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.

[Haven]

Isn't this just a god of the gaps argument wrapped up in a bunch of philosophical hogwash?

No. A "god of the gaps" argument states: 'we don't know, therefore god did it.' My question -- not really an argument -- was on the apparent logical impossibility of any basis for objective morality other than god(s). Other individuals have given good arguments pointing out why that is not necessarily the case.

Also, philosophy is not hogwash, but an excellent method for determining conceptual and metaphysical truths.

To me it seems the OP can't get rid of all the supernatural stuff that he was indoctrinated with during his stint as a X-tian.

Maybe. I don't discount that possibility. Morality is very important to me, however, and the concept of moral relativism doesn't sit well with me, even if it is intellectually airtight.

I sometimes feel the false hope and promises of religion pulling at me, but my rational mind knows better.

Theism does not necessarily equal religion. Even if a god exists, that wouldn't necessarily mean that any religion was true.

There's so much evidence in nature that support the basis of morals developing from evolution. No reason to posit some magical being on top of it.

I agree with this statement for the most part. My only issue is that it would lead to relativism and subjectivism, which are essentially forms of moral nihilism.

If there was some divine creator of absolute morals out there, and that being created us, then why did it create us with all these negative urges too? What's the point?

Good question.

However, on subjectivism, why would you call such urges "negative?" Wouldn't they simply be "different" or "not what [you] prefer?" You're appealing to objective morality to make a case for moral relativism!

Positing a god on top of something we haven't figured out just raises even more questions.

I agree, which is why I'm not a theist.

[robnixxo]

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.

Hello Haven.

Let's take the 'Laws of Physics' as an example, what if we said there is no real laws of physics, for at times scientists describe physics somewhat differently than others.
Would that, or could that start a trend and raise the question whether or not the laws of physics are really trustworthy, or even needed?

Then ask, 'did science define the laws of physics, or were they always there'? (as far as we know)

Laws in physics create the beauty we see in nature, and even in the heavens as we look at the stars through our telescopes.

Would a rose be as beautiful and smell as sweet if there were no physical laws that define the rose?

What if (as you mentioned) we start redefining morals that have been considered good for most of mankind, as bad, and the bad as good? This is and has been happening for a long time, especially in communist countries where life became sheer-fear, suspicion, dishonesty, unfairness (as far as we would be concerned) just as this idea of no absolute morals is destroying our Christian based country today.

The communists tried reinterpreting the laws and have introduced a new set of morals where a few individuals defined what 'the common good' was for everyone, and kayos resulted. A complete collapse both moral and economical. Hope was lost, and people turned to drugs and heavy drinking. To turn your parents in to the Government for disagreeing with some of the new laws was an honorable deed, and the child was rewarded medals and demanded respect, ... or else.

Those that spread that 'there is no God' in these communist countries, also made it a 'law' (ironically) and they appointed moderators to keep a close eye on anyone breaking the 'no-God law', by observing if they mentioned, or read from the Bible, held religious meetings in their homes, singing hymns and so on. In Rumania under Tcheichesku they estimated that one out of two people were spies appointed as moderators of the people, which of course were all atheists.

Just something to consider, thanks

Odon

"Would a rose be as beautiful and smell as sweet if there were no physical laws that define the rose?"

Yes, because beauty isn't subjective...



What about the Inquisition? The genocide of other religions and cultures in the Bible?

Nice cherry pickin' there. Save some for the rest of us.

[robnixxo]

Isn't this just a god of the gaps argument wrapped up in a bunch of philosophical hogwash?

No. A "god of the gaps" argument states: 'we don't know, therefore god did it.' My question -- not really an argument -- was on the apparent logical impossibility of any basis for objective morality other than god(s). Other individuals have given good arguments pointing out why that is not necessarily the case.

Also, philosophy is not hogwash, but an excellent method for determining conceptual and metaphysical truths.

To me it seems the OP can't get rid of all the supernatural stuff that he was indoctrinated with during his stint as a X-tian.

Maybe. I don't discount that possibility. Morality is very important to me, however, and the concept of moral relativism doesn't sit well with me, even if it is intellectually airtight.

