Disbelieving Atheists

The latest issue of the English magazine The Spectator offered Theo Hobson's Writing God Off about the atheism of some of England's major novelists. (If you want to read it, read it now, because they seem to post their articles only until the next week's issue is posted.

Religion, writes the author, an agnostic himself,

is complicated. Even if you reject it you ought to admit this. But these writers fail to see anything deep or difficult in religion: it is simply wrong. They seem to commend a stance of adolescent indignation: it’s all a load of rubbish.

The writers he discusses include Martin Amis, Christopher Hitchens, Ian McEwan, Salman Rushdie, and Jeanette Winterson. He gives three reasons for their "theological illiteracy" and their "pride in such illiteracy, as if it were a virtue." I would add a fourth, which is simply that atheism is useful to a writer.

Atheism, particularly the sweeping and total kind of atheism these writers exhibit, makes God and religion an easy target to hit. Even in secularized England, you can still win points for being daring and bold by taking on God. The newspapers will still report it and some (the leftist Guardian, for example) will support you as a brave man taking on the establishment. And because it is a once Christian country now secularized, you will have lots and lots of potential readers who want to see God smacked down. They might not believe in him (or think they don't) but their parents did and that's enough to convict him.

And there is also the fact that atheism has its uses for any fallen human being. I've read enough about the lives of some of these writers to suspect that they would find real belief in God, or even facing the possibility that God exists and has a plan for their life, rather threatening. If they believed in God, really believed in God, they'd have to become one of those people they make fun of in their novels.

The Christian recognizes that the choice to believe or reject God is at least as much moral and spiritual as intellectual. When a man says "God is unbelievable," he means, whether he knows it or not, "I can't believe in God." He may, perhaps, be unable to believe from real intellectual conviction, or he may be unable to believe because he's a creature of pride or a practiced liar or an adulterer or a glutton or because he's repeatedly compromised his conscience to get where he is and knows it.

One if justified in raising a skeptical eyebrow when anyone tells you he can't believe in God because it's a stupid idea. The question is whether he's in a stupor himself and no more a judge of the intellectual plausibilty of the existence of God than a roaring drunk is of reading the fine print on a eye doctor's chart.

I don't know why some people believe and some don't. I have a naturally agnostic turn of mind, much to occasional frustration of my children, who want black and white answers, but I came to believe not only in God as a first principle or guarantor of the moral order but as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit who invite me into the life of the Trinity, and now I can't imagine not believing.

I have a mind changed by grace, as do most of you reading this. Why Amis and Hitchens, two writers I admire very much, don't believe in God, indeed why they hate God so much, is a mystery. But we still don't have to accept their claims.

Comments

[Gabriel Sanchez]

I would add a fourth, which is simply that atheism is useful to a writer.

It's becoming more useful to many people, even if they never really bother to confront the matter head-on. In a society ever more (mis)guided on the notion of thoughtless tolerance, the last bulwark between many persons doing what they want as opposed to doing what they ought is God (in whatever way He is conceived of by them). Even if the Judeo-Christian or Islamic conception has already been set aside, the very idea of God still represents a moral order or, at least, the possibility of conscience. Once God is set aside, everything falls nicely out of place.

It has been my experience that many college students go through what I would call an "atheistic" period which resembles more or less a weak form of agnosticism. Some of it is spurred on by a legitimate confusion caused by the nature of higher education these days. A lot of it, however, is generally rooted in the hopeful elimination of conscience so that binge drinking, test cheating, and casual sex don't have to carry with them anything except the (possible) external consequences of death, explusion, or disease.

For those who believe themselves to be "artists", the situation is amplified. I suppose it's the end result of a century whose art has been bereft of meaning and whose only light has been one fit to illuminate the "fact" that the universe is indeed meaningless.

He may, perhaps, be unable to believe from real intellectual conviction, or he may be unable to believe because he's a creature of pride or a practiced liar or an adulterer or a glutton or because he's repeatedly compromised his conscience to get where he is and knows it.

I think that really nails it, actually. Pride more than anything else stands between the atheist/agnostic and an honest exploration of the religious life. To that I would only add that by its nature, religious belief entails being espoused to a single truth. Our world today so fundamentally rejects the possibility of there being such a truth that many can hardly conceive of how relious belief would be possible at all. On top of that, it would place them in a position where they could not be "open" and "pluralistic" to all viewpoints; it would mean that most the opinions "everyone is entitled" to are wrong.

[Joe Long]

"Why Amis and Hitchens, two writers I admire very much, don't believe in God, indeed why they hate God so much, is a mystery."

It's always seemed odd to me that people can profess not to believe in God while making clear, at the same time, a deep personal resentment of Him. I don't believe in Thor - I really, truly "disbelieve" in him - and consequently I cannot imagine being angry at him; I can't wax passionate about Thor's failure to slay the great world-encircling sea-serpent, not for a moment. Yet many who deny the existence of God AND of evil are very quick to launch into a diatribe condemning God for allowing evil, and declare their disbelief in Him in a tone seemingly calculated to try to hurt His feelings!

[E.R. Brett]

Re. the atheism of Christopher Hitchens (who is usually an interesting read):

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16476 (You'll need to scroll through some other things).

Hitchens says one reasonably interesting thing that bears explanation ("My hope is that literature can replace religion as the source of our ethics, without ceasing to be a pleasurable study and pursuit in its own right") and the rest is tendentious (which is Hitchen's middle name, I think) and conveys a sort of petulant adolescent anti-authoritarianism.

What bothers me most is not the rejection per se - contra Hitchen's claims about my own pathological insecurity - but that it pains me to watch the gross exaggeration and carte blanche dismissal from a writer who otherwise appears to exemplify a certain courageous intellectual honesty. It's so, so... below him.

[E.R. Brett]

In regards to Joe Long's comments, Hitchens is one writer who doesn't feel he needs an answer from God for disasters and thinks that those who do are foolish. Hitchens does appear to be more than a little angry, however...

[Common Reader]

Jeanette Winterson was raised in a cultish abusive pseudo-evangelical subculture. There's a world of difference between people who have kneejerk anti-religious sentiments because their parents and their parents' friends were loons who gave their looniness a Christian tinge, and people who have knee-jerk anti-religious sentiments because they think it makes them sound intelligent.

[Adrienne]

Joe Long wrote:

"It's always seemed odd to me that people can profess not to believe in God while making clear, at the same time, a deep personal resentment of Him."

Hitchens isn't resentful of the God he doesn't believe in. He's resentful of what people DO in the name of God and religion. From my experience as an atheist, too many religious people confuse the atheist or agnostic's anger at what is done in the name of religion with anger at a deity.

[Don]

"... Yet many who deny the existence of God AND of evil are very quick to launch into a diatribe condemning God for allowing evil, and declare their disbelief in Him in a tone seemingly calculated to try to hurt His feelings!"
Posted by: Joe Long

-

"Hitchens isn't resentful of the God he doesn't believe in. He's resentful of what people DO in the name of God and religion. From my experience as an atheist, too many religious people confuse the atheist or agnostic's anger at what is done in the name of religion with anger at a deity.
Posted by: Adrienne

It isn't even a moral outrage. It's no more than "this is what God represents, these are the people who are demanding these certain values that I don't like - therefore, I don't like that they are doing this, and so I hate them all and what they call God, both."

Most people in the States don't care about moral values, so far as they're aware of, at least. (They care, but they're ignorant to what extent they do actually give a care about values and right and wrong.) If you let them have the freedom to do as they will, they will be content. Any perceived intrusion on that will earn you their lasting ire.

[Adrienne]

Don wrote:

"It isn't even a moral outrage. It's no more than 'this is what God represents, these are the people who are demanding these certain values that I don't like - therefore, I don't like that they are doing this, and so I hate them all and what they call God, both.'

Don, you are repeating one of the primary misconceptions that religious believers have about atheists -- that we have no morals or no moral system we live by. That is a mistake. We do have morals, they just don't happen to agree with yours in all cases. Nor are they predicated on the assumption that certain things should be done or not done because that's what some deity wants.

[Adrienne]

Joe Long wrote:

"I don't believe in Thor - I really, truly "disbelieve" in him - and consequently I cannot imagine being angry at him; I can't wax passionate about Thor's failure to slay the great world-encircling sea-serpent, not for a moment."

OK, good point.

But then, imagine you lived in a society where 90% of the people DID believe in Thor. A society that would automatically assume you to be an evil person who lacks any regard for morals or humanity if you didn't believe in Thor, EVEN if your reasons for not accepting Thorism were intellectual, not emotional or moral.

Candidates running for public office would not be electable by the public unless they publicly emoted about their sincere love for Thor, even. And your government's lawmakers frequently argued in favor of making or striking laws based on the alleged will of Thor. Your friends and relatives were constantly trying to convert you to Thorism, even after you told them that you had seriously explored the matter and decided that in good conscience, you couldn't believe in it.

After enduring all this, you just might start to get a little bit bitter about the whole Thor deal....

[Gabriel Sanchez]

Adrienne,

Don, you are repeating one of the primary misconceptions that religious believers have about atheists -- that we have no morals or no moral system we live by.

