How do atheists have morals?

doctoremma · 10-10-2009 03:25PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I have no reason to think that believing in God is irrational or inconsistent with reality in any shape or form. At least I don't have any decent reason to. I find Christianity to be convincing on a logical level, I can't say the same is true for atheism.

This is a whole other argument.

Jakkass wrote: »

There are also a rather large movement of scientists who believe in Christ in the UK and Ireland:
http://www.cis.org.uk/ireland/

Two lectures in the whole of autumn is a large movement?

Jakkass wrote: »

Ignoring the message that one puts forward because one doesn't like it is the height of anti-intellectualism.

No. Some messages deserve to be ignored because they are patently ridiculous. This does not mean they shouldn't be given airtime - let people shout out whatever they want. But to claim that they "deserve" to be heard because of sheer weight of numbers is a non-argument. People deserve the right to speak because most of us would say freedom of speech is a basic right in a modern society. People do not, by weight of numbers, deserve to have their opinion counted and nor does it mean they should feel free to make thinly veiled threats about the consequences of ignoring them.

I ask you again - if 84 % of people demanded the renactment of slavery, would you try to engage them or would you laugh at them?

Jakkass wrote: »

Fantastic, but if you are trying to convince people that your viewpoint is valid, it's ultimately futile.

I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. I'm trying to stop others bothering my life, dictating the law of the land and deciding what my children get taught or even exposed to.

doctoremma · 10-10-2009 03:31PM

Again, regional versus on the ground. I can only tell you that more than half of the Christians I know on my own university campus study science subjects, some to a rather advanced level. They reconcile their faith, and their science.

Sorry, a chunk of text got deleted from my response.

You are approaching the question backwards. Within a group of chirstians, I would expect a normal distribution of study subjects. What you need to ask is: of the scientists you know, how many are religious and how does this compare to the level of religiosity within the general population? I bet you'll find your assertion that the concept of a barrier between science and faith is ridiculous isn't borne out by the numbers.

As an aside: I'd absolutely love to know how rigorously a christian reviews a biology paper for a journal. "Well, I'd love to see some experimental evidence at this point.. but... the authors are saying it's true so I guess...". Seriously, I imagine they have as much scientific rigour as the next person, I just find it reamrkable that this skill isn't transferred to their personal beliefs.

PDN · 10-10-2009 03:49PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm merely saying if we are to take dragonsgates seriously, s/he is suggesting that 16% should ignore 84%. Fantastic, but if you are trying to convince people that your viewpoint is valid, it's ultimately futile.

Well, to be fair, people are free to ignore whoever they want. However, it is the belief that ignoring us will make us vanish that is fantastic and futile.

doctoremma · 10-10-2009 03:53PM

PDN wrote: »

Well, to be fair, people are free to ignore whoever they want. However, it is the belief that ignoring us will make us vanish that is fantastic and futile.

I don't know. Religions rise and religion fall so it's a fair bet that the days of christianity are numbered. In 2000 years, people will be talking about christian mythology and comparing it to the Greek version (which frankly, sounds like a whole lot more fun and obviously equally as believeable).

PDN · 10-10-2009 03:59PM

doctoremma wrote: »

I don't know. Religions rise and religion fall so it's a fair bet that the days of christianity are numbered. In 2000 years, people will be talking about christian mythology and comparing it to the Greek version (which frankly, sounds like a whole lot more fun and obviously equally as believeable).

I support and defend your right to indulge in such wishful thinking.

JimiTime · 10-10-2009 04:00PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's misrepresented for some people but a substantial number of people think that morals come directly from the bible and therefore atheists don't have them

Well I must admit I've never come across that, but I have come across atheists claiming that people claim it. 'I get my morals from the bible', does not translate into, 'Atheists can't be moral', so that may be where misunderstanding occurs. The issue is, and obviously speaking as a Christian, that we have been created with a sense of right and wrong, i.e. We are all moral beings. The line about 'I get my morals from the bible' is true to the Christian, but incomplete. The bible informs our concience, so we get alot of our moral information from it. It gives us Gods standards, but it is not what makes us moral. I think this is what most Christians would think.

