Next on the list of People Who Earn Points

[highlyeccentric]

A few weeks ago, Archaeostronomy won a special package of Bonus Points from me (not that I imagine he wanted them nor noticed their aquisition), for noting that creationism is an offence to sane christianity just as it is to him.

Today's Bonus Points go to Greta Christina, for pointing out something I hadn't even started to forumulate myself. When people- ok, goblinpaladin- start on the rant about Christianity, and Christian morality, etc being founded on the 'cowardly' basis of either a) fear of God or b) desire to PLEASE God or c) both, I tend to just shut up and frown. Because it seems wrong, but how is one to argue without declaring one's morality to be nonreligious?¹

However, Greta pokes holes in the argument on her own, staunchly athiestic terms.

"The logical conclusion of atheism is amorality/ nihilism/ meaninglessness."

If you've been hanging around the atheism debates for long, you've almost certainly run into this argument....

It's an annoying argument. Largely because it flatly ignores the actual reality on the ground: the fact that most atheists are moral people, aren't nihilistic, and do find great meaning in their lives and the lives of others. It's an argument that prioritizes the believer's own beliefs and prejudices over the actual reality that's sitting three feet in front of them staring them in the face....

I want to talk about a parallel argument that I've seen some atheists make -- an argument that I think is every bit as flawed, every bit as troubling, every bit as willing to ignore evidence in favor of one's own prejudices.

It's the argument that theistic morality is inferior to atheist morality....
The argument goes roughly like this: Theistic morality -- and the idea that theism is necessary to morality, the idea that without a belief in God people will have no reason to be good -- is a childish morality. It's a morality that's based on fear of punishment and the desire for reward... and therefore it's an immature morality. The atheist morality is based on genuine feelings of compassion and empathy and fairness, a deep consciousness that other people have just as much right to live in this world as you yourself do... and therefore, it's a more mature, more truly moral morality than the childish theistic morality that "good" is what you get rewarded for and "bad" is what you get punished for.

And there are two reasons I think this is a bad argument.

Firstly, she argues for the neurological hardwiring of human morality, which sounds very scientific and smart, but probably doesn't make much difference in terms of value judgements like 'cowardly'... the argument is about the terms we FRAME morality in, anyway.

She goes on:

here's my second argument against this idea:

It contradicts reality.

I know a fair number of theists and other religious/ spiritual believers. And they clearly have the same basis for their morality as I do for mine. The believers I know don't do good because they're afraid of Hell. Many of them don't even believe in Hell. They do good for the exact same reasons I do: because they feel compassion and empathy for others, because they believe in justice and fairness, because they understand that other people are people just like they are, because they want to see the world be a better place for everybody.

They may believe that these morals were planted in us by God, while I believe they were planted in us by the evolution of our genetic hard-wiring. But the basic morals, and the basic motivations for those morals, are essentially the same as mine.

And if I don't like it when bigoted theists deny the reality of my morality, then it's not right for me to turn around and be just as big a reality-denying bigot as they are.

So, again: bonus points for including sane religites as a key point of the argument, rather than as a disclaimer clause.

~

1. And I do persist in the, ah, delusion that i do have some religious foundation in my moral system. I'm allowed to be deluded, so ner.

Comments

Re: Part Two

[daiskmeliadorn.livejournal.com]

If the Bible has been 'breathed by God,' then it is reasonable to use it as a text to see God's morality through it. One does not have to be a fundamentalist to use that argument. What other point does the Bible have, if not that? An historical source for the bronze-age, sure. A collection of mythology, sure. It is used for both of those things. However, if you are trying to use it as the basis for one's religion, then it MUST contain rules for living, or evidence for God's moral code.

The moral code for the God of the Old Testament is distinctly vile according to our modern precepts. If one is attempting to use it as a basis for morality, then one is using a pretty damn awful text as a basis for morality. That is my entire argument. The text is not relevant to the modern age; we have other sources for our morality.

look, again you are being way too simplistic. 'the moral code for the god of the old testament' is complex and often surprising. go and read some (good) biblical criticism...

it's not my problem if you insist that religion must = rules, moral code. i think otherwise, you apparently don't think such a thing possible...

