Friendly Atheist

1) Admit that equal worth, equal treatment, and autonomy aren’t absolute truths, or the only way our society must be.

He says this like it’s a problem. Let’s get this out of the way: “Equal worth, equal treatment, and autonomy are not absolute truths. They are not the only way that society must be.”

Of course, I can use this in many ways: “Newtonian physics is not an absolute truth. It is not the only way particles must behave.” “Quantum mechanics is not an absolute truth. It is not the only way to describe the behavior of sub-atomic particles.”

We have precious few “absolute” truths- in fact, I can’t seem to think of any. Human beings might not have a pipeline to “absolute truth”, but we do have the ability to apprehend the world around us, to interrogate it, investigate it, and draw conclusions from it. When it comes to organizing a society, we have tried so many different things. We’ve experimented, even if we weren’t conscious of it. In all the experiments, we’ve found that equal worth, equal treatment and autonomy are extremely beneficial to individuals and society as a whole.

Societies that promote free and open exchanges of ideas see incredible scientific and economic progress. Societies without oppressed minorities are more stable. As a group, it’s in our best interests to hold these values, not because some divine decree forces us into it, but because they work. Other organizing principles haven’t worked as well.

Personally, and this is a controversial view, I don’t feel that people have equal worth. I think prizing someone merely because they have the good fortune to be genetically similar to myself is a perilous mistake. But, I also admit imperfect knowledge. There is, as of yet, no way to honestly determine, practically and fairly, the absolute worth of an individual. When measuring the relative worth, we must limit our scope- I can identify the more worthy chess player, but that doesn’t tell me anything about the person’s worth to society. I don’t hold that equal worth is an absolute truth, but I accept it as a practical one- there’s really no way to evaluate someone’s worth.

I’ll take a stab at this.

There is no “scientific” way to prove that all people are equal. I think that in order for all people to receive equal benefits from an atheist government, they would have to rely on compassion. Compassion is not scientifically based. In fact, I think we agree that in societies with fewer resources, it makes the most sense to use those resources on who has the best chance of survival- and that’s what many societies have done, and far be it from me to judge them.

Using that definition, it seems the belief in equal worth, equal treatment, and autonomy are more faith based than science. So given that we want these principles in government, is it not necessary to have faith inside government? For people reading this who identify themselves as atheist yet believe in these principles, how is that not faith?

I think its compassion, not faith, at least not faith in a religious way. In a society where there is the ability to care for all the people, it seems better to err on the side of caring for more people.

So, if a person has a true atheist perspective, they should be willing to give ideas, such as that we don’t all deserve equal treatment, reasonable consideration.

I might be missing something here, but I don’t see why atheists have to give all ideas reasonable consideration. That has nothing to do with atheism. Atheism is, in my opinion, about considering the world from a naturalistic perspective. There is no supernatural; only the natural.

I am going to go think about this some more.

I am not sure faith is the word to describe why I think human rights, equal worth of all humans, equal treatment, and autonomy are good things. For starters, there is some experimental data, such as the Greek democracy, the Roman Republic/Empire, the USSR, the USA, Nazi Germany and Germany today. We can look at these, and see what value they placed on those principals, and how well each society did and how well individuals in those societies fared. But I don’t think that is entirely your point. I follow those principals, not because they are backed up by science nor because I have faith that they are good principals (though I suppose I do). I follow them, because I want to be treated in a certain way, and I don’t think it is my place to tell others that they don’t deserve the very treatment I demand. In essence, I follow the golden rule, because I think it is a good Idea, and by my though process (aided by many great thinkers in history) these principals are the conclusion. Again, I fear I’ve fallen short of your criteria, but you have certainly sparked my thoughts on this topic. My last thought for now: I “believe” that social justice is invariant under the transformation from one person to the next. I call this principle The Relativity of Social Justice.

@Miko:

All merit-based awards, for example, are testimony to the fact that we don’t.

Well, I’m not sure merit-based awards really represent a social recognition of global inequality. We’re looking at relative merit within a very narrow field. There’s no “Best Person Alive” award. Nobody “fires” you from living if you don’t meet your quarterly goal (certain exceptions apply).

Alright, one more thing to add to the discussion- who is to say that we are all equal according to your god? Theist, I have no idea what version of God you believe in, but whose to say he cares about everyone equally? In the Bible, the Christian god is pretty mean to everyone besides the Jews and a few other groups.

