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]

Given the common declaration that this god is infinite in regards to time, I propose that any action he may take may be considered both "slow" and "fast". That's the beauty of the god concept - it's all things to all people.

That's an acceptable proposition. But I also think that the beauty of God is that he is extremely personal, and so he speaks to us in terms we will understand. So when he says slow he means slow.

So true, so when God says, what? You left some babies? That really make me angry. Now go back and make sure you kill each and every baby boy, but keep the girls for yourselves, it's crystal clear. Anyone can understand it.

And when God tells us to treat Hebrew slaves with some respect, but that we can buy foreigners and treat them as pure property, there's really no ambiguity there.

If God commands us to murder our own child, it's important that we be willing to do it. It's all so clear, so personal.

Ask the starving, the prayerful, the lacking.

Yes, I'm sure it's no coincidence that the starving, the prayerful and the lacking understand the goodness of God.[/quote]

Also those who just don't happen to have been brainwashed into believing in Jesus as a child.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

I know I'm late on this one. I simply wanted to make the comment that this issue (as well as the corresponding issue of meaning in life) is the theistic argument I find most persuasive as well.

There have been many times in which I've been in the process of abandoning my faith, the lack of (what I perceive to be) a reasonable secular view of morality and purpose in existence is what has always prevented me from doing so.

When it was pointed out to me that Christians need not reject a thing about evolution, or even mind-body physicalism, I became willing to say that, based on the information available, some forms of Christianity are the most valid approach to life I've encountered.

Hello Jester, it's been awhile.

I don't understand how the decision to believe or not to believe is even an option for you, or Haven, or anyone else. For example, when I as a child came to realize that there is no Santa Claus, there was no decision to be made on my part. It's not true, of course it's not true, and I now understand that. I do not have the choice to simply decide that I will believe in Santa because I like believing in Santa. That door no longer even exists. And so it was for me, at about age thirteen, when I came to understand that all religions are founded on empty claims, misguided faith, myth and superstition. Religion is entirely unrealistic, like believing in Santa. Once I understood that, the door was gone, and there was no choice to be made. Which meant that I couldn't go back. But really, I never wanted to. I would rather experience this wonderful moment of sentient consciousness that I have managed to achieve for what it actually has to offer, rather than perceive it through the lens of a mass delusion. I am the universe trying to make sense of itself, and it has never occurred to me that I really need any greater purpose then that.

The problem with morality is that it is an arbitrary concept, like right and wrong. Is it wrong to kill? Sometimes, but not always it seems. Our Medal of Honor winners are made up of individuals who killed well and bravely. Is it wrong to lie? It's impossible to always tell the truth without needlessly hurting others, is it not? We have to be selective about lying just to maintain our relationships. We call it, "being diplomatic." As with killing, exceptions exist because no true absolute standard of right and wrong exists. Even for the religious. Is it right for religious parents to allow their child to die from something which is easily curable in an effort to adhere to their personal religious beliefs? Opinions differ on these questions precisely because right and wrong is AN OPINION, and opinions by their nature are arbitrary. There is no absolute standard, which I understand can be frustrating. The PETA people believe that humans have no moral right to kill and eat animals. That is their opinion. Are they "right" or are they "wrong?" WHO SAYS? Opinions differ on abortion, slavery, and the death penalty for example. Are they right or wrong? Neither! They are EVENTS. Society decides whether or not they will be tolerated, and society has changed it's mind over time.

I am not denouncing opinions here. I certainly have my own. I am simply pointing out that opinions are subjective and therefore arbitrary rather than immutable. Most of us share an inherent concept of what is right and what is wrong. The whole concept really is based on a single principal; do no intentional first harm to others in a way that you would not wish them to harm you. If no one did "first harm" then there would be no conflict. Respecting each other and expecting the same treatment in return is all the moral center that is needed. No big daddy in the sky is required. The God of the Bible is the very definition of arbitrary, a reflection of the arbitrary humans that conceived him.

[Knight]

And you know this how?

