« American Idol Confessions: Bo and Con | Main | Playgirl EIC Outs Herself as an Idiot »

Continuing Discussion on God and Morality

I really wanted to write a much longer post on the discussion of morality and God from yesterday, but I'm running late and it's going to be a hectic day, so I'll just scribble what thoughts I can now - and some of them are tangential, but important to my own discussion about the existence of God and the ability to live a good life without God.

In the comments on the post, Clark says:

In short, atheists have no idea the blessings an unrequited God showers upon them every day in every good thought, impulse, or tendency they experience. All the while they fail to understand the fact that were it

To those skeptics who believe faith in God is no more conducive to morality than non-faith in God, I would ask which of the two following philosophies is more conducive to morality: Christ’s ‘Golden Rule,’ or the ‘dog eat dog’ of Darwin’s “survival of the fittest?”

In the first paragraph, he is assuming that I have no ability to guide my own morals and that whatever good thoughts, impulses and tendencies a person has are not their own, but bestowed upon them from God.

If that is the case, can I just stop thinking all together? Can I stop weighing options, considering consequences and debating the merits of my actions if God is just going to steer me in the right direction anyhow?

It's an empty way to argue against atheism: "Well, sure you're a moral person, but you just don't realize that God is magically giving you these morals!" How? If I don't believe in this entity, if I don't make room for him in my life, if I think of him as nothing more than a work of fiction, how does he suddenly fill my head and heart with good intentions? And what of those people whose heads and hearts are filled with bad, bad things? What of serial killers and rapists and people who kick puppies? Why does your "unrequited God" choose to not shower them with morals and the ability to make good choices? What about the priests who have molested children? Those are men of God, yet they chose wrong, morally. All the while they fail to understand the fact that were it not for God they would be dead to any propensity toward morality. And what about those who are dead to any propensity toward morality, especially those who claim to be witnesses to God? How do you explain that?

In the second paragraph, Clark offers two philosophical choices. Problem is, whether or not you believe in God, you are not confined to only those two choices in regards to morality.

I point you to something I wrote only a month ago:

When people ask my how, as an atheist, can I honestly raise my children with any kind of faith or morals or values, I give them the short answer: because I still believe in the core teachings of Jesus. ...... Many people find their life's beliefs through historical figures, maybe in philosophers or economists or authors....Wherever you find something that pulls at your heart or your mind and makes you want to be a better person or make a difference in this world, embrace it....

See, I can still find moral ground and not believe in a higher power. The old argument that my morality must be based on wanting to please a higher power is so much bullshit. I want to live a good, moral life and teach my children to live a good moral life because that is what makes the world a pleasant place to be part of it. I answer to me. I am my own higher power. I do not need God to tell me that kicking puppies makes them hurt and that's a bad thing. I do not need a God to know that taking property that belongs to someone else is wrong, that turning a blind eye to someone in need of a helping hand is wrong.

The argument that God is steering us and we just don't know it is not one you can prove. It's rhetoric, effective for those times when an atheist tells you that they just behaved in a moral manner. And it's the smug Ned Flanders way of preaching down to us non believers that makes discussions like this more often than not pointless. You point to an invisible entity, an unproveable higher power and tell me that I am unknowingly being guided by him. Even when there are church going people who behave badly, even though there are murders and rapes and stealing and wife beating and molesting going on at this very second, God finds it in his heart to come on over here and help this atheist make the right choices in her life, without so much as leaving a calling card. I'm not buying it.

Just as much as I don't buy the "God is everywhere" theory. Take Reggie Jackson, for instance, who was in a car accident the other day and is alive and well today only because "the hand of God" was touching him. Well, ain't that nice. But what about the hundreds of other people who were in car accidents the same day? What about this couple? Not only did God decide that they didn't need his hand, but he forgot to shower good thoughts and impulses upon the two drag racers responsible for the accident.

You argue this with someone and they will say "but God is not interventionist." Fine. Then don't tell me he's guiding my thoughts and morals. Conversely, I won't try to convince you that Binky the Magic Space Clown is guiding yours.

Ok, I've already gone far, far off the path I started from and now I'm very late. As always, this early AM post is dashed off quickly and may require some editing later.

Here's some further reading:

Our Godless Constitution

Update: Just to reiterate, I am not belittling people who have faith in God - any God (see here). I am, however, taking issue with those who put forth the theory that because I don't have that faith, I cannot be a moral person, or if I am moral person, it's because God is making me so.

Update: Please see Alex's two parter on the subject here and here.

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Continuing Discussion on God and Morality:

» Picking up the discussion - Morality & God from Darleen's Place
Michele picks up today a a discussion on morality and God that she began yesterday. It is yet another great piece of writing by Michele and I wish to answer it at length. I do agree that a personal belief... [Read More]

» DOES THE EXISTENCE OF MORALITY REQUIRE THE EXISTENCE OF GOD? from Heretical Ideas
[This is part two of a two part discussion. Click here to read part one.] The third avenue of discussion is the part that Michele is most interested in--is the existence of morality predicated on the existence of a deity (or deities)? This is a qu... [Read More]

» God, Morality and The Ten Commandments from Secure Liberty
Michele at ASV has an interesting discussion going on regarding the question of whether one can live a truly moral life without believing in God. The first post is here and the second one is here. Roy Moore, former chief justice of the Alabama Suprem... [Read More]

» http://intellectualize.org/archives/006586.html from The People's Republic of Seabrook
Continuing Discussion on God and Morality I tend to shy away from long, drawn out, and ultimately inconclusive arguments over the existence of God. Normally, I leave abstract theological “how many Angels can dance on the head of a pin?” deb... [Read More]

» Where Have I Been? from The World Wide Rant - v3.0
Oh, over here, fighting the good fight for Michele. Hey, did you know that putting up a proper and rational defense of godless morality means that you're a "pretentious ass backward [sic] dickless little fuck?" It must be true because... [Read More]

Comments

Brava, Michele. I mean, honestly, it seems like anyone with two working brain cells to run together would be able to reason out the multiple contradictions in most popular theist beliefs.

(Why do I call myself an apatheist instead of being bold and going all-the-way atheist? I don't know. Partly because I allow for the possibility of a logical theistic belief, and partly because I just don't have time to study theology—I've got bills to pay and laundry to do.)

A belief in god removes responsibility from the shoulders of the believer. After all, 'god is in control', omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. Doesn't leave much room for a lowly person to be an independent actor.

An atheist, on the other hand, acts in a moral way simply because it is their personal responsibility to do so. No fear of hell to compel them, no enticements of heaven to bribe them. Atheists act morally for the very best reason of all - because it is the right thing to do.

First Thoughts

The core of any ethical system is, never piss off the neighbors.

Ahhh! Deep thoughts in the morning!

AIAPN,
A belief in god removes responsibility from the shoulders of the believer. After all, 'god is in control', omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. Doesn't leave much room for a lowly person to be an independent actor.

This is not totally true. It IS true for Islam and a few sects of Christianity and Judaism. However, most branches of Christianity and Judaism teach the concept of Free Will. God created us with the freedom to reject him. (Ala Bruce Almighty). You've heard "God is Love"? Most Christians believe that love is God's very nature. They say that human beings were created to be loved by Him and to love Him back. Therefore, God did not make them as automatons, because true love means loving someone even when you have the choice to reject them.

Michele, what are we talking about here? You use the terms good and moral as if they were categories outside of human beings, independent of our own whims. That's quite un-atheist of you. After all, aren't good,evil, moral just human constructs? If not, where do/did they come from? Why are Mother Teresa's morals any better than Adolph Eichmans? Who says?

my post related to this is:
"pro-homosexuality liberalism is as a religion"

http://alessandrab.blogspot.com/2005/02/pro-homosexual-liberalism-is-religion.html

Yikes, this debate still here? (backing away slowly).

and the answer to all your lack of morality is here:
Jewish Buddhism

http://alessandrab.blogspot.com/2005/02/jewish-buddhism-is-answer.html

Alessandra - a) I don't see your post as related to this subject specifically and b) the title ""pro-homosexuality liberalism is as a religion" has nothing to do with what you wrote. I don't get it.

Also, I prefer that when people leave comments, they engage in the discussion and not just drop a link to their blog in as their only contribution. Oh, look. TWO links. I'm going to charge you for advertising if you drop one more URL, k?

I don't believe in an interventionist god

I searched the holy books
Trying to unravel the mystery of Jesus Christ the savior.
I read the poets and the analysts
Searched through the books on human behavior.

Bravo to G and Johno. They know why.

I usually avoid discussions like this because of the emotion it brings out in people but I feel safe discussing it here.

I am not an atheist but I have yet to find a religion that isn't rife with contradictions when it comes to a code of behavior. I believe their is a "higher power" but more along the lines of karma or Star Wars' "The Force." Something that binds all living beings and can either be followed or ignored. It is the reason we know that kicking puppies and stealing wrong almost instinctively. The more tuned into this you are the easier it is to maintain a moral life.