I could say a lot more on this subject, but I’ll keep it short since there have already been some good answers:

It would be hypocritical to endorse harming other human beings who have feelings, thoughts, dreams, etc the same way I do while demanding that my own rights be respected. This kind of hypocrisy would be a logical contradiction and most other atheists I “talk to” via web and real life like to be internally consistent and logical in their thinking.

Also, if I were to set up a society that rewarded people with basic “rights” ONLY based on their contribtutions, I myself would have to constantly worry that I wouldn’t “make it.” And if I invent a system but exclude my self from its rules that makes me a hypocrite. So we’re back to the logical contradiction thing.

I would also say that morality or ethics based on commands from a deity is not really morality at all but rather obedience. Most monotheistic religions put the deity’s mere pride or “face” or “glory” (whatever the hell that is) above human life. I consider this to be a bad basis for morality and I would take a “less than absoute” foundation over a bad one. But even that compromise is not necessary.

As the laws of economics work, though they are not part of the physical universe, so, too, can ethics work without the intervention of a deity.
Empirically, it’s quite logical that when we all agree to cooperate and treat each other as we’d like to be treated, we all benefit from a better society. Lest you think Jesus Christ originated this idea, please know it was around hundreds of years before him in other cultures. It’s been said many times throughout history in different ways because it’s logical…and just plain fair, not because it’s divine.

I hope this helps. Good luck in all your musings and analysis.

There are thousands of different metrics from strength to beauty to intelligence to status of parents. Genetic endowment is far from equal, and all traits can be ranked on bell curves. There are smart people and stupid people–but most are in the middle.

People are not equal and life is nowhere near fair. Now get over it.

Whether government is necessary and what kind there should be is a whole other discussion. But if we are going to have government, it should be one that allows people of staggeringly unequal talents and genes to be fulfilled and to thrive with the least amount of suffering.

Where this becomes problematic is when smarter, stronger people start taking advantage of others, as they always do. I think this has to be permitted to a certain extent as being the natural course of healthy competition. Weaker, dumber people will never improve if they don’t have to face that competition. But we want to stop short of all-out Social Darwinism, or we might as well go back to tribal society. The real heart of the problem lies in the tradeoff between coercion (in the name of strong or universal utilitarianism) and the equally important preservation of individual liberties.

This is an area with room for all kinds of discussion. None of it having anything to do with a deity.

As Steelman points out, the idea didn’t begin with me. Great write-up, Steelman… but I didn’t notice God invoked anywhere in Rawl’s model of ethical behavior.

The Theist writes as someone seemingly unaware of models of ethics outside the Sunday School model of “God’s watchin’ you, so be good.”

But what he doesn’t realize is that for theism to provide “absolute ethical principles” we must know for a fact that we have absolute knowlege that we are getting the correct principles directly from God.

Without that continual confirmation, we morally MUST treat all of proported God’s laws as man’s laws, and not above question, lest we make a tyranny of the Priesthood.

Without 100% confirmation from God that we are following His laws, correctly and in practice, to the letter, a theistic-based morality suffers from the exact same limitations and non-absolute nature as human-derived morality.

Let’s get away from abstractions and look at America’s history and at the real divers of cultural transformation which are not “values” from God.

What’s the background to the ‘no state religion’ portion of the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (1786).

As former English subjects, newly victorious Americans had also thrown off a state church, the Church of England. In the Mother Country of 1786 a religious nonconformist (not a confessing Anglican) could not become a physician, attorney at law, an officer in HM forces on land or sea, could not attend either Cambridge or Oxford.

Americans were not about to tolerate a repeat performance. The issues were meat-and-potatoes: who eats well, procreates, educates the kids, rises in social standing. Real issues — not how to communicate with some cultural Icon, either theistic or deistic.

As Marvin Harris would put it — we’re always talking about “cultural materialism.” The race to death of food production and reproduction. Guts lead God by the nose every time.

Amendment 1 protects what used to be called “freedom of conscience.” Initially the right of every man (not slave, not female, not propertyless) to freely choose how to conduct his religious life. “Freedom of conscience” provides cover for the atheist, agnostic, deist, and an overwhelming population of the blessedly indifferent.