CerebralCortex · 10-10-2009 04:02PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I have no reason to think that believing in God is irrational or inconsistent with reality in any shape or form. At least I don't have any decent reason to. I find Christianity to be convincing on a logical level, I can't say the same is true for atheism.

This is brilliant stuff Jakkass keep it coming but while you're at it could you please in a simple, logical fashion, for once explain why.

doctoremma · 10-10-2009 04:06PM

PDN wrote: »

I support and defend your right to indulge in such wishful thinking.

Only fair and correct, given the amount of wishful thinking we have allowed you to indulge in over the last millenia...

doctoremma · 10-10-2009 04:07PM

JimiTime wrote: »

The bible informs our concience, so we get alot of our moral information from it. It gives us Gods standards, but it is not what makes us moral. I think this is what most Christians would think.

Sorry, this is probably an age-old and oft repeated question but how are you dealing with all the amorality in the bible, killing your kids, offering daughters for rape etc?

eamonpendergast · 10-10-2009 04:12PM

doctoremma wrote: »

And to extend that, what are the questions that annoy you most about atheism? And your responses?

I have been asked a couple of eye popping ones:
"So, do think murder is ok then?"

The most frustrating conversation was with my friend's girlfriend. The conversation moved to dead relatives and she was basically asking; if I ever thought that I would see them again and do I not think that they live on 'somewhere'?
I replied that I don't think I'll see them again and that the only way they live on is in memories of them held by friends and family.
To which she just said "I think that's sad" and then refused to discuss it further.
The notion that I was pityed for such a belief drove me mental. Never came across anything that frustrating while debating religion.

PDN · 10-10-2009 04:15PM

doctoremma wrote: »

Only fair and correct, given the amount of wishful thinking we have allowed you to indulge in over the last millenia...

I know I'm old - but not that old.

Sam Vimes · 10-10-2009 04:39PM

Jakkass wrote: »

We need to be more vocal about it. I agree with you in that respect.

I think you're missing the point. Not everyone who believes in some kind of higher power is the same as you. For an awful lot of them it has little or no impact on their lives and they don't want it to either. It's just a vague idea that there's some kind of higher power out there that gives them comfort

JimiTime wrote: »

Well I must admit I've never come across that, but I have come across atheists claiming that people claim it. 'I get my morals from the bible', does not translate into, 'Atheists can't be moral', so that may be where misunderstanding occurs. The issue is, and obviously speaking as a Christian, that we have been created with a sense of right and wrong, i.e. We are all moral beings. The line about 'I get my morals from the bible' is true to the Christian, but incomplete. The bible informs our concience, so we get alot of our moral information from it. It gives us Gods standards, but it is not what makes us moral. I think this is what most Christians would think.

You could almost say that people a few thousand years ago had moral standards but didn't think that they could just order people to follow them so they solved that problem by writing them down in a book and saying they were god's standards and therefore had to be followed. That would explain why the moral standards of all religions, including christianity/judaism, tend to closely match the standards of the time and place they came from rather than a single perfect standard.........

Turtwig · 10-10-2009 04:39PM

doctoremma wrote: »

I don't know. Religions rise and religion fall so it's a fair bet that the days of christianity are numbered. In 2000 years, people will be talking about christian mythology and comparing it to the Greek version (which frankly, sounds like a whole lot more fun and obviously equally as believeable).

I don't know about that, Christianity is a very well structured influential religion, the interpretations of the Bible will definitely change though e.g Homosexuality finally viewed as not a sin...wasn't meant to be taken literally after all.:rolleyes:
Religion merely adapts for changes in culture..

Jakkass wrote: »

They reconcile their faith, and their science.

Every scientist that I know who calls themselves a Christian can only be described as a romantic moderate.

