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.

[Autodidact]

After all, was it righteous to commit mass genocide and infanticide of every living thing of the face of the earth just because your GOD was sorry for ever creating it??? Can mothers now follow example and kill their children just because they are sorry for ever having them?.... What kind of logic are you using here? The problem is that your own religion and GOD is morally bankrupt in absolute hypocrisy..

I don't care to get into the 1000th discussion on Biblical morality, you are basically trying to change the subject. I don't see how any Atheist who doesn't believe in Objective morality has any ability to call someone else's beliefs "morally bankrupt", that's just silly. How do you justify tht?

I don't see how anyone who follows Biblical morality has any ability to call someone else's beleifs "morally bankrupt," that's just silly. When you worship a being who commands the most evil atrocities imaginable, and claim to follow His commandments, how do you justify that? In a view in which your entire moral analysis consists of trying to divine what an imaginary being worshipped by premillenial pastoralists wants us to do? Do you find this argument perhaps offensive? If so, go back and read yours.

As for killing children they don't want, that's a very common canard, the idea is that they are grown men who drink all day and waste their family's sources, and I doubt very many died for it. I am not here to defend the conquest of Canaanites or execution for Biblical Capital crimes, I am here to ask a question which you ultimately dodged.....

I see. What you don't want is to justify or even explain your own morality, only attack others. Noted.

Now does this mean people should go off and murder, steal, and lie? I don't think so.

If you were offered by the government $10,000,000 to go kill a random person with a guaranteed get away (guaranteed), would you do it? Would you lie or steal in a way which would earn you $10,000,000 if you were guaranteed to not get caught but it cost someone else their life?

Absolutely not. I can't think of a better way to ruin my life.

I suppose I could think of an exception, e.g. if the person the government was asking me to kill was in an airplane traveling toward Chicago with a suicide bomb...but even then it would be hard to do.

Life isn't fair, and sometimes bad people get away with doing bad things.

Right, and the question is, why should they stop themselves if they can get away with it?

Because unless they are a sociopath (in which case discussions of morality are not helpful) they will make themselves miserable for the rest of their life. Fact.

Now, for you, if your God commands you to do kill someone else, would you do it?

So once again, what is to stop a person from murdering, rape, stealing, defrauding, and such if they feel they can get away with it? Why should they feel any restraint if they can get away with it like so many experienced criminals do?

Because doing so is a path to misery--for them.

[jedicri]

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?

Good question and I believe I know where Shermana is going here and I agree with him here.

His question reminds me of what John Henry Newman wrote with regards man's conscience and God's existence. He questions why should a thief flee a scene of a crime or a murderer for that matter and from whom do they flee from. Newman goes on to question why, if we have done something good to our fellow neighbours, we feel a sense of happiness and peace of mind, but feel the contrary when we have done ill towards them. I don't have the exact quote with me at the moment but I hopefully will post it once I've retrieved that particular book from my girlfriend.

But I will post what Newman had written about conscience in his letter to the Duke of Norfolk. By the way, Newman made it clear that by conscience he was not talking about "private judgement."

He wrote:
"Conscience is not a long-sighted selfishness, nor a desire to be consistent with oneself; but it is a messenger from Him, Who, both in nature and grace, speaks to us behind a veil, and teaches and rules us by His representatives. Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ. ...

Conscience has rights because it has duties; but in this age, with a large portion of the public, it is the very right and freedom of conscience to dispense with conscience, to ignore a Lawgiver and Judge, to be independent of unseen obligations. It becomes a licence to take up any or no religion, to take up this or that and let it go again, to go to church, to go to chapel, to boast of being above all religions and to be an impartial critic of each of them. Conscience is a stern monitor, but in this century it has been superseded by a counterfeit, which the eighteen centuries prior to it never heard of, and could not have mistaken for it, if they had. It is the right of self-will." (Letter to the Duke of Norfolk)

[Autodidact]

Absolutely not. I hold such things to be absolutely wrong and there is no way I would engage in such acts for any amount of money. Besides, I wouldn't "get away" with anything under your scenario -- the guilt would torment me until my dying day. Never, ever would I engage in such evil acts.

Who is an Atheist to call something "evil"? Unless you believe in Moral Absolutism, how can you call something "evil"?

Who is a theist to call something "evil?" Unless you believe in Moral Absolutism, which no worshipper of a Canaanite war god can do, how can you call something "evil?" If killing babies is right, and slaughtering entire peoples for revenge against their ancestors, or to take their land, is right, how can you call anything wrong?

And by your next response, you seem to believe in Moral Absolutism, but WHO says what is moral? You? What is "evil"? Why would you have "guilt"? Because of societial pressure? Is this guilt "natural"? Is it the product of "evolution"? Why not just dismiss these "guilty feelings" like so many, even Christians do?

Because I live in reality. In reality, it is our nature to feel sympathy for others. And yes, this is because of evolution.

This, to me, is the problem with moral relativism. If morality is simply subjective, relative opinion, one can justify anything they want. Only objective moral facts and imperatives offer a solid basis for any sort of consistent morality.

What is an "objective moral fact"?[/qutoe] Our nature as human beings.