Check it out, the Constitution does not contain the word “God.” “We the people” give our rights to each other, that is, to ourselves as the sovereign body. Neither Bush nor Cheney nor Xian theocrats understand that.

eye-of-horus
copyright asserted 2007

The question is not a meaningful one. A government is nothing more than a codified set of laws and people executing, making and upholding them. By definition a system such as a government cannot experience “faith” - a human condition. Only sentient beings can experience faith - and a government certainly isn’t one.

being committed to democratic ideals does not at all necessarily entail a belief that everyone actually is “equal.” I don’t know who’s saying they are. Equal in what sense? It’s being said, at the very least, that government has no principled way valuing and ordering people.. and the history of attempts to do so is riddled with tragedy. But the larger point, I think, is that.. it’s not about whether we have equal ability levels or not.. it’s more so that no one person’s interests necessarily trump another’s interests. The farmer and the locksmith have needs and interests just as much as professors do. And, in any case, as soon as you start weighting one group over another.. you introduce oligarchy and have set the stage for corruption and the exertion of political influence for the sole benefit of that “privileged class.”
But, sure, you guys are right to insist that our founding documents (while they are NOT “Christian”) cointain many references to the creator, from whom we are said to derive our “rights.” I agree with the first part (not the latter part) of the first poster’s post in which he/she said that we can justify these principles on the grounds that they work. It does involve a kind of faith.. but I think it’s a slightly different kind of faith than believing in the truth of an extraordinary supernatural proposition. There’s a distinction to be drawn between trusting other people.. and that a certain social arrangement will work out.. and invoking faith as a justification for believing in the truth of things. Now, sure, there is often faith involved in that too. But I just get annoyed when people invoke “faith” to justify any belief.. no matter how (in my view) outlandish and unparsimonious it is. Faith is going out on a limb and making yourself truly vulnerable. Religious faith means probably being wrong but believing anyway.. a very precarious thing.

Anyway.. my two cents was that republican ideals don’t require a (naive, foolish) belief that everyone actually is equal in some descriptive sense.. but rather a commitment to the idea that everyone counts.. that everyone has a right to have their particular viewpoint heard.

First of all, I would like to thank everyone for responding. And just to make a clarification, I have many friends of an atheist perspective whom I would vote into presidency in a second if I could convince them to run. This question really has arisen from my own exploration of what I do or do not believe.

It is difficult to pose a response that will address everyone’s reply, I wish I could respond to each one individually. I will try to incorporate some of what everyone says into my response here.

Just to clarify my main point, using Dawkin’s definition that faith is treating something as truth that you can not test or prove, I think belief in an absolute right and wrong requires faith. I think our government embraces the concept of an absolute right and wrong, and thus incorporates faith. I do understand that some are explaining to me that government can simply represent what we as a society want, as defined by what we value as a community consensus, but I’m not sure we all truly accept the implication of this type of government (I’ll give an example at the end of why I think many Athiests don’t accept this). But first I must explain what I mean by absolute right and wrong.

I see a main difference between atheist and faith based explanations of ethics. I will try to describe below what the difference is. It has to do with the question of “why.”

Lets look at the basic sentence that derives from ethics, either “You should (fill in the blank)…. “ or “You shouldn’t (fill in the blank)…. “. I think both atheist and theist can derive similar principles for the (fill in the blank). For example, many responses reference the concept that people should be treated as they would want to be treated; a concept which I agree can come from pure logic or from religious sources. To all those who say that you don’t need Jesus to teach “the golden rule,” I agree.

The difference, to me, between theist and atheist perspectives when talking about what you should or shouldn’t do comes with the answer to the question “why” or “why not.”

For example, to the principle “Treat everyone with equal worth,” if asked “why?” you can come up with a logical argument that if everyone doesn’t do this it will result in a un-prosperous society. But then if one were to say, “I don’t care if society is un-prosperous, why should I treat people as equals?” it is harder to give an answer. One might even say, “I suppose you don’t have to, but I also don’t want you living in my society.”

From this comes the definition of government and ethics that Miko, theplainestguy, and Siamang explained, if I understand it correctly, which is that it is a social contract established by collective agreement. So society as a whole values certain things, and creates rules to achieve those values.

