Board index ‹ Morality

[Sober Till the Night]

I have been told that Christians believe that atheists like myself are not capable of morality, since morality comes for God. I'd like to get a larger sample size to see if this is an accurate statement of what the majority of Christians think of atheists.

[jimwalton]

I believe that atheists can be moral. All humans have the capacity for good, and there are a lot of people in the world who aren't religious but are good people.

I would add, though, that without an objective standard for morality (the character of God), your definition of morality has to be based on more fluid foundations, subject to change as society's values and priorities change. As extreme examples, in Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia they completely redefined morality to justify their genocide. Even in America morality is currently being redefined to conform to the value system of a particularly outspoken segment of society. For Christians, morality is objective and not subject to redefinition or contortion to suit a social perspective.

[Two speeds]

Hi.

> I would add, though, that without an objective standard for morality (the character of God), your definition of morality has to be based on more fluid foundations, subject to change as society's values and priorities change.

This is how I would define morality. An unchanging objective standard would be better defined as dogma.

> As extreme examples, in Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia they completely redefined morality to justify their genocide.

Hitler and Stalin were homicidal maniacs with zero regard for their fellow human beings. If, as you say, an atheist can be moral, why then equate that moral person to insane dictators? You wouldn't be trying to say that having a healthy scepticism of one's creator leads to genocide, would you?

> Even in America morality is currently being redefined to conform to the value system of a particularly outspoken segment of society.
And will probably continue to be redefined for as long as there are people to contemplate their morality. As to the particularly outspoken segment of society, the only thing I see changing for them is the acceptance from their peers to love one another without fear of retribution for their love.

> For Christians, morality is objective and not subject to redefinition or contortion to suit a social perspective.

Which is fine. One should look to our ancestor's teachings for wisdom, but one should also recognize that our ancestors have passed, and their culture with them. If God speaks to us all, and it is plain to see, why have their stories not been added to the collection? If Jesus truly lives, why does the book have an ending?

[jimwalton]

> An unchanging objective standard would be better defined as dogma.

For instance, there is no culture on earth, nor has there ever been, a culture that celebrates killing babies for the fun of it. It is an objective wrong recognized universally. I would not call that a dogma, but an objective moral standard. Maybe we just disagree about the label, but I consider a dogma more a belief principle, while a moral is an ethical principle.

> why then equate that moral person to insane dictators?

I didn't equate that moral person to insane dictators. I used the insane dictators as an example of the fluidity of the standards of morality without an objective basis. I used an extreme example to show that all examples on the continuum would also be valid examples.

> You wouldn't be trying to say that having a healthy scepticism of one's creator leads to genocide, would you?

Not at all. No, not even getting close to saying that.

> And will probably continue to be redefined for as long as there are people to contemplate their morality.

I agree. People are always willing to justify their behavior by defining it as "good". It's an ego defense mechanism. But this makes "morality" essentially meaningless, if anyone can define it as they wish, and if it's really just the consequence of majority opinion in any given culture. Morality has then lost all its moorings and is subject to the whims of the cultural winds, the worst examples of which are insane genocidal psychopaths of Hitler and company. But their extreme pathology doesn't change the fact that the lesser (more normal) among us are doing the same thing. The ground and principle are identical; the only difference is in the extent.

So in my opinion a true morality has to be good all the way to the edges—no matter how far and how hard you push, it is still good. I find that relativistic morality fails on that count, but theistic objective morality holds firm.

> If God speaks to us all, and it is plain to see, why have their stories not been added to the collection? If Jesus truly lives, why does the book have an ending?

Awesome question. Because the Bible is the story of Jesus—that's why it ends. The OT is all the signs pointing to him and the roads leading to him, the Gospels are his story, and the rest of the NT are the interpretations of the impact of his death and resurrection. The Bible is not a morality text. It's not a record of all of God's revelations through history, but God's revelations through the covenant that found its fullest expression in Jesus. So the book does have an ending, and Jesus does truly live on.