Sam Vimes · 10-10-2009 04:58PM

Malty_T wrote: »

I don't know about that, Christianity is a very well structured influential religion, the interpretations of the Bible will definitely change though e.g Homosexuality finally viewed as not a sin...wasn't meant to be taken literally after all.:rolleyes:
Religion merely adapts for changes in culture..

Was thinking that myself tbh. With exegesis christianity will never have to be dropped. In a thousand years it'll be almost unrecognisable because they will have interpreted the hell out of it until it fits the society of the time but it'll still have the label

Malty_T wrote: »

Every scientist that I know who calls themselves a Christian can only be described as a romantic moderate.

True. When religious people hear of scientists believing in god they tend to assume that they believe exactly the same things they do but more often than not what they believe in is far closer to a deistic god, if it could even be called that. It'd be quite rare to see an experiment with step 3 as "and then a miracle happens"

Turtwig · 10-10-2009 05:14PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Was thinking that myself tbh. With exegesis christianity will never have to be dropped. In a thousand years it'll be almost unrecognisable because they will have interpreted the hell out of it until it fits the society of the time but it'll still have the label

True. When religious people hear of scientists believing in god they tend to assume that they believe exactly the same things they do but more often than not what they believe in is far closer to a deistic god, if it could even be called that. It'd be quite rare to see an experiment with step 3 as "and then a miracle happens"

Scientists beliefs are quite barmy tbh:D

Exegesis is class, fundamentally flawed by the principle of 'if you search for meaning in anything, no matter how vague it is, you will find it'..

Excellent Example

Recommend Watching his entire TED talk

Love Shermer, he's brilliant imo

doctoremma · 10-10-2009 07:11PM

Malty_T wrote: »

I don't know about that, Christianity is a very well structured influential religion, the interpretations of the Bible will definitely change though e.g Homosexuality finally viewed as not a sin...wasn't meant to be taken literally after all.:rolleyes:
Religion merely adapts for changes in culture..

Oh leave me be, a girl can dream, can't she?

Although, do you think Christianity will prevail or do you see some kind of unification of Abrahamic religions to form the new world order. If there's ecumenism at work, I predict the final format will look more Islamic than Christian.

doctoremma · 10-10-2009 07:16PM

Malty_T wrote: »

Scientists beliefs are quite barmy tbh:D

Exegesis is class, fundamentally flawed by the principle of 'if you search for meaning in anything, no matter how vague it is, you will find it'..

Excellent Example

Recommend Watching his entire TED talk

Love Shermer, he's brilliant imo

That's genius. I'll bookmark the talk. Although I could lose days on TED and that's not conducive to work...

PDN · 10-10-2009 07:24PM

doctoremma wrote: »

Oh leave me be, a girl can dream, can't she?

Although, do you think Christianity will prevail or do you see some kind of unification of Abrahamic religions to form the new world order. If there's ecumenism at work, I predict the final format will look more Islamic than Christian.

The evidence suggests otherwise. The forms of Abrahamic religion that are more ecumenical are those that are in decline. The fastest growing religious movements in the world are fundamentalist forms of Islam and Christianity. Even within Catholicism all the growth occurs in nations where Catholicism is more conservative - whereas Catholicism is in a tailspin decline where is becomes fluffy and a la carte.

Turtwig · 10-10-2009 07:26PM

doctoremma wrote: »

Although, do you think Christianity will prevail or do you see some kind of unification of Abrahamic religions to form the new world order. If there's ecumenism at work, I predict the final format will look more Islamic than Christian.

Probably not, as it is the fundamentalists that mainly decide these things.
However, if in the search for destroying evolution Islamic and Christian creationists join forces, then maybe it is possible, but even then I think it is extremely unlikely.:(

Edit : Damn you PDN!
You Gave a Better Answer too

philologos · 10-10-2009 07:44PM

doctoremma wrote: »

You are approaching the question backwards. Within a group of chirstians, I would expect a normal distribution of study subjects. What you need to ask is: of the scientists you know, how many are religious and how does this compare to the level of religiosity within the general population? I bet you'll find your assertion that the concept of a barrier between science and faith is ridiculous isn't borne out by the numbers.

