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

Part One

[goblinpaladin.livejournal.com]

it seems to me that sometimes you argue that "religion, per se, is a fundamentally flawed (at best; at worst, corrupt and corrupting) system" and at other times you argue that "well, actually, people who aren't TOO religious, i.e. fundamentalist, are actually okay, because they are remarkably similar to me/atheists".

Pretty much, yes. Religion IS an inherently corrupt thing- actually, I would extend that to all forms of theism, and throw in some other supernatural kookery to boot. At the same time, though, some folk are more actively harmful than others. You and our hostess are not as bad as the Discovery Institute is or Falwell was, for instance.

again i think you are basing your argument on a caricature of christianity/religion, or perhaps a minority view

Maybe/maybe not. Nonetheless, I am not and never have been attempting to apply the argument to everyone, only to those who hold that perspective. If it doesn't apply to you, that's fine. If it doesn't apply to your churches, that's fine. But it certainly applies to large, well-financed evangelical churches in the 'States, it certainly applies to large swathes of EU, it applies to parts of Catholicism. Most Christians I've encountered, the argument applies.

Which may be a problem with my sampling, sure. I tend to encounter the loud Christians, the ones who rail against secularism or hold talks on campus or harass people or whatever. I am sure there are many quiet Christians or liberal Christians who differ. That's nice. I acknowledged that point in both my original response to Our Hostess and every one to you thus far.

my morality may have the same results as that of an atheist [...] however there will be differences in how i approach certain issues because my morality is based in a different world view from yours.

Sure. For a parallel, a medieval blogger thought the best response to the recent violence in Kenya was to help out the white American evangelists in the area rather than sending money to the Red Cross. That is one example of a different response to an issue (presumably also different from yours). It is also a good example of how religious morality is wrong-headed, prioritising a potential afterlife over the real problems of this one.

Nonetheless, this is not the issue under discussion here. highlyeccentric and Christina were talking about the morality based on the carrot-or-stick. Christina claims that not all religious espouse it and the ones that do don't mean it anyway. I disagree; enough do that it is a problem, and they really do believe it. That it is factually untrue (they could stop believing in God and would still be moral; some do) is not the point: the point is that their belief is reprehensible.

Your morality would differ from mine on certain points. Super. Mine differs from Dawkins and Hitchens (certainly Hitchens!) on several points. Difference is good. Different moralities are good. Having morality based on fear or greed is not good.

even if there are a lot of these whackos in the world, it doesn't justify your (occasional) argument that there is something wrong with religion per se.

Yes it does. But that is, once again, a different argument. I am not, here, trying to argue that religion/theism is bad. Just that this particular facet of it is.

Re: Part One

[daiskmeliadorn.livejournal.com]

Sure. For a parallel, a medieval blogger thought the best response to the recent violence in Kenya was to help out the white American evangelists in the area rather than sending money to the Red Cross. That is one example of a different response to an issue (presumably also different from yours). It is also a good example of how religious morality is wrong-headed, prioritising a potential afterlife over the real problems of this one.

argh, and here another example of how you leap from 'some cases of reasoning that includes religious morality are wrong' to 'all religious morality is wrong'. you admit that this blogger's response would be different from mine, even though we are both (presumably) using 'religious morality'; but then you conclude, 'religious morality [you give no exceptions here] is wrong-headed ...'

you can argue that what you really meant was 'some religious morality is wrong-headed...', but you do this a lot - make broad generalisations and then back away from them. if you think religion per se is the root of the problem, then argue that! if religion per se is wrong, then you have to have a good argument that applies to people like me, amy, these quiet liberals you refer to, etc.

Nonetheless, this is not the issue under discussion here. highlyeccentric and Christina were talking about the morality based on the carrot-or-stick. Christina claims that not all religious espouse it and the ones that do don't mean it anyway. I disagree; enough do that it is a problem, and they really do believe it. That it is factually untrue (they could stop believing in God and would still be moral; some do) is not the point: the point is that their belief is reprehensible.

this is an interesting question, actually. highly's hero (pete hobson) argues that even people who claim, fervently, to believe in hell, actually don't, because otherwise they would never sleep at night. now there may be a few exceptions. but it's another complex question - what does it mean to really believe in something? if you go around saying you believe it, do you really believe it? who knows?

anyway, whatever. their belief, if they do believe it (and yes it is certainly possible that they do), IS reprehensible. we all agree on that.

Yes it does. But that is, once again, a different argument. I am not, here, trying to argue that religion/theism is bad. Just that this particular facet of it is.

ah, but these arguments always seem to start off with, and occasionally fall back on, the premise that religion/theism is bad. it's easy to argue that this particular facet of it is. you don't have to be the sharpest tool in the shed to see that. i expect more from you :)

[goblinpaladin.livejournal.com]

Er, I said it was an example, which sort of implies that it wasn't an absolute statement. As it happens, I do think it is wrong-headed, but I was not trying to make a case for that in this instance. It is far too long to bring up in a comment thread; when I make my case for that, it will be on a post of its own right.

I do make broad generalisations and then back away from them! Because in my haste I often type something that is broader than I intend. So when called on it, I always clarify my point. I would have thought that would be a good thing, and always expect it from others.

[T]heir belief, if they do believe it (and yes it is certainly possible that they do), IS reprehensible. we all agree on that.

So, uh, what are you disagreeing with? Was I not clear enough in my initial post that that was what I was saying?

I haven't fallen back on 'all religion' is bad yet; I am trying to make what would be one part of that argument here. That this kind of religious belief is bad. It seems self-evidently bad to you or I, but plenty of folk believe it.

As for Hobson, I always give people the credit that they believe what they say they do. I'll push them on it, but I'll believe their answers as being genuine. It seems to be the only fair thing to do.