The personification of this power as God is where we start having trouble. People want to know "everything about God:" What it looks like, what it eats, what it smells like. etc. It is like trying to determine a dog's favorite color. (I believe dogs are considered color-blind, if not my example is flawed.)

We know "right" from "wrong" and choose to either accept or reject one or the other all the time. I also believe the more you are in tune with "The Force" the more you get from it. This is why some people can go through life almost charmed. They succeed seemingly without trying because they can draw on this power. And the ones that do the best are viewed a either great philanthropists or great villians.

I feel like I need another twenty paragraphs to adequately explain myself (Time to start my own blog?) but I am going to leave this because it is a good start and becuase criticism here seems to be constructive and intelligent with flaming (and because I am late for work).

Damn. I meant without flaming.

Personally, I think the whole thread is missing the point. The following points are made quite clear in the Bible:

1. God is holy (meaning 100% good, not a trace of evil). His nature provides that he cannot stand to be in the presence of sin. In fact, God's holiness demands a penalty of eternal death (separation from God) for sin.
2. Man is born imperfect, and every man has sinned. Thus, all men deserve eternal death. No amount of human accomplishments can merit favor in God's eyes.
3. However, God is also love. The greatest love is sacrifice. God the Son took human form as Jesus Christ to become the sacrifice, conquer death on the cross, and offer himself as mediator for us before God.
4. With this sacrifice 2000 years ago, God has provided something we don't deserve, and has saved us from the fate we do deserve. That's where our free will comes in. We also have to make a decision to love... to choose to believe in God, accept Christ's sacrifice, and turn your life to Him... or not.

And as far as all the morality stuff is concerned, everyone's capable of doing good works, for whatever reason. Big deal... even the Pharisees, condemned by Christ, did good works to earn God's favor, but more especially the favor of the people.
I believe God has absolute standards. They're clearly written and affirmed in both Testaments of the Bible. Sure, all men are capable of obeying them...

I'd like to make perfectly clear out of this that man doesn't and shouldn't play a passive role in a relationship with God. Love and Faith in God don't mean you just sit back and let God interpret your morality for you... what it does mean, however, is that Christians take the initiative to read the Bible, pray, find out what God wants for their lives, and obey Him.

I know this might touch a soft spot for Michelle and others, but if you want to see how God changes people in radical ways, listen to the testimony of Brian 'Head' Welch. Hopped up on speed and meth, it looked at him that there was no way out of the pit into which he was sinking.
I've seen too many extreme life changes to think that we, humans, have the ultimate answers to everything.

As the originator of "Binky the Magic Space Clown" (blessed be his big red nose and floppy shoes), I demand you cease from using his name to further your evil influence!

(As an aside, for lots and lots of "your theology is irrational" reading, just search my site for Binky)

Seriously though, I've not got much to add to what you wrote. People like Clark remind me of the phrase "If you think elves make it rain, then every time it rains you'll have proof of elves." Arguing with someone whose position is based on the unproveable existence of a magically-delicious being is, I've found, generally a fruitless endeavor.

But fun.

Pietro, not to take us off topic, but you're saying that God can't stand to be in the presence of sin (which he created) and that we're sinful creatures (which he created), so he had to sacrifice himself to himself to remedy something he was responsible for anyway?

Religion is funny.

I'm with you, Michele. One thing that's always surprised me about a lot of theists is that they genuinely seem to believe that the only thing keeping people from just randomly going around raping, murdering, and killing is Yahweh (or fear of Yahweh sending you to eternal damnation.)

It just seems like such a peculiar way to look at things, whether you believe in God or not. Enlightened self-interest is quite enough to keep me from committing random acts of wanton violence, for instance.

Of course, David, then they'll add something to the effect of "Yes, but what if you knew, with absolute certainty, that you wouldn't get caught; surely then you'd behave immorally!"

Well, no, in much the same way that, even if I knew no one would catch me doing it, I wouldn't taste my own poop. The entire exercise just holds no appeal to me, nor does killing a man just for snoring.

Interesting discussion, I'll answer at length later (and yes, I agree thoroughly one can be an atheist and be moral, just as one can profess a belief in God and be immoral)

one quibble though ... I don't believe Ned Flanders ever talked down to anyone. Did something happen to him in recent seasons (I just haven't watched much of them)...or do some take him as "smug" only because he doesn't hide/apologize for his faith?

Could that be why some characterize GW Bush as "scary" and "trying to shove his faith down our throats"?

What is it about the knee-jerk antagonism to Christianity (echos of the 60's) that suspiciously views people who don't treat their faith as an embarrassing trait, like reading porn, as preaching? (this is a general observation, especially about writers in the MSM that cover stories in which people of faith are featured).

This is a hard thing to touch on because it so easily offends. The belief in God, or a god, or no god is such a personal conviction that really invests alot of emotion into that belief, that to experience a contradiction to that belief is to really experience a contradiction of self. In other words, if you are an atheist, and someone says you are wrong, it is more than just an idea that is being called wrong, it is your self being called wrong.

That being said, to me, morality isn't put out there by a higher power. I think that morality is placed into you by those who influenced you while you develop. If you don't steal, or don't kill, or respect elders, or whatever, what is the cause of that? Is it that some higher being downloaded a set of beliefs into your conscience? Or is it that if your stole a stick of gum, hit your sister, or cursed grandma you were punished by your parents or someone else?

I believe in God. I am a Catholic. But I thank my parents, and my grandparents, and my aunts and uncles for raising me right. They are all Catholics too. And maybe I got yelled at for swearing because Sister Mary Teresa yelled at my pop for swearing, and made him kneel on an eraser. And maybe that is where the religious connection to morals comes from. But I like to think that my elders, my ancestors, had a hand in who I am today. And now that I am older and hopefully wiser, I can pass on what I think are the good morals I learned from my parents. Thats where I think morals come from.

I think the following story demonstrates what happens when we put ourselves in the hands of a man-made moral framework:

Rav Hutner's "Mitzvah L'Farsem" [Mitzvah To Publicize] Story

When Rav Hutner was learning in Slabodka he remembers that Rav Avraham Elya Kaplan went from Slabodka, Lithuania to Berlin to be with Rav Dovid Tzvi Hoffman. He came back to Slabodka for an Ellul [the month before Rosh Hashana] and the Alter from Slabodka asked for his impressions of the German people.

Among other things, Rav Kaplan told them that the Germans were a kind people. They had a polite way of speaking. If someone asks directions from a German, he doesn't just give orders (go two blocks and take a right); after he finishes the instructions, he will politely ask "nicht wahr?" (Is this not so?) This showed refinement. He would not say anything definitive; he would always end the sentence with a tentative, 'nicht wahr?'

At that point an argument broke out between the students of the Yeshiva. Was it right to praise the Germans? There were those who argued that it is wrong to praise them. We don't learn manners from other communities. [Their spoken customs might be only skin deep. We need to look into our own sources for ethics that penetrate.] There was one student who persisted and argued that if one sees something nice in another culture, that should be learned and accepted and even praised. "Nicht wahr?" is a sign of politeness and thoughtfulness. It showed modesty and was admirable - why not learn it from the Germans?

Fifty years later, Rav Hutner was saying a shiur in the Chaim Berlin Yeshiva. A Jew walked in and said, "Do you remember me? I was that student in Slabodka that complemented the custom of the Germans and insisted that their way of speaking showed how gentle and fine a people they were."

Rav Hutner indicated that he did remember this student and he stuck out his hand to greet him. The Jew stuck out his hand and there was a hook in place of a hand. He lost his hand in the concentration camp.

He told Rav Hutner, "When the German cut off my hand in the concentration camp, do you know what he said?" The German said, "It hurts - nicht wahr? – Is it not so?"

"You, Rav Hutner were right, and I was wrong."

When there is no Fear of G-d, when there is no Divine Authority, when there are no absolute laws, then there are no guarantees. It is not up to us to decide "Never Again". We can not guarantee that it will be "Never Again". Only the Ribbono shel Olam can determine whether it will be "Never Again".

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personalities & Sources:

Chernobyl Rebbe -- (1730-1798) Rav Menachem Nachum Twersky of Chernobyl; disciple of the Baal Shem Tov; author of Ma'or Einyaim.
Rav Elchanan Bunim Wasserman -- (1875-1941); Rosh Yeshiva in Baranowicze, Poland. Pillar of Agudas Yisroel in Europe together with Rav Chaim Ozer Grodzinski and the Chafetz Hayim; Holocaust martyr.
Malbim -- Rav Meir Leibush ben Yechiel Michel (1809-1879); Rabbi in Germany, Romania, and Russia; one of the preeminent Bible commentaries of modern times.
Reb Reuvain Bulka -- Rabbi of Congregation Machzikei Hadas, Ottowa, Canada; author and lecturer.
Rav Yitzchak Hutner --[1907-1980) Rosh Yeshiva of Mesivta R. Chaim Berlin, Brooklyn; author of Pachad Yitzchak.
Rav Dovid Tzvi Hoffman-- (1843-1921) -- Rabbi, biblical and talmudic scholar. Born is Slovakia, studied in Hungarian yeshivot; rector of Hildesheimer Seminary in Berlin.
Alter from Slabodka -- Rav Nassan Tzvi Finkel (1849-1927); spiritual head of Slabodka Yeshiva; one of leaders of Lithuanian Mussar movement.

