. The categorical imperative reads as follows: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.� In actuality, this answer is, in disguised form, one of the above possible answers: (1) or (2). The question is how to discern which it is. If one should encounter such a definition of good which at once seems to include both a list of choices and an ought-statement (“[one ought to] act only according to that maxim…�), he should ask, in a manner similar to the following, whether the secularist thinks:

It's hard for me to begin to tell you how wrong I think Kant was. Plato made great mistakes, and Kant just made mistakes.

(a) “Choosing that which would not lead to self-contradiction if universalized� itself comprises the list of that which is "good," in which case see point (1), or

(b) “Choosing that which would not lead to self-contradiction if universalized� is subsumed under the good ("that which ought [not] to be done), in which case see point (2).

Yeah, well...not my issue.

(4) I would argue that God’s precepts demarcate what is “good.� This follows the distinction set in point (1). Yet unlike Utilitarianism and other secular ethical systems, while this by itself does not precisely explain why one ought to do good - i.e. why doing that which is good is a "moral duty" - I am able to explain to do so. God, as the creator of all things, made things to be as they are. God created men with the intention that they be responsible to obey His precepts, and so men are (Romans 9:19-21); that God sovereignly made men for His own ends and glory functions as the very means by which Paul substantiates his claim that men are responsible. In the absence of a Creator-creation distinction, moral dogmatism is irrational. A dictator may desire to enforce his ideas, but only a sovereign Creator can universalize His moral precepts to those whom He has created for that purpose.

I doubt that you really believe any of this, at least if you subscribe to a Judeo-Christian or even Muslim God. Do you really believe that slavery is right, and wearing clothing of mixed fibers wrong? Do you really believe that morality consists in avoiding eating certain animals, while eating others? Or that it makes a moral difference whether you perform a certain task on Saturday, Sunday or Tuesday? Do you really believe that male homosexuality is wrong, and female homosexuality right? Do you really believe that you should sell everything you own and give it to the poor? That divorce and remarriage are morally wrong? That it is o.k. to kill babies, if God commands it? Really?

As a side note, someone mentioned Euthyphro's dilemma. I would suspect that a reason Socrates superficially dismissed the possibility that the set of things referred to as "good" are such because they are said to be so by God is because he lived in a polytheistic culture in which the gods quarrelled about this very issue:

One or many, you have the same dilemma.

But this is not the case on monotheism. And if one should ask why God has defined good as He has and commanded it as He has, the answer is because such is grounded in and reflected by His own nature. It is non-arbitrary.

Really? In that case you would follow all of his commandments, correct? So, for example, if He commanded you to kill your own child, or someone else's child, that would then be good?

I would also point out that ethics cannot be divorced from epistemology. If one doesn't have a sound epistemic system, he cannot have a sound ethical system. Secularists have enough trouble with the former. If it is the case that only an epistemic system in which language is derived from God can be true, then this thread is largely irrelevant. It would presuppose God just to talk about these things. The point is that no one should consider the argument from morality to be the only argument against secularism.

For me, nothing can be divorced from epistemology. As limited creatures whose entire world exists only in our own brains, we always have to related anything to what we can know about it. However, this has nothing to do with whether an invisible all-powerful being chose to reproduce in the form of a homo sapiens so He could sacrifice Himself to Himself to save the rest of the people having Him condemn them to eternal torment.