…and this is a 
We “amoral” atheists
Category: Godlessness
Posted on: September 24, 2007 11:38 AM, by PZ Myers
You would think Yale would attract a smarter class of stude…oh, wait. I forgot what famous Yalies have risen to power in this country. OK, maybe it's not surprising that a Yale freshman would raise the tired canard of the "amoral atheist".
Recent years have seen an influx of anti-religious publications in the Western world, as well as a growing audience for such publications. From Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" to Christopher Hitchens' "God Is Not Great," anti-theistic works have poured into bookstores as atheists in the United States and elsewhere have taken on a more strident tone in public discourse. Unfortunately, their approach has been one characterized more by noisy rhetoric than reasoned arguments, and they have particularly failed in their attempt to present a coherent system of morality that in no way rests on a belief in the supernatural.
Of course, Christians and other theists have raised the objection that naturalistic materialism — the notion that only the physical world exists — can provide no foundation for morality. That's not to say that naturalists cannot behave morally, but merely that they can have no real and consistent reason for behaving morally. As this has been a long-standing and widespread objection to naturalism, it would seem only reasonable to expect atheists to devote careful attention to the question of morality.
This notion that morality is a reason to believe is a common thread to many religious apologetics, as is its complement, that atheism doesn't provide a moral rationale. In part, I agree: the simple statement that the world exists does not state how we should act within it, and the fact that the universe is godless does not dictate standards of human behavior. But then, neither would the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient god.
My atheism is complete. When I am afraid, I do not cry out to the Lord for protection; I don't even feel the beginnings of a stirring to consider doing so. When I am in despair, I don't find solace in the rituals of the church or in the belief that there is a Great Being who is concerned for me. When life goes well for me (and there's no denying that my life has been good so far), I do not feel grateful to Zeus, and I don't see any point to burning a hecatomb to him, and I don't even dedicate a drop of wine to the lares and penates. I feel that transcendant sense of awe ascribed to religious feeling regularly, but no god inspires it — it's more likely to be triggered by a molecule, some music, a book, or an organism of one phylum or another.
Yet, somehow, without even a hint of god-belief, not the slightest dread of hell, nor the least bow of respect to any god, I somehow ended up a moral person in the most conventional sense — I don't steal or cheat, I do not desire to murder, I honor my parents, I'm not particularly covetous, I have been happily faithful to my one and only wife for 27 years, I don't smoke or do drugs at all, I only drink in moderation, and aside from a few weird obsessions, have been pretty much a boring Ward Cleaver all of my life. Except for the silly handful at the beginning, I am following most of the Ten Commandments…and seem to be doing so more faithfully than some of the more sanctimonious Christians I've met.
I don't say this with any intent to brag — I don't see myself as a better person than a divorced pot-smoking gay man with a lust for Porsches (which also does not imply a lack of morality), for instance, and suspect that my casual acceptance of simple bourgeois values makes me a little less interesting as an individual — but only to point out that I'm pretty much a perfect match to the image of the Christian paragon of family values … except for the god-worshipping, sabbath-keeping, tithing-to-the-church part. There is no god in my life, yet here I stand, a testimonial to the falsehood of any claim that godlessness leads to amorality.
I also have three children of whom I am proud, who were brought up in the complete absence of church or even private expressions of faith … and they are smart, decent, industrious people with moral goals and a strong commitment to progressive ideals of equality and fairness.
Explain that, pious Christians.
I do have a real and consistent reason for behaving morally, it's just one that doesn't require a supernatural foundation. I was raised in a happy family, one that reinforced that conventionally 'good' behavior, and that rewarded appropriate social behavior. I lived with good role models who offered love without conditions, who taught by example rather than with fear or threats. I live now in a family and with a community of friends who do not demand obeisance to superstition in order to give respect. I am rewarded materially and emotionally for moral behavior.
That's the recipe for building an environment that fosters moral behavior. It doesn't involve gods or even belief in gods. It is completely independent of Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, or atheism. It works — religion is irrelevant to morality. The surest way to create moral individuals is to build a stable society where desirable behaviors are rewarded, and the hoop-jumping frivolities of religion are not a requirement to accomplish that. Atheism is not a requirement, either; the only virtue of atheism is that it can free people of dogma and tradition and allow them to work towards a better society without the pointless spectacle and distraction of one kind of irrational belief.
Politics
Comments
Someone should point this guy in the direction of Marc Hauser's Moral Minds. I'm getting very tired of that morality argument.
Posted by: Randy | September 24, 2007 11:44 AM
I feel bad for a lot of Christians that could get away from their religion but are convinced that the only alternative is a life of decadence.
