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]

There's seems to be some cognitive dissonance in this reply.

Cognitive dissonance is, sadly, something that goes along with some of the implications of atheism.

If a Christian said they "just know" God exists - which I believe you accused me of doing in another thread - would you find that answer to be a justifiable one?

No, but belief in God is not necessary to live a human life, while living morally is.

Why ought anyone live or empathize?

Simply because life is worth living -- it sure beats the alternative. We empathize because:

1) Our nature allows us to feel empathy.
2) Others have the right to live life.

[Artie]

I just told you. The moment organisms started cooperating it increased the chances of survival for the individual and the group as a whole. Morality was born. Those who were moral survived, those who were immoral didn't. Those who took responsibility for others and for whom others took responsibility survived.

Immorality pervades our culture. How can you say immorality dies out?

Didn't say immorality dies out. Evolution works on populations not individuals. There will always be shades of gray from very moral people to very immoral people.

Furthermore, you are only explaining how moral beliefs became a part of our culture. You aren't explaining whether or not those beliefs are true.

There's no such thing as moral beliefs other than as a human invention otherwise monkeys wouldn't exhibit moral behavior such as empathy and compassion. Unless you think monkeys have a belief system? Morals are simply a result of evolution just as our bodies are.

Still don't understand what you mean. Could you perhaps use a few more words to explain exactly the point you are trying to make?

You murdered someone. People find out about it. How do you want to be treated by said people?

I would want to be treated according to how the law says I should be treated of course? What else could I want or expect in such a situation?

[Shermana]

Simply because life is worth living -- it sure beats the alternative. We empathize because:

Do you think that applies to everyone? Does everyone believe that their life is worth living? How about a person in extreme chronic pain with no hope of recovery? How about a person with a rare disease and no one wants to befriend them? How about a person starving to death and can't find any food? How about a slave?

[Shermana]

I just do. I can't give a more coherent or intellectual answer than that -- I just know.

There's seems to be some cognitive dissonance in this reply. If a Christian said they "just know" God exists - which I believe you accused me of doing in another thread - would you find that answer to be a justifiable one?

Indeed, looks like the "I just know" factor isn't just for Theists now is it? And isn't that concept one of the favorite Atheist criticisms of Theists?

[Shermana]

We have immorality because a certain level of it is still beneficial to the individual. There are many moral strategies one can apply. The criminal strategy is to be moral enough for acceptance in society while being immoral enough to gain an advantage. This strategy is risky but clearly works well enough to continue it's propagation.

Therefore, if one can become "happy" through criminal acts and ill gotten gains, who is the Atheist to say that it is immoral? Who is the Atheist to call the Mafia immoral if they can collect protection money from 60% of the businesses of Sicily and control the local politics without a problem? It works for them, keeps their families fed.

Who is the Atheist to say that one warring tribe who kills another and takes their land and cattle is wrong, if it benefits their tribe? And the same applies to a whole country. Was the USSR wrong for invading Poland and Finland to advance their own strategic positions? And individuals. In ancient Mongolia, it was common for a man to kidnap another man's bride, and if he succeeded, it was viewed as the natural way, that's how Genghis Khan was born. If it benefits someone and they can get away with the risks, what's the harm in harming?

[Knight]

No, but belief in God is not necessary to live a human life, while living morally is.

Are there not people who live immorally?

Simply because life is worth living -- it sure beats the alternative. We empathize because:

1) Our nature allows us to feel empathy.
2) Others have the right to live life.

On what basis do you claim 2)? Or do you have no basis?

[Knight]

There's no such thing as moral beliefs other than as a human invention otherwise monkeys wouldn't exhibit moral behavior such as empathy and compassion. Unless you think monkeys have a belief system? Morals are simply a result of evolution just as our bodies are.

"I ought to respect the lives of others" or "I ought to treat others as I would like to be treated" are moral beliefs. Are you saying neither of these beliefs have a truth value, that both of these beliefs are false, or something else?

I haven't claimed to know anything about monkeys. You have. But you aren't a monkey, so anything you say about how monkeys think is, I suspect, the product of effect to cause reasoning, as in your link.

I would want to be treated according to how the law says I should be treated of course? What else could I want or expect in such a situation?

Mercy, perhaps?

[Autodidact]

You don't need a deity to whom you are responsible. If you use logic, reason and common sense to guide your morals you would understand that you're responsible to yourself, your family, your friends up to the whole human race

By all means, show me from logic, reason, and [so-called] common sense that I am, in fact, responsible to these people.

Because, among other things, as a practical matter, you live in relationship to them. In fact, you cannot liv otherwise. If nothing else, the way they respond to you will depend on how you treat them.

In addition, your own natural emotional response will depend on how you treat them.

[Knight]

Because, among other things, as a practical matter, you live in relationship to them. In fact, you cannot liv otherwise. If nothing else, the way they respond to you will depend on how you treat them.

In addition, your own natural emotional response will depend on how you treat them.

This all may be true, but I don't see how this functions as an answer as to why I am responsible to them.

[Autodidact]

Seeking approval implies want of payment (approval) for one's actions. This is in contrast to benevolence or charity where one does good for the sake of doing good (because it feels good).

Unless you think that one can do good for no reason or purpose (I don't), whatever reason you provide as to why one does good could be viewed as a quid pro quo.

It is a psychological fact that being kind to others will make you happy.