When there is no Fear of G-d, when there is no Divine Authority, when there are no absolute laws, then there are no guarantees.

And this explains the Inquisition... how exactly?

"I think the following story demonstrates what happens when we put ourselves in the hands of a man-made moral framework:"

So, with God as our guide, there would be no wars, no genocide?

On preview, what Andy said.

"Yes, but what if you knew, with absolute certainty, that you wouldn't get caught; surely then you'd behave immorally!"

Y'know, I even get kinda uncomfortable (sometimes) doing really evil stuff in videogames that let you play the "bad guy." And there's no real-world consequence whatsoever there....

Sheesh. Everybody back s-l-o-w-l-y away from the keyboard.

My 2 cents:

Raised a Catholic, 12 years of parochial school, etc., etc.

I went through a long atheist period. Read Bertrand Russell's "Why I Am Not a Christian", the whole bit.

Went through a bit of trouble and landed in a counseling group, mostly consisting of people explaining why their troubles were everyone else's fault.

One night, one of the people was expounding on Why There Is No God, when the leader of the grup said, "What makes you think God has to prove his existence to you? For some reason, that really snapped me up. God is supposed to drop by like Crusty the Clown and do some lame-ass miracle so that you'll save your worthless ass? Who do you think you are, anyway?

For what it's worth, my belief in God has been helpful to me in living a morally and spritually rewarding life. Is it the only reason? No. Of course not. But I doubt I would be where i am without those beliefs.

Do I expect everyone to believe as I do?

Yes. I think I'm right. Why wouldn't I want others to benefit as I have?

Would I force my beliefs on you? No. I cannot force you to believe. I can only live my life as an example. Maybe I'll inspire someone along the way. Maybe I'll only help myself. That's enough.

I watched my children being born. No offense, Michele, but that experience was enough to convince me that there is a God. I can't imagine anyone witnessing such a miracle and not be moved.

Lastly, do I think atheists cannot be moral people? Of course they can. I happen to be under the delusion that Michele and I would agree on most moral matters, after reading ASV for as long as I have. I also think you're a strongly moral person. Maybe it's because of, and maybe in spite of, your atheism. That I couldn't answer.

My beef is with those who use atheism as a club to demean theists (Of whatever stripe, but mostly against Christians), and as an excuse for their condescension towards those who believe. Or as a crutch for moral relativism masquerading as "open-mindedness".

Just as you demand that I don't try to ram my beliefs down your throat, please have the courtesy to do the same for me.

Besides, belief in Heaven means that The Ramones will one day be back together...

OK... everyone can go back to debauchery and licentiousness.

It's not that hard to have moral standards without God. What makes Eichmann evil and Mother Theresa good? One caused pain and suffering, the other eased it. That's really all you need.

The idea that the Holocaust was caused by godless atheists is pretty questionable, too. You'd have a better argument if it were a gulag, but there are still many people out there who figure the mere mention of the Holocaust will sell anything, because who can question anything you said? It's the holocaust!

There were plenty of Christians in the Nazi party. The pope never spoke agaist the party, and most Lutherans were no better. There was also a sort of neo-pagan element -- but not atheist. If some SS Officer's wife's cousin has a book with irrefutable proof Hitler was an atheist, great, but it was never in the public image and never influenced his followers as a whole.

"What makes you think God has to prove his existence to you?"

It sort of follows from the whole "believe in me or go to Hell" demand he makes. Call me crazy, but I'd like to see the man behind the curtain before I go sacrificing my child to him.

I watched my children being born. No offense, Michele, but that experience was enough to convince me that there is a God. I can't imagine anyone witnessing such a miracle and not be moved.

Moved? Certainly. There before me was a beautiful life that my wife and I created by gettin' funky on the monkey. It's one of the high points of my life (the birth; the funky monkey is a close second).

Convinced there's a God? Sure, if you believe in a God who made my daughter a breach birth, a God who - had modern medicine not intervened - had, in doing so, great increased the chances that either my daughter or my wife would die from giving birth. Some God.

Nevermind that an all-powerful and all-knowing and all-loving god could surely find a better way of birthing than the biological equivalent of stretching a balloon over a watermelon.

And one can certainly imagine the joy and love for God that parents experience when their child is stillborn or born with their heart outside of their body or with half their brain missing and the cranial cavity caved in. Praise be!

P.S. I'm not trying to demean theists, only theistic belief. No one minds if I criticize someone for liking Good Charlotte, but woe unto him who dares mock the Lord.

Andy you are being disingenuous-the inquisition was not an order from god, but rather men perverting morality in Gods name. this is always a danger, whether we use a humanistic or divine model for our ethical code. but I think it is less likely if we follow a religous path along with a sprinkling of religous tolerance.otherwise why should anyones behavior be judged immoral if they have some justification("i don't like mondays")based on their own personal morality.

I believe religion can be a good, positive force in people's lives. The problems come when people rely on other human beings to intercede with the deity or deities for them. If you believe the Pope has a direct hotline to God, you're taking his word on it. If you believe that people who wrote religious texts were divinely inspired, you're taking their word on it. And one thing we do know for an absolute fact is that humans are often untruthful, to others and even to themselves.

When religious people listen to their own heart and don't do things that harm other people on the say-so of religious leaders, religious faith can be a force for good in the world. Unfortunately, throughout the entire course of human civilization, it frequently hasn't worked out that way.

You've raised an interesting question. I'm a born and raised Catholic who recently came back to the church (I didnt so much leave as I just wandered away ). My husband, who could be best described as an agnostic, continually humbles me with his ability to act on his morals, even in the smallest things. The people who are trying to make the case that God is making you a moral person do not understand the gift of free will that was given to us. We have to choose and it is in the choice that morals are found and acted upon. What I reject is the many athetists seem to be so profundly upset by faith and the expression of faith. I no more want to force religion on someone who does not want it than to be forced by those who do not believe to not attest or pratice my faith.

My forthcoming book 'The Tao of Lutheranism: Following the Path of Justification by Grace Alone Through Faith.'

will be published shortly after my upcoming excommunication.

_______________________________________

This would be the crux of the matter:

I am, however, taking issue with those who put forth the theory that because I don't have that faith, I cannot be a moral person, or if I am moral person, it's because God is making me so.</>

Well ... first things first - since your examples (e.g. 'not kicking puppies') are behavior based the conversation ends up being one about whether you, through your actions, can be described as 'moral' rather than considering your inner life, or predicting your future actions or whether you have some personal code against, say - kicking puppies, which is based on your personal belief that kicking puppies is, you know, bad ... but the question becomes what you, in the absence of laws preventing certain actions, would do and whether those actions would be considered 'moral'.

... you know what

... fuck it.

Shine on, you crazy diamond.

Andy you are being disingenuous-the inquisition was not an order from god, but rather men perverting morality in Gods name.

Given that the Bible was written down by men, who is to say the whole shebang isn't perverted by us mere mortals? Further, the Bible is chock full of behaviors I consider immoral and evil, such as killing homosexuals, which apparently came straight from the deity's mouth.

Unless you've had some personal revelation from the Big Guy, you're still dealing with the actions of men in their god's name. And if you HAVE had a personal revelation, I hear they make some really good meds these days.

this is always a danger, whether we use a humanistic or divine model for our ethical code.

I'm pretty sure that humanists don't pervert anything in God's name. :)

otherwise why should anyones behavior be judged immoral if they have some justification("i don't like mondays")based on their own personal morality.

Because that's pretty much the way it works.

It's arguable that the entire core of morality boils down to "it's fundamentally wrong to treat people as things". Everything else is details.

Great post, Michele. I may cobble together an entry of my own on my blog at some point, because I love this subject. But let me just say that you hit a lot of points that I agree with.

I actually wrote a paper for an english class not too long ago that evaluated various moral philosophies, which ended up largely being a musing on morality with some thoughts on God thrown in. As someone who doesn't believe in a conscious God and doesn't believe in Hell or any other sort of eternal punishments, I basically came to the conclusion that the good old Golden Rule works just fine for me. It's quite flexible, it doesn't require God, it doesn't require fear and it doesn't even require absolute moral truths. It's guided me well.

What makes you think God has to prove his existence to you?
It sort of follows from the whole "believe in me or go to Hell" demand he makes. Call me crazy, but I'd like to see the man behind the curtain before I go sacrificing my child to him.