Someone has to let them know that it's not a choice between religion and a life where you do whatever you please. That's not atheism. It is freedom from the idea of a god but not freedom from morality and rationality.
Thanks for sharing that, PZ.
Posted by: Ryan | September 24, 2007 11:45 AM
Excellent PZ.
So when I read this: "...the notion that only the physical world exists..." I can actually feel my brain twitch.
Posted by: Alex | September 24, 2007 11:48 AM
Unlike theists who all have a consistent morality. I mean, it's not like there are over 30,000 differect sects of Christianity alone, or anything.
Okay, I've decided that it is incumbent upon the next assmunch who tries to trot out this dead horse to demonstrate that there are any consistent moral standards among theists (besides bigotry, of course. They're mostly all good at that.)
Posted by: Brownian | September 24, 2007 11:49 AM
The morality argument for belief is as old as the watchmaker argument for design in nature--and equally flawed. Counter examples that disprove it abound in history and today. Many self proclaimed "Christians" (pick your religion) are as immoral as they come. And many atheists (most that I know) have a stronger personal code of ethics and morality than the most pious Christians.
Posted by: Keanus | September 24, 2007 11:51 AM
Haven't any of these apoligist clowns ever heard of the rationalist/voluntarist debate? Here's a little Philosophy 101. Even assuming the existence of an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good, god, how should we understood the relationship between goodness and god? Is what is good, good because god commands it or does god command it because it is good? The second choice, "rationalism" is standard to Catholicism, Judiaism, and more traditional forms of Protestantism. Why? Because if the good is not defined indeptantly of god's commanding something problems ensue. For one thing it becomes incoherent to call god "good". Long story short the traditional theism of the very religion that these "atheists have no morals" idiots belong to, teaches that the good is defined and discoverable independently of god. Typical. These people can't even be bothered to learn the basic theology of there own religion, but feel free to attack atheists with a lot of name calling.
Posted by: tim quick | September 24, 2007 11:58 AM
That, to me, is a key objection to the argument that only a supernatural being can establish standards of morality. The vast majority of humanity is actively engaged in supplicating its deities, yet we still see vicious sectarian conflicts and religious wars throughout the world and throughout history.
So, believers, how's that working out for you?
Posted by: Zeno | September 24, 2007 12:01 PM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 24, 2007 12:02 PM
I have never understood how the morality argument gains any traction at all with anyone simply because you can see rudimentary and sometimes more than that in virtually all other primate groups not to mention other animals.
Morality seems a matter of opinion about natural behaviours of our species. If someone can't understand why they need behave properly to havegroup acceptance I suggest they first observe chimps and then a primary school. You can see many the same lessons being conveyed.
P.S. As a sideline, I don't think many see divorce as a moral failing. It's not a great thing although sometimes it can be. I've come to regard people who hate each other but stay together for a variety of reasons as often weaker than those who choose another path.
Posted by: Uber | September 24, 2007 12:08 PM
Ack! The Yale-tard quotes C.S. Lewis. That's a measure of how deep he isn't.
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | September 24, 2007 12:12 PM
It seems readily apparent that it is morality that informs religion and not the other way around since there are so many competing and contradictory religions that have similar "moral codes."
The fact that many of these same religions have immoral codes within their doctrines is also evidence of this. Not even the most fundamentalist Christians I know are willing to stone to death a relative who commits adultery (they at least aren't willing to admit this desire since it is so immorally reprehensible). Human morality has superseded religious delusion and "religious morality" and made this practice archaic in Christianity.
But more than this, as an atheist, I see my one and only life in this universe as the only chance I get to leave a positive legacy. My off-spring need the best possible example to follow in order to give them the best chances of passing on my DNA -if they view immoral behavior as okay, then the chances increase that they might not survive to reproduce.
And, unlike Christians, atheists don't accept that they get to make up for their bad deeds simply by asking forgiveness from their "savior." In the backs of their minds, they know they can get away with all sorts of immoral deeds as long as they ask forgiveness before they kick the bucket.
Posted by: Yenald Looshi | September 24, 2007 12:18 PM
To steal a Dorothy Parker quip, that's like saying, "The full gamut from A to B." It's not even chronologically correct: what about Harris and Dennett?
Sigh. In their arrogance, in their self-satisfied ignorance, these pundits ignore so much worthy writing. Poor Victor Stenger is perennially forgotten, perhaps because he bothered to write about physics; Carl Sagan's book from beyond the grave, which many people might find "friendlier" than Hitchens, has been completely overlooked. I can only shudder to imagine the reception which John Allen Paulos' Irreligion will receive, come wintertime.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | September 24, 2007 12:20 PM
One thing I'd love to do sometime is whip out the fact that I'm a teetotaler on some fundie claiming I'm an atheist because it means I can have wild drinking parties.
