Atheism IS NOT a belief system

Rev Hellfire

I believe that to a degree we have an innate understanding of right and wrong.
Or rather as social creatures we have an innate ability to coexist within groups. These groups by their nature define a set of acceptable standards which people refer to as morals and are further codified into law.
Which is why what is immoral in one society may not be so in another one and visa versa.

The reference to a supernatural element came from your idea that a belief system was required and in particular one which had a supernatural element to it.

REDZ

staple wrote:

Aren't these beliefs? Doesn't your morality spring from these beliefs?
How is your conscience formed? I guess from parents etc. telling you what's right and wrong. Why did your parents tell you certain things were right or wrong?
Why do you treat people the way they want to be treated? Why accept the authority of Kant with his categorical imperative?

I don't think they are beliefs, more states of mind that respond to changing circumstances, eg: you have differing levels of compassion, depending on many different factors.
Partly formed from parents, partly an internal thing, we just know certain things are right and wrong such as killing, robbing from the poor etc..
I treat peole the way i want to be treated, (try to anyway)
I accept Kants imperative and similar christian imperatives because they are rational.

Dades

staple, since you're so full of questions, why don't you tell us where your moral guidance comes from?

Playboy

I think the point that is being made is that all our morals comes from belief, whether that belief is religious or personal.

Scofflaw

Playboy wrote:

I think the point that is being made is that all our morals comes from belief, whether that belief is religious or personal.

As far as I'm aware, all the evidence points to mankind being 'inherently' moral - that is, a lot of basic morality seems to be an evolutionarily selected set of built-in responses, topped off with culturally learned morals and then some personal ones.

It's perfectly possible to have morals intellectually derived from your beliefs (a good example is vegetarianism) but not to feel them at a gut level (so, eating meat doesn't feel bad, although you 'know' it is).


cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> I think the point that is being made is that all our morals
> comes from belief, whether that belief is religious or personal.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I don't believe that morality comes from belief. Although there is a very strong, and very successful, religious tendency to say that it does (or must), with consequent benefits to the religion.

If I choose not to clobber somebody bigger than me, that's not a moral decision on my part, but a sensible one. If I choose to clobber somebody smaller than me, well, they might know somebody bigger than me, and they in return might clobber me. What the religious refer to as "morals" are usually quite easy to work out, in terms of biological cost, if you assume that people live in social networks and that they have memories.

Try googling for "human behavioral ecology" or "evolutionary psychology" for further details on the many evolutionary reasons for being "nice".

Playboy

robindch wrote:

> I think the point that is being made is that all our morals
> comes from belief, whether that belief is religious or personal.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I don't believe that morality comes from belief. Although there is a very strong, and very successful, religious tendency to say that it does (or must), with consequent benefits to the religion.

If I choose not to clobber somebody bigger than me, that's not a moral decision on my part, but a sensible one. If I choose to clobber somebody smaller than me, well, they might know somebody bigger than me, and they in return might clobber me. What the religious refer to as "morals" are usually quite easy to work out, in terms of biological cost, if you assume that people live in social networks and that they have memories.

Try googling for "human behavioral ecology" or "evolutionary psychology" for further details on the many evolutionary reasons for being "nice".

Morality isnt really to do with being nice, its more about what you consider right and wrong. What you consider as right or wrong is influenced by a host of factors such as soicetal norms, religious beliefs, the position you hold in society, genetic influences (aka evolutionary psychology) etc. Peoples morality can often change depending on the situation they are in. Take for example how business people can behave in a ruthless fashion when at work but would never apply the same ethic to their social or home life. That is because the business person believes the business world to be a different arena with a different set of rules. Belief is a key factor in morality. Most atheists in my experience would consider themselves humanists and would derive their morality from the ideals of that branch of thought e.g. the dignity and worth of the individual and an ability to determine what is right and wrong using rational thought. In my view Humanism is a belief sytem, maybe not in the same way as religion but all the same a belief system.

staple

I think maybe there is a semantic point about 'belief' I haven’t grasped.