You've misunderstood, perhaps deliberately. God isn't damning anyone. We're already heading there, because of our own choices. God is providing a way by which we don't have to be damned. We're all on a sinking ship; He didn't make it start sinking, He didn't make us jump onto the ship, but He is standing alongside with a lifeboat. Saying He isn't there or saying it's all His fault or saying the ship isn't sinking won't do you any good.

I recognize you don't believe this to be the case, but whether or not you believe it to be this way won't affect the reality of the situation.

Convinced there's a God? Sure, if you believe in a God who made my daughter a breach birth, a God who - had modern medicine not intervened - had, in doing so, great increased the chances that either my daughter or my wife would die from giving birth. Some God.

This argument only works if you believe God's job is to keep anything bad from happening to anyone ever. When your children were learning to walk, did you ever let them fall down, or did you always catch them before they could lose their balance all the way? When they fell, do you think they felt betrayed? Do you think they wondered why you would purposely let something bad happen to them? Or do you think they truly understood everything that was going on?

And one can certainly imagine the joy and love for God that parents experience when their child is stillborn or born with their heart outside of their body or with half their brain missing and the cranial cavity caved in. Praise be!

And I really appreciate the derision. It adds so much to my estimation of your well-considered words.

I'm pretty sure that humanists don't pervert anything in God's name.

No, you're just damning everyone who claims belief in a higher power - in the name of humanism.

You've misunderstood, perhaps deliberately. God isn't damning anyone. We're already heading there, because of our own choices.

Sorry, but an omniscient creator eliminates free will, all choice becomes illusory. Now, if you don't think god is omniscient, we can discuss free will freely (pardon the pun).

God is providing a way by which we don't have to be damned. We're all on a sinking ship; He didn't make it start sinking, He didn't make us jump onto the ship, but He is standing alongside with a lifeboat.

If he's the all-powerful, all-knowing creator, then - yes - in fact he not only made the ship sink, but he's weeing in it while we dump buckets overboard.

Saying He isn't there or saying it's all His fault or saying the ship isn't sinking won't do you any good.

Oh no, I'm going to Hell! The all-loving god is damning me for eternity! Nevermind the contradiction there!

I recognize you don't believe this to be the case, but whether or not you believe it to be this way won't affect the reality of the situation.

Actually, some of us are going to Valhalla and some of us aren't. I realize you don't believe any of that, but it doesn't change a thing. I'll be hanging out with Thor.

This argument only works if you believe God's job is to keep anything bad from happening to anyone ever.

Well, yeah, it follows from the whole omnipotent / omnibenevolent thing. Again, if you believe in a limited god, then this is viable topic for discussion. Otherwise, you'll have to devise all sorts of "logic" that is more twisted than the offspring of The Rubberband Man and a pretzel vendor.

When your children were learning to walk, did you ever let them fall down, or did you always catch them before they could lose their balance all the way?

I am not all-powerful. If I could use my Mighty Morphin' Jesus powers to give my daughter a life of nothing but happiness and pleasure, I would.

Now you'll say "but what kind of life would that be?" And I'll say "wow, it sounds a whole lot like Heaven, doesn't it?"

And I really appreciate the derision. It adds so much to my estimation of your well-considered words.

I'm sorry that the truth hurts. You can marvel at the world and say it can only be the handiwork of a God, but I'm not going to let him off the hook for the horrors of the world as well.

I know, I know - who am I to question God? Answer: a rational human.

No, you're just damning everyone who claims belief in a higher power - in the name of humanism.

I'm not damning anyone; I'll leave that to the all-loving God you follow.

I'm just saying theism is irrational. That's all. What else you decide to take from that statement is reflective of your own insecurities and prejudices.

Have a pleasant day.

While I wholly disagree with Michele's response to my cited comment, what I find most curious is why she takes such umbrage (“… don't tell me [H]e's guiding my thoughts and morals”) with the affirmation that—despite herself—she is daily accruing benefits from God’s existence, and from His solicitude on her behalf.

Michele seems to think she is thus being demeaned, or lessened. Quite the opposite—her true condition is that of a daily recipient of God’s love, which is something infinitely more precious than all this world can give.

Why can't she say, 'Well, I'm not convinced of God's existence, but if He's helping and blessing me anyway, I've got no problem with that; good for Him.'?

The attitude I'm suggesting here for Michele and other atheists sure beats a heart that shakes its fist toward heaven and essentially says, 'How dare God bless me, and how dare anyone suggest that He is.'

I'm going to get myself into big trouble here. When a Christian says, "you can't be athiest and be moral," they are mixing apples and oranges. I know, I'm a Christian and I love fruit.

But there is a point here that Christians are TRYING to make that might be worth more of our time than the above false diachotomy. Christianity (or at least individual systematic theologies and ethical principles resulting from it) provide rhetorical encampments from which we can fight out sociological battles from.

I think this is a GOOD thing. We need frames of reference easily established and commonly understood so that we can build an adequate (I loathe this phrase) "marketplace of ideas" to meet the needs of our society. You and I must interact. We must be able to predict eachother's behavor to socially cooperate.

If you only identify yourself as "athiest" you leave a Christian subscribing to the previous affliction unable to cooperate with you. Thus you both lose the opportunity to benifit from that cooperation.

Yes, someone simply calling themselves Christian create the same problem. If you approached me as you would some RCC-type you might me more familiar with, we too would lose an oppotunity to benifit from cooperation.

Of course, what he might be saying is that you can't be absolutist if your relativistic. But since I'm only relatively an absolutist, I probably don't know what I'm talking about.

Sorry, but an omniscient creator eliminates free will, all choice becomes illusory. Now, if you don't think god is omniscient, we can discuss free will freely (pardon the pun).

Sorry, but you haven't explained how omniscience negates agency. I personally believe in a God who abides by certain universal laws and who will defend forever our right to choose our own path.

Oh no, I'm going to Hell! The all-loving god is damning me for eternity! Nevermind the contradiction there!

So if you're dangling from a cliff, and I extend a rope for you to grab, and you won't grab it, I'm making you fall?

Actually, some of us are going to Valhalla and some of us aren't. I realize you don't believe any of that, but it doesn't change a thing. I'll be hanging out with Thor.

More power to you. If that's actually your belief, I will happily respect it. I don't understand it, but neither do I feel a need to belittle you for it. Similarly, I don't understand how people can like sardines, but I don't try to make the argument that anyone who does like sardines is stupid.

And I really appreciate the derision. It adds so much to my estimation of your well-considered words.
I'm sorry that the truth hurts. You can marvel at the world and say it can only be the handiwork of a God, but I'm not going to let him off the hook for the horrors of the world as well.

You're welcome to hate/criticize/doubt God as much as you want. I have no problem with that. I am disappointed that you choose to make a blanket attack on the intelligence of all those who believe in a higher organizing principle.

Faith is not rational. You may decide, based on reasoning, that the existince of a Higher Being is likely or unlikely. But that will make no difference to your faith. Deciding there must be a God doesn't give you faith. Accepting the validity of an argument against the existence of a God doesn't have to change your faith.

Are you purely rational? The way I see it, we all let ourselves be governed by at least a little irrationality. I don't believe that love, for example, is a purely physiological condition. My view of compassion, loyalty, jealousy, dedication (or pretty much any of the interesting emotions) wouldn't be considered rational, either.

I'm with Rae - we're praying for you, Andy. But don't worry - we can't possibly do anything by it.

The way I see it, we all let ourselves be governed by at least a little irrationality.

Quoted as truth.

Sorry, but you haven't explained how omniscience negates agency.

It's quite simple: if God has known for "infinite time" what actions I would take, before I took them, then I am, by definition, unable to do other than what God knows. He wrote the play and I am forced to stick to the script.

To claim otherwise is to say that he can know with absolute certainty something that is actually unknown, which - I hope you'll agree - is nonsense.

I personally believe in a God who abides by certain universal laws and who will defend forever our right to choose our own path.

Fantastic, and as long as you don't claim he's omniscient, we'll get along fine.

Here's a further complication: in the set of knowledge is every action God will take, thus if God is omniscient, he already knows everything he will ever do. He too is stuck in the script.

I bet Allah is behind it.

So if you're dangling from a cliff, and I extend a rope for you to grab, and you won't grab it, I'm making you fall?

You are if you made the cliff, made me, and then pushed me over, knowing in advance I'd not grab the rope, which is necessitated by everything I've already said.

More power to you. If that's actually your belief, I will happily respect it. I don't understand it, but neither do I feel a need to belittle you for it.

Really? You should, because belief in Valhalla and Thor is dumb.

The people with purple shrouds and Reeboks who overdosed on pills and vodka to meet the UFO behind Comet Hale-Bopp were dumb.

A belief does not automatically get respect by virtue of being a belief. Some beliefs are, you guessed it, dumb beliefs.

Similarly, I don't understand how people can like sardines, but I don't try to make the argument that anyone who does like sardines is stupid.