I sometimes feel the false hope and promises of religion pulling at me, but my rational mind knows better.

Theism does not necessarily equal religion. Even if a god exists, that wouldn't necessarily mean that any religion was true.

There's so much evidence in nature that support the basis of morals developing from evolution. No reason to posit some magical being on top of it.

I agree with this statement for the most part. My only issue is that it would lead to relativism and subjectivism, which are essentially forms of moral nihilism.

If there was some divine creator of absolute morals out there, and that being created us, then why did it create us with all these negative urges too? What's the point?

Good question.

However, on subjectivism, why would you call such urges "negative?" Wouldn't they simply be "different" or "not what [you] prefer?" You're appealing to objective morality to make a case for moral relativism!

Positing a god on top of something we haven't figured out just raises even more questions.

I agree, which is why I'm not a theist.

A negative urge would have a negative effect on the group. What's considered negative would be determined by the group. If you don't agree, you'd find a different group that agreed with you, or live by yourself. Or, you would continue to take that negative action and suffer the consequences. Isn't that how all morals and laws work, basically?

Personally, I consider 'evil' as any purposeful action taken that has a negative effect on another person or group's welfare.

Regarding objectivity, there are certain actions that we know are detrimental to a person's health or general welfare. Again, this comes from nature. Objective morals would be based on these facts.

[Thatguy]

The Euthyphro dilemma fails at this because it doesn't assume that God is a fundamental, necessary being, only that he/she/it is a powerful being that interacts with the universe.

I don't see it as a failure. If God's somehow necessary (another assumption added on to the pile of them) I don't see that it alters the question. It still needs a response. If the God tells you to torture a child do you do it? Is it good because God tells you to?

Why would the necessary being have to be good? Why not bad or indifferent? If it were a bad god, it might have made a moral code that stressed the merits of torture for no reason. If it were bad or neutral, it might create circumstances that would lead to horrible events and then sit back and not intervene to prevent those events. Would you be obligated to follow that code for any reason other than abject fear of a more powerful being?

Why would the being create morality? Maybe it created the universe without it. What if the God had made the Universe as it is but entirely without a moral code? Would we be living without morality at all, or would we have invented moral codes? If so, how would it differ in any way from morality as it's currently practiced?

If the necessary being was a jerk, would being a jerk be good?

[Thatguy]

If there was some divine creator of absolute morals out there, and that being created us, then why did it create us with all these negative urges too? What's the point?

Good question.

However, on subjectivism, why would you call such urges "negative?" Wouldn't they simply be "different" or "not what [you] prefer?" You're appealing to objective morality to make a case for moral relativism!

Let me toss this one out, not having fully thought it through but never letting that stop me:

Let's say that a driver goes 75 in a 55 mile per hour zone. Can we say that that driver was speeding? I'll assume for the sake of argument that there is no objective speed limit set for automobiles by some fundamental force of the Universe. Since what is speeding and what is not is purely a product of human opinion, are we limited to saying that the driver was driving at a different speed? Or can we say he was guilty of speeding?

What is speeding and what isn't is purely opinion. Yet we don't have to throw up our hands and let everyone act upon their own personal perceptions and opinions. If we feel it important enough, we can limit the conduct of others based upon shared views of what's right and wrong. Which doesn't stop a kid in a Camaro from saying it's not really speeding or an 80 year old pedestrian from saying that 35 is speeding.

[Autodidact]

Anything wrong with that? What hesitations would you have in accepting my assertions? In what significant way do those hesitations differ from how you'd evaluate whether there must be a god to originate moral truths?

I see your point . . . from an epistemic standpoint, your "goodium" hypothetical really doesn't differ from positing an unprovable supernatural being as the basis of all morality. We wouldn't be able to know of either.

Ontologically, however, there are some key advantages to a god serving as the basis of all morality. For instance, God is said to be the most fundamental element of all reality, as well as a necessary being (existing in all possible worlds). The nature (and any commands that flow from that nature) of a fundamental, necessary being can serve as an objective basis for morality.

The Euthyphro dilemma fails at this because it doesn't assume that God is a fundamental, necessary being, only that he/she/it is a powerful being that interacts with the universe.