The way that argument is often articulated tends to leave itself open to the response you have just given; that is, there are atheists who have morals and/or moral systems they live by. While I am not here to call that into dispute, I believe the heart of the religious indictment concerning atheists and morals is that they have no grounding; they are transient, historical, and subject to reconfiguration as one deems necessary. In other words, atheist morality is tantamount to nihilism.

Now, there are of course varying ways atheists can get around such indictments, however rare that attempt is. A good deal of contemporary atheist writers/thinkers subscribe to a strict naturalism which denies metaphysics, the existence of the soul, and oftentimes (strangely enough) the idea of human nature itself. They tend to also be historicists, holding that all thought and inquiry are the products of historical periods and thus have no universal validity. Given that, it's difficult to conceive of atheists holding to a moral system which would not be subject to constant reformulation, subtractions, and caveats.

We do have morals, they just don't happen to agree with yours in all cases.

The fact you disagree is understandable; the reality remains that atheists typically have nothing to ground their morality upon anything other than whim. Even the atheist who claims to follow the "standard morals" of the times in which s/he lives is still subject to scrutiny since such adherence is unthoughtful and blind. There is no guarantee the morals of a certain age are going to be the correct ones. And yet I wonder on what grounds the atheist could even make a criticism of them. Whim I suppose...

Nor are they predicated on the assumption that certain things should be done or not done because that's what some deity wants.

No, instead their morals are predicated on the assumption that certain things should be done or not done because that's what they feel is right. It may be this today or it may be that tomorrow; there's no real way of saying. It's empty and meaningless. It's nihilism.

[Adrienne]

Gabriel Sanchez:

"The fact you disagree is understandable; the reality remains that atheists typically have nothing to ground their morality upon anything other than whim...No, instead their morals are predicated on the assumption that certain things should be done or not done because that's what they feel is right. It may be this today or it may be that tomorrow; there's no real way of saying."

That's simply not true. In fact, that's just another mistaken old chestnut about atheists too.

The origin of many of the major principles that probably think of as "morals" actually come to us via our evolutionary history. For example, our closest primate relatives such as chimps have organized family groupings and social behavior. They even display altruism on occasion. They don't go around indiscriminately killing or beating the crap out of each other for no reason. And there are good biological reasons for this.

A certain amount of "moral" behavior is required to keep a social grouping stable. And because a stable society gives the best opportunity for the greatest number of its individual members to live reasonably well and raise their offspring, morals such as "don't kill your neighbor for the fun of it" have a big evolutionary payoff.

Not to mention that someone who flagrantly started disobeyeing some of the more important moral commandments -- say, someone who started indiscriminately killing, raping, and pillaging people -- would very soon become a victim of legal or illegal retaliation. He or she would undoubtedly have a high risk of becoming a victim at the hands of those he or she wronged (or their surviving relatives). So there is a good deal of self-interest in not behaving badly towards one's neighbors.

And to that, you could very well say, "Well that's just acting morally for purely selfish reasons." And yes, that is a fair point. But then, some would argue that acting morally for the sake of pleasing a deity is also really based on self-interest as well. For an interesting take on this, read Alan Dershowitz's article on beliefnet: Why Be a Good Person?.

And here's a link to another article that discusses non-theistic reasons for behaving morally: Why be Moral?.

[sharon d.]

There are nonbelievers also who hold to the objective (intrinsic) existence of moral norms without finding the need for recourse to evolutionary history, and thus preserving the ability to call killing, raping, etc. (to use Adrienne's examples) immoral without the use of scare quotes. See, e.g. Josh Dever's critique of Robert George's comments on "secular orthodoxy":
http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft0006/articles/dever-george.html

A religious believer can refer to an objective, intrinsic good (that which we call God) and derive morality thence--and, note, this doesn't require any form of naive divine command theory such as Adrienne refers to in her claim "that religious morality holds "that certain things should be done or not done because that's what some deity wants" (speaking of old chestnuts). Likewise, an atheist may do so, simply by denying that intrinsic good derives from or is identifiable with deity.

[Adrienne]

Sharon D. wrote:

"A religious believer can refer to an objective, intrinsic good (that which we call God) and derive morality thence--and, note, this doesn't require any form of naive divine command theory such as Adrienne refers to in her claim "that religious morality holds 'that certain things should be done or not done because that's what some deity wants' (speaking of old chestnuts)."

*chuckle*. Yes, sorry, I suppose I did put things a bit simplistically there. Touche.

[David]

"Not to mention that someone who flagrantly started disobeying some of the more important moral commandments -- say, someone who started indiscriminately killing, raping, and pillaging people -- would very soon become a victim of legal or illegal retaliation."

But what if I do? What if I do kill and rape and pillage? What can you say to me? You can say I did something illegal. You can say I did something against the conventions of society. You can say you don't like what I did. But you cannot, you cannot say that what I did was morally wrong. How can you, if your morality is based on what you think, or what others think? What if I disagree, what if others disagree? Who decides? As Dostoevsky's Ivan Karamazov succinctly points out, anything is permissible if there is no God. We cannot self-define our own morality. None of us has that authority, not you, and certainly not I.

[John Hart]

"But you cannot, you cannot say that what I did was morally wrong. How can you, if your morality is based on what you think, or what others think?"

A few points:

1. The manner and complexitiy of our thinking is what sets humanity apart from all other animals. I don't think we should be so ready to dismiss thinking as something without value or weight.

2. Human societies are built around generally agreed upon norms and rules. Typically there are a some central values from which those norms and rules proceed; even a dictator will have a hard time remaining in power if he goes against generally accepted mores too flagrantly. I expect that most of us here, believers and not, could agree on many principles of a good society, e.g., justice and compassion, for a start. Even theocracies have to do a lot of moral self-definition: holy texts are never complete in their instructions. If we weren't self-defining, all the "peoples of the Book" would still countenance slaveholding, no?

3. Leave aside those first two points for the moment. Let's grant, for the sake of argument, that without God there can be no certain and absolute morality. That does not mean that there then must be a God. One may be dismayed at the notion of a world without absolute moral wrongs and rights, but that dismay does not have any bearing the question of God's existence. God exists, or doesn't, no matter how any of us feel about that, or about the world with or without a deity.

To go back to the original post it is not "facing the possibility that God exists and has a plan for their life" that atheists find "rather threatening". It's that, without a God, there is no plan. That makes for a much lonelier universe.

[David]

"I expect that most of us here, believers and not, could agree on many principles of a good society, e.g., justice and compassion, for a start. Even theocracies have to do a lot of moral self-definition: holy texts are never complete in their instructions. If we weren't self-defining, all the "peoples of the Book" would still countenance slaveholding, no?"

Two points:
1) You are likely correct in saying that you and I could probably agree on basic principles of society. But again, what if someone in our society breaks these rules? Have they done something 'wrong', as opposed to something that we don't like, something that our society has deemed illegal? What gives us the moral authority to deem it 'wrong'? To go back to your slavery point, slavery was perfectly legal and a well accepted part of society for many millennia. Was it moral then? If so when exactly did it become immoral? And more importantly what gives anyone the moral authority to decide this?

2) A Christian view of morality is in no way self-defining, but rather is based on the character of God. We believe that 'God is good', not because what He does follow the rules of goodness, but rather that His character intrinsically defines what goodness is. You certainly are right in saying that we don't get a giant list of things to do. Inside the Christian community there is unquestionably debate over exactly how to interpret the Bible, but our interpretations do not change God, hence they do not alter what is or isn’t moral. We may not get everything right, but that doesn’t mean that there is no ‘right’.

[Adrienne]

Good questions and points, David.

The ethical principles and norms that guide humans are based on what we know about ourselves as a species and what makes us thrive (some of which I touched on earlier). That there is no ultimate and eternal right or wrong as defined by a deity doesn't bother me. I don't need to read Jesus' teachings to realize that if I want my offspring and myself to live in a society where we don't have to constantly live in fear of rapists and murderers, my offspring and I need to avoid doing those actions ourselves.

And consider that there are non-Christian cultures, such as the Japanese, that have lower violent crime rates than many Christian cultures. The Japanese don't need the Bible to tell them that assault, rape, and murder are wrong. All of these actions not only lead to the suffering of the individuals who are victimized, but also to the disintegration of the general health and welfare of their larger society.

And yes, I fully admit that the type of moral/ethical system inevitably leads to disputes about how to apply its various principles, what would give the greatest good for the greatest number (which is utilitarianism, I guess?). But as you and John Hart also pointed out, Christians have long argued amongst themselves about various ethical norms, both historically and continuing up to today.

I know you greatly disagree with me, and that's fine. But I hope you at least realize how incorrect (and demeaning, really) it is to assert that the absence of God's moral norms means that there can be no moral norms at all.

[John Hart]

David:

We're not so far apart here. You're holding to a belief in an absolute 'right', but acknowledging that, as flawed human beings, 'we may not get everything right'. People of God work honestly to discern the will of God, even though they will not always be successful, and may have to revise their understanding of what is moral, and what is wrong. Presumably we would agree that slavery was always wrong, even when it was practiced by men of God.

Adrienne has carefully and gently asserted, and I strongly second, that atheism is not equivalent to amorality. As an atheist I have the same job of trying to determine what is moral and what is wrong as those who try to discern the will of God. And I have the same risk of reaching conclusions that will not stand the test of time. The only difference is that I am not certain that there are ultimate answers, and people of God are. But since even people of God may be in error, the existence or non-existence of ultimate truth is immaterial. We all must do the best we can.