I'd just like to see their expression of shock and denial.
Posted by: Bronze Dog | September 24, 2007 12:20 PM
If I may say again what I said in the other post:
If founding your actions on fear of a punishment or hope of a reward is morality, then trained dogs are moral beings.
Posted by: Andrés | September 24, 2007 12:21 PM
Any moral system that includes burning goat flesh for the olfactory pleasure of the magic sky-man is in no position to criticize the lack of foundation or arbitrariness of any other moral systems.
Posted by: H. Humbert | September 24, 2007 12:22 PM
I wish there was a way to provide feedback to the author, freshman, Bryce Taylor. I'd like to ask him if god was proven to not exist if he'd abandon all moral behavior. Why is he moral?
Posted by: Zeekster | September 24, 2007 12:32 PM
The eli is, in my mind, completely wrong to say that "naturalistic materialism -- the notion that only the physical world exists -- can provide no foundation for morality." While it is true that atheism, in and of itself, is a morally neutral position, it lends itself to the development of a system of morals, based on the recognition of, among other things, the fact that this is all anyone gets. Should, then, suffering be the primary experience of any sentient being?
The same thing holds true for evolution. Evolution itseslf is, of course, morally neutral, but an evolutionary view of the world can lead one to recognize the silliness of racism and "man/nature" dualism, for a start.
Posted by: clamboy | September 24, 2007 12:33 PM
Some people want a simple external standard for morality, so they can avoid that problem called relativism. This is a big problem if you have rejected evolution. Those who accept evolution see a moral code basically wired into our brains by many millions of generations, and are not surprised that the same basic morality applies to all human societies, regardless of the local religious myths.
Posted by: carey | September 24, 2007 12:35 PM
Brilliant post. The morality "argument" is so vacuous, and I despair at its prominence in these "debates".
I'd go even further, PZ. You are more moral than the religious people who lead similar bourgeois lifestyles. So am I. I can think of three main reasons which I like to think apply to me, and probably to you:
1) The obvious one, it's good to be moral because a society where people are generally moral is a nicer one to live in. Basically "do unto others...". Everybody benefits if people try to be nice (note that none of these reasons are even necessarily altruistic).
2) It's good to be known as a nice moral person. That brings its own benefits (though were everybody equally moral and nice this would become irrelevant).
3) It kind of feels good to be a nice person. Well it does, doesn't it?
I'm sure there are a few more. Though I would feel that the first one alone goes a long way to explain how morality develops in any functioning and halfway civilised society.
However, for a Christian or anyone who believes in a heavenly tyrant, the sole reason to be moral is to appease him upstairs. Without their god, they'd become murderous raping thieving psychopaths. That's hardly a kind of morality worthy of the word.
Of course what they don't realise is that (hopefully!) their reasons for being moral are precisely the same as ours. Only they don't realise it, and for some reason they wish to degrade their own sense of morality.
Posted by: Dylan Llyr | September 24, 2007 12:37 PM
I wonder how he would explain the moral choices made by other social mammals.
Posted by: CRM-114 | September 24, 2007 12:37 PM
Jesus said looking at a person with anger was as bad as murder.
Well, in for a penny, in for a pound, I always say.
Christians have a book which praises people for killing whole tribes of people, man, woman and child.
And they have the sheer audacity to lecture others on morality, after reading how the chosen people were ordered by God to kill babies.
Posted by: Steven Carr | September 24, 2007 12:40 PM
Andrés, that was well worth repeating.
Posted by: Efogoto | September 24, 2007 12:41 PM
So ... tired ... SSDD ... no strength ...
OK, seriously, morality is not an absolute. It will always be a reflection of the societal values a given culture at a given time. Anyone that claims Godly authority on some set of moral absolutes is full of it. The Bible repeatedly changes what is moral. Anyone that claims different hasn't read the Bible.
I've often thought that most religious people never grow beyond Kohlberg's first two levels of moral development (fear my psych 101): 1) Reward and Punishment, and 2) Instrumental Exchange. In other words, they never grow beyond the "I better do X or I'm going to get into trouble" or "If I do X, I'm going to get Y for a reward." It's simple punishment avoidance and reward seeking. My dog has that level of morality.
So, should we really be so harsh on the religious? They seem to be developmentally challenged. Perhaps we can get them into a special class to help them along.
OEJ
Posted by: One Eyed Jack | September 24, 2007 12:45 PM
I'm working on a more extended blogessay on this subject as part of a series on the vacuity of supernatural "explanation."
Morality is one of the most amusing of these topics. I always wonder: how exactly does God "make" something moral? I mean, if he does it, then you must be able to explain how it is done, at least in some general sense of what you mean by him "doing" so.