Now, here might be a theists answer to the question of why a person should or should not do something. Because it is wrong, period. If you argue that X is wrong because it will result in Y, than a person who doesn’t care about Y won’t see X is wrong. If you argue X is wrong by definition, than that’s it.

Now I know the response to this. Who has the authority to truly know what is right and wrong. As the plainestguy stated, the ethics of religion seem to change over time. As Jen says “who’s to say we are all equal according to your god?” As Siamsung said, religion often gets its wrong, such as racist views that people have used religion to defend.

I would answer it this way. I think one goal as humans is to discover what that truth, or absolute right and wrong, is. I don’t think anyone has claim to it. But I think that all of us have some sense of it, and speak about it as if it is real. There are themes in everyone’s posts above. Jen spoke about compassion, and argued that it is better to error on the side of caring for more people. Tammy stated that there are many things that everyone knows is wrong. Polly described concepts of treating other people with the same rights one’s self desires. I got the feeling in T3knomanswer and Mike’s post that they started with the conclusion that it is better for society that we are all treated equally and found evidence for it, ignoring all the evidence that unequal treatment in society can also lead to great progress (Egyptian pyramids built by slaves, China’s current overwhelming success in the marketplace). While they might be right, I bet they also want equal treatment to be the best strategy for society, and would be disappointed if someone proved the opposite. Black Sun perhaps summed it up best saying that, if we have government, it “should be one that allows people of staggeringly unequal talents and genes to be fulfilled and to thrive with the least amount of suffering.” All of these descriptions of what is right share many things in common. They all seem to point in one direction.

My feeling is that many people truly see these ideas as being “right,” not just a random opinion of how they think things should be to benefit themselves. We all seem to share similar ideas. Now, you can view these shared ideas in two different ways. Richard Dawkins described the concept of “memes”, which are ideas which evolve, just as genes do, because they have a survival advantage. In essence if we didn’t think this way we would be extinct. I think this is fair. You could call this “herd instinct.” You could call “the golden rule” heard instinct. But, if it were, it would also be ok to ignore it. The desire to have children can be considered a “herd instinct,” and it is ok to ignore. Yet I think if someone were to ignore the ethical “herd instinct,” we would see this action as something different, as truly wrong.

To respond to Siamsung’s statement that I am seemingly unaware of models of ethics outside of religion, I can understand where that statement comes from especially with the views held toward theists. But, I must say I am fluent in ethical concepts of consequentialism, utilitarianism, deontology and with writers such as Sartre, Mill, and Hobbes. In fact, it was my exploration of ethical principles that led me to the conclusion that there is an absolute right and wrong. If there is not, than everything is based on what is trying to be achieved. If everyone has a different goal, than what should and should not be done is relative to what a person’s goal is. There would be no “right” and “wrong” in the traditional sense, there would only be actions and outcomes, and those outcomes would either be desirable or undesirable by an individual.

So I understand that the fact that I can’t accept a world without absolute right doesn’t make it so. But I also see a trend in people with atheist perspectives acting also as if there is an absolute right which isn’t just relative to an individuals goals. I think if a person ignores that they do this, it is intellectualy dishonest. I have not spoken with a person of atheist perspective who is comfortable admitting there truly is no absolute right or wrong.

For example:

The ideas above state that ethics in government can be simply a societal contract based on the consensus of the community. As Siamang states, “I vote for the society that I would like to live in.” I am familiar with the polls which conclude that America currently would not vote for an atheist president. (Just to clarify, I would vote for an atheist president.) If what is being argued from an atheist perspective is true, that government should not based on absolute ethical principles (absolute right and wrong) but rather on the goals established by the consensus of the community, than the current situation in America where an atheist will not be elected as president is undesirable for atheists, but is not wrong because it is the consensus of the community. It is only with the belief in absolute right and wrong that you can argue it is truly wrong.

-Lee (The Theist)

What is the “true atheist perspective”? I didn’t realize anything like that existed.

My suggestion to the The Theist would be to pick up Richard Dawkin’s A Devil’s Champlain, and read the very first essay (with the same title), as well as the Ethics section from the “Memo for Tony Blair” (if he/she has not done so already). But, to save time, I believe this quote from the book is a suitable response on its own to the question of science and ethics:

Science has no methods for deciding what is ethical. That is a matter for individuals and for society. But science can clarify the questions being asked, and can clear up obfuscating misunderstandings.