Assuming (or defining) that God is a necessary being is circular. It assumes what you're trying to figure out--whether God is necessary. You can't define a being into existence, anymore than I can define the IPU as a necessary unicorn.

[McCulloch]

Let me toss this one out, not having fully thought it through but never letting that stop me:

Let's say that a driver goes 75 in a 55 mile per hour zone. Can we say that that driver was speeding? I'll assume for the sake of argument that there is no objective speed limit set for automobiles by some fundamental force of the Universe. Since what is speeding and what is not is purely a product of human opinion, are we limited to saying that the driver was driving at a different speed? Or can we say he was guilty of speeding?

What is speeding and what isn't is purely opinion. Yet we don't have to throw up our hands and let everyone act upon their own personal perceptions and opinions. If we feel it important enough, we can limit the conduct of others based upon shared views of what's right and wrong. Which doesn't stop a kid in a Camaro from saying it's not really speeding or an 80 year old pedestrian from saying that 35 is speeding.

I think that we can work with this analogy.

We need to make the distinction between the law and morality. In this case, the analogy to morality is what is the maximum speed that can be safely driven. That could be objectively determined, but, of course, it varies depending on the weather, traffic conditions, the ability of the driver, the angle of the sun and road conditions. But people are notoriously bad at estimating the safely of their own actions, so we make rules. The rules are necessarily arbitrary. We should not mistake what is safe with what is lawful. Sometimes it is safe to exceed the limit. Sometimes even the limit is not safe.

[Autodidact]

And, how does God being a 'fundamental necessary being' make that any different that just a powerful being that interacts with the universe?'

A fundamental necessary being is the objective basis of everything that exists, including morality.

On what do you base this assertion?

(Assuming theism) everything that exists is contingent upon and supervenes on God. Such a being is categorically different than a powerful being that interacts with the universe.

Yes, assuming that God exists, God definitely exists.

And, considering the state of human knowledge and ability, how do you distinguish between 'objective morality' and 'Boy, I really would like it to be this way'.??

You can't, which is why I am still an atheist.

I'm an atheist because the evidence does not support the hypothesis that God exists.

[rosey]

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.

WOW!! This post has gotten a lot of activity in less than 24 hours!! Congrats Haven! I found that what your post states is very similar to a book I've been reading of late. This argument on moral relavitism (spelling?) and objectivism (spelling?) has caused me to lose my atheism. I am now hovering somewhere in between agnostic and theist. Many Atheists claim that morality is subjective, and evolution has simply carved our consciences into what they are now. I find this somewhat disturbing. Does that imply that the random forces of evolution could make the next stage of humans consciences prefer to dine on other's raw flesh? And thus it would not be wrong? Their has to be an objective morality, and completely random forces that I'm not even sure exist cannot supply objective morals.

[Goat]

WOW!! This post has gotten a lot of activity in less than 24 hours!! Congrats Haven! I found that what your post states is very similar to a book I've been reading of late. This argument on moral relavitism (spelling?) and objectivism (spelling?) has caused me to lose my atheism. I am now hovering somewhere in between agnostic and theist. Many Atheists claim that morality is subjective, and evolution has simply carved our consciences into what they are now. I find this somewhat disturbing. Does that imply that the random forces of evolution could make the next stage of humans consciences prefer to dine on other's raw flesh? And thus it would not be wrong? Their has to be an objective morality, and completely random forces that I'm not even sure exist cannot supply objective morals.

You are doing some misinformation here. Evolution is not 'Random forces'. It is the forces for survival. In a social animals, which humans are, this has promoted the trait of altruism. It isn't 'random forces' at all. The 'dine on human flesh' seems to be an emotional statement to try to evoke a negative reaction against an idea, rather than look at what the idea is at all.

The moralistic framework is instinctive in all social animals. .. altruism, cooperation all contribute to the survival of the group (if not the individual).

In my opinion, if there were objective morals, there wouldn't be the concept of morality, since those morals would be so instinctively followed there wouldn't be any variation for there to be conflict about.

If morals come about through EMPATHY, and reciprocal altruism , then there will be certain commonalities. Not eating your neighbor would be a common value.