Atheism IS where morality originates

[cleanhippie]

One of the claims of theists that really bugs me is that morality comes from God. No, actually its worse than that. Theists claim that morality can only come from God, and they go on to suggest that without religion, the world will devolve into an amoral chaos of murder, thievery and rape.

And to add insult to the equation, theists claim that whatever morality atheists have is borrowed from religion! They assert that we atheists grew up immersed in a Christian, Jewish and Islamic culture and so we absorbed their morality. Atheists, they claim, are sort of unwitting Christians, Jews and Muslims when it comes to morals.

---snip---

When it comes to morality, theists are nothing more than plagiarizers, stealing and giving no credit to the original.

---snip---

In other words, in spite of having no knowledge of Yahweh, virtually every culture on Earth had a strong moral system. Marriage and marital fidelity is found almost everywhere (as is adultery), murder is bad, rape gets you in big trouble, thievery is never OK, and hurting a child is a very bad thing.

These are human values, not Christian, Jewish or Muslim values. As we evolved, we developed emotions like love, fear, jealousy, anger and lust in order to ensure the procreation of our children and to protect them as they grew up. As our brains evolved to include language, we put words to these instinctive behaviors, and as we organized ourselves into families, clans, villages, towns and countries, we codified our instinctive knowledge into morality and laws.

---snip---

In other words, morality can't possible originate with God. It's logically impossible.

But more importantly, history shows that it didn't originate with God. It was the other way around.

And don't every let a Christian, Jew or Muslim claim otherwise.


http://religionvirus.blogspot.com/2010/08/atheism-is-where-morality-originates.html

[BrklynLiberal]

1. Since I believe that man created god in his own image, I have to agree with this premise.

...secular morality has accountability. You can't just make stuff up; new claims about secular morality must rest on the foundation of improving the human condition and must have a logical connection to that foundation. Furthermore ... secular claims about morality are open to scrutiny. If you make a claim about morality, you have to explain it clearly, show how it is derived from the foundation, and be willing to defend your position.

What is the foundation of God's morality? How does God know what is good and what is bad? If you argue that God just knows, then you've admitted that there are things (like human happiness) that are axiomatic, and you're back to the secular position – you don't need God in the equation.

[stray cat]

2. Arrogance and exclusivity of truth or morality to any one group is still arrogance

and the ultimate in hypocrisy

[cleanhippie]

4. Even if "truth" is founded in factual data and evidence?

[sailor65]

8. It doesn't come from either.

Morality is not a quantifiable concept, therefore "Factual data" doesn't apply, and empirical evidence is unobtainable.

Which is why your argument about morality is the same as that of he who claims it has to come from God. Just a different wrapper. No single group can lay claim to its origin.

[humblebum]

10. Now listen. This common sense stuff has got to stop. nt

[cleanhippie]

20. Of course it does, you never approve of common sense.

Or at least you never use it in your arguments.

[humblebum]

21. Give me a count on that morality stuff and get back to me. nt

[cleanhippie]

33. Huh?

[humblebum]

34. That's what I thought. nt

[cleanhippie]

35. Thought about what? I don't understand what you are asking?

Count what?

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Any "one group" in mind?

Seriously, atheism is the default - it is ALL groups. Everyone is born an atheist. Your religion is passed to you by your family or your society and is purely a reflection of that family or society.

But in any group, any culture, any religious setting you will find atheists.

The morality of atheists is what the morality of all religions developed from. The Golden Rule is understood in every culture on earth.

This is not about exclusivity, but about the ultimate inclusivity.

[humblebum]

9. What a bunch of BS.

"The Golden Rule is understood in every culture on earth." You have a shallow understanding of world history. Many cultures throughout history have considered certain others to be quite expendable and of little worth.

[RaleighNCDUer]

12. I didn't say it was practiced - only that it is not an alien concept. It is

understood. Other factors - primarily race and religion - create 'out' groups which the 'in' groups are told don't count, but "do unto others" is practiced within the group. The mis-education is responsible for claiming the others stand outside the strictures of morality. And, you surely must note, when the 'in' group mistreats the 'out' group they rationalize it with so-called moral judgments - Jews are greedy, blacks are lazy, gypsies are thieves, Catholics are idol worshippers, whatever.