Yes, but they clearly are. :)

You're welcome to hate/criticize/doubt God as much as you want. I have no problem with that. I am disappointed that you choose to make a blanket attack on the intelligence of all those who believe in a higher organizing principle.

It's not a blanket attack on their intelligence; it's a criticism of their ability to reason in this specific area. I have many Christian friends who are generally intelligent people, but mention God and suddenly they speak gobbledy-gook.

Faith is not rational.

There, that wasn't that difficult, was it? That's all I ask for theists to admit about their faith... and most I know aren't willing. I completely respect and admire your honest (seriously).

Are you purely rational? The way I see it, we all let ourselves be governed by at least a little irrationality.

Of course I'm not purely rational - but I like to think I am in matters of such great importance as the reality around me.

I don't believe that love, for example, is a purely physiological condition.

Even though there's no evidence that it's anything but that - feel free to propose a ghost in the machine, but it's going to lead you back to irrational faith, as you indicate. And, hey, I'm completely cool with it so long as the cards are on the table.

I'm with Rae - we're praying for you, Andy. But don't worry - we can't possibly do anything by it.

I know - besides, if you could, it might violate that whole "free will" thing. But, then again, God did harden Pharaoh's heart, so he's not much for sticking to the rules either...

Faith is not rational.

Precisely. It is irrational.

How refreshing it is to hear a theist admit that.

I'm with Andy - we're thinking for you, Alexis. But don't worry - you won't allow yourself to benefit by it.

now tossing in the red meat: Dennis Prager
Though most college-educated Westerners never hear the case for the need for God-based morality because of the secular outlook that pervades modern education and the media, the case is both clear and compelling: If there is no transcendent source of morality (morality is the word I use for the standard of good and evil), "good" and "evil" are subjective opinions, not objective realities. ...

Years ago, I debated this issue at Oxford with Jonathan Glover, currently the professor of ethics at King's College, University of London, and one of the leading atheist moralists of our time. Because he is a man of rare intellectual honesty, he acknowledged that without God, morality is subjective. He is one of the few secularists who do.

And I'll add that mere faith is not an end to the discussion of morality, but the beginning. The Talmud is not a collection of religious edicts but a collection of religious/moral debate, kinda like looking over the pro/con Supreme Court opinions on any particular subject.

andy,

I believe that you misunderstand free will. It is not the omniscient God knows all and therefore you have to stick to the script, it is that He knows all and does nothing to prevent it.

Also, while you are spouting off about an all-loving God, there is the Old Testament God that is all-vengeful. Sodom and Gemorrah, the great flood, etc.

Faith is irrational, that is what makes it faith. The Big Bang Theory is irrational. A singularity is irrational. The spark of life is irrational. Love is an irrational emotion, so is hate. But you believe in something irrational because you have faith.

That being said, I believe that faith and belief in God is a personal choice. I will not stand here and tell you that God exists and you are wrong. I believe that God exists, but that is because He exists for me. Kinda like Santa Claus for kids. Far be it from me to tell you that you are wrong. Far be it from me to tell you that there is no Santa Claus, or in this case that there is a Santa Claus. If you belive in Santa and I tell you he isn't real, depending on your faith in Santa, you will either believe me or not.

Everyone has a view of what created them, and the strength in their belief in that creation is what faith is. You may believe in evolution, but there is no definitive evidence that is the case. If you believe that theory, then you have faith in it.

Sorry to ramble and rant. Your argument struck a chord with me. May you find peace, no matter what you believe.

(I am not a theologian, etc, etc)

Andy,

I think you may be underestimating omniscience.

Say I have a system composed of components, some with free will and some without.

If I know the rules this system operates under, and if I know the exact makeup of these components at the start, and if I know all interim and final outcomes that may arise from the interactions of the components of this system, I am omniscient regarding that system without compromising the free will involved.

Of course, even for a very small system involving free will, there are a near infinity of outcomes if I allow the hamster free will. That's why omniscience is impressive, I suppose.

The exercise of omniscience does not obviate free will, in this view.

Oops. The "hamster" was left from an example I deleted.
Sentence should read:

Of course, even for a very small system involving free will, there are a near infinity of outcomes if I allow even one component free will.

Andy:

Soryy you felt the need to heap scorn on my post. I said, as simply as I could, that my faith was a personal decison and had helped me to lead a better life.

If a person leads a moral life, and it is because of their faith in a higher power, then why does that bother you so?

Conversely, if you lead a moral life, and if it becasue of your personal belief that ther is NO god, so be it.

I fail to see why it bothers you so much that someone believes in something greater then them selves.

Irrational? Maybe. But so is love, and I believe in that.

Have horrible things been done in the name of God? Heck yes. But many wonderful things have been done as well. Far more than the bad, by the way. It's just that the bad, like any news, gets far more airplay than the good.

My belief in God has no effect on you, so long as I don't use that belief to deny your rights to life, liberty, or property. Conversely, your atheism should be the same for me.

Please, though, don't deride anyone who says that they'll pray for you. When someone wishes me well, I humbly accept the good thoughts and move on. Be thankful someone cares.

Lastly, as a personal aside, I'm sorry that your wife and daughter had to suffer through a breach birth. I certainly did not mean to cause you pain in my reference to the birth of my children.

Jeremy - I think you're defining omniscience in a way that is limited moreso than the typical Christian would be willing to agree with.

wiseacre - Rather than reply point-by-point (primarily because I'm going to happy hour in 19 minutes), just allow me to say that I'm perfectly fine with live and let live.

P.S. Evolution is a biological fact; it happens. The mechanisms behind it are the theoretical bit - much the same as we know gravity exists, but the mechanism behind it is not nearly so well understood (gravitons or invisible elves, you be the judge).

JoeB - Your beliefs, and those of others, on a day-to-day basis really don't concern me that much. My own life is more than plenty to worry about. However, when Michele starts a topic and the good theists chime in, I see nothing wrong with dissecting their arguments. It's rather how debate works.

And, no worries, no pain caused talking about my wife/daughter; it was just an example that came to mind. I ended up with one impossibly cute kid (as you can see here).

All - it's been oodles and noodles of fun; we should do this more often.

I never try to convince others to believe what I believe, because I generally find it pointless. People's beliefs are very rarely rational, nevertheless, people come up with some truly brilliant rationalizations for what they do believe. One thing that does bother me, though, is the claim atheists make that what they believe is somehow more logical or rational than my belief in God. I think that it is possible to have a rational faith in God, just as it is possible to have a rational belief (it can't truly be called a faith, I guess) that there is no God. My belief in God stems from my twin vocations as a physicist and an artist. The more physics I learn, the more I am struck by the profound elegance of nature. When people ask me why I believe in God, one of the things I always bring up is the equation governing force, where Force = mass x acceleration. And that's it. It's not the cube root of the mass times the square of the acceleration divided by the distance of which it operates, or some other hideously difficult equation. It is instead governed by a very simple equation. F = ma. The foundations of physics are all extraordinarily simple, and the sheer elegance of this appeals very strongly to my artistic sense. I believe that the universe was made, by a creator with a great appreciation of beauty and elegance. This is also one of the reasons I believe that the theory of evolution is accurate. It's so elegant I can't imagine God not using it.

Now, as for the question of free will. I think quite a lot of atheists--I'm not necessarily including you in this, Michele, I don't know where you stand--would argue that there is no free will. If we have no divine element, no souls or spirits or ki or whatever you want to call it, where does free will reside? I would argue that atheism allows even less scope for free will than does religion, because if we have no divine element then all we are is animals, who must act in accordance with our biological imperatives, and have no choice.

I choose to believe that the universe was created by an all-powerful God because I think that this belief system gives me the most personal dignity possible. I have an animal half and an angel half; when I act in a moral manner, I act on the advice of my angel half, but when I act immorally or amorally, my animal half reigns.

Without God, I have no angel half. I am merely a smart animal. Smart, but not necessarily wise.

You still don't have an angel half. Angels are a separate order of being. (Hey, it's in the manual. I didn't write the thing!)

I'm an atheist, thank god. (just kidding, actually an agnostic)

I remembered the Bible said anyone who didn't believe in God was a fool. So basically, if you don't believe in an all powerful deity, you're an asshole. Who here has successfully been able to reason with an asshole?

It might be arrogant, but according to christian teaching God doesn't need to prove his existence because it should be evident in creation itself. If any rational human being can't accept that there may be something greater than ourselves simply by watching how nature works with all its delicate balances, that guy is just fucked up beyond all recognition. I have to admit some merit in the argument. Say the world was seeded by super intelligent aliens. Say a group of ascended beings decided to have a little fun by creating a royally fucked up human race, say ANYTHING that could remotely explain the uncanny order of our solar system. I just can't accept that we exist simply because of a series of accidents and random events over eons of time. That my mind is nothing more than mere chemical chain reactions fired through synapses is just about the coldest motherfucking shit I've ever heard. I don't think even Stanley Kubrick believed that.

