I don’t need a god to show me those things. They’re simple.

Which makes atheist morality superior to theist morality:)

Yes, and apparently you’ve got us beat in the humility department too.

I’m not good for any reason. I have no desire to commit crimes or to hurt other people. (I’m sure there are trivial ways I break the law but that’s not what I mean. I don’t want to steal or murder or beat up people, etc.)

It’s not even because I have empathy and can imagine how I would feel if I were the victim of a crime. I just have absolutely no desire to do these things.

If Christians really want to rape and pillage and murder and just don’t do it because the Bible prohibits it, those are some frakking scary people. I’m glad they have found some way to control their vile impulses, but I don’t find people who have vile impulses and control them to be much better in the big picture than people who have the same vile impulses and act on them. That’s just disgusting.

If you’ve honestly never had an impulse to willfully hurt another human being, or act selfishly at someone else’s expense, I’m guessing that puts you in the minority among the rest of humanity. Even the best of us have a dark side in my experience. In fact, the most insufferable people to be around (though I’m not saying this is you) are those who don’t think they have a dark side, and therefore assume that they are so much better than all those “sinners” out there.

However I don’t see how introducing God gives any additional justification for ethical behavior. It gives strong prudential reasons, since God threatens you with eternal hellfire for immoral behavior [1]. But how does the existence of God give a stronger logical basis for behaving ethically? Mike Clawson, you say:

However, I also know many Christians who think of the foundation of morality not as simply obedience to divine commands in order to avoid punishment, but as living in harmony with the very nature of the universe and our existence as human beings. . . Thus their “reason” for being good is in order to live in harmony with “the way things were intended to be”. . .

Mike, how is this different from my atheist end-position of “that’s how people should behave”? I see that you believe in a powerful entity who wants us to behave in a certain way, but leaving aside prudential reasons, I don’t see how this differs from “that’s how people should behave.”

[1] Actually, if the portrait of God in the Bible is at all accurate, He threates you with hellfire for not following manifestly immoral standards, which actually makes the prudential religious position immoral, but that’s another issue.

http://vaneramos.livejournal.com/610052.html
http://vaneramos.livejournal.com/604750.html

Re: A Jew’s First Bacon….One of these days I’ll write about the day evangelical Christianity lost its hold on me.

Cheers,
Van

“Why would you feel like a minority at a Christian church?” She asked.

“I’m an atheist.” I replied.

The whole classroom gasped.

I was shocked at the reaction, but I also realized that I’d never came out as atheist before. I was at a fairly liberal school in a very socially liberal class.

However, I also know many Christians who think of the foundation of morality not as simply obedience to divine commands in order to avoid punishment, but as living in harmony with the very nature of the universe and our existence as human beings… They believe that relationality, and therefore morality, is inherent in the very ground of all existence (which is also why these Christians are Trinitarians, and not simple monotheists). Thus their “reason” for being good is in order to live in harmony with “the way things were intended to be”, and not in opposition to it.

Take out the teleology, and this view of morality resonates with me. (Credit Madeleine L’Engle and Lewis Thomas.) However, it can be misleading. That’s why I first try to apply the utilitarian test — what would the consequences of this act be for sentient beings? — first. If that test is passed, the more subjective, poetic one comes into play.

For example, some hunters justify hunting as a way of getting in tune with nature and wild animals. However, the result is the suffering or at least loss of enjoyment of an animal capable of experiencing these things. Unless the meat is truly necessary for food, the first test is failed and the second one is not activated.

I certainly don’t always manage to do this or live out my decisions, but we’re all trying.

It’s not even because I have empathy and can imagine how I would feel if I were the victim of a crime. I just have absolutely no desire to do these things.

If Christians really want to rape and pillage and murder and just don’t do it because the Bible prohibits it, those are some frakking scary people. I’m glad they have found some way to control their vile impulses, but I don’t find people who have vile impulses and control them to be much better in the big picture than people who have the same vile impulses and act on them. That’s just disgusting.

I guess I could see from the idea that Christians believe we came from God, but without that constant tethered purse string to the sky pixie, is that the assumption that non believers are just raping and pillaging without concern? Sounds judgmental to me.