I've said it several times now: it follows from my epistemic presupposition, Scripture. Specifically, Romans 9:19-21.

what religion were you brought up in?

Christianity.

On the other hand, Job. Also King David, Abraham and Isaac, Cain and Able, Lot's wife, amalekite babies, the Egyptian's first born...

Are you just listing names or was there a point to any of this?

First, I say over and over exactly what you ought to do, if you want to live a good life. Second, telling us that we "ought" to kill other peoples babies or, for that matter, me, if a being whose existence you cannot demonstrate tells you, is hardly helpful.

You don't believe that empathy is part of human nature?

First, you have no justification for living a good life. Outlining the logical process to reach a given desire is not relevant to whether the desire itself is rational (or moral). Second, I can demonstrate God's "existence" by God's revelation.

Of course empathy isn't a part of human nature. I thought I explained my reasons for that belief pretty clearly,

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 199:

That's an acceptable proposition. But I also think that the beauty of God is that he is extremely personal, and so he speaks to us in terms we will understand. So when he says slow he means slow.

I'm unaware of any god speaking to anyone.

A God who is only loving but who will not or can not uphold justice and firmly establish control over evil is insincere and ineffectual, don't you think?

Ask the starving, the prayerful, the lacking.

Yes, I'm sure it's no coincidence that the starving, the prayerful and the lacking understand the goodness of God.

This, I contend, is an example of the god concept in action. Notice the change of meaning employed to continue the notion of a "good" God.

Where there are starving folks, in the millions, I contend this is not indicative of a "good" God, but of a God that prefers folks suffer over lifting a finger to help.

[Strider324]

I know I'm late on this one. I simply wanted to make the comment that this issue (as well as the corresponding issue of meaning in life) is the theistic argument I find most persuasive as well.

There have been many times in which I've been in the process of abandoning my faith, the lack of (what I perceive to be) a reasonable secular view of morality and purpose in existence is what has always prevented me from doing so.

When it was pointed out to me that Christians need not reject a thing about evolution, or even mind-body physicalism, I became willing to say that, based on the information available, some forms of Christianity are the most valid approach to life I've encountered.

Hello Jester, it's been awhile.

I don't understand how the decision to believe or not to believe is even an option for you, or Haven, or anyone else. For example, when I as a child came to realize that there is no Santa Claus, there was no decision to be made on my part. It's not true, of course it's not true, and I now understand that. I do not have the choice to simply decide that I will believe in Santa because I like believing in Santa. That door no longer even exists. And so it was for me, at about age thirteen, when I came to understand that all religions are founded on empty claims, misguided faith, myth and superstition. Religion is entirely unrealistic, like believing in Santa. Once I understood that, the door was gone, and there was no choice to be made. Which meant that I couldn't go back. But really, I never wanted to. I would rather experience this wonderful moment of sentient consciousness that I have managed to achieve for what it actually has to offer, rather than perceive it through the lens of a mass delusion. I am the universe trying to make sense of itself, and it has never occurred to me that I really need any greater purpose then that.

I'm keeping this. I might even claim it as my own.....

[Autodidact]

And you know this how?

I've said it several times now: it follows from my epistemic presupposition, Scripture. Specifically, Romans 9:19-21.

Oh, I see. Circular reasoning.

what religion were you brought up in?

Christianity.

Of course. Like most of the world's religionists, you believe what you were taught as a child.

On the other hand, Job. Also King David, Abraham and Isaac, Cain and Able, Lot's wife, amalekite babies, the Egyptian's first born...

Are you just listing names or was there a point to any of this?

"Whimsical" would be a kind way to describe your God's treatment of these people. I would choose "cruel" "arbitrary" and "bizarre."

First, I say over and over exactly what you ought to do, if you want to live a good life. Second, telling us that we "ought" to kill other peoples babies or, for that matter, me, if a being whose existence you cannot demonstrate tells you, is hardly helpful.

You don't believe that empathy is part of human nature?

First, you have no justification for living a good life

. I don't need one.