But if you can't even explain how this or that is made moral or immoral however, then how can you insist that only God can do it? How can you ever have non-hypocritical grounds to object if I tell you that, say, it is determined "supernaturally" via reference squid migration patterns? Sure, I can't explain how this supernatural squidality process works, but I'm not better or worse off with my "explanation" than the divine command morality theists.
Theistic supernaturalists, it seems, more than anything just lack imagination. Once you topple over any need for an explanation that makes reference to empirical observation or natural law, the sky's the limit on what we can "explain!" If they want to play that game, ok: but they often don't seem to realize that, in that case, anyone else can play it too.
Posted by: Bad | September 24, 2007 12:45 PM
A friend used to try to convince me to "go back" to the church frequently in conversations. His final attempt was thwarted when he agreed that I was a more moral person than he was, despite having a complete lack of faith. He no longer brings it up.
I'll count that as a win.
Posted by: Schmeer | September 24, 2007 12:47 PM
Citing two books and calling it an influx? That's crazy.
"From Mark to Paul, there sure are a lot of Christians!"
Posted by: Richard | September 24, 2007 12:47 PM
Since morality in a religious sense is taken to be how 'God' tells us to behave then so long as we are sure we know the actual desires of God then there is no problem, it is all very straightforward.
Unfortunately, since there are as many claims of what 'God' said or didn't say as there are religious groups, if we want to behave moral according to God we are left with the sole option of arbitrarily choosing one set of supposed Godly orders, written by one tribe of bronze age zealots, over the rest written or modified by others.
Is this really supposed to be more moral than using accumulated human knowledge to tell us the best way to behave amongst our fellow people?
Having said all that I guess this morality question could be described as 'scientific' since it makes a prediction that can be falsified. In a non-religious setting one could expect the levels of murder, decadence and debauchery to be so much higher than a religious one.
How about a comparison of Sweden (85% non-believers) with the US bible belt ?
Posted by: MartinC | September 24, 2007 12:48 PM
PZ, those last two paragraphs are pure gold. I may have to read them at least once a week.
Posted by: Hutch | September 24, 2007 12:49 PM
Yeah, it´s really hard to find a reason to be moral, like george bush or jerry fallwell or osama or some such truly inspiring moral figure, without a supreme diety and his code of morals to lean on.
Guess I´ll just continue to be depraved and not hurt anyone particulary much, despicable immoral athiest that I am.
How disgusting.
Posted by: jc. | September 24, 2007 12:51 PM
I think that the motivation to be moral can be briefly summed up as, "What goes around, comes around."
If you piss people off by stealing their property, physically or mentally abusing them, stabbing them in the back (in the metaphorical sense), trying to sleep with their wives or husbands, etc., then yeah, someone will give you your come-uppance sooner or later, not to mention being branded with the stigma a social pariah.
All this god crap is just superfluous window dressing.
In fact, religion does more harm than good in that gives people an excuse, a cloak of supposed justifiability, to act on their petty prejudices and xenophobias.
Posted by: ZacharySmith | September 24, 2007 12:54 PM
Explain that, pious Christians.
Cultural inertia.
The relevant point is not that an individual atheist can't be moral - he certainly can - but that atheism precludes any moral standard with universal claims. Dennett admits as much, even Harris only argues that such standards "could" be invented, not that they have.
As for Euthyphro, the hoary "dilemma" is a) a semantically twisted joke, and b) not applicable to any monotheistic religion, much less Christianity.
Christian morality IS obedience.
Posted by: Vox Day | September 24, 2007 12:54 PM
Several years ago, a friend sent me a copy of a book, very popular among Christians at the time, entitled "Wild At Heart". The book principally dealt with the fact that a tendency toward violent behavior is very common among humans, particularly young men. The author argued, among other things that a) all people are descended from Adam. b) Traits that are common among youg men today are common because we inherited them through Adam, our common ancestor. c) Adam was created by God, and d) God's plan is perfect. Therefore, we should cherish our tendency toward violence, not resist it.
A naturalist might argue, on the other hand, that because a tendency toward violence is so common in our species, it presumably had survival value at one time. One can easily imagine how it might have been adaptive to be supportive on the 'in' group and violent toward the 'out' group at a time when humans fought one another with clubs and spears, and we lived in small groups of closely related individuals surrounded by other groups of less closely related individuals, with whom we competed for resources. But those are not the conditions in which we live today, and violent behavior is no longer adaptive. A tendency toward violence is no more to be cherished than Sickle-cell Anemia, which was also adaptive in one time and place, and is very maladaptive in 21st century North America.
Atheists may not be any more moral than Christians, but at least we have our facts straight, and we don't base our moral principals on fairy tales that are demonstrably false.
