Can Atheists be Moral? Can the Religious?

[Purple Knight]

Question for Debate: Can Atheists be Moral? Can the religious be moral?

I've heard the idea that atheists can't be moral, because physically, we're all just selfish apes, protecting and increasing our genes, and without some supernatural addition to this formula, good is not possible. The ape mother protects her child because that increases her genes. This act, the idea goes, is not moral, but selfish. Any time a human helps another human, this idea would apply.

I've also heard that religious people can't really be moral because whatever they do that is supposedly moral, they don't do it for its own sake, but for the reward. I've even heard that religious people can't be moral because their morality is unthinking. Random total obedience is morally neutral at best, so, the idea goes, if you're just blindly trusting somebody, even a powerful entity, that's not really morality.

Both of these ideas frankly seem to hold water so I'm curious if anyone can be moral.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #7]

I agree that atheists can be moral agents, but only if theism is true. If atheism is true, carrying out an action against a person without their consent cannot be wrong any more than eating pistachio ice cream would be wrong. If atheism is true, ignoring consent is as 'moral' as choosing an ice cream flavor (i.e., not moral at all) because there is no "should" with specific ice cream flavors.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #7]

I agree that atheists can be moral agents, but only if theism is true.

Let's unpack this.
Do you mean totally true, somewhat true, or are you being specific to theism defined along the lines "we exist within a creation, therefore there is a creator/are creators?

If atheism is true, carrying out an action against a person without their consent cannot be wrong any more than eating pistachio ice cream would be wrong.

If we do not exist within a creation, then action against a person without their consent cannot be wrong? Or cannot be seen to be either right or wrong?

If atheism is true, ignoring consent is as 'moral' as choosing an ice cream flavor (i.e., not moral at all) because there is no "should" with specific ice cream flavors.

If we exist within a creation, this implies that there are "shoulds" which we would naturally adhere to?

[benchwarmer]

I have not seen any good grounding for objective morality if atheism is true. As far as I have been able to tell, under atheism, there is no true good/evil, but just different tastes like we have with ice cream flavors determined by our socio-biological evolution and it could have been different. We could have evolved like certain animals who forcibly copulate or kill their mates after sex. I'm not sure I would call an action like protecting one's child "selfish," but it still wouldn't be good or evil.

I see a couple issues here. First, you seem to be assuming morals are objective in the first place. That's another debate that I'm sure has been done many times.

Second, I don't think morals are about 'good' and 'evil', but about 'right' and 'wrong' within a group.

Morals, in my view, are simply ideas that a particular group has codified to be things that are 'right' or 'wrong' in relation to how we act with each other and towards other living things.

In this view, atheists or theists can be moral. However, what might be considered moral in one group is not necessarily moral in another one. That's how we know morals are very likely not objective.

As for the religious people being moral (if theism is true), while some people are good for some reward or out of blind obedience, I don't think that is what motivates most of the Christians I know. We try to be good for its own sake because of the dignity of humans and our desire to see them experience goodness.

What you are saying makes no difference whether it's atheists or theists. Atheists can also do 'good' things for their own sake just to help other people.

See the quote that started this topic: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39491

If an atheist helps someone, they don't do it to please a god or because they fear eternal torture or worry about having their soul judged. They help others because they either want approval from other humans or they really care about their fellow humans.

In a society, it helps us all if we can all thrive and be happy, comfortable, and feel safe. In order to do that, we have developed morals that guide us in our interactions with others. These are developed over time and can differ from group to group. I want to be helped, so I help. I want to be safe, so I don't make others feel unsafe. It's simple reciprocity and awareness that if you want to live in a society, you have to participate at some level and give what you expect to receive. No religions or gods required.

[The Tanager]

Let's unpack this.
Do you mean totally true, somewhat true, or are you being specific to theism defined along the lines "we exist within a creation, therefore there is a creator/are creators?

Theism, meaning that God exists as creator of the world, must be totally true. Not other specific beliefs depending on what kind of theism is true, but just that basic point.

If we do not exist within a creation, then action against a person without their consent cannot be wrong? Or cannot be seen to be either right or wrong?