Again, a world without absolutes may be unsettling, but that alone does not make it any less (or more) likely to be the case.

I am, by the way, delighted to have stumbled into such a thoughtful and civil discussion -- all too rare out here in the wild web.

[Gabriel Sanchez]

I don't need to read Jesus' teachings to realize that if I want my offspring and myself to live in a society where we don't have to constantly live in fear of rapists and murderers, my offspring and I need to avoid doing those actions ourselves.

In other words, you want to live in a society based upon a Hobbesian conception; you want one which will see to your security without regard to right. Morality begins and ends with what will (seemingly) protect you or your offspring. In other words, it's a morality constructed on selfishness that assumes that all human beings will perceive each other as equals. However, what if a society set itself to insure that you and your family were protected, but ones which did not share your specific characteristics were not protected? Would those laws and rules be wrong? Could you have any basis for saying so? Would you even want to say so? After all, you and your family are protected; why care whether someone else is or not?

And consider that there are non-Christian cultures, such as the Japanese, that have lower violent crime rates than many Christian cultures. The Japanese don't need the Bible to tell them that assault, rape, and murder are wrong.

Both of those crimes have been linked considerably to poverty rates and economic disparity; that really could stand as a causal explainer for them more than the presence of God or a Judeo-Christian influence. Also keep in mind that rape is a highly underreported crime and that the state of Japanese society lends itself less open to accepting rape claims from women than American society. I think the claim you are trying to make is seriously defective on sociological and criminological grounds. Furthermore, there is nothing to say that other socities which are non-Christian cannot have strong morals; however, I suspect their grounding is not so flimsy as that which atheists tend to push forward.

But as you and John Hart also pointed out, Christians have long argued amongst themselves about various ethical norms, both historically and continuing up to today.

On very specific, historically situated points I suppose. I doubt this has extended to things such as murder or rape.

[John Hart]

Gabriel Sanchez:

"In other words, you want to live in a society based upon a Hobbesian conception; you want one which will see to your security without regard to right."

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, please understand that for the atheist, "want" is not relevant to belief or non-belief. God will exist or not no matter what any of us "want". I did not reject the idea of God because I didn't like His rule (or His rules). Having come to a conclusion about the existence of a deity, I then have to deal with the world as I find it. There are other ethics to be found in human tradition, and in the human heart, than those grounded in divine mandate. Many of them not "flimsy" at all. Hobbes's is one, but I doubt there's a big constituency out there yearning for "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" as guiding ideals for community life.

I doubt also that you'd find any group of atheists arguing over the pros and cons of "things such as murder and rape". I'd ask that you credit the non-religious with enough depth of thought and feeling to not be living their lives entirely according to "whim". Is it truly only the fear and love of God that keeps you yourself from cutting a hedonistic red swath through your community? If you woke up tomorrow with the certain knowledge that there was no God, would you immediately abandon all responsible and loving behavior and become as those students you described in an earlier post? I very much doubt that you would.

[David]

Adrienne and John,
I also appreciate this discussion and especially that it's been civil. That being said, and while I mean no disrespect Adrienne, I must hold firm to my statement that absent of God there can be no moral absolutes. That in no way means that atheists tend to act immorally, or that Christians (or deists in general) are naturally inclined to moral behavior. Indeed all Christians must acknowledge that they sin, ie: act immorally. However without God any definition of morality must be based on a human declaration of right and wrong, and I stand by my statement that no human has the moral authority to do that. What gives someone the authority to take their moral standards or anyone’s moral standards and stand in judgment of someone else? To be absolutely clear, I’m not speaking of laws or societal mores, but of moral right and wrong.

I know we can go back and forth here and never really come to any sort of resolution. You both have obviously studied this and are fully aware of the arguments. While you’re right that I disagree with you, I do appreciate you listening to what we have to say on the issue. The one point which concerns me most is this statement:
“But since even people of God may be in error, the existence or non-existence of ultimate truth is immaterial.”
I understand the context of this statement, however the nature of truth is certainly far from immaterial. From the beginning of civilization I would guess that no concept has been the subject of more philosophical thought than the nature of truth. I believe casting it aside to be rather arrogant.

Best regards,
David

p.s. I just saw your response to Gabriel, and had one comment.
“I'd ask that you credit the non-religious with enough depth of thought and feeling to not be living their lives entirely according to "whim".”
John, I’m pretty certain that I’d have no trouble living in society where you have created the standards. However, can you in all honesty condemn a man who decides to live according to ‘whim’? What has he done wrong other than choose a different set of rules to live by than you?

p.p.s. I rather liked this sentence! :-)
“Is it truly only the fear and love of God that keeps you yourself from cutting a hedonistic red swath through your community?”

[sharon d.]

A few more thoughts on the issue:

1. One point the atheists here seem to be trying to get across is that their issue is not so much ontological (what is moral? does morality exist?) but epistemological (how do we know that rape/murder/etc. are wrong? what are our grounds for our common moral norms?).

2. It does seem curious that the Christian side here keeps claiming, and the atheist side apparently agreeing, that without God there can be no moral absolutes, at least in the sense of intrinsic moral norms (though I'm not certain that this is John Hart's position, or simply adopted arguendo). But there's no reason not to assert that moral norms exist the way (for instance) numbers exist. Surely we all agree that 2 + 2 = 4 even if there are no apples to count; the idea of mathematical truth existing without human society doesn't seem to bother anybody, so why not moral truth? The Christian claim is that there must obviously be an uncaused cause for moral truth; but (as I mention above) an atheist may simply assert the causal chain to end at truths, moral or mathematical.

Of course this begins to wed one to neoplatonism, which isn't a route all wish to go. Maybe we should all pause and re-read Plato's Meno and Euthyphro before we resume discussion. :-)

[Joe Long]

Enjoying this discussion...

There seems to me a terrible flaw with deriving morality from nature with reference to evolutionary principles. And that is, that a study of "nature red in tooth and claw" does lead naturally to certain limited forms of altruism (particularly to close relatives, and particularly when they "feel good") but even more inevitably to a ferocious, ruthless clannishness - and it leads away from the Christian idea of equal spiritual worth of people, straight to inevitable notion of the unequal Darwinian "fitness" of people.

Atheists may shy from this, and it speaks well of them when they do - but logically I don't see where they have any right to. An individual may prefer to be kind and gentle with his fellows and even find it somewhat rewarding; yet the one who guards his family, propagates his genes, and imposes his will without regard to morality "wins" - Genghis Khan or a close relative seems in fact to be the all-time evolutionary "winner" so far, having spread his genes further and wider than anyone else in world history according to genetic scientists. Outside a spiritual context, I see no one's right to "judge" him; though rape and slaughter are inseparable from his legacy, he has evolution's endorsement.

[Adrienne]

Gabriel Sanchez wrote:

"On very specific, historically situated points I suppose. I doubt this has extended to things such as murder or rape."

I'd call slavery a pretty significant and long-lasting "situated point". And rape was not infrequent among black American slaves. But the pro-slavery men of the cloth just pretended they didn't know, and went on defending it. As I think someone already pointed out in this thread, nowhere in the Bible is slavery condemned. Paul even tells slaves to obey their masters.

So on what basis do some Christians today argue that slavery is immoral?

Now, let's talk about just killing vs. murder. If you're speaking in abstract terms about how Christians view murder, for instance, then I'm sure you're right that just about all Christians would agree that the unjust, unlawful taking of a life with malice aforethought is wrong. But what exactly qualifies as "murder"? Lots of bloody historical confrontations among various Christian sects over the centuries proves that this is far from a settled issue. It's still a matter of debate today, so it's definitely not just an "historically situated point".

For instance, is it murder to kill someone who persists in spreading what you regard to be a dangerous heresy, or is it a just punishment to protect the souls of the larger society? Was Jan Hus a martyr for his faith or a dangerous criminal who deserved death? I read an electronic bbs posting once from a very sincere Roman Catholic who lamented the fact that Church authorities hadn't burned Luther and Calvin at the stake for spreading heresies. Was he right? Depends on your individual flavor of Christianity, I think.

And then there's this NT passage, allegedly spoken by Jesus: "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Some Christian communities (e.g., Quakers and Mennonites)interpret this passage quite literally. For them, even to kill a threatening aggressor to protect someone else is murder. And those Christians who consider the Iraq war an unjust war probably also consider the resulting casualties from it (especially civilian casualties) as murders.

So really, Christianity isn't any freer of murky ethical dilemmas than any other moral/ethical system. Christians just like to pretend that it is.

[Joe Long]

Black chattel slavery in the United States (which is all anyone seems to mean when they say "slavery") was defended theologically - because the only serious attacks to be made upon it were theological! (Economically it would have become outdated eventually, but was still a roaring success at the time...) Certainly Western civilization had a long, long way to go from the Roman Empire in which Christianity was born, to the West that could forsake the universal, ancient, very human institution of slavery forever. St. Paul's writings accommodated the institution as well as planting the seeds of its ultimate destruction in the Christian world, by asserting human spiritual equality and putting onerous burdens of responsibility on slaveowners. Perhaps the Faith did not get rid of slavery fast ENOUGH - but the fact remains that Christians, and Christianity, did it, and no one and nothing else.