If your God 'breathed' the Bible, he was evil then. He might be better now, that's great. But I see no evidence for it. The modern moral Zeitgeist is not based on anything from that collection of mythology and tribal stories.

sorry, wtf does the 'modern moral zeitgeist' have to do with anything? i'm not interested in obeying the modern moral zeitgeist...?

Your point about Machiavelli/Jesus only assists mine. The Bible is outdated as a collection of moral codes, and should be abandoned. And if one is abandoning the Bible as a measure of morality, what is left of Christianity?

this seems to me a strange argument, although i guess i might make sense to an ultra-modernist like yourself. personally i don't just throw out everything old or outdated. i would question whether the bible is a 'collection of moral codes' (and whether christianity is nothing more than the use of the bible as a measure of morality! it is more like a relationship with god, mediated through the church, my friend)

yes i think here the fundamental difference between you and i is that you seem to think that once things have been superseded, they are useless. i can see that from a scientific, modernist perspective that's logical, though, so i don't know how to convince you otherwise. although i would've thought that as a medievalist you would appreciate that some things are useful for different reasons - we can still learn from the past, even though stuff has happened since then/we are smarter (if that's what you believe).

as for the bible, obviously i have to take into account that it was written in a different context when i listen for what it means for me today.

[goblinpaladin.livejournal.com]

The moral code of the Old Testament seems limited to "God kills bad guys and fucks over good guys." The book of Job, for instance, is a long spiel about how God is really damn mighty and you had better bow.

I fail to see the complexity; even granted there IS complexity, does that make it even remotely palatable?

Your definition of religion seems to differ from the discussions I have read on the subject, if you do not think it includes moral codes.

i'm not interested in obeying the modern moral zeitgeist...

But you do obey it. If anything, you are on the forward-moving fringe of it; pro-feminism, pro-choice, pro-freedom of thought, Green-voting, etc.

i don't just throw out everything old or outdated.

I didn't advocate that: just throwing out outdated morality. Morality that oppresses sexuality, that condemns homosexuality, that despises intellectualism. These are outdated and should be discarded.

The only parts of the Biblical morality not outdated are the universal parts- things that other holy texts speak of, things that are (probably) hard-wired into humanity. Compassion for others, not lying, stealing, etcetera.

Discard the rest, and what is the purpose of the Bible except as an historical, mythographical and anthropological tool?

[Christianity] is more like a relationship with god, mediated through the church, my friend.

And God is defined as He is depicted in the Bible, but if you are not using the Bible to define God (because the Biblical god is malevolent), then how do you define God? If you make him up, if you draw from other sources, then this is not really Christianity.

It still effectively is, of course, because of the central position of Christ. But it would be so different from the current image of the religion that it might as well be something else entirely.

Christianity -as currently extant- relies heavily on the Bible. Why, given that the moral picture of God contained within is at such odds with the picture contained in your heart and words?

you seem to think that once things have been superseded, they are useless.

Not necessarily. Certain things are useless- the old 'science' of astrology is useless for predicting the future, for instance. But astrology is valuable to understand for appreciating the medieval (or Assyrian or whatever) mindset. So it is useless for what it was once used for, but is it useless in a total sense? No.

So for these reasons, studying the Bible is terribly useful. It helps us understand bronze-age Judea. It helps us understand the late Empire, the entire medieval period and a great deal of modern literature. It helps us understand the development of ethics and morality, even. But as a guidebook on how to live? Utterly useless. A summary, picking out the good and useful bits, that could be handy. Ethics courses still often include parts of the Bible for such reasons.

[ulfruna.livejournal.com]

[highlyeccentric.livejournal.com]

i <3 you.

[goblinpaladin.livejournal.com]

Oh, ulfruna, you are the best.