I would assume that you act (or fail to), as a conscious person because you have a reason for or against. You work somewhere, study something, say things to people, make all kinds of choices for reasons of which you are conscious. I don’t think they are all just instinctive; I imagine you don’t contradict yourself, and so your choices come from some common principles. I’d like to know what those principles are. You BELIEVE those principles to be important (that is why I use the word belief).

If evolution has given us our moral code, is there then a problem of consciousness? We choose to follow that code or not, don’t we? Do we choose rationally and freely or are we driven by our genes in all our decisions?

staple

staple wrote:

I think maybe there is a semantic point about 'belief' I haven’t grasped.

I would assume that you act (or fail to), as a conscious person because you have a reason for or against. You work somewhere, study something, say things to people, make all kinds of choices for reasons of which you are conscious. I don’t think they are all just instinctive; I imagine you don’t contradict yourself, and so your choices come from some common principles. I’d like to know what those principles are. You BELIEVE those principles to be important (that is why I use the word belief).

But they don't come from atheism as a formal set of beliefs...

staple

bluewolf wrote:

But they don't come from atheism as a formal set of beliefs...

With this I can agree.
Atheism is not a belief system. Atheists seem to believe lots of things in a rather unsystematic way. Atheists probably believe inthings dominant in 21st century western society, like liberalism, habeas corpus, liberty, free speech, toleration, democracy, sexual equality, progress, the scientific method, the ego, individualism, capitalism, the rational faculty. It also seems to be pretty common to look to evolution to explain anything else. All of these things are, presumably, common sense, the way slavery was common sense to the Romans and Christianity was common sense to the Elizabethans.

This is all pretty worrying for the rest of us. They seem to believe that it is 'natural' to act as selfishly as possible; and the only limit on selfishness is what we can get away with. I find that depressing, since we can expect them to do everything they can get away with to exploit others for their own benefit, and we can expect no altruism from them.

But, from the contributions here, there seems to be no underlying unifying idea supporting their miscellany of beliefs. It's pretty worrying for them, since they think their world view comes from scientific rationalism but they themselves are not rationally driven, they are driven by their evolutionary instincts. Such a mindset seems doomed to collapse under its self contradiction.

pH

This is all pretty worrying for the rest of us.

Hmmmm ... who are the rest of you?

They seem to believe that it is 'natural' to act as selfishly as possible; and the only limit on selfishness is what we can get away with.

I think that's true, at least it's fairly easy to argue from an evolutionary standpoint:

Anyone using their hard-earned resources on other peoples children would be at a serious disadvantage (in a charitable non reciprocating sense) and the other side .. anyone too overtly self-centered and criminal would be ostracised, so yes the optimal position is machiavellian self-centeredness (but not too overt and plenty of lip service to helping others!)

However just because it's a rational explanation of how we got here does not necessarily mean that it's a good or justifiable way of living today.

lostexpectation

staple wrote:

This is all pretty worrying for the rest of us. They seem to believe that it is 'natural' to act as selfishly as possible; and the only limit on selfishness is what we can get away with. I find that depressing, since we can expect them to do everything they can get away with to exploit others for their own benefit, and we can expect no altruism from them.

**** you and your idiotic presumptions

staple

staple wrote:

With this I can agree.
Atheism is not a belief system. Atheists seem to believe lots of things in a rather unsystematic way. Atheists probably believe inthings dominant in 21st century western society, like liberalism, habeas corpus, liberty, free speech, toleration, democracy, sexual equality, progress, the scientific method, the ego, individualism, capitalism, the rational faculty. It also seems to be pretty common to look to evolution to explain anything else. All of these things are, presumably, common sense, the way slavery was common sense to the Romans and Christianity was common sense to the Elizabethans.

I wouldn't say evolution is so common as that, only that it's so much in the news lately...

This is all pretty worrying for the rest of us. They seem to believe that it is 'natural' to act as selfishly as possible; and the only limit on selfishness is what we can get away with. I find that depressing, since we can expect them to do everything they can get away with to exploit others for their own benefit, and we can expect no altruism from them.