[Sober Till the Night]

I've heard from Christians that God wants human morality to shift. The example I'm thinking of is slavery. The Bible gave rules on the proper way to conduct slavery. When I saw someone say this was an example of the Bible condoning an immoral practice, the rebuttal was that God was using regulation to make keeping of slaves problematic in order to slowly phase it out. This leave me to think there are only three possibilities, 1) slavery is moral, 2) the bible is immoral, or 3) God's rules are subject to change (fluid) based on the state of our current society.

[jimwalton]

Then you have heard incorrectly from Christians. God never endorsed slavery, but only gave rules to regulate its abuses. First of all, slavery in the ancient world was nothing like the slave pens of the Greco-Roman world or the chattel slavery of the antebellum South. It was mostly debt slavery, and more like our employment than like the slavery we think of. But even at that rate, "slavery" (the wrong term) in Israel was different from "slavery" in the surrounding countries. They did not own people, but only owned their labor (again, much like an employee).

Secondly, in the Bible God doesn't dictate the shape of society. He does not seek to form a "perfect" society on earth, because no society is perfect (since it is a society of fallen humans). He rather speaks into the shape of society as it exists in those times and encourages his people to live holy lives in that society. He does not dictate an ideal kind of government (monarchy vs. democracy); he does not dictate a system of marriage (arranged vs. love) or even polygamy vs. monogamy; he does not dictate the way that a society is stratified (slaves and free); he does not dictate a certain sort of economy (market economy vs. barter). Every social structure is flawed. As I said, most slavery talked about in the Bible was debt-slavery, which was a way for someone whose crops had failed or who had suffered several bad years in a row to continue to feed his family by he or a member of his family working off the debt. It is no more oppressive than the current system of credit card debt and what people have to do to work it off.

Third, your three closing possibilities are all incorrect, so I'll choose "none of the above." (1) Slavery is not moral, and the Bible never treats it as such. God never commands slavery or even says it is good. (2) The Bible is not immoral. There's no foundation for this claim. (3) God's moral rules are not subject to change, though there are plenty of things that change in the course of the Bible's story (such as the sacrificial system, the rules about food, and the way God reveals himself).

[Two Speeds]

Heavy stuff, man.

> There is no culture on earth, nor has there ever been, a culture that celebrates killing babies for the fun of it.

Amongst civilized people, yes, the killing of human babies tends to not be the norm, with exceptions. Those exceptions, given the sheer amount of people throughout history, are a vast unknown number, as were their reasons.

(As an aside, the killing of chicken embryos can be rather fun and downright delicious, yet morality, for some, doesn't extend to our fowl friends.)

> It is an objective wrong recognized universally.

I am uncertain that you can back this statement up given the cloudiness of our known history, and even if it is universal, that still does not mean its objective.

> I would not call that a dogma, but an objective moral standard...I consider a dogma more a belief principle, while a moral is an ethical principle.

Myself, when I think dogma, I think unchangeable biblical verbiage, much like God Himself. That was Adam's sin, choosing to make up his own mind instead of obedience. Interesting that one of the first things to be recognized by intelligent man was that morality should be based upon fluid foundations subject to change as society's values and priorities change.

> I used the insane dictators as an example of the fluidity of the standards of morality without an objective basis. I used an extreme example to show that all examples on the continuum would also be valid examples.

Dude, they're INSANE. Just because it might be convenient for your argument doesn't mean you get to equate the morals of normal people with people who cannot even grasp the concept, you know, cuz most people aren't insane genocidal maniacs.

> No, not even getting close to saying that.

I know what it is you are trying to convey. I add snark so I don't come off as too respectful.

> Morality has then lost all its moorings and is subject to the whims of the cultural winds, the worst examples of which are insane genocidal psychopaths of Hitler and company. But their extreme pathology doesn't change the fact that the lesser (more normal) among us are doing the same thing. The ground and principle are identical; the only difference is in the extent.