Think about it. If docs could find the chemical or reaction or neuron that makes you love your wife and children, does that mean if they sucked it out using a hypo or surgery or whatever, my family would immediately mean nothing more to me than dogshit? Damn, that's some cold ass shit man.

It's a metaphor. I know that angels are entirely separate beings, significant in that they do not possess free will. I was using them as a metaphor. Apparently a poor one, especially when one takes into account the fact that Satan is also an angel, albeit a fallen one.

Jeremy: "Andy, I think you may be underestimating omniscience."

How can you NOT underestimate omniscience?

If any rational human being can't accept that there may be something greater than ourselves simply by watching how nature works with all its delicate balances, that guy is just fucked up beyond all recognition. I have to admit some merit in the argument.

Nonsense. If any rational human being can't accept that the god is who greater than ourselves is so amazing that he needs an even greater god to have created him, that guy is just fucked up beyond all recognition.

Argument from personal incredulity and a flawed attempt at first cause argumentation. Woo.

I just can't accept that we exist simply because of a series of accidents and random events over eons of time.

Another argument from personal incredulity. Should I be impressed?

If docs could find the chemical or reaction or neuron that makes you love your wife and children, does that mean if they sucked it out using a hypo or surgery or whatever, my family would immediately mean nothing more to me than dogshit?

Have a frontal lobotomy or maybe develop Alzheimer's disease and then come back and tell us all about it.

You are your brain. So it goes.

Andy, is it possible for you to stop being a pretentious ass backward dickless little fuck for one minute? Jesus Christ. It almost makes me want to find religion just to spite your bitch ass.

Andy, is it possible for you to stop being a pretentious ass backward dickless little fuck for one minute?

Pretentious? I make no claim to my own importance and rarely use big words that might confuse you.

Ass-backward (note the proper hyphenation)? I see nothing I've said that is backward or in any way related to my ass or that of anyone else

Dickless? I do have a penis. If you'd like to validate it, well... too bad. Go back to dreaming of it.

Little? I'm not a tall man, that's true, but not terribly short either. We'll give you half a point on this one.

Fuck? Dude, I've been married for over seven years and have a daughter - what is sex? Remind me. Full credit.

So, out of your pointless and non-contributory little rant, you get 1.5 out of a possible 4 points. Not a very good showing.

I'm sorry that I've actually engaged others in debate and challenged their irrational assertions. I'm sorry that I don't give religious belief some special reverence simply because it happens to be "religious."

Oh, wait, no I'm not.

Now, piss off, little one. Hugs. Kisses. And smoochies all around.

It almost makes me want to find religion just to spite your bitch ass.

Given your apparently limited powers of reason, strictly organized religion would probably feel just like home to you.

Correction: 1.5 out of a possible 5 points; that's even worse.

Go self-flagellate for penance.

You do that already for sexual kicks? OK, fine, do it exta hard then.

acting in god's name over the last say 3000 years still outweights acting in the name of a godless man by about 15000 deaths to 1

so using the fact that god gave god-fearing men free will to persecute non god fearing men just doesn't help to justify the existence of said deity; using the absence of said-god-given morality to incite fear into the hearts of non-believers doesn't work either, and the existence of a god that allows a society to exist where the poor must remain so is what keeps most of africa, asia and latin america fucked up right about now. So capitalism and theism aren't really working for me, and niether are humanism and communism - any other suggesstions?

Out of idle curiosity, I'd like to know what the atheists and agnostics among us take as the basis for their morality. One person cited "enlightened self-interest;" what about the rest of you? Is it honor, or common sense, or something else?

Also, why do you think people exist? Science can tell us how we exist, but it can't tell us why. Are we here for any particular purpose?

"So capitalism and theism aren't really working for me, and niether are humanism and communism - any other suggesstions?"

I would say this puts you in a good place to be able to come up with something new. Perhaps taking the best parts of each, you might construct something, at least for yourself, which will give you happiness.

I agree with the earlier poster who said faith is irrational, as belief in something you cannot prove with logic is by its definition irrational. It is odd then, that I do not think I could be anyone else but someone with faith.

To those without faith, I wish you only good things, for to do otherwise is completely contradictory with my idea of what G-d requires of the faithful. Having said that, I must admit that as a normal human, there is a good chance that everything I think is wrong.

Here's more change for the pile.

God is not moral, God is God. How can you explain morality in someone who destroys a persons life just to show that He's in charge (Job). Or how about someone who sends an entire nation into slavery and hardship again to show He's the only God (Israel). Read through the book of Ezekiel and then talk about morality.

This is a force that is not interested in fitting into my interpretation of morality and justification. And yet God gives moral direction and expects me to live by them. Why? So I can gain favor, doubtful. If He was showing favor to Job, I'm not sure I can handle His favor.

But if I live according to these moral codes at least my life should be better. That does not mean I won't have hardship at times, but my approach to that hardship will be to stay strong in doing good myself and to be strong in standing against injustice, etc. Lots of nice things of that nature that I can do whether I believe in God or not. My belief then is unrelated to my morality or well being. I will worship God because I choose to regardless of whether things go well for me or not. Wasn't that part of God's test with Satan over Job, "do anything you want to him, he'll still worship Me."

Arguing morality and tieing that to faith is a colossal waste of time (kind of fun though). In the end I have to take responsibilty for what I believe and responsibilty to walk my talk. Beyond that, have a beer and be happy.

I'll post in more detail later but Pietro if you're still about look at the statement i am going to post bellow then read the book of job ( and several other areas of the OT/Tanahk) and get back to us

Pietro:
Personally, I think the whole thread is missing the point. The following points are made quite clear in the Bible:

1. God is holy (meaning 100% good, not a trace of evil). His nature provides that he cannot stand to be in the presence of sin. In fact, God's holiness demands a penalty of eternal death (separation from God) for sin.

As a conservative atheist I strive to separate myself from the more common liberal secular atheist.

The liberal has faith in society. He subordinates his determination of right and wrong to a relativism defined by the society he lives in. Its almost as if his morals are democratic. That is why to liberals civil unions aren't enough, they seek society's blessing of gay marriage. Because Society Is God to them.

As a conservative atheist I believe in the Individual, and distrust "groups of men" and their "laws." I believe that right and wrong are an objective part of nature to be interpreted by a rational mind. I recommend that faithful conservatives read Ayn Rand's writing on morals to get an idea that not all atheists are secularists (regardless of what you think of her other work).

Clark,

"Why can't she say, 'Well, I'm not convinced of God's existence, but if He's helping and blessing me anyway, I've got no problem with that; good for Him.'?"

And which God should we assume exists? The Jewish God? Christian? Allah? Krshna? Ahura Mazda? Thor? Inanna? Aphrodite? Zeus?

I'm religious, but I don't have my heads so far in the clouds as to think that my belief in a Higher Power makes me better than an atheist. As Ayn Rand showed, you can churn out a decent moral system by the power of reason alone. (Actually, her system is a damn sight better than any of those I've seen from the major religions.)

God created the universe and me and you in his image. He gave us free will and an internal guide called conscience. Therefore we have no reason to fear God nor to worship her. We each are the sum of the choices God gave us the authority to make. To believe otherwise is to believe in predestination, a truly dreary state of affairs. It is impossible to displease God. There is no "Wrath of God", God is only Love. Good and Evil are but a continuum from closeness to remoteness from God.

"1. God is holy (meaning 100% good, not a trace of evil). His nature provides that he cannot stand to be in the presence of sin. In fact, God's holiness demands a penalty of eternal death (separation from God) for sin."

Sounds kind of like Frankenstein creating a monster he couldn't bear to look at. At least Frankenstein had the balls to admit he made a mistake, rather than blaming the imperfection on the creature itself, but ah...

I don't believe in any absolute standards of morality, but am willing to abide by a certain contract with society in order to keep life simple. "Evil is that which causes excessive and needless harm or pain to another person; Good is whatever makes people happy without encroaching on the freedoms of others."

In this case, the aforementioned freedoms are also agreed upon beforehand, and are summed up fairly well in some famous Western document: "... Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." If you can't respect those rights, then it would be preferable that you join the dead as soon as possible, so that you do not make the living uncomfortable.

War and other forms of 'evil' are thus justified by the absence of a contract; the Muslim fundamentalists do not respect the mutual agreement, and may thus be slaughtered like cattle without any feelings of guilt.

Living by this code, I have never intentionally caused harm to another person, except in such cases when another person intended to do harm to me.

You will notice that nowhere in this philosophy is there an all-powerful being guiding the processes of lower forms of life. This is absolute free will-- if you harm another person, it is because you were willing to accept the consequences of your transgressions... the consequences which other humans will inflict upon you in order to preserve their own safety and happiness.

However, this implies that there is nothing inherently wrong with killing people; thus, if you do choose to kill someone, you haven't truly committed an "evil," but have merely forfeited your right to live under the contract (Which, in the most cases, means forfeiture of life PERIOD.) One could argue that this philosophy places no restraints on human behavior... but I prefer to think that if we live by rational self-interest, we will all be naturally disinclined to kill in the first place. It says more about you as a person than my philosophy if you are willing to kill nonetheless.