Who decides on what is objectively moral?

Reality.[qutoe] Do you consider something more "social" like Cheating on a spouse (or with someone else's) to be objectively immoral?

Yes.

Why is theft immoral?

Because it harms others, and you by your nature are aware of that.

Entire societies in the past (i.e. huns, aztecs) made their existence through plunder and mayhem, were they evil? Were they collectively wrong?

Yes, and yes. Oh, and to that list add of course Western Christianity, who built their existence on genocidal destruction of Jews, Muslims, Indians and anyone else who failed to join their religious tribe.

[spayne]

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 like the way Ravi Zacharias frames this issue, which he frequently talks about in his sermons.

When asked about the problem of evil and suffering he says that one has to question the questioner because...

If there’s such a thing as evil, you assume there’s such a thing as good.

If you assume there’s such a thing as good, you assume there’s such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil.

If you assume there’s such a thing as a moral law, you must posit a moral law giver...

but that is whom the questioner is trying to disprove.

Because if there’s not a moral law giver, there’s no moral law.

If there’s no moral law, there’s no good.

If there’s no good, there’s no evil.

And so what is the question?

[McCulloch]

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 morality is not about personal feelings. Nor is it about individual benefits. It is not even about getting away with stuff.

I don't think that even the basis of Christian morality is, "Don't do that, you might like it now, but God who sees everything will fry you for that."

Although, one is tempted to believe that the morality of some Christian apologists is that shallow. The way they make their point, we might believe that without the fear of God to reign them in, they would spend their lives in debauchery, crime and pillaging. To hear them speak, you would think that without the love of God in their lives, they would become incapable of empathy and compassion, a sense of fairness and honor. They must be in constant amazement that we atheists continue to maintain and encourage civil societies.

[Autodidact]

I think you'll be hard pressed to justify that moral "objectivists" - those who believe ought-statements have truth values - all share the same moral intutions. But if you can't, then justifying one's own moral intuitions (or reforming them accordingly) by appealing to God is extremely relevant, as pragmatics would not be as clear-cut as you seem to suppose.

Well, neither do all theists, or even all who worship the same God. As so often happens, this is compatible with the hypothesis that such a God exists only in their imagination.

But your point about identifying the set of things which God regards to be good is well-taken and brings me back to my point that ethics cannot be divorced from epistemology. It isn't sufficient to believe in, say, a deistic god in order to justify moral duties, for then one would only have his moral intuitions as his justification. But due to different moral intuitions, by what means can we judge which align with the deistic god's own views? None. Divine revelation is a necessary corollary to divinely grounded ethics. This is one reason why I'm interested in what Haven will do.

Do those who base their morality on divine revelation all share the same morality?

Regarding not-particularly-subjective moral relativism I think Darias makes a good case, along with comments from others. I think his comments are quite a reasonable counterpoint to Hume's is/ought problem which Haven mentioned and Knight expanded on. We don't have a simple dichotomy between objective morality and the equivalency of all moral or amoral viewpoints. I and 99% of humanity 'ought' to behave in a certain fashion because it's in our nature, courtesy of our capacity for empathy.

[qutoe]I disagree. This seems to abstract moral duty from the equation. It seems to me that you are emphasizing that "if we want x, we should do y." But rather than ask why we want x, should we want x? Why? Whatever answer one ultimately gives will be either true or false, and knowing which it is would seem to be more important than asking questions as to why we want x, at least in the context of a discussion about moral duties.[/quote] Because you want to be happy. Or don't you?

[Bust Nak]

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?

Yes, great example that morality is fluid and relative (both individually and cultural.)

If there’s such a thing as evil, you assume there’s such a thing as good.

Yes, there is such a thing as good.

If you assume there’s such a thing as good, you assume there’s such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil.

Sure, there is a way to differentiate between good and evil.

If you assume there’s such a thing as a moral law, you must posit a moral law giver...

Right, a judge as it were.

but that is whom the questioner is trying to disprove.

No, it isn't. I don't think I am God.

Because morality is not about personal feelings.

What is morality if not what people feel is right or wrong?

[McCulloch]

If there’s such a thing as evil, you assume there’s such a thing as good.

If you assume there’s such a thing as good, you assume there’s such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil.

If you assume there’s such a thing as a moral law, you must posit a moral law giver...

To me moral laws exist in the same way as the laws of physics, chemistry, biology, economics, probability and mathematics do. I have no knowledge of the law-giver for any of these disciplines. If you posit a law-giver for any or all of these, then at most, you posit a kind of Aristotelian Deist god.

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?

Yes, great example that morality is fluid and relative (both individually and cultural.)

No, this is a great example of how the perception of morality has changed between various cultures.

[Bust Nak]

No, this is a great example of how the perception of morality has changed between various cultures.

Care to elaborate the distinction between what we wrote?

[Artie]

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: A man should not murder, rape, defraud, lie, or steal because a man is dependent on the stability of the society he lives in and the stability of the society depends on the morals of the individual. Morals are an automatic code of law which developed when the first organisms started cooperating to ensure prosperity both for the individual and the society.