Hardly. Just because it's natural doesn't mean people can't add to it.
Don't be so condescending, eh?

But, from the contributions here, there seems to be no underlying unifying idea supporting their miscellany of beliefs.

Of course not. It's all (atheism) only about one lack of belief. That's it. Anything else is just them.

It's pretty worrying for them, since they think their world view comes from scientific rationalism but they themselves are not rationally driven, they are driven by their evolutionary instincts. Such a mindset seems doomed to collapse under its self contradiction.

Oh, please. Many religions self-contradict. Many beliefs self-contradict.

Evolution got them to the stage where they can be rationally driven.

I think you're misunderstanding entirely, but I'll leave it to someone more eloquent to explain, who might actually be an atheist too.

Zombrex

staple wrote:

They seem to believe that it is 'natural' to act as selfishly as possible;

Who seem to believe? I hope you don't mean Atheists, because I would find that accusation rather insulting, seeing as I'm an atheists and I don't believe that it is right to act as selfishly as possible.

It is also not evolutionary to act as selflishly as possible (why everyone thinks this I've no idea), evolution has instilled a number of systems of control in humans, such as guilt, love, friendship, fear etc to form communities and tribes based around common need and sharing of resources.

Dades

My home PC died last week.
So sorry I missed this intellectual challenge from staple.

ps - lostexpectation, I'd hate to be forced to ban someone for reacting to that display of ignorance.

lostexpectation

http://www.breakingnews.ie/2006/04/16/story254447.html

“We succumb to the secular indifference of the modern world if we limit Easter to an area of personal faith alone,” he said.

his message doesn't really refer to the above but I can't really think what he else he means by :secular indifference:

perhaps a new thread on secularism does not equal selfism(individualism ) (although I guess religion doens't equal delusion)

I knew the expletive would be stared out, but I guess that's not the point

Zombrex

lostexpectation wrote:

his message doesn't really refer to the above but I can't really think what he else he means by :secular indifference:

He seems to be saying that it is a bad thing that "secular society" doesn't even need to "suppress" religion any more because the religious people themselves have just stopped bothering to express their religion properly.

Personally I think that is a good thing

staple

lostexpectation wrote:

**** you and your idiotic presumptions

Perhaps you can tell me why I should not make such a presumption?
My 'idiotic presumptions' come from the failure of anyone here to tell me why they can be expected to behave morally. The presumptions come from things like this bit of dialogue with Rev. Hellfire:

Rev Hellfire: Almost certainly if I could be invisible I can say chances are I'd break the law if it suited me. But you see that doesnt effect morals, I'd know what I would be doing is wrong. Its just I wouldn't care making me and my actions immoral.
staple: I don't understand why you say it doesn't affect morals. It sounds like you'd do me harm tomorrow if it benefitted you and you could get away with it.
Rev. Hellfire: And assuming I would. How does that effect morals?
staple: I'd say such a person would be immoral and have to be avoided.
Rev. Hellfire : I believe that to a degree we have an innate understanding of right and wrong. Or rather as social creatures we have an innate ability to coexist within groups. These groups by their nature define a set of acceptable standards which people refer to as morals and are further codified into law.
Which is why what is immoral in one society may not be so in another one and visa versa.

I think the Rev. is saying he only does right so long as he is obliged, nothing beyond.

Also this comment from Robindch: “If I choose not to clobber somebody bigger than me, that's not a moral decision on my part, but a sensible one. If I choose to clobber somebody smaller than me, well, they might know somebody bigger than me, and they in return might clobber me. What the religious refer to as "morals" are usually quite easy to work out, in terms of biological cost, if you assume that people live in social networks and that they have memories.”
i.e. he too would act immorally with Gyges' ring

pH wrote:

However just because it's a rational explanation of how we got here does not necessarily mean that it's a good or justifiable way of living today.

So what is a good or justifiable way of living today and why?

bluewolf wrote:

Oh, please. Many religions self-contradict. Many beliefs self-contradict.