The short and sweet version:
There would be no need for morality, and thus no need for some God who dictates the arbitrary standards of morality, if only humans would realize that this life is all we have, and the best way to live is to avoid needless loss of human life. However, the fact that humans DON'T realize this does NOT lead to the corrollary that God exists for that very reason.

Here’s how Webster’s online (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=Moral&x=16&y=20)
defines moral:

of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment e : capable of right and wrong action

It seems to me that the idea you can be moral without God is kind of like the idea that you can go on the internet without a computer: Sure its possible in the technical sense (think PDA) but what you’re really doing is playing a very selective game of definitions to your advantage.

One aspect of the definition above deals with a conception of right behavior – in that sense anyone can be moral. If you think its fine and dandy to go around killing anyone who does not have blue eyes or blond hair or whatever your little uber-nazi standard of morality says – you are still conforming to a standard of behavior that is right in your eyes.

If you re-define “right behavior” to be what is right in the eyes of society – you really haven’t gained anything. At various times, places, and among various peoples many things we westerners think of as pretty terrible (like cannibalism, slavery, human sacrifice, genocide) were proper and accepted aspects of the societies in which they were practiced. Within the view of these societies, therefore, such acts and views were moral according to the definition you are using in this argument. Moreover, as such things evolved over time some things that were considered moral at one time would be considered not moral at a different time within the same society.

What I contend is that God provides a ruler to measure right behavior that does not change with the ebb and flow of what happens to be conventional wisdom in a society at any given instant in time, and is not able to be rationalized away in situations it is to the advantage of an individual, group, or government to do so.

God doesn't make sense to me. God doesn't really provide me with any answers, he just changes the questions.

There are basic questions:

How did God get created?

Has God existed for all eternity? If so, why did he wait so long (1/2 of eternity = eternity) to create us? Or have we (humans) existed for all eternity with him? If so, why all the geological and comological evidence that the time of humans, the earth and the universe is finite?

And moral questions (w.r.t the christian view of God):

Why make humans in the first place? Couldn't he have made us all loving him in heaven right from the start? What's the point of making freewilled beings? He knows that some of us will fail and he will put us in hell. Why bother with the game of life at all? Seems sadistic IMHO to set thing up knowing that some people will fail and spent eternity in hell.

Isn't an eternity in hell a little extreme for not loving someone?

Other questions:

If there is only one God, how can there be more than one religion? Or is only one right and all the others are wrong?

Cool thread.

1) Omniscience <> no free will. If I give my child a choice between a candy bar and a bowl of ice cream, and I know he'll choose the ice cream, does that negate his free will choice - "oh, I knew he'd pick that - he didn't really have a choice".
[quote]
t's quite simple: if God has known for "infinite time" what actions I would take, before I took them, then I am, by definition, unable to do other than what God knows. He wrote the play and I am forced to stick to the script.
[/qoute]
Wrong analogy. God knew what YOU were going to write, and allowed you to write it, and play the starring role. Can't blame God that you wrote a bad play. Free will doesn't cease to be free will just because God knows what you will decide in advance.
2) Adam had free will. He chose.....poorly (think Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade). At that point, all men died. Anything good that happens after that is gravy. Sorry, but there it is. Look at it this way - God could:
a) Create man without free will - robots who worship Him. What would be the point?
b) Create man with free will, even though He knew they would choose to sin.
Assuming God went with b), He can then:
i) Stop the experiment and prevent any more free will men from being born.
ii) Allow the experiment to continue for a time, and show mercy to some who use their free will to recognize and worship Him.
Here's a question for the atheists in the crowd (Andy? Michele?): Assume God exists. Assume He creates man with free will. What does your "logic" tell you "should" have happened? (I know andy's answer - God and free will can't coexist. Booo, avoiding the question, -2 points for you).
3) FYI - natural selection and random mutation is a biological fact - observed, documented, and repeatable in a lab. Random mutation developing "improved" or "more complex" forms of life is NOT a biological fact - not observed, and not repeatable in a lab (c.f. Fruit Fly radiation experiments). Therefore, the "process" of evolution, i.e. increased variation and degradation in species, is a biological fact - the theory of evolution as an explanation for the origin and development of existing species is not.
4) Haven't seen a reply to the question of "what basis does an atheist have for morality"? Would be interested in seeing a reply. Would seem to lead to the conclusion that an atheist's morality either a) has no objective basis, or b) comes down to a "majority rules" type of argument.
5) All people are hypocrites - we all break the moral rules we try to live by. This does NOT invalidate the rule. If someone who claims murder is wrong goes out and kills someone, does this mean murder is right? Of course not. Likewise, if someone or some group (e.g. Jesuits) goes out and kills/tortures another group (e.g. Inquisition), this does not invalidate the religious beliefs (e.g. Bible) that the group claimed to believe in.

When man denies the existence of God then he assumes values are man made. This is looking into the pit before leaping. From this point of logic how can one dispute that such logic brithed National Socialism, Communism and Fascism? It has given us abortion and will soon deliver us to the Netherland's late term abortion status (up to age 10). When man determines virtues, he also determines rights. These will be assigned and removed at the whim of man. From such reasonings are gulags built.

No thank you I'll put my faith in God.

Omniscience > no free will. If I give my child a choice between a candy bar and a bowl of ice cream, and I know he'll choose the ice cream, does that negate his free will choice - "oh, I knew he'd pick that - he didn't really have a choice".

Bad comparison. God supposedly knows with absolute certainty what is going to happen - not a likelihood, not a general idea, but absolute certainty.

The fact that a probability of a certain behavior exists introduces a gap for free will to exist; make the probability of any action equal to 1 and that gap vanishes.

Wrong analogy. God knew what YOU were going to write, and allowed you to write it, and play the starring role. Can't blame God that you wrote a bad play.

When God is the author of life, the creator of all, with completely perfect foreknowledge, then I didn't write the play.

Why is this so difficult for people to understand? I've more than adequately explained it above, yet people insist on focusing on either the all-knowing OR the creator aspect, without looking at both to see that it does negate free will.

Adam had free will.
No, he didn't (not that the story is true, but I'll play along). Before Adam ever existed, God knew what his creation would do - Adam was merely a cog in the machine of God's will to creation.
Sorry, but there it is.

Pssst... it's a myth.

Here's a question for the atheists in the crowd (Andy? Michele?): Assume God exists. Assume He creates man with free will. What does your "logic" tell you "should" have happened?

If God is the creator and all-knowing, then what "should" happen is what "has to" happen. It's a logical necessity.

Therefore, the "process" of evolution, i.e. increased variation and degradation in species, is a biological fact - the theory of evolution as an explanation for the origin and development of existing species is not.

I'll simply refer back to the extensive archives at Talk Origins rather than engage in this debate topic.

Haven't seen a reply to the question of "what basis does an atheist have for morality"? Would be interested in seeing a reply.

I've already recommended reading Ridley on the subject. Others have discussed expanding upon that with enlightened self-interest.

Do I think an objective and absolute moral code exists? No - I think that humans using their collective brains can continuously improve upon our understanding of morality through the application of reason rather than abandoning their brains to the gods.

Likewise, if someone or some group (e.g. Jesuits) goes out and kills/tortures another group (e.g. Inquisition), this does not invalidate the religious beliefs (e.g. Bible) that the group claimed to believe in.

I don't recall ever saying it did.

Anyway, it's been fun, but this comment thread is way too long and convoluted now.

TJ

Nice slippery slope logical fallacy.

Besides, we need to worry more about gay marriage because if we let the gays marry soon everyone will be butt-humping their dogs! Oh my!

The Zero Boss says,

Clark ... I'm religious, but I don't have my heads so far in the clouds as to think that my belief in a Higher Power makes me better than an atheist.

If by “better” you’re referring to a person's intrinsic worth, I have never said or implied such a thing. Whether believers in God or not, we are all of equal worth in God’s eyes, or—to reword the concept for atheist readers—‘in the grand scheme of things.’

What I would suggest, however, is that—all other things being equal—a vibrant, living faith in God tends toward a better life than is likely to be the case in following an atheistic worldview. If this assertion means my "head is in the clouds," so be it, though I would contest such a charge.

"It seems to me that the idea you can be moral without God is kind of like the idea that you can go on the internet without a computer"

That's a very good metaphor, except that I'd say it's more like trying to go on the internet without an ivory elephant statue. The two have nothing to do with each other, except inasmuch as you may take a picture of the statue and post it online.

"One aspect of the definition above deals with a conception of right behavior – in that sense anyone can be moral. If you think its fine and dandy to go around killing anyone who does not have blue eyes or blond hair or whatever your little uber-nazi standard of morality says – you are still conforming to a standard of behavior that is right in your eyes."