Posted by: John | September 24, 2007 12:54 PM
Did anyone else get a snicker out of the fact he is a member of Silliman (Silly man) college? OK...it's been a crazy day and my brain is warped. But then, I'm not a Yale fan anyway.
@Hutch: I agree with you. PZ's last 2 paragraphs were great.
Posted by: Dawn | September 24, 2007 12:55 PM
Christian morality IS obedience.
You might say it's the morality of a trained monkey. The creationists aren't going to like that.
Posted by: The Disgruntled Chemist | September 24, 2007 1:04 PM
Consider that in at least a limited sense, he is right: religion does provide a foundation for morality; atheism does not.
The foundation, however, is simple appeal to authority: priest, holy book, or god. One must accept first that there is some person or diety who can and should be believed unquestioningly on topics of morals, even in cases of ambiguity.
This is the corner this argument squeezes them into: that they believe that they don't actually have any reason to follow the moral code they do, that they are doing it only because they are being told to. Therefore, they have no actual expertise! The only thing they can do is refer us to their boss.. who seems to be out of the office right now, could you leave a message?
The follow-up punch, of course, is to say that no, atheism provides no foundations for morals... just like biology provides no foundation for First Aid. We turn to medicine (applied biology) for care, and we turn to secular humanism to look to practical answers about how to live.
Posted by: Nathaniel | September 24, 2007 1:05 PM
Anybody know where in the bible it says to hug and console your child after they skin their knee?
Without such a commandment, I cannot possibly imagine why an Xian parent would do that.
Posted by: Brownian | September 24, 2007 1:07 PM
"As this has been a long-standing and widespread objection to naturalism, it would seem only reasonable to expect atheists to devote careful attention to the question of morality."
*sigh* "Be excellent to each other. Party on, dudes." There, can we move on now?
I'm a pretty boring individual, but nothing makes me want to have a Wild Teen Party like some stuffy Yale freshman telling me I don't have a consistant moral base. What was it that Emerson said about a foolish consistancy?
"Any moral system that includes burning goat flesh for the olfactory pleasure of the magic sky-man is in no position to criticize the lack of foundation or arbitrariness of any other moral systems."
No no, Humbert. See, the sky-man doesn't need us to sacrifice animals anymore, because he sent his son* to be sacrificed in their stead. So your denigrating of their position to criticize is totally unfounded.
* Or himself
Posted by: Rey Fox | September 24, 2007 1:11 PM
The least theists could do is actually read atheist books. This person would have seen that Victor Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist has an entire section that is very nicely worded about the topic of non-theistic morality.
Posted by: Caucasian Jesus | September 24, 2007 1:12 PM
This is also why bible followers are forced to cherry-pick the verses in their holy tome. Bible morality has been forced to fit into the constantly changing societal values of our culture for centuries now.
As a result, almost no one quotes passages supporting slavery or miscegenation anymore not because the bible god suddenly changed his mind, but because our culture no longer tolerates these things.
All of which really sucks for them!
Posted by: dwarf zebu | September 24, 2007 1:18 PM
Uh-oh.
Another myopic, Dostoevsky-obsessed freshman.
College freshman are such know-it-alls!
Give the condescending bastard a little time.
Hopefully, he'll snap out of it.
Wake up, Bryce! See the world. Take your nose out of those books. Stop being a narrow-minded jerk.
Posted by: CalGeorge | September 24, 2007 1:20 PM
Theists who argue that morality isn't "possible" in a Godless universe seem to use different arguments, and shift between them as if they were the same argument:
1.) "Being good" means obeying a parent. No parent, the kids are equal and anything goes. If the universe has no "parent," then there is no absolute, universal authority for what right and wrong is.
2.) Right and wrong have to do with punishment and reward. If good is not rewarded and bad is not punished, then nothing is ever right or wrong.
3.) Like comes from like. If we came from an evolutionary process which wasn't moral, and has no inbuilt sense of good and evil, then a sense of good and evil couldn't come out of it.
4.) Morality, love, and goodness are not physical things you can pick up and measure: that means they're spiritual. If you don't believe in "spiritual" things, then your world view will not make any sense of abstractions, emotions, or principles, and you have no right to use them as if they did.
As others have pointed out, those first two are a child's-eye view of morality. But those last two are probably influential in more hidden ways, in that the assumptions are harder to articulate. I suspect they influence a lot of the more "sophisticated" moral critiques coming from moderates who don't see right and wrong as a matter of obedience in an authority hierarchy, but do see them as a matter of the universe following an imbedded hierarchy of meaning, with God the moral meaning at the center.
