Atheism, evolution and their implications

tech77

bogwalrus wrote: »

Well said scofflaw.

As far as i am concerned, for humans to become truly altruistic society needs to show them the purpose to be that way and it is more of a realisation then a decision. Everyone has their "hardwired morals" but to be motivated to do good in a selfless way that will benefit society, the society needs to be worth benefiting if you know what i mean. So if the current society does not reflect values that lead to a person being altruistic then al you will get is a very confused bunch of people.

So would widespread atheism really only work (morally) if society cleaned itself up first.

bogwalrus

Well i would see a good society being a reflection of good people and beliefs (be it altruistic beliefs). So when there is a good society there is no need for lets say atheism or any religion, maybe just science and true human compassion and morals. But to get to this state there would need to be some amount of turn arounds in this world. I always wonder why people dont just revert to how they feel and what they think is right and wrong instead of following a religions right and wrong and so on.......

Scofflaw

bogwalrus wrote: »

Well i would see a good society being a reflection of good people and beliefs (be it altruistic beliefs). So when there is a good society there is no need for lets say atheism or any religion, maybe just science and true human compassion and morals. But to get to this state there would need to be some amount of turn arounds in this world. I always wonder why people dont just revert to how they feel and what they think is right and wrong instead of following a religions right and wrong and so on.......

Most of the time that's exactly what they do. If you look at the posts by Christians on these boards, there's a lot of references to "following the promptings of their conscience". What that actually means is that most of the time they're doing what they think is right. If that clashes with what their church teaches, they either silently ignore what the church teaches (the Catholic option) or change church until they find one that agrees with them.

Where the church usually comes in is when people are presented with a situation that for some reason they cannot sort out, morally speaking - they are unsure of what is right. Under those circumstances, I can assure you, people will take advice from almost anyone they see as 'morally authoritative'. Normally, that list includes their priest or pastor, but it can also include atheists and people of other religions, as can be seen from these boards.

cordially,
Scofflaw

bogwalrus

Yeah i agree with that. Very true. Dunno what to say on the matter really.

tech77

Scofflaw wrote: »

Most of the time that's exactly what they do. If you look at the posts by Christians on these boards, there's a lot of references to "following the promptings of their conscience". What that actually means is that most of the time they're doing what they think is right. If that clashes with what their church teaches, they either silently ignore what the church teaches (the Catholic option) or change church until they find one that agrees with them.

Where the church usually comes in is when people are presented with a situation that for some reason they cannot sort out, morally speaking - they are unsure of what is right. Under those circumstances, I can assure you, people will take advice from almost anyone they see as 'morally authoritative'. Normally, that list includes their priest or pastor, but it can also include atheists and people of other religions, as can be seen from these boards.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hi.
Do you think individualistic subjective morality is better than a commonly held general moral code (no matter how generally agreeable such a code might be).

If you think subjective morality is the way to go, what would be the refining processes of this "raw" individual, purely empathy-based morality.
Or in complex cases would it always just come down to following an empathetic "gut-instinct".

And the idea of an "Atheistic Church" as a mechanism which might discuss and refine this "raw" empathy-based morality- would that be absurd to you?
All the time rejecting God of course.

Again these aren't rhetorical questions, i'm just really curious about this.

PDN

tech77 wrote: »

And the idea of an "Atheistic Church" as a mechanism which might discuss and refine this "raw" empathy-based morality- would that be absurd to you?

It has been tried many times, and the results are generally viewed as absurd by just about everybody. You can read about some of the funnier attempts at forming an atheist, or humanist, church in Michael Burleigh's book, Earthly Powers.

Most of these atheist churches sank without trace. However, one of them was founded by Augustus Comte (if you recognise the name it's because everyone, in their first sociology class, learns that he was the guy who coined the word 'sociology'). His logical positivism left one mark on the world - some of his followers were involved in the coup that overthrew the monarchy in Brazil and managed to get their sacred text Ordem e Progresso (Order and Progress) wrapped around a celestial sphere on the Brazilian flag.

bogwalrus

Wow, never knew that about the brazillian flag.

