How do agnostics live? (Introduction)

by Mark , Friday, July 11, 2008, 14:06 (5762 days ago) @ dhw

George finds two of my remarks insulting and another one arrogant, which I am sorry about. I did not intend to give offence. I had expected that this site would be a forum which tolerated robust debate without the degree of sensitivity which forces people to be so careful that they cannot be open, or so precise that they cannot make an assertion without endless qualifications. And one of the most helpful methods of debate is to reflect back our understanding of the other's position. Sometimes we will get this wrong, and thereby we may be corrected, learn and move the debate on. There has been no shortage of misrepresentations of Christianity on this site, in my view, but I have not taken offence. - I said: "There is no difference in kind, that I can see, between an atheist's decision to be against murder and his decision never to walk around on all fours."
An atheist does not believe in objective morality. There is nothing out there which is the basis for moral laws. It comes down to personal preference, likes and dislikes, aesthetics. Some atheistic philosophers have argued that we should discard normal moral language such as "ought", and that is a consistent position, I believe. - George argues that reason is the basis for morality. How can reason get you started on morality? If you say, for example, that we need to maximise human happiness, then I agree that reason can get you some way towards rules which help. But reason cannot tell you that human happiness is desirable. There is a parallel here with the Stenger argument! - I said: "Christianity is not simplistic. I'm not claiming that. It can be hard work for the church to know what is good, and, of course, even harder work to do it. Atheists have nothing like this discipline. Indeed, an interesting point is how atheists allow any disciplined formation of moral character. It isn't something that is "practised" in the way that Christianity is, with a pattern of prayer, reading, listening, community accountability." - dhw has responded claiming that there is community accountability for atheists, and George has said that living ethical lives is hard work for everyone. To a point I accept this. However, would you agree with me that while there are differences in ethics between people, humanity's greater problem is that even when we know what is right we are inclined to do what is wrong? The flaw is in our nature more than in our rules. Christianity is based on hope of the renewal of humanity for which help is needed from beyond ourselves. Atheism seems relatively optimistic about humanity. It is all very well to state the fine rules which dhw refers to, but naïve to think that's all we need. The Church, at its best, is a hospital for sinners. Do atheists have hospitals? - My comment about an "eternal perspective" was a bit cryptic. I made it in the context of a discussion of consequentialism. My point was that when we attempt to determine morality from consequences then we cannot see very far ahead. We can't predict the weather, let alone human behaviour. The abysmal failure of planned economies is testimony to our inability to use reason to calculate our way to human prosperity. So I try to follow what I believe are God's laws, trusting that he has a perspective which transcends everything. Raskolnikov may well have been right that the world would be a happier place without the pawn-broker, but I would consider that judgement according to reason to be far more "arrogant" than a humble trust that God knows best. - By the way, dhw, I think you have evaded the killer virus and runaway trolley cases, but the fact that your reservation is due only to a lack of certainty that the pushing or experimenting would work seems to be a giveaway.