Outlining the logical process to reach a given desire is not relevant to whether the desire itself is rational (or moral).

It's simply what our goal is. Is that not your goal? If you prefer to be miserable, and live a lousy life, this system will not help you. Do you?

Second, I can demonstrate God's "existence" by God's revelation.

Great. Go for it. Let's start by having it revealed to me, for example.

[qutoe]Of course empathy isn't a part of human nature. I thought I explained my reasons for that belief pretty clearly,[/quote] Well that is simply factually incorrect, as has been shown by reams of research. Even toddlers demonstrate empathy. You see it around you every day.

Did you say you're a Calvinist? That is such a evil moral system, I can't imagine how you can discuss the subject coherently. I mean, if you really believe that all people, including newborn babies, are totally depraved, you don't have a good basis on which to respect or, for that matter, feel empathy for them.

And you say this is what God instructs you? He must be evil as well. That fits His actions as described in the Bible. Only a being who believed that babies were totally depraved could command His soldiers to stab them to death.

[Knight]

We know that we think, and in fact it's the only thing we can be truly certain of. Why we think is a secondary question, as you mentioned earlier in response to my theory on why we have empathy or act 'morally.' However the question which you are persistant in asking is not why, but if we 'ought' to act in any particular fashion. Unlike thinking, we don't know if we ought to seek/follow the will of some deity, if we're 'responsible' to him, so it's a flawed analogy.

To know that you think, you have to know who "you" are. I wouldn't be so dismissive of such a difficult problem.

Either way, my question as to "why we think" is not analogous to "why we have moral beliefs" (although it could be) but "why we are obligated or ought to do X." Asking "why" we ought to do X is just to ask for the reason we ought to do X, just as asking why we think is just to ask for the reason we think. The reason is the same: God has created us that way. They are aspects of our ontological makeup. This isn't circular.

(1) Do you disagree that the manner in which God created us is an expression of his will?
(2) Do you disagree that responsibility to God means we ought to seek/follow his will?
(3) Do you disagree that we ought to seek/follow God's will because it's God's will that we do so?

(1) seems self-evident. You equated 'ought to' with responsibility in post 148, hence point (2) - unless I've misunderstood or you've changed your mind? So (3) follows logically; if we're responsible to God because he made us responsible, then we ought to seek/follow God's will because it's God's will that we do so.

This is either circular, or an incoherent concept of 'ought to' and responsibility.

You are equivocating on the nature of God's will. Post-apostolic Christians have for a long time recognized a distinction between God's sovereign will (what will occur due to God's determination or ultimate causation of such) and what God commands us to do. Why can what God commands conflict with what He has determined we will do? Because what God commands reflects what men are obligated to do, not what God is obligated to do. God is responsible to Himself (Hebrews 6:13). God ought to uphold His glory as must we. If these conflict, it will be man rather than God who will fail to uphold God's glory, as God will not determine a course of action inconsistent with the fulfillment of His obligation. So I reject either point 2 or 3 or both, depending on which you mean to equate with God's sovereign will.

Ah, I see what you're getting at. But you might want to re-read that original statement. They overlap to the extent that they're both regulators of human behaviour, but moral systems aren't the same as legal systems. And in fact even most moral systems acknowledge exceptions to "do unto others..."

Exceptions? On what grounds? It seems that whatever you would answer would be your actual ultimate moral principle. It's not really the golden rule after all.

Rest assured that there are many Christians who don't understand the difference between the laws which a state makes and enforces, and their own morals.

I don't see how this is relevant.

That's pretty much my view of human behaviour, both 'good' and 'bad.' Of course creating living, thinking beings for the express purpose of destruction would almost universally be considered 'bad' by those who aren't Calvinists. And since those vessels of wrath have no choice - for "who can resist His will" when He wants to harden them? - they also are acting necessarily in accordance with their own (enforced) nature.

A correction: to determine one's course of action is not to say that the person cannot choose. He cannot choose a different course of action, but that's not relevant to the fact he can and does still choose the determined course of action. To "choose" is just to exercise one's will. If one's will can be determined by his desires, God can determine the will by determining his desires. This isn't a free will, but it is a will. It is choice.