There is no point in an atheist church as all it will do is cause confusion and this stupid following of "leaders of the church" due to some hierarchial thing that you normally see in other religions. You have religion and the you have atheism at the other end of the spectrum, buddhism probably lies somewhere in between maybe.

pH

PDN wrote: »

It has been tried many times, and the results are generally viewed as absurd by just about everybody. You can read about some of the funnier attempts at forming an atheist, or humanist, church in Michael Burleigh's book, Earthly Powers.

Most of these atheist churches sank without trace.

Is this where the Buddhist card is played?

tech77 wrote:

And the idea of an "Atheistic Church" as a mechanism which might discuss and refine this "raw" empathy-based morality- would that be absurd to you?
All the time rejecting God of course.

99% of the morality we need is for the most part inherent, or learned as a child growing up via normal parental guidance and discipline. I certainly see no need for a 'body of morals' any sort of formalised code outside of the laws of the state we live in produced by a secular democracy.

In what way would an 'Atheistic Church' differ from a democratically elected parliament as a way of discussing and refining empathy-based-morality?

Dades

pH wrote: »

99% of the morality we need is for the most part inherent, or learned as a child growing up via normal parental guidance and discipline. I certainly see no need for a 'body of morals' any sort of formalised code outside of the laws of the state we live in produced by a secular democracy.

In what way would an 'Atheistic Church' differ from a democratically elected parliament as a way of discussing and refining empathy-based-morality?

^^ What pH said ^^

We have a formalised code called "legislation". And it already takes precedence over any religious code. (In theory anyway, lets not get started on the odd exception).

If humanists or 'Brights' want to develop some new commandments or whatnot let them, but the last thing we need is a new religion under any banner declaring the truth of its doctrine.

Scofflaw

Dades wrote: »

^^ What pH said ^^

We have a formalised code called "legislation". And it already takes precedence over any religious code. (In theory anyway, lets not get started on the odd exception).

If humanists or 'Brights' want to develop some new commandments or whatnot let them, but the last thing we need is a new religion under any banner declaring the truth of its doctrine.

Thirded. The natural home for atheism isn't some kind of mirror image of religion, but the secular society. A combination of socially acceptable behaviour, and parental teaching, is how the natural moral sense of humans is refined, and that seems to me quite adequate.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote: »

Just as the Theory of Gravity does not tell us that we ought to drop things - it simply describes what will happen when we do.

That is a very good example that I must remember the next time Wolfsbane is claiming that the only logical conclusion of an acceptance of evolution is that we kill anyone who gets in our way.

Zombrex

tech77 wrote: »

So in an atheistic/non-spiritual world is basic empathy enough?

Yes

tech77

Interesting.
Would ye say so that atheists are averse to discussing morality in groups or in an organised way?
That's essentially what I mean by "church"- a group for discussion of morality.

But is it that ye think morality can only be a personal or private matter- or atleast discussion kept to within individual families (teaching your own kids etc)- is that right.
Seems like things could become chaotic.

OK what about atleast a "church" of atheistic morality with no absolute moral authority but which atleast served as a forum for discussing individuals' various shades of morality- to recognise and reconcile any possible chaos that might ensue.

bogwalrus

i have no idea where this discussion has gone. Can someone put the missing link back in or was there some naked words and vivid language been said??

Could you please explain for me tech77 what Morality mean to you as i believe you have a "very" different definition as to what it means to me.

I dont mean to be rude or anything im just curious to know where your coming from as i am a bit lost. tnx

Zombrex

tech77 wrote: »

Interesting.
Would ye say so that atheists are averse to discussing morality in groups or in an organised way?
That's essentially what I mean by "church"- a group for discussion of morality.

Churches aren't places for the "discussion of morality".

