Religion and morality
My neighbor has something that I want. But he won’t let me have it. If I kill my neighbor, I can have what I want. I can see that killing my neighbor is bad, but still, why shouldn’t I, if it gets me what I want?
The atheist, according to Michael Gerson, has no real answer for this question.
The idea that God provides the ultimate grounds of moral authority, and that without God there is no objective basis for morality, is an old one. Socrates was executed in Athens for impiety and the corruption of youth. The jury did not consider the two crimes unrelated.
The theist’s answer, according to Gerson, is that you should not kill your neighbor, because the God you love and respect forbids it. The atheist, on the other hand, can perhaps choose to do the right thing, if he so desires, but with “God dethroned”, he is under no moral compulsion to do so, and hence has no basis for condemning those who don’t.
This atheist’s answer is that there is such a thing as a rational basis for morality. You shouldn’t kill you neighbor, because he is your fellow man, no different from yourself, and if it’s right to kill him, then it would be right for someone else to kill you. Personally, I find the atheist’s answer much more compelling than the theist’s, as it is grounded in human reality, and not some hypothesized divine reality.
But in the broadest sense, it really doesn’t matter that much where our values come from, or how they are grounded, as long as we agree on what the basic values are (e.g. don’t kill). What matters is how we act on them. And at that point, the position of the non-believer isn’t that much different from that of the believer. Both have values. Both know that they can act in harmony with their values, or not. Both must decide how to act. Believing that his values are endorsed by God doesn’t relieve the theist of the choice for or against them. Likewise, knowing that his values owe something to convention doesn’t relieve the atheist of the responsibility of acting in accord with them.
There are cases, of course, where atheists and theist disagree on basic values. But then again, neither do theists, even amongst themselves, agree on all moral matters.
To paraphrase Gloria Steinem, morality needs religion like a fish needs a bicycle.
lon wrote:
Thanks for a textbook illustration of all too typical anti-theist sophistry in their so-called rational arguments.
To begin, we see the fallacy of false attribution. The opponent’s position is restated inaccurately, sometimes going as far as claiming the exact opposite of the opponent’s stated view. Straw man thus constructed, loaded language and a veritible cornucopia of logical fallicies are then used to expand upon it. Then knock it down by comparing it to “the athiest’s position”, which is shown to be the only sane position using weasel words and even more logical fallacies. Frequently it is actually a position held by many theists.
“The theist’s answer, according to Gerson, is that you should not kill your neighbor, because the God you love and respect forbids it.”
I search the article cited and can find no reference to not doing anything because God “forbids” it. Quite the opposite, the article specifically presents the opinion that doing something solely due to the fear of the consequences is absurd!
Now that the misquote has been used to mean something quite the opposite of the presented viewpoint, let us examine the misquote itself.
Original: “We should cultivate the better angels of our nature because the God we love and respect requires it. While many of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.”
Restated: “you should not kill your neighbor, because the God you love and respect forbids it.”
Claiming that those two statements impart the same emotional response or even have the same spirit or meaning is dishonest, and trying to pass them off as equal amounts to outright deception. The restatement reveals more about your conception of God than it does about the conception that was presented in the original article.
Next, to present the supposed contrasting athiestic viewpoint, you say:
“This atheist’s answer is that there is such a thing as a rational basis for morality. You shouldn’t kill you neighbor, because he is your fellow man, no different from yourself, and if it’s right to kill him, then it would be right for someone else to kill you.”
While I always enjoy hearing the many varied wordings of The Golden Rule, I have to admit this is the first time I’ve heard it presented as an athiestic viewpoint countering and contrasting with a theistic viewpoint.
Next, we have this gem:
“There are cases, of course, where atheists and theist disagree on basic values. But then again, neither do theists, even amongst themselves, agree on all moral matters.”
Yes, of course, atheists and theists disagree on some things. Thanks for additionally pointing out that theists don’t fully agree amongst themselves, but it seems disingenious at best to neglect to mention that athiests don’t fully agree amongst themselves. When that point is added, it reveals the entire point meaningless. Athiests and theists don’t agree on some things. Theists don’t agree amongst themselves on some things. Athiests don’t agree amongst themselves on some things. All this logically means is that people don’t agree about some things, something that is both obvious and irrevelant to the point at hand as it makes no distinction between athiest and theist. The only possible reason for this statement to be present in the argument is revealed in its wording and omission. Its purpose was simply to make theists look bad by casting them as the ones who can’t agree with anyone, even themselves. Now I see why some athiests want people to ignore the questions regarding “why”. The investigation into why this irrevelant statement was made reveals the mindset of the person making the statement. That mindset was more concerned with making his opponent look bad than he was advancing his argument.
In an irrational, but moral, attempt to save this train-wreck of a pseudo-argument/rant, I’ll pose a question and a related statement based on the singluar valid and honest assertion made in this post:
“…there is such a thing as a rational basis for morality.”
In a set of all [actions], are you certain that the subset of [moral actions] is equivalent to the subset of [rational actions]? If not, which subset has a higher cardinality? If there exists any moral action which is not contained in the set of [rational actions], the concept of morality being based on rationality is at least suspect, if not flatly denied.