As a sort of side note: just because science doesn’t provide an answer, doesn’t mean we automatically must turn to religion. And, atheists don’t use science for everything. To do that would be silly.

Now, so I actually address the main question, I’ll offer a definition:

faith
n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one’s supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Atheists (and, I think, a fair amount of theists) only really object to 4 and 5 (and maybe 2) being used in the government to decide and enforce legislation, particularly when it is unreasonably harmful or preferential (though these are objectionable no matter the source). That does not meant we object to all faith used in the government, or anywhere else for that matter.

I know I didn’t answer the question, but this comment is getting long, and I don’t think I can answer it as well as others have or will. Sorry.

As Siamang states, “I vote for the society that I would like to live in.” I am familiar with the polls which conclude that America currently would not vote for an atheist president. (Just to clarify, I would vote for an atheist president.) If what is being argued from an atheist perspective is true, that government should not based on absolute ethical principles (absolute right and wrong) but rather on the goals established by the consensus of the community, than the current situation in America where an atheist will not be elected as president is undesirable for atheists, but is not wrong because it is the consensus of the community.

No.

It doesn’t mean “majority rules”. If you’ve taken Rawl’s veil of ignorance and boiled it down to “majority rules”, you’ve made a huge error.

The problem with accepting the “consensus of the community” as the correct interpretation of “the world that most people want to live in” is it ASSUMES that a lack of atheists in government is the majority’s overriding desire for society.

Rather, I think fairness is a higher desire for most Americans. If I can convince them they’re being unfair, they will change their minds about electing atheists.

The entire idea of the veil of ignorance is that if you vote out atheists today, you’ve set up the idea that tomorrow it could be methodists, or jews or whoever.

Only a secular government can fairly represent a religiously diverse population. Government is granted its power by those governed, legislators ought to go about the business of governing, not praying to the majority deity for guidance.

Secularists are not anti-God. They understand religious freedom much better than the majority. Freedom doesn’t mean getting the government to espouse faith to all of the population. It’s having a government that says nothing about religion, so that we may all worship, or not, as we personally choose without any coercion, no matter how subtle.

I’d like to respond here:

Now, here might be a theists answer to the question of why a person should or should not do something. Because it is wrong, period. If you argue that X is wrong because it will result in Y, than a person who doesn’t care about Y won’t see X is wrong. If you argue X is wrong by definition, than that’s it.

Isn’t the option for theists to believe in this way proof of the very idea that absolute right/wrong do not exist? Said another way, if the above position of the theist were true, wouldn’t I as an atheist feel compelled to agree by something internal and/or innate? Doesn’t my ability to disagree negate the necessity of absolutism?

You said:

would answer it this way. I think one goal as humans is to discover what that truth, or absolute right and wrong, is. I don’t think anyone has claim to it. But I think that all of us have some sense of it, and speak about it as if it is real.

Please make the critical distinction here–though we all have a sense of right and wrong, we do not all have a sense that it is absolute. That is your personal conclusion which you have adopted for yourself after your studies of Hobbes, et al.

Then:

If everyone has a different goal, than what should and should not be done is relative to what a person’s goal is. There would be no “right” and “wrong” in the traditional sense, there would only be actions and outcomes, and those outcomes would either be desirable or undesirable by an individual.

Yes! Yes! But those individual goals must still jive within the bigger context of the particular societal contract which the individual has agreed to make himself a part of.

I have not spoken with a person of atheist perspective who is comfortable admitting there truly is no absolute right or wrong.

Allow me to be the first then!

If what is being argued from an atheist perspective is true, that government should not based on absolute ethical principles (absolute right and wrong) but rather on the goals established by the consensus of the community, than the current situation in America where an atheist will not be elected as president is undesirable for atheists, but is not wrong because it is the consensus of the community.

Well, sure. It’s not “wrong” in any ethical sense. It’s simply a state of public opinion that is counterproductive and limiting to the atheist wishing to submit himself to public service. And precisely because it is a state of public opinion, it has the potential to be changed by a counter-opinion that is inclusive of those which were previously marginalized.

[...] going to explain what “Equality Under the Law” means. This post is motivated by a thread at Friendly Atheist. Here is the relevant question, posed to FA and readers by a theist, which started things: [most [...]

To answer the initial basic question: “can there be government without faith?”