If they were I would be there every day

Churches are places where the established religion is discussed. The religion has already determined the morality, the followers simply discuss if they have interpreted pre-determined morality that correctly.

If any church ever said "God is wrong" I would join them in a flash. But no religion (none that worships a deity) would ever do that, because the entire point of a religion, the place where it gets its power over people, is the illusion that it knows the "correct" moral answer.

tech77

bogwalrus wrote: »

Could you please explain for me tech77 what Morality mean to you as i believe you have a "very" different definition as to what it means to me.

I dont mean to be rude or anything im just curious to know where your coming from as i am a bit lost. tnx

No don't worry.
My understanding of morality is conventional

Morality could be seen as centred around empathy (understanding the experience of others) leading to emotions like guilt, compassion etc giving one a basic sense of right and wrong but also it's importantly constrained by social factors (social factors obviously becoming more important in the case of unempathic individuals- psychopaths etc).

But this "raw" empathy which serves as a basis for morality- doesn't there need to be (formal?) refinement of this for the morality of complex situations.

I'm curious about this idea of an un-organised, fractionated (I don't want to use the term disorganised) morality though which every family feels free to develop on their own and teach to their kids.

tech77

Wicknight wrote: »

Churches aren't places for the "discussion of morality".

If they were I would be there every day

Churches are places where the established religion is discussed. The religion has already determined the morality, the followers simply discuss if they have interpreted pre-determined morality that correctly.

If any church ever said "God is wrong" I would join them in a flash. But no religion (none that worships a deity) would ever do that, because the entire point of a religion, the place where it gets its power over people, is the illusion that it knows the "correct" moral answer.

Man I knew I shouldn't have used the term "Church"..

I used "church" in a general sense.
Of course I know traditional churches aren't necessarily great places to discuss morality.

Of course I meant a FORUM for moral discussion- for discussion and reconciliation of possible differences of individual (possibly fractionated)atheistic morality.

And I did say a "church" that
1) DENIED THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
and that was
2) without an absolute moral authority.

I'm just left with the impression that discussion of
morality isn't that important to atheists.
Is it not.

Zillah

Why oh why are you using the word Church?

The Dail isn't a Church where they discuss politics.
The Computers Forum isn't a Church where they discuss technology.

pH

tech77 wrote: »

I'm just left with the impression that discussion of
morality isn't that important to atheists.
Is it not.

I guess you have the wrong impression then. I'm sure the discussion of morality is important to some atheists, as I'm equally sure that it's irrelevant and unimportant to other atheists. What's your point?

Just so we can be clear, how about you explaining where you get your morality from?

Splendour

Wicknight wrote: »

Churches aren't places for the "discussion of morality".

If they were I would be there every day

Churches are places where the established religion is discussed. The religion has already determined the morality, the followers simply discuss if they have interpreted pre-determined morality that correctly.

If any church ever said "God is wrong" I would join them in a flash. But no religion (none that worships a deity) would ever do that, because the entire point of a religion, the place where it gets its power over people, is the illusion that it knows the "correct" moral answer.

I haven't time to read through this whole thread, but I tripped across your post Wicknight and had to reply,

Churches are NOT places where established religion is discussed-well least not the church I attend! I imagine most other Christians who post here would agree with this too.

God is never wrong-although our interpretation of his word may be.
Take for example the 'once saved always saved' doctrine;I believe this to be true but there are other Christians who would disagree with me.

Religion is the antithesis of Christianity.

tech77

pH wrote: »

I guess you have the wrong impression then. I'm sure the discussion of morality is important to some atheists, as I'm equally sure that it's irrelevant and unimportant to other atheists. What's your point?

Just so we can be clear, how about you explaining where you get your morality from?

I suppose my morality is, like many Irish people's, a synthesis of:
1) Basic, innate unrefined empathy giving me a basic sense of right and wrong.
2) Retention of some Christian (Catholic) teachings while growing up (as part of an Irish culture), a lot of which i'm at odds with now though leading to a loss of faith and agnosticism.
3) Some (albeit imperfect) refining of morality from everyday situations through an interaction between that basic empathy above and further educational/social factors.

