Okay, right. As you've already pointed out, her first reason for disagreeing with the argument is flawed: the point isn't about where morality comes from, but the way it is societally structured. I already *know* that the broad basis of everyone's morality (probably) comes from genetic influence as much as anything. The issue at hand is how that morality is interpreted- be it from a "Daddy WILL spank you" God or personal thought and exploration.
But the other problem with that argument is that our broad morality might be genetic (don't lie, cheat, murder) but specifics of it are not. If it were so simple, we would not have a traditional of philosophical and ethical study spanning millennia. There are details that hard-wiring does not provide. There are people whose genetic predispositions differ slightly that we must convince rationally to do good.
In other words, her first criticism only addresses part of the point, and even then not very effectively. The medium through which we interpret morality is as relevant as the morality itself. Moreover, there are details of morality not inherited and/or that must be discussed and refined. Slavery is evil NOW but it was not two centuries ago: a shift in the moral Zeitgeist.
She does make a side note, saying that the hellfire-and-heavenflowers justification of Christian morality is pretty sick, so she acknowledges that criticism. Fine. I think it's a stronger criticism of her point than she does, but whatever.
...when you ask them [believers] whether they would steal or murder if it could be proven to them that God didn't exist, in my experience most of them say No.
True, many of them do say no. But in my experiences with arguing with them -especially fundamentalists- they only say this because they do not believe it is possible to show God does not exist. They do not say no because they would not; they say no because they do not believe the question is worth responding to honestly. The few who do genuinely say no are also usually people who have a startlingly non-religious morality, a point I will come back to later.
Greta is clearly speaking to more liberal Christians than I in these discussions. At any rate, the Christian who says, "No, I would not murder if God did not exist," lose the argument right there. They have essentially pointed out that their morality does not rely on God. This doesn't make the atheist argument wrong: it makes it right. Truly moral people Do Not Rely On God for Morality.
So Some religites- the ones who acknowledge their morality does not depend on God, are the good people Christina talks about. Fine.
But that doesn't make the atheist argument wrong. The atheist argument is "People who rely on God for their morality are relying on fear to do good. This is bad. Therefore they are bad people. We do NOT do that. Therefore we are good people." Any Christian who does not fall into the category espoused in the first sentence, the argument does not apply to.
Let us face it: Christian 'morality' as espoused in the Bible is abhorrent. It's cruel, it's twisted. Torture and murder and sacrifice of first-borns is okay if God wills it. No modern, thinking, moral person can deny that the God of the Bible is fucked-up. When you add in the idea that one MUST be good lest this God punish you, you have the makings of a twisted morality. Anyone holding to it is clearly not a moral person -according to modern morality- by definition.
Christians who do not hold to it, are therefore exactly the same as Atheists. Not lesser, nor greater. Not the best of men. Just people, but ones who have shed the hideous and the frightening for the enlightened and the freedom of choice.
Or, to put it more simply, the atheist argument Greta is railing against is only made against those Christians to whom it applies, and not to all of them, everywhere.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2008-03-14 12:12 am (UTC)But the other problem with that argument is that our broad morality might be genetic (don't lie, cheat, murder) but specifics of it are not. If it were so simple, we would not have a traditional of philosophical and ethical study spanning millennia. There are details that hard-wiring does not provide. There are people whose genetic predispositions differ slightly that we must convince rationally to do good.
In other words, her first criticism only addresses part of the point, and even then not very effectively. The medium through which we interpret morality is as relevant as the morality itself. Moreover, there are details of morality not inherited and/or that must be discussed and refined. Slavery is evil NOW but it was not two centuries ago: a shift in the moral Zeitgeist.
She does make a side note, saying that the hellfire-and-heavenflowers justification of Christian morality is pretty sick, so she acknowledges that criticism. Fine. I think it's a stronger criticism of her point than she does, but whatever.
True, many of them do say no. But in my experiences with arguing with them -especially fundamentalists- they only say this because they do not believe it is possible to show God does not exist. They do not say no because they would not; they say no because they do not believe the question is worth responding to honestly. The few who do genuinely say no are also usually people who have a startlingly non-religious morality, a point I will come back to later.
Greta is clearly speaking to more liberal Christians than I in these discussions. At any rate, the Christian who says, "No, I would not murder if God did not exist," lose the argument right there. They have essentially pointed out that their morality does not rely on God. This doesn't make the atheist argument wrong: it makes it right. Truly moral people Do Not Rely On God for Morality.
So Some religites- the ones who acknowledge their morality does not depend on God, are the good people Christina talks about. Fine.
But that doesn't make the atheist argument wrong. The atheist argument is "People who rely on God for their morality are relying on fear to do good. This is bad. Therefore they are bad people. We do NOT do that. Therefore we are good people." Any Christian who does not fall into the category espoused in the first sentence, the argument does not apply to.
Let us face it: Christian 'morality' as espoused in the Bible is abhorrent. It's cruel, it's twisted. Torture and murder and sacrifice of first-borns is okay if God wills it. No modern, thinking, moral person can deny that the God of the Bible is fucked-up. When you add in the idea that one MUST be good lest this God punish you, you have the makings of a twisted morality. Anyone holding to it is clearly not a moral person -according to modern morality- by definition.
Christians who do not hold to it, are therefore exactly the same as Atheists. Not lesser, nor greater. Not the best of men. Just people, but ones who have shed the hideous and the frightening for the enlightened and the freedom of choice.
Or, to put it more simply, the atheist argument Greta is railing against is only made against those Christians to whom it applies, and not to all of them, everywhere.