I'm not particularly. The question has to be asked, if science is so opposed to Christianity why do people who are studying science get involved with Christianity instead of falling away. If the logical conclusion is that they are incompatible that is what would happen. Considering it does not, there seems to be some issue with your reasoning.

doctoremma wrote: »

As an aside: I'd absolutely love to know how rigorously a christian reviews a biology paper for a journal. "Well, I'd love to see some experimental evidence at this point.. but... the authors are saying it's true so I guess...". Seriously, I imagine they have as much scientific rigour as the next person, I just find it reamrkable that this skill isn't transferred to their personal beliefs.

I assume as rigorously as anyone else. It's nothing but baseless prejudice to say otherwise.

doctoremma wrote: »

Two lectures in the whole of autumn is a large movement?

The Irish one is smaller than in the UK, however they have had great talks on how faith and science are compatible (with Allister McGrath), and on bioethics. I happened to be at the bioethics one last year. These people are deeply involved in science and in their faith, yet find both to complement each other.

doctoremma wrote: »

No. Some messages deserve to be ignored because they are patently ridiculous. This does not mean they shouldn't be given airtime - let people shout out whatever they want. But to claim that they "deserve" to be heard because of sheer weight of numbers is a non-argument. People deserve the right to speak because most of us would say freedom of speech is a basic right in a modern society. People do not, by weight of numbers, deserve to have their opinion counted and nor does it mean they should feel free to make thinly veiled threats about the consequences of ignoring them.

This is nonsense. Absolute nonsense. What criteria do you have to discern what is ridiculous from what isn't? Personally I think that a lot of atheist argument is ridiculous, should I not sit and consider what people have to say though? Of course I should! Likewise for members of any other faith.

It's anti-intellectualism otherwise. In fact, it's based on a purely emotive response, devoid of any form of reason.

doctoremma wrote: »

I ask you again - if 84 % of people demanded the renactment of slavery, would you try to engage them or would you laugh at them?

You aren't comparing like with like.

doctoremma wrote: »

I'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. I'm trying to stop others bothering my life, dictating the law of the land and deciding what my children get taught or even exposed to.

You can opt any children you happen to have out of RE in any school. This isn't a reasonable excuse.

As for "bothering your life" I have yet to see how particularly. Evangelism should be always open however, as it comes under freedom of speech. If you happen not to like it just refuse and carry on with your day.

As for the laws of the land, the laws will reflect the will of the majority in democratic systems. It is up to you to convince the majority if you want change.

Turtwig · 10-10-2009 09:01PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not particularly. The question has to be asked, if science is so opposed to Christianity why do people who are studying science get involved with Christianity instead of falling away. If the logical conclusion is that they are incompatible that is what would happen. Considering it does not, there seems to be some issue with your reasoning.

You just love missing the point don't you:rolleyes:

Most Scientists aren't the Jakkassian type of Christian, most of them have romantic views of religion and science.

philologos · 10-10-2009 09:07PM

Malty_T wrote: »

You just love missing the point don't you:rolleyes:

Most Scientists aren't the Jakkassian type of Christian, most of them have romantic views of religion and science.

The point is that science and religion are not compatible.
If a Christian student is studying science, they should fall away if Christianity is incompatible with it.

The only thing that is missing is consistency. doctoremma doesn't follow through with her position, therefore it doesn't logically make sense. Either it is compatible or it isn't.

Your generalisation is just ridiculous by the by. Most people have unique relationships with God.

doctoremma · 10-10-2009 09:07PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm not particularly. The question has to be asked, if science is so opposed to Christianity why do people who are studying science get involved with Christianity instead of falling away.