I don't agree that religions self-contradict. You may be able to find apparent contradictions in the Bible but the practice of theology over 2000 years has been to resolve them.
However, even assuming they do self-contradict, that's not much of a defence of a supposed rationalist criticising religion. Surely reason demands that we don't contradict ourselves?

My guess is that lots of atheists here have absorbed Christian ethics but can't say why they follow them. I think Kant offers a rationalist path to the same conclusions, but then I suppose he was aiming for Christian ethics all along. In practice, I have found atheists and agnostics highly moral. However, it is worrying there is no principle pushing them towards doing good in a difficult situation.

lostexpectation

well it got pretty to be a pretty convoluted thread (and examples) there so those examples don't really mean anything,

My 'idiotic presumptions' come from the failure of anyone here to tell me why they can be expected to behave morally.

the answer is we just do. you don't need to sign anything to say you will, do you?

i think they were focusing on the you expecting anything of 'us athiests'.

Don't expect anything of us, but don't presume were going to run riot just cos we don't sucumb to the myth of myths

and of cpurse we can't help but be influenced by our western catholic upbringing,but we get a brain and we start using it.

Scofflaw

lostexpectation wrote:

My 'idiotic presumptions' come from the failure of anyone here to tell me why they can be expected to behave morally.
Don't expect anything of us, but don't presume were going to run riot just cos we don't sucumb to the myth of myths

Hmm. Have a look at Excelsior's posts on the subject of grace, and a large number of posts on the question of moral teaching in the Bible, and it rapidly becomes clear that Christians don't have any clear guidelines outside the teachings of their particular church - in other words, (a) while everyone knows that God will punish the wicked, it's not very clear who the wicked are, and (b) acceptance of Christ is a complete get-out-of-jail-free card anyway.

cordially,
Scofflaw

robindch

> [staple] Also this comment from Robindch: “If I choose not to clobber
> somebody [...]" i.e. he too would act immorally with Gyges' ring

With due respect, I don't particularly enjoy your typically religiously-inspired idea that since I don't believe in some god to scare me into being nice, that I would therefore be evil. Some people are capable of being helpful and decent without having to acquire, then accept, a belief in spiritual bogey-men who'll zap us if we step out of line.

> In practice, I have found atheists and agnostics highly moral.

Likewise. So why do you think that I "would act imorally"?

> However, it is worrying there is no principle pushing them towards
> doing good in a difficult situation.

Again, why do you seem to believe that we are incapable of being good, without some presumably-religious principle pushing us?

Scofflaw

Allow me to put forward a theory:

Humanity is moral, with or without religion - that is to say, humanity has evolved in such a way that they readily accept certain strictures on their behaviour that limit their pursuit of entirely selfish goals, and that they internalise such rules so that they operate at a level below abstract thought. A look around the world will quickly show that most people are moral wherever you go, whatever the prevailing religion.

Human morals are derived from the evolution of humanity as a social animal, and follow the observed patterns for other such animals (ritualisation of aggression & rare intra-group killings, protection of weak members of the group, reciprocation of positive and negative actions etc). It is relatively easy to show that most human morals can be derived from games theory as 'best practice' rules for the long-term good of the individual. In certain situations this may conflict with behavioural adaptations to environmental constraints, and under these circumstances we will find patterns of behaviour outwith these norms.

On top of this, humans culturally transmit morals, which makes it possible for influential members to manipulate their moral outlook to their benefit. Being intelligent, humans also see the need to constrain members of society who may be morally deficient, or who may be in a position to indulge their selfishness without social constraint. In both these aims, religion is a paramount tool, since the threat of personal punishment by a deity can be levelled at those whose behaviour cannot be controlled in any way.


cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

staple wrote:

My 'idiotic presumptions' come from the failure of anyone here to tell me why they can be expected to behave morally.

2 reasons.

