XML FeedsDon't Define Atheists as Moral Nihilists
By Ryan on Jan 11, 2013 | In Religion | 5 feedbacks »
In response to T. Paine's
Religion Promotes Knowledge, Truth, and Compassion
I would submit to you that a morality based on Judeo-Christian values at least has a standard for that morality.
- T. Paine, January 10, 2013
If I wrote down all of my values, we could call the resulting text a "standard for morality." That wouldn't mean that it would be worth following. Our standard, at its broadest, should be reason applied to human desires, not the words of the Bible. We use objectivity to judge the Bible, not the Bible to judge objectivity.
Then there are the myriad interpretations of "Judeo-Christian" values...
It is the moral relativism of the secular society today that has no objective standard of morality so consequently anything and everything is acceptable.
- T. Paine
Anything and everything? Really? So all of us secularists believe that murder is acceptable? No, in reality, our culture is becoming tolerant of behaviors that do no harm unless one twists the meaning of harm to a point at which it has no value. That many of us accept abortion and gay marriage is not evidence of moral relativism, but simply of different morality that increasingly rejects the value of supernatural claims and mere disgust in our moral calculus.
You would be better off assuming that so-called moral relativists are just people who haven't realized the harm that (you believe) their behavior causes--not people who have no values at all.
Indeed it was the Catholic Church that founded the university system, the scientific method, and even modern day genetics.
I addressed this before, though you might have missed it. Your claim, on your blog, that monotheistic religion (specifically Christianity) was necessary for the development of the scientific method and that atheism could never have developed it is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard from you.
Here is a simple test: Is the scientific method reasonable? If so, then it should be evident to reasonable people regardless of their religious beliefs. If not, then it has no value.
You cannot reasonably look at history and declare that, since the scientific method was formalized by monotheists, it could only ever have been developed (you even say created) by monotheists. One version or another of the method has been around about as long as our species has because we are curious, social creatures.
You go on to construct a straw man of the atheist's position as if you had never spoken with an atheist in your life. Here's a clue: theists are far more likely than atheists to say, "That's just how things are." They just phrase it a bit differently: "God did it."
Whatever we think about the origins of the universe, we still live in it. Curiosity and concern for the truth drive us to seek answers whether we have unfalsifiable beliefs in the supernatural or not.
In short: you do not get to define me and other atheists as moral and epistemological nihilists just because you do not understand us.
In addition to helping us explore pitfalls of religiosity, Ryan also writes for his own site, where curiosity and concern for the truth drive the discussion.
Please visit Secular Ethics.
Trackback address for this post
Trackback URL (right click and copy shortcut/link location)
5 comments
I give you the example now where many pscychologists are trying to explain that pedophilia may not necessarily be a bad thing for children. After all, if they and the adult are consenting, then where is the harm? Such moral relativism is extremely dangerous in my opinion.
And for the record, I was once an atheist and worked very hard to shoot down the “illogic and nonsense” of the arguments given by those professing a religious faith. The funny thing is that the more I researched, the more I had troubles countering the arguments for God that were presented by minds far greater than mine, and I daresay far greater than even yours, sir. Regardless, I know what many atheists think. I used to be one.
I'm trying for the life of me to find an example of your example. I don't have access to Psychology Journals, but can you find me an example online or at least cite me a source for that example? Because, it just screams bogus to me.
Here are a few direct quotes from you (from only two posts!) that show me how little you understand atheists:
"It is the moral relativism of the secular society today that has no objective standard of morality so consequently anything and everything is acceptable."
"This must be very confounding, if not outright vexing, to our atheist friends today. How can it be that the Catholic Church and Christian Western Civilization developed the Scientific Method and empirical science in general?"
"To the atheist, it could be said that [the Universe] is just one damn thing after another, accordingly."
"Atheism not only had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of Science but it could NOT have ever created Science. To an atheist who thinks that life and the creation of the Universe happened as a matter of random chance coming to fruition over billions of years, this seems to be in direct conflict with an ordered universe. “That’s just how things are” is hardly the basis for sound scientific thought, let alone the creation of the Scientific Method."
That you were once "one of us" does not prevent you from constructing strawmen about us in general. Perhaps you have forgotten. Or perhaps you are only remembering what you used to think, which hardly characterizes the rest of us. If you were an actual moral relativist with no concern for how the universe works, that was your problem.
"I give you the example now where many pscychologists are trying to explain that pedophilia may not necessarily be a bad thing for children."
How many psychologists are actually saying this? Moreover, given their argument, how does it show that they are moral relativists? They propose something that many of us find objectionable, but they support it by trying to show that it does not cause the harm that we think it does. That is not moral relativism, but a misguided application of a moral code whose primary standard is "do no harm."
Lastly, thank you for the subtle appeal to authority here:
"The funny thing is that the more I researched, the more I had troubles countering the arguments for God that were presented by minds far greater than mine, and I daresay far greater than even yours, sir."
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/academic-conference-seeks-to-normalize-pedophilia/
Ryan, are you aware of the term "generalization"? Perhaps I should put a disclaimer in my writing each time I refer to a given group as having some characteristic, so as not to offend those of said group that don't have that demeanor.
On the other hand, I don't think I will bother. Most ordinary people can realize that a given group has certain defining characteristics or likely predilections, even when such are not universally so for every member of the group. In the meantime, it is okay to relax, sir.
I understand the concept of generalization, but there is no apparent generalization in comments like these:
"Atheism not only had absolutely nothing to do with the creation of Science but it could NOT have ever created Science."
"It is the moral relativism of the secular society today that has no objective standard of morality so consequently anything and everything is acceptable."
Furthermore, the claim that your comments are generalizations is not a "get out of jail free" card. For a generalization to have value, it must reflect a significant commonality within a group. That some people seek to normalize pedophilia does not lend any weight to your claim that secular society is morally relativistic. That some atheists are nihilists does not lend any weight to your claim that atheists could not have formalized the scientific method.
Leave a comment
| « Freedom to Celebrate our American Culture of Death | Religion Promotes Knowledge, Truth, and Compassion » |