Government is a system of rules by which a society functions.
The difference between society and sport is only one of scale. Society regulates much more of what you do, but it’s still a set of rules just like the rule book of American Football (or insert your favorite sport here) is a set of rules.
One cannot argue that faith had anything to do with the rules of football, so humans are clearly capable of establishing complex rules systems without resorting to faith.

If what is being argued from an atheist perspective is true, that government should not based on absolute ethical principles (absolute right and wrong) but rather on the goals established by the consensus of the community, than the current situation in America where an atheist will not be elected as president is undesirable for atheists, but is not wrong because it is the consensus of the community. It is only with the belief in absolute right and wrong that you can argue it is truly wrong.

It is only with belief in absolute right and wrong that one can argue that it’s absolutely right or absolutely wrong. But doing so is not necessary in order to change it. A system of government where the ruling class thinks what they are doing is absolutely right because of faith is one of the worst disasters imaginable.

In the Feudal system, everyone knew that God wanted society segregated (those who work, those who pray, and those who fight) with the peasants at the bottom. It was a matter of faith.

In governments with slavery, everyone knew that God wanted those with lighter skin to enslave those with darker. It was a matter of faith.

The only thing that’s truly absolutely wrong is the idea that we should base government on what the ruling elite thinks is absolutely right and wrong. As Susan B. Anthony said, “I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.”

Since we’re not going to get everything right the first time, it’s important that society be able to change through discussion and debate, voting and legislation. And the only reason we’ve managed to achieve such a system in the United States is because we were founded on the principle that some people having faith in a proposition is no reason to think that it’s actually correct.

Where this came from I don’t know, but I would suspect it may have evolutionary origins

Refer to his first flaw in an argument, you’re assuming your conclusion.

Atheists don’t following science like a religion, we throw in a little bit of reason to any scientific claim.

what is science if not “reason”. how do you mix reason in with reason and get something different?

I think a lot of people here are missing the point of the question. Compassion, common sense, etc. are not evolutionary. The natural world is harsh and for the most part selfish. If you are weak and can’t support your own than you die, period. Compassion, “common sense”, etc. obviously though is evident in humans, well most anyway. Atheist don’t have anything to base their values on other than personal convictions and obviously personal convictions are subjective. For example, when compared to Roman law our society has actually REGRESSED by getting rid of slavery. Now I believe everyone would agree it was inhumane but by who’s standard? Ethics, morality, love, freedom, etc. are all subjective terms if not based on an absolute truth.
If one does not have an absolute truth then you can’t make a claim of right and wrong based on anything else then your personal convictions. That’s the danger of having a belief that exists in a vacuum as atheism does. No objective moral claims can be made on any other grounds then a personal belief. Although that belief may be shared by others there is no grounds to state what’s right or wrong because a person’s values will be based on backgrounds, society, laws, etc. and those are all subject to change in different envionments. Can an atheist tell me that the killings in Darfur are wrong? If so on what basis do you make that claim? I think we would all agree that genocide, slavery and the like are immoral but to make that claim you would first have to have a truth to base that claim on. What is an atheist’s absolute truth?

So, while theists are doing the ethical equivalent of watching the sun revolve around the Earth, the non-religious are discovering new insights by thinking and exploring. Theism discourages this in the harshest possible terms (hell).

it’s interesting though that the majority of truths that non-theists come to are the same ones that the Bible ascribes to theists to do. Explore all you want to but the reality of humanity without God is a labryinth so called “truths” that are constantly changing. If you obey simply because you don’t want the consequences then you’re doing it for the wrong reason anyway. Would you not stand up for a child for fear you would die? Hell isn’t presented to be a discouragement it’s a consequence. The discouragement is a separation from God.
After all the atheist’s thinking what new ethical standard have you come up with that hasn’t already been presented? What moral bar have you set that hasn’t already been set by someone else in sometime?

@ olvlzl, no ism, no ist:

Notice my qualification at the beginning “When a theist says X is wrong, by definition”
IF a theist does not start out that way (”liberal” xians/muslims/Jews, etc.) then they, indeed, have room to grow. HOWEVER, there are scripture imposed limits and, invariably, they will either have to abandon some of the more prejudicial injunctions and taboos from their scriptures or reinterpret them with mind-bending logic.
Also, I don’t see GOD giving human beings the option of second-guessing his commands in any holy books. I’m glad liberal theists are open-minded; too bad their holy writ is decidedly not.