But however poorly practiced, there is not a single culture in the world that does not have some version of the golden rule, usually embedded in their religion, sometimes as a customary mandate. It is practically a genetic implant, and, IMO, can only be overcome by the imposition of authoritarian structures that say "do unto others...unless they are ____ ".

And that is where religion comes in.

[humblebum]

14. Disagree. There are certain religions who recognize specific groups

as untouchables or as able to be sacrificed or of very low esteem. where is the golden rule understood in these contexts? Even the religions support such attitudes. The golden rule is most certainly not applicable to all cultures nor religions thoughout history.

[RaleighNCDUer]

16. Did you even read what I wrote?

If the Brahmins see the Untouchables as, well, untouchable, that doesn't mean they don't understand the golden rule and even practice it WITHIN THEIR OWN CLASS. Their religion creates an artificial divide that keeps them from practicing it with all people.

The concept is universal. The practice of it - primarily because of religious laws (and that includes christianity) - is where it fails.

[humblebum]

17. Concerning the "do unto others..." part, if others are only those

others considered within your own group, then the golden rule is hardly understood nor practiced. the golden rule was most certainly not practiced nor understood in ancient Egypt, for example. And I dare say that the golden rule was certainly not even an issue in 20th century countries under communistic atheistic regimes. So whether the concept is universal or not is very debatable. Now, if you want to say that it is only understood by some to exist within the group and not outside of - it is hardly universal.

[onager]

25. Wrong again...

...the golden rule was most certainly not practiced nor understood in ancient Egypt, for example.

It most certainly was. I heard that when I lived in Egypt. But it's even mentioned on Wikipedia:

An early example of the Golden Rule that reflects the Ancient Egyptian concept of Maat appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant which is dated to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040 – 1650 BCE): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do."

An example from a Late Period (c. 1080 – 332 BCE) papyrus: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another."

[humblebum]

26. I stand corrected, but it certainly does have a religious orientation. nt

[skepticscott]

13. The "Many cultures" you mention includes pretty much all those

which are primarily Christian. Those cultures still understand the Golden Rule, as even an idiot knows. Whether they practice it AS a culture is another matter.

Dude, please, please engage your brain before you start typing once in a while.

[humblebum]

15. I have witnessed your reasoning skills, so I will take that into consideration here.nt

[onager]

24. You mean like this?

Many cultures throughout history have considered certain others to be quite expendable and of little worth.

...........................................................................

Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have.

Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey. (KJV, 1 Samuel 15:2-3).

[kwassa]

27. No one is born an atheist

No default.

Since every culture in the world has a religion, it would seem like the exact opposite is true.

Unless you can prove that babies that have no gift of speech also don't believe in God, you got nothin'.

[RaleighNCDUer]

30. Oh, you think that religion is instinctual?

The Nicaean Creed is imprinted on the hearts of unborn babes?

Religion is a social construct. It must be taught. If it must be taught, that means there was nothing there before it was taught. Therefore, we are all born atheist.

It's not that hard a concept.

[Bad Thoughts]

38. Reason isn't instinctual either

Nor is physics, art, evolution, literature, geography, the Bill of Rights, the Constitution, etc.

[kwassa]

43. A belief in God might well be instinctual

not the specifics of the religion, but the sense of God as something important in one's life.

It isn't universal across humanity because it is some kind of conspiracy.

This is a popular atheist meme, that babies are born atheists, but there is nothing at all to support it.

[westerebus]

39. You are born agnostic.

You have no concept of god or religion or much else for that matter as a baby.

You are neither god-less or god-fearing or god loving.

Baby's simply feel. It takes a while for their senses and brain to put things together.

As to morality, it was spread through religion for the most part.

Morality came from authority. Even there morality is subjective to the culture and the age.

Morality is more about cultural controls than it is about religion.

With one large exception, that is how the religion interacts with the cultural political elite.

Thems that makes the rules, also makes the gods.

[Curmudgeoness]

3. I'm glad someone said it. I claim that

since I am an atheist, and have no reason to fear hell or god's wrath, I am a better person than a believer---because I live a decent life IN SPITE of having no unearthly reasons to do so. Doesn't make me very popular with the "god crowd".