Posted by: Sastra | September 24, 2007 1:21 PM
Dylan Llyr,
Of course we realize it--why it's theology 101. You are 100% correct. Atheists are indeed moral people who raise moral children. And atheists do indeed, as you have correctly asserted, have the same basis for their morality as Chrsitians. Although, to use your same words, "they don't realise it, and for some reason they wish to degrade their own sense of morality."
Anyway, theology even has term for it: "common grace," although that term is overloaded to mean other things as well. But the idea is simple enough: that God has given all men, believers and atheists, a moral compass. The basis for the morality of the atheist, just like for the Christian, is God.
Posted by: heddle | September 24, 2007 1:22 PM
I recently wrote a post on this topic explaining what I did when I realized there was no god: I ran right out and got married, went to Grad school and became a librarian. It's absolutely shocking how debased my life is.
Posted by: Keith | September 24, 2007 1:26 PM
Er. I can think of a simpler explanation...
Posted by: The Disgruntled Chemist | September 24, 2007 1:26 PM
I'm sorry to say that when I've asked my more religious friends how it can be that I'm as moral in my behavior as they are in theirs, the response often takes the form: "It's because you believe in God, even if you think you don't."
ARRRGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Posted by: Chris | September 24, 2007 1:27 PM
A friend used to try to convince me to "go back" to the church frequently in conversations. His final attempt was thwarted when he agreed that I was a more moral person than he was, despite having a complete lack of faith. He no longer brings it up.
I'll count that as a win.
Your friend seems to have at least *some* brain cells left. When I made essentially the same argument as PZ's to a fundamentalist ex-friend, she told me, "But there's a difference between living a clean life and living for God. If you're not living for God, your clean life won't mean much." An arrogant little twerp, to say the least.
Posted by: Madam Pomfrey | September 24, 2007 1:27 PM
heddle wrote:
Ok, fair enough. Now here's a question:
If it happens to be the case that God does not exist -- and never has existed -- and the source of the basic, common, human "moral compass" is a combination of genes, environment, neurology, and psychology -- then do atheists and Christians STILL have the same basis for morality? Do they have different bases? Or does neither one now have any basis for their morality?
Posted by: Sastra | September 24, 2007 1:30 PM
Vox Day misses the point as usual. As PZ said, atheism doesn't dictate any morality. Morality comes from people and society, regardless of how theistic the members are.
You say that atheism precludes any moral standard with universal claims. This is a good thing, because it's consistent with REALITY. Religions FALSELY claim that god is the origin of universal moral standards. There isn't even a universal moral standard within the bible, itself, not to mention comparing between religions. Morality changes constantly over time even within the same culture; eg, slavery was OK in the old testemant, but not OK for modern day Jews.
And if there are some moral statements that approach universal (eg, don't kill people), there's no evidence that they come from god. And there's lots of evidence that they come from people (ie, different cultures have them regarless of the degree to which they're theistic).
Posted by: scott | September 24, 2007 1:31 PM
re: Heddle and "common grace."
Ad, meet hoc.
Posted by: bokanovsky process | September 24, 2007 1:31 PM
Vox Day,
If Euthyphro is a joke, then refute it. No apologist has ever refuted Euthyphro without conceding one of the two lemmata. Moreover, the classic is-ought problem in philosophy of ethics applies full well to every and all religions, so no religion can claim "absolute" or "objective" morality without first solving the problem. (Solving it will make you a famous philosopher, as well).
Posted by: AL | September 24, 2007 1:31 PM
(I hope none of the XX members of your family read that either)
Bob
Posted by: Bob O'H | September 24, 2007 1:31 PM
Sastra,
I think it's important to add to your list the following "argument":
5) It's not actually morality unless it's exactly the same for everyone. There has to be an absolutely, totally infallible and universal moral code, otherwise there is NO MORAL CODE AT ALL.
The fallaciousness of this is obvious. It's a main strand of what Vox Day is attempting to argue upthread.
Posted by: Chris | September 24, 2007 1:33 PM
An argument like that says a lot about the person making it. Most people don't go around thinking "if only I had the chance, I would [steal/lie/rape/kill]". Only someone incapable of empathy thinks like that. And I seriously wonder whether anyone would come up with this argument unless they were deficient in empathy.
People who make that argument are scary. I read that argument as an admission that the only thing that stops the person making that argument from going on a rampage is their fear of divine punishment.
Posted by: IanR | September 24, 2007 1:36 PM
Nathaniel,
You are absolutely right. However, when some of us deny that religion provides a moral foundation, it's precisely because declarative appeals to authority are not seen as "moral foundations." Other tricks theists use such as defining goodness to be their religion or god himself are also arbitrarily declarative (not to mention a reification fallacy), and so are still not "foundations."