Your observation that you know some scientists who are christian is answering a different question to that you have framed above, which resembles the original posed by me. My answer: belief in god/religion is incompatible with good "science", and the numbers demonstrate that scientists have lowers levels of belief than the general population of which they belong. The scientists I know who claim some ill-defined belief in magic men do so with an apology on their lips, with the full acknowledgement that it's somewhat illogical. But hey, they're the scientists I know. Perhaps you could share with me some of the ways in which your scientists reconcile their beliefe with work. I'd be genuinely interested to hear.

I assume as rigorously as anyone else. It's nothing but baseless prejudice to say otherwise.

Either you missed my "seriously" clause or you are ignoring it on purpose in order to suggest I am acting improperly.

The Irish one is smaller than in the UK, however they have had great talks on how faith and science are compatible (with Allister McGrath), and on bioethics. I happened to be at the bioethics one last year. These people are deeply involved in science and in their faith, yet find both to complement each other.

See my answer above.

This is nonsense. Absolute nonsense. What criteria do you have to discern what is ridiculous from what isn't?

My own judgement in detecting a baseless argument when I hear one. I'm sure you do the same.

Personally I think that a lot of atheist argument is ridiculous, should I not sit and consider what people have to say though? Of course I should! Likewise for members of any other faith.

Atheism is NOT a faith.

It's anti-intellectualism otherwise. In fact, it's based on a purely emotive response, devoid of any form of reason.

Having just googled anti-intellectualism, I find a necessary criteria for displaying such behaviour that there be an intellectual argumant presented to you. Interesting.

You aren't comparing like with like.

It doesn't matter. I'm suggesting that at some point, you will find an argument that you wish to disregard immediately. Is this still anti-intellectualism?

And what doesn't appear to "like with like" for you may not be the same for someone else...I don't want to get into who's really enslaving black people in this modern world.

You can opt any children you happen to have out of RE in any school. This isn't a reasonable excuse.
As for "bothering your life" I have yet to see how particularly. Evangelism should be always open however, as it comes under freedom of speech. If you happen not to like it just refuse and carry on with your day.
As for the laws of the land, the laws will reflect the will of the majority in democratic systems. It is up to you to convince the majority if you want change.

The law of the land should never rely on religious teachings. We all revolt at the thought of sharia law, why should we obey laws defined by christianity? Why aren't the laws of a land based on what's right and fair?

philologos · 10-10-2009 09:17PM

doctoremma wrote: »

My answer: belief in god/religion is incompatible with good "science", and the numbers demonstrate that scientists have lowers levels of belief than the general population of which they belong. The scientists I know who claim some ill-defined belief in magic men do so with an apology on their lips, with the full acknowledgement that it's somewhat illogical. But hey, they're the scientists I know. Perhaps you could share with me some of the ways in which your scientists reconcile their beliefe with work. I'd be genuinely interested to hear.

Pure nonsense again. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that Christians do worse science than non-Christians (in universities and the like).

doctoremma wrote: »

My own judgement in detecting a baseless argument when I hear one. I'm sure you do the same.

I think that it is worthy of assessment and thought.

doctoremma wrote: »

Atheism is NOT a faith.

I never said that it was. Although in some cases people do seem to have a lot of conviction that God doesn't exist.

doctoremma wrote: »

Having just googled anti-intellectualism, I find a necessary criteria for displaying such behaviour that there be an intellectual argumant presented to you. Interesting.

Indeed. Christianity is an intellectually satisfying life ideology that people devote study to all around the world whether they believe in it or not. In fact Jesus Christ and Paul the Apostle amongst others are regarded as philosophers in their own right in academia.

Unless you are claiming that philosophy isn't academia.

doctoremma wrote: »

It doesn't matter. I'm suggesting that at some point, you will find an argument that you wish to disregard immediately. Is this still anti-intellectualism?

I think it is anti-intellectualism to reject what people have to say immediately without thought or consideration, especially if it has huge implications for how one lives their life.

doctoremma wrote: »

And what doesn't appear to "like with like" for you may not be the same for someone else...I don't want to get into who's really enslaving black people in this modern world.