I missed the part where somebody claimed the application of Christian morality to real life was simple, or that universal agreement on it had been reached. Either I, or my Quaker brothers, are very wrong about pacifism; so...? That Christ is often misunderstood is a running theme through the Gospels; but so, thankfully, is the grace He extends to all of us bumbling fools.

[E.R. Brett]

John Hart writes: 'I doubt also that you'd find any group of atheists arguing over the pros and cons of "things such as murder and rape".'

Well, actually... philosopher Peter Singer currently holds a position of some prominence within the utilitarian philosophical community and he has more than once suggested the ethical plausibility of killing children after birth. And, of course, pro-life advocates might comment on whether the killing of human beings (assuming you accept the unborn as such) is really a closed issue. In that context an argument *is* occurring regarding the pros and cons of murder (rape appears to be a closed issue for now, thank, uh, God or whatever) and atheists, *as atheists, are often prominent participants (see, for instance, Henry Morgentaler in my own country of Canada).

Adrienne says:
"And then there's this NT passage, allegedly spoken by Jesus: "But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." Some Christian communities (e.g., Quakers and Mennonites)interpret this passage quite literally. For them, even to kill a threatening aggressor to protect someone else is murder. And those Christians who consider the Iraq war an unjust war probably also consider the resulting casualties from it (especially civilian casualties) as murders.

So really, Christianity isn't any freer of murky ethical dilemmas than any other moral/ethical system. Christians just like to pretend that it is."

The first paragraph actually appears to contradict the second. The presence of Christian communities like the Quakers and Mennonites alongside more, er, hawkish bodies suggests that the murkiness of the world is making the Christian community increasingly "murky" as well. A quick perusal of any Christian magazine, including Touchstone (especially the "letters" section), will provide ample evidence that Christian's have for 2000 years stuggled with the question of "how then shall we live", a question to be answered without as much honesty (and as little pretending) as possible. Christians ask that question in the light of revelation, and atheists do not. That different conclusions are arrived at by Christians does not logically rule out revelation as a source, though that appears to be the gist of your comments. Revelation itself notes this: "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." The disunity within the Christian world is a question of authority - as is the breach between Christians and atheists.

As others have noted, the questions that are being asked of atheists in this comment string is also that of authority. I recall an atheist philosophy professor who began a class on public ethics commenting that it would be assumed that some ethical problems were solvable, though not all. When challenged on the point he commented that pedophilia was an ethical standard that was clearly not culturally conditioned, and therefore could be taken off the table as open to any serious discussion (the man had just had twins). Though I agreed with the conclusion, he was pressed and could not explain why sex between adult and child was always and everywhere wrong and yet other sexual arrangements were "on the table". And so the question remains: without even the often murky light of revelation (murky to us, that is), to what can we expect an atheist to appeal, if anything at all? Hence the concern about the "whim" of atheists (and I've read enough Solzenhitsyn to be worried).

Atheist Christopher Hitchens, as I note far above, sees the dilemna and proposes "literature" (including, presumably, Solzenhitsyn, glory-be).

[Gabriel Sanchez]

I'd call slavery a pretty significant and long-lasting "situated point". And rape was not infrequent among black American slaves.

Are you implying there's a cogent, Christian defense of masters raping slaves? If so, I'd be very interested to look at it. I'm not so sure there is one, however.

So on what basis do some Christians today argue that slavery is immoral?

Christian ethics has never been limited to an exhaustive list of commands issued in the pages of Holy Scripture; in fact, there is no exhaustive list. That is where the development of natural law and the use of reason to derive moral principles comes into play. However, in order to argue from natural law, it tends to be posited that there was a divine lawgiver who set these principles into existence. Atheists obviously reject that. As I pointed out earlier, atheists tend to (generally) reject all of the basis for objective, universal moral rules. They have replaced it with a historicist set of ethics which can be overturned, distinguished, and ultimately indicted as being relative and empty.

Christians view murder, for instance, then I'm sure you're right that just about all Christians would agree that the unjust, unlawful taking of a life with malice aforethought is wrong.

The conditions you speak about alter with time. For example, if one takes just war doctrine into account, one has to consider that its earliest proponent (St. Augustine) was writing in a period where the Roman Empire had been Christianized. It is difficult to apply his principles in the same way today to societies which are decidedly non-Christian.

Also, at its heart, the taking of another life is always frowned upon in Christian morality. There are, of course, exceptions drawn out from the murder-killing distinction, but under this discussion there is a belief that there is a right answer.

I have to wonder, can an atheist even believe there is a right answer to be found? And on what grounds?

Some Christian communities (e.g., Quakers and Mennonites)interpret this passage quite literally. For them, even to kill a threatening aggressor to protect someone else is murder. And those Christians who consider the Iraq war an unjust war probably also consider the resulting casualties from it (especially civilian casualties) as murders.

This gets into the issue of the proper interpretation of Scripture which gets into a larger theological issue. However, I believe Christians who disagree on these points can make reasonable arguments concerning morality as it pertains to killing-murder. Also, I would point out that there are points in these discussions where reasonable persons can agree/disagree regardless of their status as Christians. I think the point of the matter was and has been not that Christians disagree on points of morality, but that atheists have nothing upon which to base their morality except on historically transient understandings of right/wrong. Universalization and codification are impossible.

[John Hart]

Joe Long:

"There seems to me a terrible flaw with deriving morality from nature with reference to evolutionary principles."

I agree, and in this perhaps I part ways a bit with Adrienne, though I don't think she was trying to make the case that all non-religious moral systems can or should proceed from evolutionary imperatives. The issue of what's natural is often tangled up with issues of what is right, and not just in non-religious spheres. Witness religious conservatives in the States decrying homosexuality not merely from a biblical basis, but because "it's just unnatural", and therefore wrong. (This despite plenty of evidence from the "natural world" that homosexual activity and pair bonding occur with regularity. But that's another conversation.)

My own stance is that though biology certainly provides a great deal of the framework of human society, our ability to reason allows us to transcend that frame. To some degree. And that possibility of transcendence is important, is what makes us human. There are many who attack Darwinian evolutionary theory, which is descriptive, as though it were part and parcel with so-called social Darwinism, which is prescriptive. "Natural Law" in any of its many formulations, does not automatically and necessarily fill the moral void left in a God-less world; the imprimatur of "evolution's endorsement" does not mean we have to buy the product.

The question has been put several times in this thread: on what moral authority and by what right, does an atheist base a judgement of right and wrong? I could be half flip and say that it's an unalienable human right, but I know that doesn't satisfy. Sharon D. has said a couple of times that such authority may be beside the point, "... there's no reason not to assert that moral norms exist the way (for instance) numbers exist".

I don't have a strong answer to the question, but I have what I think is a pretty strong dodge. I don't know that there is or isn't absolute moral truth. But I don't think that anyone, religious or not, in our (ahem) fallen world can make the claim to possess it. That doesn't mean that my value system is arbitrary-- I value justice because I do not wish to be subject to injustice, I wish for it to be universally applied, because that's only fair, and fairness is inherent in justice-- or capricious-- my concern for justice is not likely to change with the weather, rooted as it is in my considered desire for a particular sort of world. In fact, we'd probably get close to universal approval of the value of justice if we did a global survey. Where we run into trouble is in the definition and application. Is it just to punish a murderer with death? Now you've got an argument with a strong moral component. (Let's bracket the economic /jurisprudential / sociological parts of that argument for the moment.) Am I unqualified to urge mercy because I cannot seat my desire for mercy in the nature of God? Or disbarred from supporting capital punishment as merited consequence of heinous action because I cannot cite "an eye for an eye"?

The Rabbis who compiled the Talmud kept the record of every argument, even the losing ones, because they knew that what was held as valid today might have to be rethought tomorrow, and today's minority opinion might be needed. They knew themselves incapable of capturing ultimate Truth, but were nevertheless devoted to the attempt to do so.

E.R.Brett:

Apologizes for being brief in my response to your post but I've run on quite a bit in this one already. I would submit that Peter Singer while prominent, and provocative, is not particularly representative of, nor does he speak from an atheist perspective per se. I don't know that he's an atheist, though it seems a pretty good bet. But Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell are Christians of "some prominence", yet I wouldn't hold them to be emblematic of Christianity as a whole, even though they do speak from an explicitly religious perspective. I expect that we'd find most people polled, churched and otherwise, are equally set back on their heels by many of his positions.

As for abortion, there are plenty of religious people on all sides of the issue. While the "Pro-Life" folks are strongly identified with religious organizations, there is nothing inherently religious about the view that a two day old embryo is a human life to be protected, nor anything innately irreligious in the "Pro-Choice" stance that up to a certain point the pregnant woman gets to make her own decisions.

Finally, to steal from The Princess Bride, "You keep using that word [whim]. I do not think it means what you think it means." There is nothing about atheism that precludes rigor, consistency and dedication. Take a step back for a moment and try to picture the scene from outside the faith. When a person of God says, "I know this to be truth because after study, prayer and reflection, I know it comes from God" it does not sound, to the atheist, any more authoritative than "I believe this to be truth because after study, introspection and reflection, I have judged it sound." Assuming that each has in fact worked reach some conclusion, neither is likely to shift with the winds, on a whim. Atheists are really not any more likely to pick values out of the air and change them on a daily basis than anyone else. Come now, "If you prick us, do we not bleed?"