Looking back at my post, I wrote with only the literalist, fundamentalist theist in mind. This was mainly in response to Lee’s questions regarding absolutes. So, I acknowledge that it’s not only the non-religious who investigate the basis of their morality though, as mentioned above, I think anyone with a religion is probably accepting a certain amount of limitation. My apologies for casting too broad a net, but most, if not all, theists I know personally are definitely NOT of the liberal persuasion.
As for close-minded atheists. I absolutely agree. But, that’s not inherent in atheism. There’s no limiting factor for thouht, like a holy book imposes. That some get comfortable in a rut, is not a logical consequence of atheism. Fundamentalism is a logical inference from holy books.

If one does not have an absolute truth then you can’t make a claim of right and wrong based on anything else then your personal convictions.

I disagree. The mere fact of my existence in a material universe that gives me joy, that includes others like me, is enough for me to know that I must not interfere with your right to be and to seek your joy, and you must not interfere with mine. My judgment tells me that it would not be good for me to deny you that which I would demand for myself. I prefer peace to war; I would rather be your friend than your enemy; I would rather you respect my right to be than attempt to deprive me of my natural freedom. If you press me, and I cannot avoid a confrontation, I will prevent you from depriving me of my liberty. This is the basis of my morality: there is no god required; no religion; no absolutes–everything changes; nothing is absolute. The idea of the absolute is an invention of our crazy minds.

However, even if you are right, what does it matter? Any morality is only as good as its practitioners. Let’s say there is an ‘absolute truth,’ and that, as the Bible has said, “all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.” What can I conclude? Believing there is an absolute morality and breaking it every day appears to me no differently than believing there is no absolute morality and doing the best you can every day. Noble atheists are no better or worse than depraved Christians, or Muslims, or Jews, or Hindus, or Buddhists, or . . .

I again want to thank those who have posted. My intent of this post was never to prove the existence of God, or to disprove atheism. It was simply to explore the logical differences between the two views. I have enjoyed reading different viewpoints on this. I was never expecting to get a unified atheist perspective, just as one will never get a unified theist perspective.

I do want to thank “olvlzl, no ism, no ist” for making the point that theists are not by definition closed minded. I’d like to think I’ve given this topic as deep of thought as many atheists, and haven’t simply had my ethical principles, or theist beliefs for that matter, handed to me. I hope not to give the impression that I view my self with any ascendancy. In fact, I have struggled with many issues, and have read equal amounts of atheist literature as theist literature. I don’t see myself as too different as anyone else here, but I am interested at to what brought us to different conclusions, which is what started this exploration.

I hope people can see from my posts I have made that we seem to have similar values. I believe we all should be treated as equals. I believe we should treat others as we would want to be treated. I would welcome an atheist president, and feel the exclusion of a person for presidency based on atheist status alone is wrong. In fact, along with many on this blog, I cringe when our president quotes from the bible during national speeches. I am not all that different from people with atheist perspectives, and I would disagree with “infadeljoe” who concludes that it is religion that moves us away from compassion and empathy. I think many things can. Infideljoe and Miko point to many examples of where people have used religion to justify bad things. I agree that this is a problem, and I could also give many examples. This however doesn’t negate theism anymore that me giving examples of chemotherapy resulting in patient deaths negates oncology.

In regards to Marty’s post, I am familiar with the argument for personal incredulity. I don’t see how it defeats my argument, as I am not arguing that God is real, or that atheism is incorrect, I am simply exploring the logical reality of existence without God to see if people from an atheist perspective arrive at the same conclusions I have. Personal incredulity, from my understanding, is when you don’t believe something because it doesn’t seem plausible. I am not arguing God exists because atheism doesn’t seem plausible. Since it isn’t explained how it defeats my argument, I can’t really respond further. I don’t think it is fair to argue I am wrong because Richard Dawkins said so and can prove so. If the arguments he makes are good, I welcome you to reproduce and explain them in your own words. I could easily point someone in the direction of C.S. Lewis’ Abolition of Man for his argument for the existence of the Tao, but then we would just be arguing that “my dad is better than your dad.”