If we do not exist in a world with a God that created us, then action against a person without their consent cannot be right or wrong. It can be “seen” as right or wrong, incorrectly, by people, but it can’t actually be right or wrong.

If we exist within a creation, this implies that there are "shoulds" which we would naturally adhere to?

There wouldn't have to be "shoulds"; I'm saying it's the only way I've seen where we could get an objective "should". And I'm not saying people naturally adhere to these "shoulds"; I believe in free will which allows for acting against these "shoulds".

There wouldn’t have to be, but it’s the only situation I’ve ever seen where objective "shoulds" could be an actual reality.

[The Tanager]

I see a couple issues here. First, you seem to be assuming morals are objective in the first place. That's another debate that I'm sure has been done many times.

No, I haven’t assumed they are objective. I’ve said that if one assumes they are objective, then I see no way one could rationally conclude that atheism is true. In other words, if one assumes atheism is true, then morality is not objective.

Second, I don't think morals are about 'good' and 'evil', but about 'right' and 'wrong' within a group.

I’m fine using either set of terms. I don’t think atheism can account for ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, in this way but only “different”.

Morals, in my view, are simply ideas that a particular group has codified to be things that are 'right' or 'wrong' in relation to how we act with each other and towards other living things.

In this view, atheists or theists can be moral. However, what might be considered moral in one group is not necessarily moral in another one. That's how we know morals are very likely not objective.

Of course if we base “morality” on what a group considers right or wrong, then morals aren’t going to be objective, but that’s not a reason to believe they aren’t objective. We would need to establish that morality is only based on what a group considers right or wrong.

My whole point is that, on atheism, that is truly what “morality” is, but calling it “morality” is misleading. If we call taking away free speech wrong because our group doesn’t like it, then why aren’t we calling eating pistachio ice cream ‘wrong’ because our group doesn’t like the taste of that? I’m saying subjectivists need to be consistent and stop calling rape ‘wrong’ or start calling their food dislikes, when committed by others, ‘immoral’ or ‘wrong’.

What you are saying makes no difference whether it's atheists or theists. Atheists can also do 'good' things for their own sake just to help other people.

I agree, but only if theism is actually true. Otherwise, atheists and theists aren’t doing ‘good’ or ‘bad’ things, they are just doing different things.

In a society, it helps us all if we can all thrive and be happy, comfortable, and feel safe. In order to do that, we have developed morals that guide us in our interactions with others. These are developed over time and can differ from group to group. I want to be helped, so I help. I want to be safe, so I don't make others feel unsafe. It's simple reciprocity and awareness that if you want to live in a society, you have to participate at some level and give what you expect to receive. No religions or gods required.

The problem comes with the different goals of different humans that lead to conflicting ways of reaching happiness, comfort, safety (or whether even those are the correct goals). Again, I’m not saying this isn’t true, I’m just saying the phrasing sometimes led to inconsistencies.

[William]

Let's unpack this.
Do you mean totally true, somewhat true, or are you being specific to theism defined along the lines "we exist within a creation, therefore there is a creator/are creators?

[Replying to The Tanager in post #14]

Theism, meaning that God exists as creator of the world, must be totally true. Not other specific beliefs depending on what kind of theism is true, but just that basic point.

I think we are saying the same thing here. Theism (in this particular context) is that which emcompasses those who think we exist within a created thing, thus all specific beliefs about the nature of the creator(s) don't have to be totally true in order for Theism to be defined correctly.

If we do not exist within a creation, then action against a person without their consent cannot be wrong? Or cannot be seen to be either right or wrong?

If we do not exist in a world with a God that created us, then action against a person without their consent cannot be right or wrong. It can be “seen” as right or wrong, incorrectly, by people, but it can’t actually be right or wrong.

That would depend (of course) on the nature of the God. If we are to accept that the universe is created, then we should expect the nature of the creator(s) to be able to be seen within the nature of the universe.
If we existed within a world created, then how else do we ascertain the nature of the creator or creators? We are even unable to say how many creators (if any) were involved in its creation.

If atheism is true, ignoring consent is as 'moral' as choosing an ice cream flavor (i.e., not moral at all) because there is no "should" with specific ice cream flavors.

If we exist within a creation, this implies that there are "shoulds" which we would naturally adhere to?