Ah, so now I'm a nazi. Well, okay. I must admit that wanton murder and genocide are a part of my personal philosophy as outlined above, if you rearrange the letters appropriately.

Anyway, sarcasm aside, I don't seem to recall saying that morality is merely the ethical consensus of society. I believe I said that I "am willing to abide by a certain contract with society in order to keep life simple." I took that to mean that I will keep my own behavior in check in order to avoid being killed by everyone else for, say, flipping off a box of kittens. I see now that I was wrong. Thank you for telling me what I think.

"What I contend is that God provides a ruler to measure right behavior that does not change with the ebb and flow of what happens to be conventional wisdom in a society at any given instant in time, and is not able to be rationalized away in situations it is to the advantage of an individual, group, or government to do so."

What I contend is that since the only record of God's relationship with man is in a WRITTEN document (the bible), it isn't much more viable than, say, the Constitution of the U.S.A, especially since the people back then were supersititious idiots-- even more so than today.

Yes, I agree it's terrible that life has no absolute moral standards, and I wish something could be done about it, but I at least understand that wishing for something does not make it so. We might wish that our lives had meaning in the long run-- but they don't. We might wish that there was less cruelty in the world-- but there isn't. We might wish that there was a loving entity on another plane of existence who cares for us-- but it's just idle fantasy.

I contend that we're all alone in the universe, and the only 'immoral' people are those who put forth a standard of morality-- and then violate it. I contend that the way to peace on earth comes NOT in the form of fear of some divine authority-- but in respect for your own life and others' desire to live in peace.

Heil mein fuhrer!

Hey did you know not everyone worships an omnipotent and omniscent god

so hey that might be a fly in some folks ointment

and remember folks Nazi Germany lead to a huge spike in christian church membership

Well anon you do raise two good points;

> contend that we're all alone in the universe, and the only 'immoral' people are those who put forth a standard of morality-- and then violate it.>

If you set your standards low enough, you're bound to have no problem hitting the target. Congratulations on unlocking the success to the power of mediocrity.

>We might wish that there was a loving entity on another plane of existence who cares for us-- but it's just idle fantasy. >

It really doesn't matter what you believe (or me for that matter) - it only matters what actually is. If you don't belive there is a God - there is no problem unless there actually is. In which case you're pretty much hosed.

"If you set your standards low enough, you're bound to have no problem hitting the target. Congratulations on unlocking the success to the power of mediocrity."

I suppose that's true. And I suppose you can ignore my previous explanation that if you would do terrible things regardless of the consequences, then it means you're a terrible person, not that my philosophy is invalid. But I suppose, then, that you'd have no problems doing terrible things if there were no absolute standards of morality set forth by your vaunted "God," whereas I behave in an honorable manner regardless of my disbelief in his very existence... so who is really the mediocre one here?

"It really doesn't matter what you believe (or me for that matter) - it only matters what actually is. If you don't belive there is a God - there is no problem unless there actually is. In which case you're pretty much hosed."

Well, that's one thing we can agree on... except that it DOES matter insofar as that believers tend to put forth silly and worthless moral standards which impede the march of progress at every step, a la bans on stem cell research, violations of civil rights, and increased pressure on the state to ban the teaching of evolution in schools as a heretical teaching.

Otherwise, if believers simply left nonbelievers alone, you would be absolutely correct.

Now that I really look at it, all I'm doing is espousing a reworded version of the Golden Rule. "Society lives by a contract agreement; Don't harm others, because you wouldn't want them to harm you."---> Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Seems kind of silly that you're trying to tear that down.

Despite my being ass-backward, dickless, and other fun things (so I am told), I have to say that this:
But I suppose, then, that you'd have no problems doing terrible things if there were no absolute standards of morality set forth by your vaunted "God," whereas I behave in an honorable manner regardless of my disbelief in his very existence... so who is really the mediocre one here?
...was a thing of beauty.

... the Alzheimer's comment was brilliant... it goes to the issue of what forms our "reality"... it's chemicals in the brain...
... my granpa (a loving, kind, gentle, bible believing minister) had Alzheimer's for his last 5 years of life... he no longer functioned as any of the above...
... my wife is bi-polar... for years we, family, friends, ministers, elders etc... prayed over her for healing... once a qualified psychiatrist got involved & prescribed some meds, problem solved... no more demon attacks & angel conversations etc...
... it's chemicals... evolution explains this... God doesn't... he was/is absent in all this...
... or, maybe He was playing another game of Job...

OK, back for one more:
If you don't belive there is a God - there is no problem unless there actually is. In which case you're pretty much hosed.
Awesome, this makes the 45,938,298th use of some variant of Pascal's Wager by someone trying to defend their faith. Zeus is gonna be pissed when all the Christians stand before him, don't you know?

"Despite my being ass-backward, dickless, and other fun things (so I am told), I have to say that this..."

I'm a DIFFERENT anonymous coward ;)

Oh, sorry for the confusion. :)

Wolves have rules. Alpha males get all the nooky, unless a stray female coyote wanders by. All beta and zeta males abide by these rules until the alpha male is weak. Do wolf rules qualify as morals? They cooperate, don't kill eachother for the most part, so what's the difference. What about ants, without social rules, they're fucked. Hey, humans are social. Rules must exist or as social animals we're fucked too. Rules, morals, all the same. Biology, evolution...not god.

Interesting discussion!! The MORAL is the CHOSEN. All individuals have a moral code of conduct. They all choose the morality that they live by. There are extremely few amoral individuals in this world. One does not need to be a person of God (whichever God one chooses) to be a moral person, no more than one need not be an atheist (unbeliever, heathen - choose your word) to be an immoral person.

Each individual decides for himself whether there is a "higher power", or not. I personally believe that religion (belief in a God) is a crutch to lean on for people that need one. That being said, I think it is a good thing if it enables individuals to cope with the struggles of life. I actually believe that religion makes for a better society in total.

For those of religious persuasion who contend the bible is the word of God and the authority they live by I urge them to read the bible in total, then read "Who wrote the Bible" (author escapes me now), "Jesus the Man" by Barbara Thiering, "Jesus of the Apocalypse" by Barbara Thiering, "The Dead Sea Scrolls Deception", by Michael Baigent and some other guy who I can't remember, "The Dead Sea Scrolls in English" by G. Vermes. Then explain the established age of the universe and the proven age of skeletal remains found in relation to Genesis. Oh, and you might want to explain the age of the dinosaurs while you are at it.

It is stipulated by both believers and non believers that a man named Jesus roamed the Middle East about 2000 years ago. Not the humble carpenter, but the first born (illegitimate) of a Royal Hebrew family. His philosoply of equality for all (including women) tore the established church apart. His movement was primarily political and not religious. That we have this religion called Christianity today is a direct result of his philosophy and the persistence of his followers, including his son, Jesus Justus (one of six children)the last of which was born in AD 44.

I could go on forever re the the "miracles" touted in the Bible, but what's the point. Those that choose religion do so on the basis of "faith" not "reason". If one believes in the Bible as the "word of God" and the gospels as the "life of Jesus" then one defies "reason and science". I don't know about the rest of you folks but a lifetime of trying has convinced me that you cannot reason with an unreasonable person. Religion is based on faith - non religion (whatever tag you want to apply) is based on reason. Neither one has anything to do with whether one chooses to live a moral life.

... personally, I find myself to be a "better" person (in my eyes) now as an atheist than when I was a Christian...
... as a Christian, I was judgemental of others (feeling superior)... usually for living contrary to biblical teachings as I interpreted them (gays, atheists, evolutionists etc.)...
... now, as an atheist, I'm seeing people much more as fellow humans with differing opinions of what life is all about... I now respect a wider range of people (yes, even many Christians)...
... I still have problems with some people (like nazis & radical religious nuts)...
... so, it can be one's beliefs or lack thereof that can make them "moral" or "immoral" (I don't think I know any "amoral" people)...
... I really don't care if one acts "morally" because of their religion or because of their lack of religion...
... but, I prefer the one who is "moral" by trait above those that are "moral" for fear of breaking a set of rules put forth by their religion... I lived that "morality" for 40 years...

But DR when you were being judemental you were clearly violating the laws christ laid down

so you weren't being a christian ;-)

by becoming an atheist you are behaving more in line with the teachings of Jesus Christ

so how are those apples ;-)

... I beg to differ... JC was quite judgemental... I was following his example...
... his dad was extremely judgemental too...

I beg to differ to

he was extremely judgemental AND extremely non judgemental at the same time

people who write religous works have a tendancy to be that way

however christ's being judgemental was entirely different then your being judgemental based on superiority

thus your judgementalisms went away and you replaced them with a form of judgementalism more in line with christ's own ;-)

I won't get into HAshem because the new testement clearly shows jesus had nothing to dow ith hashem

Note: I had to close these comments, thanks to spammers hitting this post hard.

Thank you everyone, for your participation in this discussion.