In other words, it seems as though your view of God is a being constrained by his nature to keep creating new members of a species born with a morally corrupt nature, including murderers and rapists who are constrained by their nature? And this is your source of moral inspiration!?

Is this an argument from incredulity?

It sounds to me (and building a little on your earlier posts) as though you're saying that since as human minds we can't truly know anything beyond our own existence, divine revelation is a necessary precondition for any genuine knowledge.

I'm going further than that and saying nothing can be known except by Scripture. Since you're interested, I've been debating with a few atheists (and theists) in this thread about that.

I meant that what you had previously posted did not show anything about lack of empathy; the sister thing obviously does.

Ok.

Presumably you would credit the progressively increasing 'restraint of sin' in many non-Christian households to God rather than to the family itself?

Correct.

But you can understand how this could be viewed as simply ignoring evidence which seems more consistent with my view, I assume? As they progress through normal human development, children's sense of empathy and their treatment of others grow progressively more nuanced. A loving, stable and structured environment is generally considered both the norm and the ideal.

It's another correlation = causation or effect-to-cause reasoning fallacy. It's only "ignoring evidence which seems more consistent" if you a priori assume such. But there isn't any reason for me to do that.

'Human nature' is generally used in reference to psychological or behavioural characteristics of our species, so while it does work in the discussion I avoided that phrase. But by implication, you believe that either that even thinking is not part of 'human nature,' or that people in a coma are not human? That either arms are not part of our natures, or that amputees are not human?

I think a few questions are begged regarding thinking, as no one can have a first-person perspective of anyone but himself. To be more precise, however, I would say rational equipment is a the essential part of human nature. Arms aren't a part of our natures.

I would guess that there's exceptions to pretty much every trait which the overwhelming majority of humans share, and those few which all humans share - circulatory, respiratory and central nervous systems, not always functioning - are by no means unique to humans.

Maybe not humans who are living, but remember that I believe in an afterlife.

Sometimes communication can be difficult, but in this case I'm not sure you're even trying to understand me. For starters, I was using the word empathy, not morality. And if you're saying that sexuality or communication aren't part of our natures then there's really no point trying to discuss anything with you.

Communication may be. Sexuality isn't. At least, not on my understanding of human nature, i.e. the nature of... humans

Furthermore, my point specifically was that (particularly in the case of communication or language) at the species level the two are remarkably analogous. Ask the average Chinese citizen to discuss weather with the average American citizen and you'll see my point. But every Chinese person speaks to others, as does every American - and they all have empathy for others also. This was specifically my point, so I'm amazed that you haven't grasped it:

Well, color me stupid, because I still don't get it. While I may not be able to communicate with a Chinese person about the weather, it isn't precluded that we can discover a means to such communication and agreement. Contrarily, people who have mutually exclusive views as to empathy and morality by definition disagree. Not even moral (empathetic) beliefs qua moral (empathetic) beliefs are "grasped at the level of species."

Again, I specifically stated that this process of empathy begins with how we want to be treated, then extends to our family, then the community... and apparently we really haven't grasped it at the level of our species yet.

I remember, which is why I said it isn't a part of our nature. Such a process doesn't "begin" in everyone.

Communication and language, empathy, sexuality and no doubt many other characteristics besides have all been traits of the overwhelming majority of humans, in every society, in all periods of history - and evidence suggests in other primate species also. If you want to dispute that these are aspects of our nature, I'd advise doing better than rendering any conception of our natures to be meaningless because of some few exceptions. By that reasoning, you were wrong to say that we have a morally corrupt nature.

The difference is I wasn't speaking about humans in toto. I was speaking about humans who have been born, and even that has to be further qualified by humans who have human fathers.

Then your only reason for presuming our nature to be morally corrupt comes from the pages of a book? And your reason for presuming that this book is thousands of years old (let alone being God's own word!) comes from...?