Posted 27 Jul 2007 at 12:12 pm ¶
Marcus wrote:
Here’s what Gerson says, verbatim:
“We should cultivate the better angels of our nature because the God we love and respect requires it.”
I paraphrased his statement, in the context of my example, as “The theist’s answer, according to Gerson, is that you should not kill your neighbor, because the God you love and respect forbids it.”
Apparently that’s what you call “dishonest”.
Again, Gerson word-for-word: “So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between good and bad instincts? … Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma.”
I provided a concrete example of a moral dilemma (see paragraph 1), and then go on to show how a non-theistic morality can provide an answer for it. That in itself is enough to logically refute Gerson’s point.
Apparently that’s what you call a “strawman”.
Name calling and casting aspersions do not constitute a rational argument.
Posted 28 Jul 2007 at 11:54 pm ¶
lon wrote:
It has come to my attention that at least one person has misinterpreted the meaning/intention of my comment above. Where there is one, there is likely more, and given the severity and implications of the misinterpretation, I feel it important to clarify things.
First and foremost, despite any appearances, I was specifically NOT attempting to cast aspersions onto Marcus’ personal character or honesty as a whole. Upon re-reading my post, I can easily see where people may get that impression. However, I have never agreed that a person’s character is equivalent to the ideas they may have, or, in this specific instance, the arguments they use to support their ideas. For the record, “intentional dishonesty” is nowhere to be found in the list of attributes I’d ascribe to Marcus’ character, and there is observable evidence that I believe that is true. If I thought him to be dishonest, I’d not be wasting my time here. As a general habit, I don’t wrestle with pigs.
Secondly, I likewise was not speaking towards the idea and point that Marcus was attempting to make in his original post. The observable fact that an athiest can demonstrate morality is indisputable. It is indisputable that some athiests even demonstrate a greater morality than some theists. The most basic observations of people render this point so obvious as to hardly be even worthy of debate, and I find it a shame that such arguments are made necessary by unthinking fools who claim otherwise.
In short, by calling the argument dishonest/deceptive, I was speaking ONLY of the *argument* as presented. One can agree with an idea while still pointing out perceived flaws in the presentation of said idea. Furthermore, an attack on Marcus’ character in presenting a dishonest argument requires that intention be shown. I never stated specifically that I believed Marcus was being intentionally dishonest, and any wording which implies it is my fault (more on that in a moment). As people begin to know me, they will realize that attempts to “read between the lines” of my writings is very suspect. I freely state what I believe with a high degree of specificity; Had I meant to say that Marcus was intentionally deceptive, I would have stated it plainly with no inference needed. As an example, note my wording in the last sentence in the preceeding paragraph.
As I said, it is easy to see where people make the mistake in interpreting my points. This is my fault, and was caused by me doing the exact same thing that I so frequently accuse others of doing: Writing from a position of anger rather than reason. I so frequently see people using deceptive arguments to press their points and I find it annoying and of no use in the search for truth. The most numerous recent examples I’ve seen have specifically been athiests arguing against religion, and upon seeing the same thing apparently happening here, I snapped and wrote my response based on an emotional reaction of anger. For that, I apologize. While I do firmly and unapologetically accuse most athiests of basing their arguments on “anti-theism” rather than a promotion of athiesm, which reveals to me that their motivations are to attack religion for some perceived or real injustice done to them rather than any search for truth, it does not make it right for me to turn around and demonstrate the same flaws.
All that said, my four main points remain. A quote from someone was paraphrased, and while it may be argued that the base meaning wasn’t changed, it remains true that the wording was changed in a manner which carries significantly more negative emotional response, the very definition of loaded language and appeal to emotion. Furthermore, the paraphrased quote was used, to illustrate a point totally contrary to the point the original author expressed in the article quoted (false attribution). The original author specifically states that the meaning Marcus ascribed to his quote was absurd. The so-called “counter” position, the “athiest’s position”, was no counter at all; it was just another restatement of the Golden Rule. While it may indeed be an athiest position, it is likewise the position of most theists as well and thus isn’t a good illustration of the differences between them. That, and the bit about theists not agreeing with others including themselves, is a non sequitur.
A good idea deserves a good argument supporting it. A good idea, expressed via a fallacious argument, risks being improperly discarded due to the faulty argument for it, especially if the person making the argument is known as somone who cherishes logic and insists that his opponents hold to it. Marcus had a good and important idea, I do not dispute that at all. I assert that the argument made for it was poor, that he would have called anyone else on it had they attempted to do the same things, and that I was disappointed due to knowing for a fact that Marcus is wholly capable of making his point without resorting to such fallacies. He would not have had to search very far to find a quote from some theist which wouldn’t have had to be paraphrased or twisted. Adding to it, I firmly believe that Marcus’ point MUST be made; theists who ignorantly claim that athiests cannot be moral need to have their claims vigorously disputed and proven false. But the ignorant theists will only see an unsubstantiated attack on their beliefs and will tend to dismiss the otherwise valid point out of hand when they see the errors in logic used in presenting it.
Posted 30 Jul 2007 at 9:27 pm ¶
Marcus wrote:
I appreciate the clarification, and the spirit in which it is offered. Rather than continuing to flog this dead horse, let me just say that I stand behind my original post, and leave it at that.
Posted 31 Jul 2007 at 2:21 pm ¶