Posted by: AL | September 24, 2007 1:36 PM
Yeah, well, you sound all moral and stuff, but you're an atheist so you must just be faking it. Your supposed morality is built upon a house of sand, a castle of cards, sand cards on a playing beach. It's flimsy, I tells ya! All it will take is one thing - something - and you'll be off pillaging and burning and coveting and stuff. Mark my words.
And as Commander Vimes of the Watch has been known to say, "Everyone is guilty of something." Of what are you, guilty, eh? Confess!
Posted by: bybelknap, FCD | September 24, 2007 1:36 PM
Thank you for writing such an inspiring post, PZ. It really made my day and affirmed many of the same thoughts that go through my mind on a regular basis.
Many of my friends and family who are devout evangelicals are regularly surprised or confused when I demonstrate my values and the things I deem important to living a fulfilled life. While there is a risk of sounding like one is bragging, I think its important to stop once in a while and account for all the positive things we as non-believers contribute to society. My own personal conclusion that I am an atheist has led me to become more engaged in improving my community than I ever felt compelled to as an evangelical christian (its a nihilistic perspective, after all).
Susan Jacoby's book "Freethinkers" is wonderful in the way she demonstrates time and again how secularists have used our democracy for good and have initiated every socially progressive and positive change in the United States. It has inspired me to carry that tradition on for another generation.
Posted by: Akitagod | September 24, 2007 1:39 PM
Did anyone else get a snicker out of the fact he is a member of Silliman (Silly man) college?
OK, I'm all in favor of pissing on the Bulldogs whenever possible, but we should really leave Benjamin Silliman alone. He did a great deal to advance the development of geology, and mineralogy in particular as a rigorous pursuit in the New World. He was one of the good guys. In fact, it annoys me a bit that this toolbox of a student is in Silliman.
Posted by: Josh | September 24, 2007 1:39 PM
"and they have particularly failed in their attempt to present a coherent system of morality that in no way rests on a belief in the supernatural. "
I don't think they attempted it. There is no morality to be directly drawn from science, it is amoral. Morality comes from our emotions as human beings. Reason may help as part of the input, and religion is nothing but a distraction. I find global warming interesting. Here we have a looming threat - not looming tomorrow but we will see a sea level rise of three feet somtime this century even if we put on the brakes now. We as a species clearly need to develop a morality about global warming and the overpopulation that contributes to it. Some have managed, but it is very hard, just because this is a new challenge, we have not evolved to deal with it, there is nothing much in our past to help.
Posted by: sailor | September 24, 2007 1:41 PM
But if only the natural and supernatural worlds exist, what reason would supernatural entities have for behaving morally? Wouldn't they need to believe in a super-supernatural world to ground their morality?
Posted by: Mark Plus | September 24, 2007 1:41 PM
"naturalistic materialism -- the notion that only the physical world exists"
The physical world exists? Shit.
Posted by: Moopheus | September 24, 2007 1:43 PM
Good grief, simple self interest is a sufficent reason to behave in a manner that benefits society and keeps those around you happy.
Posted by: Denis Loubet | September 24, 2007 1:45 PM
A not-very thorough search of mythological literature would demonstrate that frequently supernatural beings do not behave morally. Morality is just to keep the peons (us humans) in line.
Posted by: Moopheus | September 24, 2007 1:45 PM
Speaking as a supposedly amoral, confirmedly atheistic, Yale graduate, I can only recommend that Mr. Taylor take Philosophy 455b, Normative Ethics and Philosophy 456a, Metaethics, before he graduates. He might also be interested in Psychology 317a, The Psychology of Culture, and Psychology 428b, Social and Emotional Learning.
From his essay, though, one must suspect he has a natural immunity to education. It's sadly common, even at Yale.
Posted by: David | September 24, 2007 1:47 PM
"It works -- religion is irrelevant to morality."
True. (Great words, PZ!). However, I should now like to know why religion appears to be so relevant to cultivating a sense of indecency. Collective allegiance to irrationality may have something to do with it.
Posted by: Arnosium Upinarum | September 24, 2007 1:48 PM
Sastra,
Yes. The question is only whether it is the theists or the atheists who are misguided concerning their common source of morality. If God doesn't exist, that pretty much settles the question.
Posted by: heddle | September 24, 2007 1:52 PM
Ah, Vox Day: the man who thinks he's got it all figured out... because he believes that angels and demons are all over the world fighting it out.
Vox claims:
"The relevant point is not that an individual atheist can't be moral - he certainly can - but that atheism precludes any moral standard with universal claims."
Well Vox, I suppose then that it's time for you to reveal a) how atheism (i.e. no god belief) precludes universal moral statements in any way whatsoever and especially b) exactly how the existence of God would make a difference to morality.