There wouldn't have to be "shoulds";

Wouldn't, or shouldn't?

I'm saying it's the only way I've seen where we could get an objective "should".

What is? Your particular take on the nature of the creator(s)? Something else?

And I'm not saying people naturally adhere to these "shoulds";

You appear to be saying that these shoulds are natural and not everyone follows or supports them.

I believe in free will which allows for acting against these "shoulds".

Even so, I do not see you have made a direct connection between atheism/atheists and "those who act against the shoulds."

[The Tanager]

I think we are saying the same thing here. Theism (in this particular context) is that which emcompasses those who think we exist within a created thing, thus all specific beliefs about the nature of the creator(s) don't have to be totally true in order for Theism to be defined correctly.

Theism isn’t about those who think they exist in a creation, though. It’s about people who may or may not think they exist within a creation actually existing within a creation anyway.

If we do not exist in a world with a God that created us, then action against a person without their consent cannot be right or wrong. It can be “seen” as right or wrong, incorrectly, by people, but it can’t actually be right or wrong.

That would depend (of course) on the nature of the God. If we are to accept that the universe is created, then we should expect the nature of the creator(s) to be able to be seen within the nature of the universe.
If we existed within a world created, then how else do we ascertain the nature of the creator or creators? We are even unable to say how many creators (if any) were involved in its creation.

No, what I said doesn’t depend upon the nature of the God. It has nothing to do with God’s nature, as I was talking about what our interactions are like if there is no God that created us at all.

There wouldn't have to be "shoulds";

Wouldn't, or shouldn't?

Wouldn’t. There can be no “shouldn’t” because there is nothing above God determining what God should or should not do. But, I’m saying that a creator God would not have to make moral agents. God could have chosen to make a deterministic world (which doesn’t allow for “shoulds”), for instance.

What is? Your particular take on the nature of the creator(s)? Something else?

Theism. I’m saying I’ve never seen atheism successfully get us to an objective “should” rationally, even when assuming what they claim to be true.

You appear to be saying that these shoulds are natural and not everyone follows or supports them.

Correct.

Even so, I do not see you have made a direct connection between atheism/atheists and "those who act against the shoulds."

I never claimed atheists can’t act for/against the shoulds; I’ve said I don’t see any connection allowed between atheism and “shoulds”, (which, if “shoulds” don’t exist, would mean one can’t act against them) by taking atheism on its own terms. I’m open to hearing a case, assuming the reasons given are true for the sake of the argument (if they are reasons and not just assertions), that atheism can give us a should, but no one has attempted such.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #17]

I think we are saying the same thing here. Theism (in this particular context) is that which emcompasses those who think we exist within a created thing, thus all specific beliefs about the nature of the creator(s) don't have to be totally true in order for Theism to be defined correctly.

Theism isn’t about those who think they exist in a creation, though.

In other context perhaps but we are being specific to the idea that a creator exists, therefore we must exist within a creation.
So I ask you, is there any type of theism which also denies that we exist within a creation?

It’s about people who may or may not think they exist within a creation actually existing within a creation anyway.

According to whom? Theists? (Some? All?)

What I said doesn’t depend upon the nature of the God. It has nothing to do with God’s nature, as I was talking about what our interactions are like if there is no God that created us at all.

Maybe so, but this has to do with what I was talking about re following the moral I offered, and how one does not have to know they exist within a creation, in order to support said moral.

Thus, it is not about lacking belief in creator(s) which (for reasons yet to be explained) mean that a planet of atheists would be without guiding morals. They still have morals which guide them, even if they don't acknowledge any particular (idea of a) creator(s).

Wouldn’t. There can be no “shouldn’t” because there is nothing above God determining what God should or should not do. But, I’m saying that a creator God would not have to make moral agents. God could have chosen to make a deterministic world (which doesn’t allow for “shoulds”), for instance.

Here you appear to be arguing that nature does indeed mirror its creator(s). You also appear to be placing the nature of said creator to be the only or primary determining factor (as to why you think morality exists) and that, because of the nature of the universe, this creator has to make moral agents.
Even so, how am I to tell that atheists are exempt from being identified as "moral agents" the creator(s) has had to make?