It's a fallacious comparison. You are equating Christianity and slavery.

doctoremma wrote: »

The law of the land should never rely on religious teachings. We all revolt at the thought of sharia law, why should we obey laws defined by christianity? Why aren't the laws of a land based on what's right and fair?

You will have to convince the majority that this is the case. I personally think that people should be perfectly free to advocate Christian virtues amongst many others in a secular polity. I take the same view as the current PM of Australia on this issue:

A [truly] Christian perspective on contemporary policy debates may not prevail. It must nonetheless be argued. And once heard, it must be weighed, together with other arguments from different philosophical traditions, in a fully contestable secular polity. A Christian perspective, informed by a social gospel or Christian socialist tradition, should not be rejected contemptuously by secular politicians as if these views are an unwelcome intrusion into the political sphere. If the churches are barred from participating in the great debates about the values that ultimately underpin our society, our economy and our polity, then we have reached a very strange place indeed.

Turtwig · 10-10-2009 09:28PM

Jakkass wrote: »

The point is that science and religion are not compatible.

Of course they aren't! If they were religion would be taught in science class. Even Ken Miller admits that science and religion aren't compatible. A person can have both, but only if they are open minded about both, that was his point and I fully agree : fundamentalism be it atheism or theism is not compatible, nor will it ever be, with science!

philologos · 10-10-2009 09:30PM

Malty_T wrote: »

Of course they aren't! If they were religion would be taught in science class. Even Ken Miller admits that science and religion aren't compatible. A person can have both, but only if they are open minded about both, that was his point and I fully agree : fundamentalism be it atheism or theism is not compatible, nor will it ever be, with science!

I disagree with you. Religion and science are dealing with different questions. If they were dealing with the exact same questions, there would probably be some form of incompatibility.

Turtwig · 10-10-2009 09:31PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I never said that it was. Although in some cases people do seem to have a lot of conviction that God doesn't exist.

Not YOUR God though Jakkass, Alot of people definitely don't believe in Him.;)
I'm open to the possibilty of a deity, yours though? Almost certainly not!:p

Turtwig · 10-10-2009 09:40PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree with you. Religion and science are dealing with different questions. If they were dealing with the exact same questions, there would probably be some form of incompatibility.

Jakkass,

Seriously, that *urgh*
ahem

Everytime science answers a fundamental question if it conforms with religious beliefs it is paraded as the religion being true, if not however......#

Science and religion are in principle like nitroglycerin and peroxide : left alone they are ok (when used appropriatedly)...but when you mix em...

Sam Vimes · 11-10-2009 12:58PM

Jakkass wrote: »

The point is that science and religion are not compatible.
If a Christian student is studying science, they should fall away if Christianity is incompatible with it.

The only thing that is missing is consistency. doctoremma doesn't follow through with her position, therefore it doesn't logically make sense. Either it is compatible or it isn't.

Your generalisation is just ridiculous by the by. Most people have unique relationships with God.

You're forgetting the incredible human ability to believe what it wants to believe. If someone can look at a Lisbon guarantee that says "The decision is legally binding" and still deny that it's legally binding, it's not one bit surprising that some people are able to be scientists and christians at the same time. It doesn't mean they're compatible, just that some people are able to convince themselves that they are

Sam Vimes · 11-10-2009 01:01PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I disagree with you. Religion and science are dealing with different questions. If they were dealing with the exact same questions, there would probably be some form of incompatibility.

Religion deals with questions that science doesn't, some would argue irrelevant question like assuming there's a "why" behind the universe and then trying to find out what it is, but religion also tries to muscle in on science's territory by answering questions like how the universe was created (assuming it was) and how humans and the earth came about. Also miracles are explained through divine intervention when in reality they're just freak occurrences.

Not to mention religious experiences which are natural functions of the human mind which are attributed to whichever god the experiencer happens to believe in

How do atheists have morals?

Comments