Not perfect but no better or worse than most people's i'd say (Irish people atleast).
But i'm wondering is there a better formal moral code out there. (rather than just the trial and error of empathy and social constraints).

But i'm just getting the impression here if i was to ask an atheist about their morality they'd say it was flawless, elegantly designed through basic empathy and a bit of life experience, and ready to deal with any complex moral problem with ease.

I suppose i'm wondering then why atheists (who cast aside flawed religious moral code) don't actively formulate a strong, definite alternative moral code (one that they themselves generally would be happy with atleast).

bogwalrus

Be you atheiest or christian you are still tainted by your society you grow up in. Your morals could be genuine and you may know where they lie but you are still human and succum to your emotions both good and bad which can shroud judgement and morals sometimes.Society also imbedding a few time bombs in your psyche also. Though some people say they have the same moral foundation does not mean they act upon this as code. ANd in now way is atheism an opposision to somethin such as other religions. Peoples views on life and living can be very diferent for atheisst where fudamental logic is key. Some one could have the same morals as someone else but have different beliefs.......or seomething like that????

Dades

tech77 wrote: »

I suppose i'm wondering then why atheists (who cast aside flawed religious moral code) don't actively formulate a strong, definite alternative moral code (one that they themselves generally would be happy with atleast).

I thought this was covered?

Firstly atheists (or agnostics) for that matter aren't social groupings. An atheist can be an ex-nun who lost her faith or a serial killer. Humanists have an organisation, Brights have one, but non-believers are just non-believers.

Secondly, why do think that because religious doctrines are rejected that a formal moral code needs to be drawn up? This new doctrine will be no more binding on an individual than that of a rejected religion. We are all subject to the laws of the State which evolve along with the morality of the times. A pseudo-religious non-believers doctrine is fine for those who feel like tackling such a thing, but ultimately pointless.

The forum here is a good spot to discuss morality, free from the constraint of a deity. But once posters log off, their morality is their own concern.

Zombrex

Splendour wrote: »

Churches are NOT places where established religion is discussed-well least not the church I attend!

You do realize that the Bible is considered part of the established religion.

Splendour wrote: »

God is never wrong-although our interpretation of his word may be.

Which is exactly what I said. Churches are places where you sit around discuss if you understand the established religion correctly. It is not a place to debate morality, because you take that morality has already been decided for you by your religion (and recorded in your holy book)

Splendour wrote: »

Religion is the antithesis of Christianity.

As I said, the Bible, your holy book, is the part of the religion. If all you did was sit around all day discussing the Bible then that is sitting around all day discussing the established religion.

Zombrex

tech77 wrote: »

I used "church" in a general sense.

There is no real general sense.

A church has never been a place that discuses morality. It is always a place that discusses interpretation of religion, be it a Catholic church with the priest droning on, or a group of 5 people in someone's sitting room pouring over a verse in the New Testament or Qur'an to try and figure out what interpretation is fitting.

The whole point of religion is that the moral questions have already been determined for you by the religion.

I think you are possibly taking more about things like the philosophical dialogs that people would have in ancient Greece, where groups of people (men) would gather to debate and argue philosophical and ethical topics.

Zombrex

tech77 wrote: »

I suppose i'm wondering then why atheists (who cast aside flawed religious moral code) don't actively formulate a strong, definite alternative moral code (one that they themselves generally would be happy with atleast).

Who says they don't?

Most of modern ethical positions, that originated since the Enlightenment, are secular in nature.

For example the UN Declaration of Human Rights, is secular in nature (which annoys some of the more hard line religious states). As an atheist I am largely happy with it.

The original US Constitution is again secular in nature (most of the founding fathers of America were either atheists, agnostics or deists who rejected the idea of an active God). I don't agree with all of it, but most of it stands as a good example of secular ethics.