I'm saying it's the only way I've seen where we could get an objective "should".

What is? Your particular take on the nature of the creator(s)? Something else?

Theism.

You cannot say (or have yet to show) that your definition of theism excludes the necessity of us existing in a creation. Theism at least must agree to that requirement, as far as I can tell.

I’m saying I’ve never seen atheism successfully get us to an objective “should” rationally, even when assuming what they claim to be true.

Therefore (if true) then we can observe that having a lack of belief in creator(s) means that atheists follow no shoulds? I observe no such thing. Generally atheists appear to be no different than theists in that way. They understand the usefulness of morality and what they should do, even if motivated by a different rule-set which doesn't include either thinking/knowing/believing that they exist within a created thing, or thinking/knowing/believing that Creator(s) exist.

Same results, even that different paths are trodden to reach said results.

You appear to be saying that these shoulds are natural and not everyone follows or supports them.

Correct.

You also appear to be saying that the "not everyone follows or supports them" are atheists/the product of atheism.

Even so, I do not see you have made a direct connection between atheism/atheists and "those who act against the shoulds."

I never claimed atheists can’t act for/against the shoulds; I’ve said I don’t see any connection allowed between atheism and “shoulds”, (which, if “shoulds” don’t exist, would mean one can’t act against them) by taking atheism on its own terms. I’m open to hearing a case, assuming the reasons given are true for the sake of the argument (if they are reasons and not just assertions), that atheism can give us a should, but no one has attempted such.

What type of world do you think we would build should it were the case that we all were atheists? An immoral one?
I still am none the wiser as to what it is you are arguing, but it appears to me that you are saying 1. We exist within a creation.
2. The nature of the creator is both beside the point and relative to the point.
3. The nature of the creation shows us that "shoulds" have necessarily been put into place.
4. Shoulds are exhibited by both theists and atheists regardless of whether the atheists are motivated by different world-views/rule sets.
5.Theists (in recognising a creator mind re the creation) can be classed as "moral agents" useful to the creator(s).
6.Atheists (in failure to recognise a creator mind re existing within a creation) are not "moral agents" useful to the creator(s).

[The Tanager]

Theism isn’t about those who think they exist in a creation, though.

In other context perhaps but we are being specific to the idea that a creator exists, therefore we must exist within a creation.
So I ask you, is there any type of theism which also denies that we exist within a creation?

Us existing within a creation is a different thing than us thinking that we exist within a creation. You said theism encompassed “those who think we exist within a created thing”. It doesn’t. Theism is that we exist within a created being no matter what we think about that (according to all accepted definitions of theism). Thus, I have no idea why you ask me the above question as theism being a denial that we exist within a creation explicitly goes against the definition I used for it.

Maybe so, but this has to do with what I was talking about re following the moral I offered, and how one does not have to know they exist within a creation, in order to support said moral.

Thus, it is not about lacking belief in creator(s) which (for reasons yet to be explained) mean that a planet of atheists would be without guiding morals. They still have morals which guide them, even if they don't acknowledge any particular (idea of a) creator(s).

There has been a miscommunication because I’ve already stated the same. I agree with you on that point.

Here you appear to be arguing that nature does indeed mirror its creator(s). You also appear to be placing the nature of said creator to be the only or primary determining factor (as to why you think morality exists) and that, because of the nature of the universe, this creator has to make moral agents.

I am not sure if I am arguing what you mean by nature mirroring its creator. I do place the nature of the creator as the only determining factor on whether morality is objective or not. But I’m definitely not arguing that the creator has to make moral agents because of the nature of the universe.

Even so, how am I to tell that atheists are exempt from being identified as "moral agents" the creator(s) has had to make?

I am not saying atheists are exempt from being identified as moral agents.

You cannot say (or have yet to show) that your definition of theism excludes the necessity of us existing in a creation. Theism at least must agree to that requirement, as far as I can tell.

I don’t think theism excludes us existing in a creation. I have no idea why you came to that conclusion.

Therefore (if true) then we can observe that having a lack of belief in creator(s) means that atheists follow no shoulds? I observe no such thing.

I never claimed that is what it meant.

You also appear to be saying that the "not everyone follows or supports them" are atheists/the product of atheism.