And here I thought you weren't going to compare me to Hitler, but if the ground and principal are identical, if everyone's morality is essentially meaningless, everyone will, if left to their own devices be Hitler? (And my guidance counselor didn't think I would amount to anything.)

> So in my opinion a true morality has to be good all the way to the edges—no matter how far and how hard you push, it is still good.

"Anyone who has a zero tolerance policy is bullshitting you." George Carlin (paraphrased)

I do not like the examples you have used this far in our conversation of morality, mostly because these examples are of men (or fictional societies) who lack the very thing we are talking about. It's kind of a dick move, your side having the immutable love and moral standard that is God, and I'm left with insane dictators and baby eating societies.

[jimwalton]

> Amongst civilized people, yes, the killing of human babies tends to not be the norm, with exceptions.

Oh, I didn't say killing babies. There are numerous examples of cultures that kill babies for reasons of expedience (abortion of the unwanted) or cult (child sacrifice). What I said was that no culture kills babies *for the fun of it.* It's an obvious evidence of an objective morality at work in humanity.

> I am uncertain that you can back this statement up given the cloudiness of our known history

The burden of proof would be on anyone wishing to argue against this to come up with an example of a culture that did kill babies for the fun of it.

> That was Adam's sin, choosing to make up his own mind instead of obedience. Interesting that one of the first things to be recognized by intelligent man was that morality should be based upon fluid foundations subject to change as society's values and priorities change.

I would describe Adam's sin as self-will, not making up his own mind, though it depends what you meant by your statement. It's possible we're not too far off from each other. Yours, though, sounds like he just wanted to be a thinker, whereas mine implies deliberate rebellion.

Again, in disagreement about Adam, he didn't *recognize* that morality *should* be based on fluid foundations, he rebelled against God's moral standard for his own self-aggrandizement.

> And here I thought you weren't going to compare me to Hitler, but if the ground and principal are identical, if everyone's morality is essentially meaningless, everyone will, if left to their own devices be Hitler?

Insanity in Hitler's case was removing the boundaries of logical thought. I've seen enough movies, read enough books, and observed people enough to know that when the chips really get down, people turn to animal behavior pretty easily. It shows that there's a beast inside all of us, and if something pushes us beyond the restraints, the teeth and claws come out. It's the Lord of the Flies. It's evacuation during a panic, and people get trampled to death. It's self-preservation during a life-threatening episode where we too easily act in brazen self-interest.

> I do not like the examples you have used this far in our conversation of morality, mostly because these examples are of men (or fictional societies) who lack the very thing we are talking about.

That is exactly what I'm saying. A lack of an objective morality opens a huge trap door in human behavior. But we have all been thoroughly socialized to be civil to each other, to act in humanitarian ways, and to value bravery for the compassionate concern for others. But without an objective moral standard, it's all smoke and mirrors. I can't help it that "my side" has the immutable love and moral standard that is God; any atheist has chosen to walk away from that place. There is no alternative but morality based in the wellbeing of humankind. But it's tenuous by nature because it's fluid by definition.

But let's not be naive. Christianity, much to our embarrassment, has its own share of insane extremists and destructive perpetrators. I would contend that those people are not really Christians, but just use the label to wreak disaster on humanity in the name of God. Unfortunately, not enough people distinguish between true Christians and posers, and we all get lumped together in one big hateful, immoral morass.

[Steve the Horse]

You said you can't be mistaken. So there's no possibility that your belief in God as a moral being could be incorrect in any way, because God has definitively revealed himself as moral through the variety of methods that you mentioned. Is that what you're saying?

[jimwalton]

That's what I'm saying. Because his actions in history correspond with his revelation in Scripture, and because millions of people's experiences with him are also concordant with those records, and because A cannot equal non-A, there is no possibility that my belief in God as a moral being could be incorrect in any way.

This is odd. We've been going around and around on this same point. Where are we going with this?