I expect you to be specific about b) there too. No begging the question by simply forgetting to mention the step in which you arbitrarily assume that whatever God commands is moral simply because God is, like, really really awesome and controlling over everything and stuff. If you allow us the same empty, unbounded philosophical license as that sort of argument employs, we can tell all sorts of similar stories off the top of our heads too and come up with just as many arbitrarily "objective" moral standards, just as philosophically worthless as yours.
The problem is that no one has any good, satisfyingly final justifications for universal moral standards: it's one of the deepest and most interesting philosophical issues that there is. And as with all such questions, theists bluff that they have all the easy answers. I wish they did: but it's so disappointing when they ultimately try to explain their solutions: none of which ever even seem to actually get around to explaining anything at all.
Posted by: Bad | September 24, 2007 1:56 PM
Didn't Spinoza debunk the better portion of this argument way back when?
Posted by: G | September 24, 2007 1:59 PM
I have often wondered, why xtians feel the need to tell me i'm going to hell etc, witness gos miracles etc.
In my job, I see quite a lot of bad things happen. Not in any ofthem have I thought to look for a supernatural explanation. People tell me after they survive " thank god" but it really wasn't god at all was it? No, it was an atheist firefighter who enojys helping his fellow man and takes great pride in his work. God and jebus don't flow through me. While the author of the artidle implies that we atheists are careening down a path towards amorality, I am ( as many of you are ) and example for quite the opposite.
And ya know what? We're getting along just fine without religion in our lives.
Posted by: firemancarl | September 24, 2007 2:01 PM
When he can name more atheist terrorists, dictators, and serial killers than I can name religious people of the same occupation, then we can talk about whether or not atheism can have a moral foundation without a supernatural basis. Until then, I think we can safely assume that it does, in fact, lend itself at least as well to a moral structure.
Posted by: TheFeshy | September 24, 2007 2:01 PM
I'm tired of these godtards. They're seriously wearing me out with their seemingly inexhaustible supply of stupidity.
It seems to me that all of these arguments (both for and against) are mere hand-waving unless one can provide evidence that atheists are significantly less (or more) moral than theists.
If the evidence for a difference isn't there, then all of this is nothing but intellectual masturbation. And if I remember my Catholic upbringing correctly, masturbation is a sin (at least, that's what my Grade 7 science teacher said. FYI, it's not a good idea to pit God against a twelve-year-old's prurient urges. God'll lose out nine times out of ten.)
Posted by: Brownian | September 24, 2007 2:03 PM
"Vox Day, If Euthyphro is a joke, then refute it..... (Solving it will make you a famous philosopher, as well)."
But why would Vox need to become a famous philosopher when his tax-dodging daddy can get him a sweet job nattering on at WorldNetDaily, the publication that seems to think that the US government is worse than the government which killed Jesus.
Posted by: Bad | September 24, 2007 2:07 PM
I've heard this argument somewhere before:
Ah yes, Adolf Hitler. Of course.
Posted by: Harry Tuttle | September 24, 2007 2:09 PM
God has given all men, believers and atheists, a moral compass.
Was he doing that before *tianity was invented? Or was Baal or Zoroaster passing out the compasses? Or did they come from the tooth fairy? How does a moral compass work? Is it magnetic? Where in the body is it located? How come nobody has found it, yet? Or is it in the brain? If it's in the brain, does it get damaged in stroke victims? What about the retarded? Did the great sky woo fairy give them defective compasses? What a dick. The sky fairy, not you. You sound too stupid to be a proper dick.
You religiotards are so funny. Thanks for brightening my day!
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | September 24, 2007 2:10 PM
Piling on...
Back in the day, I worked for Dept of the Navy. Why are there so many moral, love thy neighbor christers in (what was once properly called) the Department of War?
Killing for love?
Posted by: True Bob | September 24, 2007 2:12 PM
Why should there be a moral standard with universal claims? It seems all morality is simply an opinion on normal behaviours within our species. Many of these same behaviours may be judged moral or not depending on a variety of circumstances.
People want to see black and white when in reality it's only grey.
Posted by: Uber | September 24, 2007 2:14 PM
The problem with claiming religion promotes morality is that empirically it seems to be the opposite. The data doesn't support the assertion.
Obvious case in point. The present theocratic administration is the most corrupt and amoral we have had in living memory. The war in Iraq based on lies that has killed 3,700 US soldiers and tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Gonzales and his no right on habeas corpus in the constitution when it is there in black and white. Torture has been institutionalized. It goes on and on.
In fact, the data would say that if anything, Xians and Xianity are less moral than atheists. The fundies in particular are notorious for lying and occasionally murdering people. Just look at their constant lying to attempt to shove their square peg of bronze age