I do agree with “yingyang’s” statement that science does not have the ability to determine what is ethical. Values have to come from somewhere else, then science can tell us how to achieve those values. Yinyang also said that even though science doesn’t give answers, we don’t have to turn to religion. I agree. But my question is where do we turn. Again, I am not saying anyone is wrong, I just want to know where we look. Some have argued that we exist because we have instinctual values which have evolved to promote a survival advantage. But we can’t listen to instincts, there are too many with too many conflicting messages. As a parent I have devoted countless hours to getting my child to suppress instincts that I don’t value (grabbing what they want, hitting out of anger) and express instincts I do value. There seems to be something else which tells me which instincts are more valuable than others. So what can decide which instincts are more valuable than others, a higher order of instincts? You can see where this can lead. Instincts alone doesn’t seem to be the answer of where we get our values.

Here is how I currently understand how ethics are decided in a non-faith based manner. Let’s take the value that everyone should be treated equally. In a nutshell, I think that the argument is that I should treat others equally because in the long run it will benefit me. This is the concept in Game Theory (marty), John Rawl’s thought experiment (Siamang), or memes (Dawkins).

So then what happens in a circumstance where I conclude that treating people equally won’t benefit me in the long run. If this is the case, I no longer have to treat people equally, since one’s only argument for doing so is that it is good for me. One could only try to convince me that it is really good for me, but what if it really isn’t good for me in whatever circumstance arises. One good example is explaining why I should die for someone else. Nothing can be good for me once I am dead.

This I see as moral relativism. What is right and wrong depends of the goal or value, and the goal or value isn’t absolute. The conclusion of atheism to me is that there are no absolute rights or wrongs. There are also no absolute values. There are individual values which may or may not differ from others. When we as a group all share the same value, it may seem absolute, but it is really just a shared value.

So for example, if one were to argue that religious suppression of science is wrong, they would be holding pursuit for truth as a value. If it were only a personal value, than a person who didn’t value truth and tried to suppress it wouldn’t be wrong anymore than a person who didn’t like chocolate would be wrong. If you considered truth to be an absolute value, than you could say suppression of science is truly wrong.

Michael seemed to agree with this concept in his post, as did others. However, others seemed not to. I feel as if I do commonly witnessed people of an atheist perspective putting forth values as if they are absolute, when I don’t think one can logically derive them to be so. You will always have the question, “why is that wrong?” For example, given an answer “because it hurts people” the next question would be “why is hurting people wrong?” This reaches absurdity. At some point you have to either say “Its wrong because its wrong,” or you have to admit there is no absolute wrong.

Again, this isn’t an argument for the existence of God, it just to me is view of what the world looks like if there is no “theism”. Richard Dawkins agreed with the lack of absolute right or wrong in his debate with Collins in Newsweek.

Now, if from a theist (absolute right and wrong) perspective, I might say that we should treat people as equals because we are equal (perhaps we are all have equal souls inside unequal bodies), and because treating others equally is an absolute value.

Now, no matter what you argue will benefit me in the long run, treating people as equals will always be right and not doing so will be wrong.

C.S. Lewis, in his book The Abolition of Man, choose to call the concept of absolute values the Tao. In this book he doesn’t conclude the Tao necessarily proves God’s existence, but argues that the Tao exists. Many of us act as if it does, and if we act as if it does the intellectually honest thing to do would be to explore why we act that way. Again, instinct doesn’t seem to capture it all.

How we establish those values is a good question. I do believe it is possible. I think these values pop up repeatedly as far back as we have records, as the deacon pointed out. Any example that is given where assumption of the knowledge of absolutes lead to tragic outcomes I can counter by saying prideful arrogance, which is not valued, as well as other absolute wrongs played a role.

So getting back to whether faith is needed in government. If it is not in government, than I think government would be logically morally relative. Some might argue this isn’t bad, and that government already is. In moral relativism, we should treat people as equals, unless it doesn’t result in the long term benefit of the community, then we don’t have to.

It would seem better to me to have more absolute values in government, such as that we are all created equally and equally deserving to pursue happiness. We can’t prove such a concept, but embracing it as absolute truth to me would seem to involve faith, or believing it exists without proof.

I wonder if everyone agrees atheism logically concludes with moral relativism. Again, I am not saying that is wrong, but you can see that it might make for a difficult campaign.

-Lee (the Theist)