[Gabriel Sanchez]

Witness religious conservatives in the States decrying homosexuality not merely from a biblical basis, but because "it's just unnatural", and therefore wrong. (This despite plenty of evidence from the "natural world" that homosexual activity and pair bonding occur with regularity. But that's another conversation.)

This is probably the weakest form of argument used to try and put down natural law arguments against homosexuality. It really amounts to nothing more than a semantics game. So no, I don't believe "that's another conversation"; it is critical to understanding what natural law entails in the first place.

When homosexuality is condemned as being "unnatural" it is done on the basis of what is natural for human beings. Natural law attempts to look to the nature of humans and from there determine their proper ends. Since homosexuality violates a number of ends which are argued as natural for the human person, the practice is morally condemned. Again, I stress that it is human nature which is put under scrutiny; not the purported nature of beasts.

By your understanding of how natural law works (as evidenced by your argument), any activity which is found in the "natural world" (i.e., the animal kingdom) could be morally justified. So, for example, since there are certain breeds of wasps which apparently rape, rape would then be "natural" and hence morally correct.

"Natural Law" in any of its many formulations, does not automatically and necessarily fill the moral void left in a God-less world; the imprimatur of "evolution's endorsement" does not mean we have to buy the product.

Natural law was never meant to "fill the moral voice left in a God-less world"; that seperation is an innovation and one which is subject to the sorts of attacks I outlined above. "God-less" natural law tends to take on the form which (it seems) you understand it; that human behavior ought to be or can be measured ethically in relation to the behavior of other species of animals. It does not look to human nature specifically and, in fact, tends to reject that there is a nature to human beings at all.

But I don't think that anyone, religious or not, in our (ahem) fallen world can make the claim to possess it.

It's nice that you think that, but can you prove it?

That doesn't mean that my value system is arbitrary-- I value justice because I do not wish to be subject to injustice, I wish for it to be universally applied, because that's only fair, and fairness is inherent in justice-- or capricious-- my concern for justice is not likely to change with the weather, rooted as it is in my considered desire for a particular sort of world.

Why is fairness inherent in justice? What is fairness? The first part of your statement reveals a selfish motivation for wanting justice, but it could theoretically end at yourself or whatever class you may arbitrarily be said to belong to. And you may want justice for everybody, but on what basis can you claim that justice *ought* to be extended to everyone? You speak of fairness, but it could be argued that it's not fair to extend justice how to classes of human beings who, for example, protest the government or refuse to fight for a war on behalf of society. I think there's some real difficulties that you aren't considering here.

In fact, we'd probably get close to universal approval of the value of justice if we did a global survey.

Perhaps, but that may be only because your definition of justice is so vague that almost anyone could consent to it.

Am I unqualified to urge mercy because I cannot seat my desire for mercy in the nature of God? Or disbarred from supporting capital punishment as merited consequence of heinous action because I cannot cite "an eye for an eye"?

You could make arguments for either of those on either side. However, one has to wonder what basis you would give them (you offer none here). You could argue for the death penalty just because you like the idea of the state putting people to death; to you it may be comical. However, I'm not so sure that could stand as a moral argument or even a reasonable one. Now, you may have a consequentialist argument to make concerning either of those points and that is fine. However, then you are left to the mercy of social scientific data to support your position and if that data should prove wrong or change over time, then so too would your position have to altered. Also, you would still be incapable of making claims about the rightness/wrongness of the death penalty itself; you would be left to make assertions predicated upon its application.

They knew themselves incapable of capturing ultimate Truth, but were nevertheless devoted to the attempt to do so.

And so too are Christians and so too have been philosophers up until the 19th Century. As I mentioned earlier in another post, part of the atheist worldview entails rejecting the basis for that pursuit of ultimate Truth, whether it concerns the nature of God (who does not exist) or the proper rules of conduct for humans to live by (which are historically rooted) or even the end of humanity (which cannot be known because humanity has no nature from which to derive that end).

[E.R. Brett]

John Hart, your point, as I read it, was this: "I doubt also that you'd find any group of atheists arguing over the pros and cons of "things such as murder and rape". My point, in referencing Peter Singer, was simply to note that this was not true. Utilitarian atheists argue over these sorts of things all the time - it is often literally their bread and butter. What's most interesting, however, is that where an atheist might point at Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell and loudly declare that they are not being consistent with their own creeds or tradition or revelation itself (a view with which I might agree), with the expectation that this might carry some weight not only with their followers but also with the gentlemen in question, what does one say to an atheist? Does one point out the inconsistency and *expect* a change, or merely *hope* for a change?

I am not suggesting that atheists are unprincipled - I know as you do that the truth is often (though not always) the opposite. I *am* suggesting that, however well thought-out and consistently held, without reference to a source those principles are arbitrary and fluctuating, both on a macro/generational level and, potentially, on a micro/day-by-day, hour-by-hour level. The atheist, by virtue of his atheism, is autonomous; the deist not-so-much.

[John Hart]

Gabriel Sanchez:

I fear you have missed my forest for my trees. I brought up the natural law argument vs. homosexuality as an example of why I reject natural law as a basis for ethics. So no need for us to go 'round the fence about wasps. I threw in evidence of homosexuality in the animal kingdom to show that that argument vs. homosexuality fails even on its own terms. I'm sorry if it was distracting; I think we've got enough grist for the mill here without adding gay rights to the mix.

"Evolution's endorsement" came from an earlier post by Joe Long relating to 'absent God, what moral authority, & etc.' in which I understood him to be saying that Natural Law, in the form of 'he who dies with the most descendants wins' is the only authority left if one takes away theology. Again, I think we're agreeing here.

You ask if I can prove that no one possesses "absolute moral truth". Well, um, no. Can you prove that someone does? And don't you tend to be leery of those that claim to?

As for the selfishness of valuing justice because I want it applied to myself as well as everyone else. Selfish seems a bit harsh. Could we compromise on enlightened self-interest? "Why is fairness inherent in Justice?" Why is oxygen inherent in the air we breathe? I think we're just language wrangling here. Yes, as I've said, the devil is in the details when one tries to apply principles to real life, but that doesn't invalidate the principle itself. These things have to be worked through by those who share a society. I'm not saying it's not difficult, but I don't know that it's really made any easier when drawn from a religious well. We all seem to be in agreement that religious reasoning is necessarily interpretive, and indeed mutable with time and circumstance. Please understand, I don't describe it in that way to denigrate religious tradition. But if it were simple we'd all be in the same nave. Difficulties, yes! cf. Human Condition.

"only because your definition of justice is so vague that almost anyone could consent to it" Again, we agree. It is vague, but not entirely meaningless. And it's one place to start. Better, it's a place that you, I and "almost anyone" can start from together, I for my "selfish" reasons, and you for Godly ones. Let's not reject that out of hand.

"However, one has to wonder what basis you would give [moral arguments for or against the death penalty]" I would urge mercy for the same reasons I urge justice. (And yes that's a tricky line to walk innit?) And I did in fact spell out a justification pro, i.e., "merited consequence of heinous action". You may recall that I bracketed the social science arguments to keep focus on the moral plane. And let's let pass the straw man image of me chuckling as the switch is thrown. So, don't the above count as non-religious moral arguments pro and con? I'm not trying to argue either position, just to show that I would have a plausible non-religious moral basis for doing so.

"'They knew themselves incapable of capturing ultimate Truth, but were nevertheless devoted to the attempt to do so.'"
"And so too are Christians" -- well, yes certainly to the second part (dedicated to the attempt), but I'm not so sure about the first part. As I said, the Rabbis preserved even those arguments that they disagreed with. I'm sorry to sound flip, but for a number of centuries Christians tended to burn the books of those judged heretics, and their authors along with them. It seems to me that there still exists (even on this thread) the idea that ultimate Truth can be known, not just sought. Seems to me that one way of describing the split here is between those that (nobly!) strive for eternal Truth, and those of us who must resign ourselves, even unwillingly, to provisional truth. And in an attempt to walk my own talk, I promise to try to avoid overbroad characterizations of Religious People in the hope that you will similarly go easy on the codification of "the atheist worldview". (Heiliger zeitgeist Batman!)

E.R.Brett:

I certainly grant you the difficulty of addressing random atheists with reference to a central set of doctrines. (There's likely some parallel with trying to prove a negative if I were clever enough to work it out. Which come to think of it is the believer/atheist dialog dilemma in a nutshell, isn't it?) At any rate, I am relieved that I am not without sources. There's plenty in the human tradition for the godless to draw upon. Philosophy principally, but yes, I'd include the arts, even (pace, pace) literature. Are my guiding principles organized, codified, and finalized? Heavens no. But they are as consistent as I can make them, and as well considered as I can manage, and as deeply rooted in my human heritage as any of my religious friends' are. Are they arbitrary? Maybe so in the final analysis. But not in a wake-up-each-day-and-decide-whether-or-not-to-go-shoot-up-a-shopping-center-for-kicks sense. And not in fact in a "micro / day-by-day, hour by hour level". People don't tend to work that way <-- yes, I know that's an unsupported assertion, but does anyone here know, or know of, people whose principles and/or behaviors are so random?

The atheist may be autonomous, but, and I think this is a theme from this side of the aisle, not inhuman.

[c matt]

But I hope you at least realize how incorrect (and demeaning, really) it is to assert that the absence of God's moral norms means that there can be no moral norms at all.