No, I’m not saying that. Theists are not morally perfect.

What type of world do you think we would build should it were the case that we all were atheists? An immoral one?

It could be any manner of world. It would certainly contain immoralities, just like if we were all theists.

I still am none the wiser as to what it is you are arguing, but it appears to me that you are saying 1. We exist within a creation.
2. The nature of the creator is both beside the point and relative to the point.
3. The nature of the creation shows us that "shoulds" have necessarily been put into place.
4. Shoulds are exhibited by both theists and atheists regardless of whether the atheists are motivated by different world-views/rule sets.
5.Theists (in recognising a creator mind re the creation) can be classed as "moral agents" useful to the creator(s).
6.Atheists (in failure to recognise a creator mind re existing within a creation) are not "moral agents" useful to the creator(s).

Yes, you aren’t understanding all I’m arguing. I agree with 1, I disagree with 2, I disagree with 3 because I don’t think they were necessarily put into place, I think I agree with 4, although the atheists are being logically inconsistent with their worldview, for 5/6 I think theists and atheists are both equally classed as moral agents (i.e., beings who can make moral choices, not in contrast to being an immoral agent)

[Bust Nak]

Hey, it's been a while, but I am still around...

I've heard the idea that atheists can't be moral, because physically, we're all just selfish apes, protecting and increasing our genes, and without some supernatural addition to this formula, good is not possible. The ape mother protects her child because that increases her genes. This act, the idea goes, is not moral, but selfish. Any time a human helps another human, this idea would apply.

Why can't selfish apes be moral? What is it about increasing our genes that invalidate all the (what we would normally called) moral stuff we do?

I think the difference is between having a creator make a thing a certain way and a non-creator want something to be true of that thing. I can say I want to play a game of football with that sledgehammer because I’ve decided it would be fun, but that doesn’t make it so.

But it does make it fun. You decide what is and isn't fun for yourself. While Goodyear did design a ball with a specific nature and for a specific purpose, he doesn't get to decide what is and isn't fun for you.

I can choose to do something different, but I don’t get to decide if it is good or harmful; that comes from the nature of the objects/events involved.

Harmfulness comes from the object, sure. But what's so different between "good" and "fun" that lead you to say "fun" is up to you, but "good" isn't?

There is no objective morality means your morality does not apply to me. Just as you can scam me even if I say it's not okay, I can punish you even if you say it's not okay.

That sounds contradictory. What does "morality applying to me" even mean? Here you say you your morality does not apply to me, yet you can punish me even if I say it's not okay. Isn't punishing me apply your morality to me?

The punishment is not just, because what you did was not against your morality, but it is also not immoral, since I'm permitted to act on my own morality.

Why measuring justice according their morality, but measure what is and isn't moral with your own? Why not stick to the same standard for both? Later you say to The Tanager "what is fun for you is still up to you, you don't have to care what Charles Goodyear has to say about it," so why do you care what a scammer say about being punished?

Why does having free will allow us to decide what is our optimal?

Because being optimal requires a goal. And free will agents has the ability to set goals, which in turn decides how optimal is to be measured.

The car may think it wants to sit in a field, but it’s not going to truly be happy because it was made for something else.

You don't get to decide what does and doesn't make this sentient car happy. Only the car gets to decide that, no one else. You may well be correct that the car ends up being unhappy sitting around, but it's still the car who decides that sitting around isn't fun. Same applies for a person being artist or an athlete.

If atheism is true, ignoring consent is as 'moral' as choosing an ice cream flavor (i.e., not moral at all) because there is no "should" with specific ice cream flavors.

That's like saying liking vanilla is as "tasty" as liking a painting (i.e. not tasty at all) because there is no "tasty" with specific painting.

"Should" is to moral, as "tasty" is to ice-cream flavor, as "pretty" is to paintings. Morality is a measure for what one should do; food taste is measure for what is tasty; aesthetics is a measure for what is pretty. You wouldn't expect a "pretty" in food taste anymore than you would expect a "tasty" in judging paintings, right? But "tasty" and "pretty" are direct equivalents, correct? And if subjectivism is true, then you can add "should" to that list of equivalents.