The scratches on a page would only represent the truth which is actually efficiently mediated to my mind by God. I never claimed to know how old the book is.

Our only way of understanding our fellow humans' behaviour, as with monkeys, is by observation and analogy. Since you reject that form of understanding as knowledge, it would seem you can't even tell when your own mother is telling you the truth, yes?

I can't know that I have a mother. I can opine that I do. You will not get me to compromise on the meaning of knowledge as a state of belief in which the possibility of error is precluded.

I would respect your rigid scepticism, except that you seem to be putting blind faith in this bible of yours - handed to you by other humans, apparently from your childhood - as the basis for everything else you claim as 'knowledge.'

Blind faith? Lol, step over to the other topic and we'll continue this epistemic discussion. Be sure to include your alternative to knowledge.

[Knight]

Oh, I see. Circular reasoning.

Howso?

Of course. Like most of the world's religionists, you believe what you were taught as a child.

My parents aren't Calvinists. And given most =/= all, how is this relevant?

"Whimsical" would be a kind way to describe your God's treatment of these people. I would choose "cruel" "arbitrary" and "bizarre."

It would be a false description. You haven't even attempted to show that the actions in the lives of these persons cannot function as a means to the manifestation of God's glory.

I don't need one.

Then it seems you rather than God act arbitrarily.

It's simply what our goal is. Is that not your goal? If you prefer to be miserable, and live a lousy life, this system will not help you. Do you?

It isn't preferable per se, but it isn't my goal either.

1 Corinthians 10:31 So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.

1 Peter 4:16 Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name.

Great. Go for it. Let's start by having it revealed to me, for example.

Deuteronomy 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.

Well that is simply factually incorrect, as has been shown by reams of research. Even toddlers demonstrate empathy. You see it around you every day.

Like my brother who gets my sister in trouble for claiming she did the bad thing he did? Did you ever go to high school?

Did you say you're a Calvinist? That is such a evil moral system, I can't imagine how you can discuss the subject coherently. I mean, if you really believe that all people, including newborn babies, are totally depraved, you don't have a good basis on which to respect or, for that matter, feel empathy for them.

Other than that I was one?

And you say this is what God instructs you? He must be evil as well. That fits His actions as described in the Bible. Only a being who believed that babies were totally depraved could command His soldiers to stab them to death.

Bait rejected. You have no recourse to an epistemic system according to which you can know what one should or is obligated to do, so any definition of evil you have is purely arbitrary.

[Slopeshoulder]

Too bad it's not 2011 when I had more time. Then I'd make destroying Knight, from a christian perspective, my ministry for the year! A worthy oppenent, who must be...um...destroyed! Presuupositional apologetics rears its self validating circular head! In thge sevice of deathdealing nonsense. Lord, spare us.


As a catholic-of-sorts, I think humans will the good, albeit in a morally finite (aka fallen) way.
As someone who takes facts seriously, I'd affirm that we have empathy in our nature. and sexuality too. At least in my nature. Damn.

If there is anything more odious than a modern committed calvinist or wahhabist, I haven't found it.

OK carry on... I gotta spend the weekend in a recording studio. Anyone know anything about how to build a good faraday cage? PM me!

[gnuman05]

This guy in the video has no clue, zilch about our Creator God, nor the Bible, nor the reasons the law was given, or why it was given, why we no longer are under the law, especially its summed-up meaning of; "Love one another as I have loved you" that Jesus left us with. He is actually very funny acting as if he knew what he was talking about. And sadly, this is sufficient for people to disbelief?? I honestly just don't get it?

The guy in that video has read a great deal of the bible, but honestly, no one has to read the bible to understand its premise, or its God, when Christians incessantly recite scripture and boast about its devine claims; he seems to understand it much better than Christian apologists do. He refutes the monotheistic notion that objective morals are not intrinsic to humans and can only come from a devine presence who has commanded them. Many philosophers do extensive research before making such claims, so his: "acting as if he knew what he was talking about," is merely a barrier you have put up to convince yourself that his astoot observations are nothing more than pretentious arguments.