Coming late to the conversation. I don't think it was intended to mean atheists may not exhibit a moral norm at a given point in time, but the fact that there is no absolute moral norm (no absolute Truth, as some have said) to which that norm is anchored means, by necessity, that the exhibited moral norm at any given time is subject to revision. Which in a sense begs the question of from what is that moral norm derived, or how can it even be considered a "norm," if it is constantly subject to revision, even if in a particular atheist it is never revised?

To someone's question above - if I learned for certain there was no God, would my moral norms change? At the risk of disclosing my moral fickleness, HECK YA. It would mean one thing - that there are no eternal consequences to my actions. Therefore, it would lead to one conclusion - all my actions, if I were to be rational, should be geared to reduce or eliminate temporal consequences I find undesirable, and maximize those I find desirable. In some instances, that would require following what others would consider general moral values (eg, don't steal, cheat, lie, etc.). However, in other instances, there would be no moral imperative for me to refrain from such action if it maximized desired consequences. In short, the only rational moral principle to live by would be don't get caught.

I think there is also a slightly different conception between atheists and theists on the definition of morality. Correct me if I am wrong, but atheists generally view morality as how one should act with respect to society and how society should be visibly ordered. Theists, for the most part, see this as one part of the definition, but go a bit further - morality (and moral principles) also include those things one ought to do even if never caught. The old "morality is what one does when no one is looking." Most of the arguments about morality that the atheists put forward are based upon the first part of the definition, and to an extent, there is some "objective" criteria upon which an atheist could base such a morality, although that morality would still be subject to revisions as society changes what acts it finds acceptable.

But for the second part of the definition, I don't see how any atheist could find a basis upon which to rest a moral system. In which case, morality is really a function of not getting caught (or what one judges to be the risk/reward of getting caught/desired consequence). And this is inevitable because if there is no God, and therefore no eternal consequences to one's actions, then there can be no basis - no reason in other words - to refrain from doing something if you won't get caught.

[Juli]

Quote:

But for the second part of the definition, I don't see how any atheist could find a basis upon which to rest a moral system. In which case, morality is really a function of not getting caught (or what one judges to be the risk/reward of getting caught/desired consequence). And this is inevitable because if there is no God, and therefore no eternal consequences to one's actions, then there can be no basis - no reason in other words - to refrain from doing something if you won't get caught.

As a Christian, are you really drawn to do good only because of "eternal consequences"? One reason to do what is right - for example, to help someone who is injured or in need - is human compassion. Don't we at least sometimes do what is right for that reason? As a Christian, I believe that we are made to be in communion with God and each other. I know nonbelievers (maybe agnostic, possibly atheist - mostly they define themselves by what they *do* believe, however) who are among the most naturally compassionate people I've ever met. They try to do what they belive is right, yes, but more than that they respond in love to other people. As Christians, should that surprise us, if we believe they are made in the image and likeness of the Author of love? (I realize that my Christian explanation for why atheists would be drawn to what is good would not exactly suit atheists ... oh, well ... it still makes sense to me.)

[Adrienne]

Good post, Juli. And I do appreciate your input, even as it's from a believer's point of view.

Wow, this discussion is going so many places at once! At the moment, work is so hectic I'm find it it hard to keep up here. But it's definitely a bracing exchange, though. I'm beginning to think it should have its own reading list. ;-)

Whilst I'm on my lunch hour, I'm picking various points to respond to.

First up is a response from Joe Long about the topic of the morality of slavery:

"Certainly Western civilization had a long, long way to go from the Roman Empire in which Christianity was born, to the West that could forsake the universal, ancient, very human institution of slavery forever."

The Roman Empire had much fairer laws regarding slavery than did the Christian south. So, if anything, Christianity caused the treatment of slaves to decline, not improve.

"St. Paul's writings accommodated the institution as well as planting the seeds of its ultimate destruction in the Christian world, by asserting human spiritual equality and putting onerous burdens of responsibility on slaveowners."

Given how vigorous the slave trade was (and not just in the US) from the Rennaissance on, I don't think slaveowners found those burdens you speak of too "onerous" at all.

Besides, if Paul truly thought slavery was wrong, he would have just written it as such. Although, I suppose we could give him a break because he clearly though the end of the world and the second coming were going to happen in his lifetime (and he was wrong on that too). But there was no reason for Paul to equivocate on the morality of slavery. Certainly the Jesus of the gospels didn't have trouble putting a stop to practices that were still in vogue, such as divorce and stoning adulteresses. Come to think of it, why is it that Jesus was so silent on slavery, do you think?

Could it be that the current Christian idea that slavery is immoral actually....*gasp*...evolved over time? You can't deny that modern Christians interpret Scripture and tradition differently in MANY ways than, say, 500 years ago.

"Perhaps the Faith did not get rid of slavery fast ENOUGH - but the fact remains that Christians, and Christianity, did it, and no one and nothing else."

Not true. Not even close. Unitarians and freethinkers had a BIG big hand in promoting the abolitionist movement, running the Underground Railroad, and in ending slavery. For more information on this topic, read this terrific book.

[Adrienne]

Joe Long wrote:

"An individual may prefer to be kind and gentle with his fellows and even find it somewhat rewarding; yet the one who guards his family, propagates his genes, and imposes his will without regard to morality "wins" - Genghis Khan or a close relative seems in fact to be the all-time evolutionary "winner" so far, having spread his genes further and wider than anyone else in world history according to genetic scientists. Outside a spiritual context, I see no one's right to "judge" him; though rape and slaughter are inseparable from his legacy, he has evolution's endorsement."

Actually, it's not that an individual may prefer. The actual individual DOES prefer to be kind and gentle with his fellows, even on a biological level. Human nervous systems are such that observing someone in distress or pain actually produces a parasympathetic stress response in the observer.

Now...this response certainly CAN be overridden, as we know because violent crime exists. And certain individuals, for whatever reasons, totally lack it altogether (we call them psychopaths/sociopaths). Genghis Khan probably falls into that category.

But your generic human being needs, for his or her optimal emotional, mental, and even *physical* health to live cooperatively and harmoniously with other humans in some sort of stable grouping. Living in a constant state of fear, anxiety, tension literally makes most humans sick, inducing heart disease and depression and habitually impairing the immune system.

And don't forget the human love of stability. Your average human likes order and predictability in life, even craves it. Constant war and skirmishes tend to induce high levels of unpredictabilty to life. Constant war also makes it hard to forage for food, discover things, plant crops, and do more mundane human activities.

There's also the key point that human offspring do not reach full potential unless they grow up in a relatively peaceful and stable environment. Being at war all the time with other clans, tribes, countries, you name it, actually has bad effects on your own society's children.

As for rape, it's a bad way to "spread your seed", as conception is much more likely when the woman is willing and even aroused.

And as (I think?) John Hart pointed out, people, spiritual or not, Christian or not, frequently derive pleasure from doing nice things for others. Maybe at heart these kinds of acts of altruism are self-centered. Maybe we humans tend to look at ourselves as being "better people" or heroic or whatever because we help ed our old neighbor carry her groceries in or work in a soup kitchen. Maybe it does ourselves good by boosting our own self-esteem. But there's no question that a drive towards altruism, at least in some circumstances, is part of the average human psyche.

[Adrienne]

C. Matt wrote:

"In which case, morality is really a function of not getting caught (or what one judges to be the risk/reward of getting caught/desired consequence)."

Actually, this still works for me. I mean, if the threat of being legally punished keeps people from doing things because they aren't getting caught, then so what? Even if their interior motives are less than admirable, as long as their external actions aren't breaking the "don't kill or maim people" types of rules, I don't really care.

"And this is inevitable because if there is no God, and therefore no eternal consequences to one's actions, then there can be no basis - no reason in other words - to refrain from doing something if you won't get caught."

Well, in case you hadn't realized, the threat of eternal damnation doesn't work too well as a deterrent of bad behavior. The American south, one of the most solidly Christian areas in the world, has terrible crime and divorce rates, not to mention poverty. The overwhelming majority of people in jail in the US are Christians.

Let's face it, people, no matter what their religious/philosophical worlview is, will *always* find rationalizations for breaking a moral rule if they "need" to.

Also, there's one very obvious flaw (to me, anyway) in the "fear of hell keeps people in line" argument. Most flavors of Christianity teach that believers can always sincerely ask for forgiveness and get it, even after doing something heinous, and still get the reward of eternal life. I know that the forgiven person is supposed to then make amends to those whom he or she wronged, if possible, but even a repentant murderer can't bring a murdered person back to life. Nor can a repentant criminal "take back" and undo a rape or a beating. By Christian reasoning, a murderer could end up in heaven, even if the person he or she murdered could be in hell for all eternity. Remember Carla Faye Tucker?

[Adrienne]

E.R. Brett wrote:

The presence of Christian communities like the Quakers and Mennonites alongside more, er, hawkish bodies suggests that the murkiness of the world is making the Christian community increasingly "murky" as well

So you admit there's still an inherent amount of murkiness involved in trying to correctly apply Christian principles to ethics, right? Yes, God is your ultimate moral authority and the source of eternal morals and truths. But you've basically admitted that you can't figure out exactly what those truths are in some key situations (like deciding to fight vs. being a pacifist). So you have to guess what God thinks about the matter based on your own interpretation of Scripture + your best attempts at using reason.