Firstly we have inbuild senses of basic morality that have developed as part of our evolution into communal creatures. An example would be not sleeping with your sister, or how hard it is to do any harm to something like a puppy. There theory behind that is that their big eyes and features remind us of children, and we have inbuild systems that make it harder to harm a child than an adult. Start a fight with an adult and most people wouldn't give a toss. Smack a kid around in the fact until he starts cry you can bet you will get in a lot of trouble. That isn't just people logically reasoning that you shouldn't hit a child in the face, they have instincts that kick in as well when they see a child in trouble or danger. The human ear is most sensative at exactly the frequency of a child crying or screaming, which is just one example of how we have developed to be aware of children in trouble

Secondly, we have this glorious higher brain that allows us to build structured laws and morals based on the lower instincts but also on higher logic and rational. To an atheist that is all religion is, humans developing moral structures and then teaching others. The problem with religoin is that it is harder to understand or argue the base logic behind religious moral structures. It is better to simply accept that all morality comes from humanity, be it the Bible stories or the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Then you are free to look at the why rather than just the what.

staple wrote:

I think the Rev. is saying he only does right so long as he is obliged, nothing beyond.

He's not, he is saying that there is a difference between knowing the difference between something moral and immoral and choosing to do something immoral.

If someone does not know the difference between right and wrong they are considered, afaik, clinically insane. The vast vast majority of criminals are not clinically insane, they know what they are doing is immoral/illegal but they choose to do it anyway.

staple wrote:

What the religious refer to as "morals" are usually quite easy to work out, in terms of biological cost, if you assume that people live in social networks and that they have memories.”
i.e. he too would act immorally with Gyges' ring

What he is referring to here is religions tendoncy to call something "moral" or "immoral" when in fact it has very little to do with morality at all. A classic example would be sex before marriage. The Judao/Christian church calls that immoral, but it is nothing to do with morality. The origin of that tradition has a number of roots, from the tradition that women were considered propertiy and "traded" during marriage, to the ideas of a man wanting an heir of his own blood. None of these traditions are issues of morality, but religion has a tendoncy to control communities by telling you something is immoral so you don't do it. Another example would be eating certain foods. There is a good traditional reason why Muslims don't eat pig. Back in the mists of time pork was notorious for spreading diease. So to control this religions told their followers not to eat pork, but to make sure they didn't they told them it was immoral to eat pork. But of course eating or not eating pork has nothing to do with morality.

staple wrote:

So what is a good or justifiable way of living today and why?

Most laws in western social democracies are generally quite good. Just follow them and you will be fine.

staple wrote:

that's not much of a defence of a supposed rationalist criticising religion. Surely reason demands that we don't contradict ourselves?

Exactly, which is why a lot of people find religion unreasonable and illogical.

staple wrote:

My guess is that lots of atheists here have absorbed Christian ethics but can't say why they follow them.

Actually its the other way round.

Atheists are free from the religous dogma so they are able to examine why we should follow certain moral traditions and not others. For example, do not kill people is a good moral idea, no sex before marriage isn't. I can look at both of those "morals" and the reasons behind them and choose which ones I think are acceptable in this day and age, and which aren't. I know the logical and reason behind all the morals I follow. I know why I follow all of them and I know why I don't follow the rest.

A proper religious person cannot because to them all the moral teaching comes from God and is therefore beyond examination change or arguing. Sex before marriage is immoral because God says so, you don't need to know the reason, and even if you did know the reason you cannot choose to not follow it because God has told you you have to. So a religious person ends up following most of the religions morals without ever being able to say why beyond "Because God says so". And if they don't they are being immoral, even if they choose to.

staple wrote:

However, it is worrying there is no principle pushing them towards doing good in a difficult situation.

There are. There are lots of them. Atheist just don't believe they come from God.

Dades

staple wrote:

I have found atheists and agnostics highly moral. However, it is worrying there is no principle pushing them towards doing good in a difficult situation.

I would suggest that principles pushing them are compassion and conscience, rather that principles that push the religious - fear and obligation.

My guess is that lots of atheists here have absorbed Christian ethics but can't say why they follow them.

It always annoys me when someone suggests that Jesus has the monopoly on morality. As wicknight said, morality existed long before he came along - derived from evolution and humanity. But because they were written in a book, and Jesus elevated to the position of God - now are they inextricably linked for most.