[Iggo]

36. Fuh.King.A.

[ladjf]

5. Good post! Thanks. nt

[unblock]

6. it's actually silly to think that morality isn't somehow hardwired into our dna

if you think about it, if morality were really some notion that people had to LEARN, then there would be a LOT more immorality and criminal behavior, because we all know how terrible people are, as a group, at learning, especially social concepts. sure, any one person can learn something, but try to teach an entire society something -- anything -- and you'll get HUGE portions that simply won't learn.

there must be something about the way our brains grow in any remotely normal social environment that CAN'T HELP BUT LEARN some form of morality, with rather rare exceptions.

of course, the theists can always say that's the way god chose to implement morality!

[Jim__]

11. "The fact is that theists have stolen their morals from human nature."

I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. Theists are human. If morality is part of human nature (I believe it is), then theists come by their morality quite naturally.

In other words, in spite of having no knowledge of Yahweh, virtually every culture on Earth had a strong moral system.

According to Dawkins in The God Delusion, almost every human society has some form of religion. James' argument seems to be equating theism with a belief in Yahweh.

The argument ignorantly generalizes two specifics. One, by far and away, not all theists claim that morality can only exist under a god. Second, it largely equates theism with a belief in Yahweh.

He's just using one bad argument to replace another. People should demand legitimate arguments and not just settle for bad arguments that satisfy their particular beliefs.

[felinetta]

18. Excellent post. Thank you.

[cleanhippie]

19. Your welcome.

[struggle4progress]

22. So James is making noise to sell his book, "The Religion Virus"

The title clearly suggests a marketing scheme based on ugly intolerance. And the essay linked in the OP is vacuous

[cleanhippie]

31. If you say so.

[struggle4progress]

37. Website named after book. Big buy book! link atop webpages there.

[cleanhippie]

45. Isn't that what we all do?

We make a case for what we feel is a problem. The only difference is our motivations.

For the sake of argument, lets say you are 100% correct. Does his motivations make his assertions any less valid?

[DeSwiss]

23. K&R

"I do understand what love is, and that is one of the reasons I can never again be a Christian. Love is not self denial. Love is not blood and suffering. Love is not murdering your son to appease your own vanity. Love is not hatred or wrath, consigning billions of people to eternal torture because they have offended your ego or disobeyed your rules. Love is not obedience, conformity, or submission. It is a counterfeit love that is contingent upon authority, punishment, or reward. True love is respect and admiration, compassion and kindness, freely given by a healthy, unafraid human being." ~ Dan Barker, Losing Faith in Faith

[Axle_techie]

28. Morality

is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong).

I would agree that every human is built with a moral compass, and therefore morals are not defined by religion, but by feeling.

Now the question is, how are we given a sense of right and wrong before we can speak or understand?

[Nihil]

29. "Morality" is transient and solely defined by one's circumstances

> Morality is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions,
> decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad
> (or wrong).

As a definition, it works at the word level but not beyond as the words "good",
"right", "bad" and "wrong" are not absolutes but rather varying across time
and across cultures (within any particular time period). Hence anything that
relies on those definitions must also vary within similar constraints.


> I would agree that every human is built with a moral compass, and therefore
> morals are not defined by religion, but by feeling.

I wouldn't agree about the first part at all but do agree with your second part:
"morals are defined by feeling". They are intangible, subjective and variable.


> Now the question is, how are we given a sense of right and wrong before we
> can speak or understand?

By encounters with other people (and, arguably, other creatures) even whilst
unable to speak or (apparently) understand. Children can grasp the meaning of
"good" & "bad" from the actions of their parents, siblings and others long
before they can question or argue the issue verbally.

[PassingFair]

40. Was there morality before there was language?

How can you hear your consciousness if you don't have language?

Might I suggest: "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"


http://www.julianjaynes.org/bicameralmind.php

[Axle_techie]

42. I will check that out

[PassingFair]

44. Mind blowing book.

Really changed the way I thought about a lot of things.

[GliderGuider]

32. On the hardware level humans appear to be wired both for and against moral behaviour

IMO morality is just a conscious elaboration of underlying instinctual drives.

It seems reasonable to assume that humans are "genetically wired" with tendencies towards both competition and cooperation. Those tendencies are then modified, shaped, promoted or suppressed by cultural teachings. The elaboration of both sides of the behavioural coin varies enormously from culture to culture and situation to situation. IMO the universality of "Golden Rule" edicts points to the genetic origins of the cooperative urge, just as the universality of violence illuminates the genetic origins of competition.

Introducing gods into the discussion of morality is just an attempt to make the teaching "stickier".

[Orrex]

41. Your post makes me want to plunder and pillage