That doesn't sound like a firm moral foundation to me. Sounds awfully subjective, actually. And on what basis do you grant yourself (or your pastor, priest, or Church) the moral authority to try to read the mind of God?

The RCC (and maybe the Orthodox churches too?) claim to be the authority, so the answer is easy if you're a member of one of those churches. But if you're a protestant, I think it's a great deal more difficult.

[Juli]

Adrienne, you said, "The RCC (and maybe the Orthodox churches too?) claim to be the authority, so the answer is easy if you're a member of one of those churches."

The Orthodox churches lack anything remotely resembling the RCC's centralized teaching authority (not that the RCC is entirely monolithic either), so most of our answers aren't easy in the sense you mean. I could point you, for example, to a web site where Christian participation in war (generally, not just the current war in Iraq) is being debated heatedly by Orthodox (and other) Christians. How the tradition is interpreted is a matter for discernment, and though we naturally turn to our pastors (priests and bishops) for guidance, they are not unified in their stances on such issues -not to mention that many do not even feel it is appropriate to express as church teaching their personal stances on partisan political issues.

[Joe Long]

Adrienne:

Re: Freethinkers and the abolition movement, I will certainly check that out. (Wouldn't "Unitarians" at that time have strenuously argued that they WERE Christian?) On the institution itself - I would beg to differ on the relative brutality in the American South versus the Roman empire, despite the laws, the death rates in (say) the salt mines, the galleys or the gladitorial contests making a mockery of whatever "just" laws might have been in place - while Christianity in America did much to mitigate the suffering of slaves in what was, of course, a very cruel institution in the best of cases. At any rate my point was not that Christian thinking "evolved" on what was a temporal social issue but that Christian sensibilities were there to provide the impetus when Western - that is, the most Christian-influenced - civilization had advanced far enough to get rid of slavery. I know that's an aside, but as slavery tends to be a historical albatross hung unfairly around the neck of the religion which did by far the most work against it, I wanted to address it.

As for Christ's lack of direct commentary on slavery, "My kingdom is not of this world" pretty well sums that up - agitating slaves in the Roman world would be an act of political revolution, which neither Christ nor St. Paul were undertaking. That masters in the Christian world for centuries afterwards took that as license, is a statement on the fallen nature of man -

Which naturally leads into: Genghis Khan was not a sociopath, he was a well-adjusted member of his culture, brilliant, tenacious, unusually progressive in a number of ways (including religious pluralism). He followed his code of honor quite scrupulously, rewarded his friends and punished his enemies...and it prospered him and his culture - both his genes and "memes" would flourish. And perhaps he engaged in much consensual or merely psychologically coercive sex...no one can say at this distance...anyway it seems to me that by any secular Darwinian-derived system he was a huge winner.

You note that:
"The actual individual DOES prefer to be kind and gentle with his fellows, even on a biological level. Human nervous systems are such that observing someone in distress or pain actually produces a parasympathetic stress response in the observer."

Yes. Sometimes I want to be kind and gentle with my fellows, and it gives me a good feeling to do so.

Other times I want to break their ever-lovin' necks! And a look at the world leads an impartial observer to conclude that both material advantage and psychological satisfaction can be derived from doing so. Ambition and aggression are as hardwired as compassion - likely more in my system than yours, what with the "Y" chromosome and all. The success of "The Sopranos" is just one of a myriad evidences of our great fellow-feeling, of our deep interior kinship, with the violent and the ruthless. Were I to try to derive my morality from my impulses, I would indeed still be very kind to puppies and children, - very well; so were half the great villians of history.

It's great, I think, that you are somehow deriving a different morality than that which it seems a study of atheistic evolution would compel. I just don't think you can legitimately derive it from mere biology. Which I think you agreed with, "separating us from the animals" and all.

As far as the flaws of Christian societies... as Chesterton said, "Christian society has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult, and left untried". A grand overstatement - actually sometimes it's been tried pretty hard, occasionally disastrously; but His kingdom is STILL not of this world. The terrible divorce rates here in the South are of course lamentable...do you think the South without Christianity would see an improvement in those divorce rates, perhaps? I don't think it follows at all - and doubtless when the South was "more Christian" (probably not a measurable quantity) the divorce rate was far lower. Post-Christian Europe seems to be doing away with divorce - by getting rid of marriage, too. If societies with Christianity are still very bad...without Christian influence they'd be far, far worse.

[John Hart]

Joe Long:

Atheistic Darwinian evolution has no compelling authority for morality. I suppose theistic Darwinian evolution might, but it would proceed from the theistic part. It is descriptive of biological history, not prescriptive for human society.

Marriage rates may be down in Western Europe, but it does not follow that anyone or anything has a program to "get rid" of marriage. I expect that's not really what you meant, but given what seems to be a growing level of distrust and misunderstanding of Europe in the US, and vice versa, I urge semantic caution. Nor does it necessarily follow that a lower marriage rate there has any connection to any decline in society.

The ever entertaining Chesterton puts me in mind of one of Gandhi's famous lines: after visiting London, he was asked, "What do you think of Western Civilization Mr. Gandhi?" "I think it would be a good idea."

[Adrienne]

John Hart wrote:

Atheistic Darwinian evolution has no compelling authority for morality. I suppose theistic Darwinian evolution might, but it would proceed from the theistic part. It is descriptive of biological history, not prescriptive for human society.

For humans as a species, culture (as opposed to instinct)is our main evolutionary adaptation to our environment. We can get away with this because of our extremely complex and adaptive brains. The fact that so little of our behavior is instinctive is what makes it so hard to speak of what is "natural" for humans.

On the other hand, I *do* think that studies of closely related primates and our own evolutionary history can give us some insight into how we behave and, more importantly, what type of behaviors, relationships, and living conditions make us thrive vs. those that don't. There is good evidence that both individual humans (or chimps, or baboons...) and human societies do better when they live cooperatively more than competitively. On average, humans are happier and healthier when they form a network of positive relationships with other humans (same for baboons, at least).

These latter needs came about very, very late in the human evolutionary timeline. Since our brains are a mixture of "old" and "new" in terms of the evolutionary timeline, there can be times when different parts of the brain work at cross purposes. The older more instinctual drives (spread your genes as much as possible) can and do clash sometimes with human emotional, mental, and intellectual needs (find someone to love, not just 100 people to mate with).

Based on history and biology both, I conclude that the average human has a naturally based inclination to live according to a set of moral rules. Moreover, I think that some of these rules will always be of the sort that help to keep the societal unit functioning (such as "don't start randomly killing the people around you without provocation"). In general, human societies simply just don't devolve into chaos and anarchy in the absence of a moral code allegedly derived from absolute moral truths.

As for deriving the finer points of those moral truths and how to apply them to specific situations ....that's where human culture takes over.

OK, one more point to address:

The Christians on this thread have repeatedly pointed out that one big divide between atheistic nad theistic morality is the source of moral authority. If God hasn't directly given you a moral imperative to follow, why listen to someone who says, "Don't do that!"?

I guess my feeling is that I don't mind if the moral "authority" is a humanly appointed and possibly fallible one. The state makes laws, I make moral decisions based on what I know and what I believe. I agree there's no perfect answer and there's a lot of subjectivity inherent in that. But given that Christians seem to be lacking exact answers on many serious issues as well (as in the case of just war, pacifism, who is it OK to kill, etc.), I don't see much of an overall difference in the end.

[Joe Long]

FWIW - I always thought Ghandi probably read Chesterton and cribbed his line - which speaks well of both of them, actually. And I don't think "Europe" has any deliberate agendas at all ("cultural suicide" doesn't count as an agenda). I don't view Europe as a malicious influence so much as a cautionary example, right now...not that we aren't a pretty frightening cautionary example ourselves, at times.

Adrienne, the fact Quakers are wrong about pacifism in no way indicates that I, a Christian, "lack (fairly) exact answers" about questions of war and peace. On the contrary, I express these answers with considerable enthusiasm at the drop of a hat. Lack of uniformity in the very, very large and diverse Christian church is to be expected; indeed, if we disagreed about nothing, you would have a solid case to accuse the church of highly effective brainwashing. But my morality is based on the idea that there IS objective moral truth to be found, and found in Christianity - even though it's likely none of us have it down cold, with sufficient wisdom for every individual situation. At the very least we agree on WHAT we are all (mis-)interpreting...just not which parts we're each wrong about. We live with that. And while the question of, say, capital punishment, spurs debate, no Christian can go too far wrong by taking care of widows and orphans or refraining to commit adultery; most basic Christian morality is really not a matter for too much legitimate dispute.

[John Hart]

"Cultural Suicide and Cautionary Examples in the First World"
Now there's a thread topic to sink one's teeth into! Please keep me on the invite list for that one---

Joe Long:
'the fact Quakers are wrong about pacifism in no way indicates that I, a Christian, "lack (fairly) exact answers" about questions of war and peace. On the contrary, I express these answers with considerable enthusiasm at the drop of a hat.'
Well sure, you, a Christian, may have exact answers, but I think Adrienne's point is that Christianity, as such, cannot be said to, due to its laudable diversity. So while all Christians may be on a common road in search of objective moral truth, no one can be said to have arrived at the destination. So doesn't that leave Christians in the same boat as atheists in as much as we all may have "exact answers" which we believe to be correct, but must in all humility admit that we may have gotten it wrong?

[Adrienne]

Joe Long wrote:

But my morality is based on the idea that there IS objective moral truth to be found, and found in Christianity - even though it's likely none of us have it down cold, with sufficient wisdom for every individual situation. At the very least we agree on WHAT we are all (mis-)interpreting...just not which parts we're each wrong about. We live with that.

But in practical terms, deciding that you believe that there are objective moral truths doesn't mean a whole lot, then.

It would appear that while you and other Christians presumably agree that there are objective moral truths, you also agree that the only person who knows exactly what those truths are is God.

[Adrienne]

Going back to an earlier post of Joe Long's, I'll respond to some of your questions and points, Joe.

Joe Long wrote:

Wouldn't "Unitarians" at that time have strenuously argued that they WERE Christian?

Hmm, I'm not sure, but probably yes.

I would beg to differ on the relative brutality in the American South versus the Roman empire, despite the laws, the death rates in (say) the salt mines, the galleys or the gladitorial contests making a mockery of whatever "just" laws might have been in place.

Roman slaves were mostly POWs, and thus predominantly adult males. Female slaves often married out of slavery, and their subsequent children were born free (male children became Roman citizens). Black female slaves in the South didn't have this opportunity. A Roman slave also had an excellent chance of eventually earning or purchasing his freedom, unlike black American slaves. A formally manumitted male slave got full Roman citizenship, and his children after manumission were born free. Male children were Roman citizens also.

Christianity in America did much to mitigate the suffering of slaves in what was, of course, a very cruel institution in the best of cases.

I'm afraid I really can't agree with this statement. SOME Christians in America sought to mitigate the suffering of slaves. But many ignored it. And many sought to perpetuate it.

Genghis Khan was not a sociopath, he was a well-adjusted member of his culture, brilliant, tenacious, unusually progressive in a number of ways (including religious pluralism).

Well, when I referred to psychopaths/sociopaths, I had a very specific meaning in mind. I was referring to a person who feels no distress at watching or causing pain or death to others.

The average person, even if he or she doesn't realize it, reacts negatively to seeing someone in distress, as I mentioned in an earlier post. Maybe you could call it a biochemical indicator of human compassion. This type of person, the psychopath or whatever the new and correct DSM-IV term is, does not have that response. Not even on an unconscious level, interestingly enough.

Yes. Sometimes I want to be kind and gentle with my fellows, and it gives me a good feeling to do so.

Other times I want to break their ever-lovin' necks! And a look at the world leads an impartial observer to conclude that both material advantage and psychological satisfaction can be derived from doing so.

Well, my response here is that there is a big difference between wishing harm to another (even wishing to CAUSE harm to another) and actually DOING harm. You may enjoy daydreams of strangling your boss by his (or her?) tie, but if you actually started to do that very action....you would probably not find it anywhere nearly as pleasurable as you imagined. And yes, I do say *probably*. Not definitely, as you pointed out. Yes, there are those out there who derive satisfaction (materially, psychologically, and so on) from hurting and killing. But I would argue they are in the minority.

I'm also thinking of some great books written by Stanford biologist Robert M. Sapolsky, who studies baboon behavior. In particular he studies aggression among males in one particular baboon troop. One young male he studied was amazingly violent. He savaged other baboons, male and female. The rest of the group came to live in fear of this guy. He was the undisputed alpha male of the whole group, and had everyone else's obedience. Sapolsky took a blood sample from this baboon, and was rather surprised to find out that he was terribly, terribly stressed out. Based on findings like this, Dr. Sapolsky came to the conclusion that being a b*st*rd is really bad for your health, physically, mentally and emotionally. It brings on heart disease. It takes a terrible toll on your immune system to always have to watch your back.

Were I to try to derive my morality from my impulses, I would indeed still be very kind to puppies and children, - very well; so were half the great villians of history.

Aww, I think you're selling yourself short on this one. Truly. No hedonistic red swaths for you, Christian or no.

As far as the flaws of Christian societies... as Chesterton said, "Christian society has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult, and left untried".

I thought he said that about Christianity in general, not just Christian society. My response is, "That's circular reasoning, Mr. Chesterton."

...do you think the South without Christianity would see an improvement in those divorce rates, perhaps? I don't think it follows at all

Actually, atheists have a lower divorce rate than evangelical Christians. So yes, I actually do think the South might see an improvement in the divorce rate. Can't hurt to try, can it? ;-)

[David]

“That doesn't sound like a firm moral foundation to me. Sounds awfully subjective, actually. And on what basis do you grant yourself (or your pastor, priest, or Church) the moral authority to try to read the mind of God?”

Adrienne, you’re right in that Christians sometimes disagree about exactly how we should apply certain parts of the scriptures. Hopefully more than anything else we try to apply them with humility realizing that we are fallible and see but through a glass, darkly. And yes, as a Protestant I must admit a certain envy of Catholic brothers and sisters on this point! I think it’s important to understand that Christians don’t (or at least shouldn’t) claim to know the mind of God (it has been said that if God is small enough for us to comprehend, then He’s not big enough to worship). But us not knowing what is right in every situation, or for that matter getting something wrong, doesn’t change the fact that there is a right and a wrong. We Christians know God is there and we know He’s a God of justice and we know we’ve all fallen short. That, in its essence, is the heart of Christianity. We know we’ve all turned astray and deserve justice and but for the grace of God we would get just that.

You brought up a very interesting point here:
“By Christian reasoning, a murderer could end up in heaven, even if the person he or she murdered could be in hell for all eternity.”
Yes, you’re absolutely right. Phillip Yancey wrote a brilliant book called ‘What’s So Amazing About Grace’ where he talks about the inherent unfairness of grace. It doesn’t seem fair that a murderer should go to heaven. What they’ve done is so wrong. But you see I’m no better than a murderer in God’s eyes. I have fallen short of God’s moral standard just as much as he has. We are all lost without grace.

There have been a good number of recent posts dealing with societal and political issues; it feels like there’s a consistent pull in that direction. I guess I tend to shy away from them as I don’t think society can ever be an effective enforcer or an accurate measure of morality. I believe history teaches us that any society that pretends to be an embodiment of a moral standard inevitably betrays that standard. A quick glance at the French revolution or Victorian England or Augustus’ Rome shows this. This is why I deliberately separate morality and society. I don’t believe right and wrong change if we move from one society to another. Personally, I believe understanding morality is far more about studying the Bible, looking inwards, understanding how far we fall short as opposed to looking around and decrying the immorality in society. Ultimately only God sees our hearts. I find it interesting and rather satisfying that Christ dealt very, very little with anything political. He could have started a carpenter’s union, or gone around getting signatures for a ‘Rome Go Home’ petition, or demanded tax relief, or whatever. But He didn’t. He sat with people and taught them. Small insignificant people, who were so changed by His sacrifice that they went out and changed the world.

[Eric]

The curcular argument here is that atheism is somehow ungrounded morally and christianity is.

Please then name 1 absolute moral principal that can be agreed uppon by all christians and how that principal builds a system of moral guidelines. This should be an easy task for a religion that claims that there can be absolute morals.

Many of the arguments going back and forth here had already been debated and most of you have not read the basic texts on this matter. Atheists can be just as moral, if not more so, than someone religious because he has a rational and logical framework for deciding moral or correct actions. Religious foundations to moral systems are, at a minimum, non-rational ( not rational or irrational ).

My own personal moral system is based on the society we live in and is NOT based on the "getting caught" issue. Rationally there are many arguments as to why virtues and vices need not recognition or punishment to be right and wrong on their face.

Looking to the world, Buhddism is a religion that has been around for many thousands of years, probably longer than christianity. Yet in thier religion there is not belief in a Diety ( so technically Atheists ). I doubt anyone would argue that thier moral code is akin to nilhism, but the same attack seems to work against "generic atheists".

From a religious perspective... why would we be given the gift of rationality, then one thing that seperates us from animals, if we need to abandon it to set up a functioning society and moral code?

[sharon d.]

"But in practical terms, deciding that you believe that there are objective moral truths doesn't mean a whole lot, then. It would appear that while you and other Christians presumably agree that there are objective moral truths, you also agree that the only person who knows exactly what those truths are is God." -Adrienne

Well this thread has now dropped off the page, so it may be pointless to add another comment... But this gets back to a point I made earlier, about the difference between the ontological and epistemological arguments. Adrienne has moved on to the epistemological: How can we know what the intrinsic moral norms are, assuming they exist? And if you can't know them, what use are they?

It's true that Christians believe that only God understands them perfectly; but this isn't to say that we believe that we can't know them in any way other than through divine revelation. Christian tradition has taught since St. Paul that at least some moral norms can be known without revelation.

Taking again mathematical truths as analogous, we don't know all the truths there are (that's why mathematicians have jobs), and presumably God does; but we can know a lot of them, and through study and reflection we can come over time to know more.

Similarly, some basic moral norms are universally known, just as counting is universally known; the fact that some people seem to not know these norms doesn't disprove them any more than the fact that some people seem to utterly lack numeracy. Some mathematical truths may be known to only a few people, and there may even be disagreement on such truths; but we can do the hard work of moral or mathematical reasoning and arrive at an answer.