Atheism and morality (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, October 18, 2010, 04:19 (5128 days ago) @ dhw

JOEL MARKS (conclusion): A helpful analogy, at least for the atheist, is sin. Even though words like 'sinful' and 'evil' come naturally to the tongue as a description of, say, child-molesting, they do not describe any actual properties of anything. There are no literal sins in the world because there is no literal God and hence the whole religious superstructure that would include such categories as sin and evil. Just so, I now maintain, nothing is literally right or wrong because there is no Morality. Yet, as with the non-existence of God, we human beings can still discover plenty of completely-naturally-explainable internal resources for motivating certain preferences. Thus, enough of us are sufficiently averse to the molesting of children, and would likely continue to be so if fully informed, to put it on the books as prohibited and punishable by our society.
> 
> Do we really need a professor of philosophy to tell us something so obvious at such enormous length? And what is the relevance of his atheism? Hadn't he realized before that morals not only vary from one society to another, but they also vary from one religion to another, sometimes from one sect to another, from one interpretation of "God's word" to another, and from one period to another? Each society has its own set of rules, and so of course there is no objective right or wrong ... with or without God, there is only human consensus. Atheism and religion are therefore as irrelevant as Marks's gratuitous and arrogant assertion that God doesn't exist.
> -No... Nietzsche described this nearly 120 years prior to my ever hearing of Marks. The ugly truth is that of "power."-> Like David, I can only endorse George's list of "ethical prerogatives". I would add that I think it a positive advantage that the humanist code is not diverted from its moral and social purposes by the need to interpret ancient texts of dubious origin and value.-The only thing that I can't get behind in humanism is its essential assertion of pacifism. If we know that the values of humanism are something to enshrine and protect--and other humans wish to cause these values to be destroyed (Muslim Extremists)--than we should be willing to fight preemptively in order to maintain this order. Or, to borrow from Machiavelli: If we will the ends, we necessarily will the means. -Sadly, I've found that the doctrine of "Original Sin" seems much more apt for mankind as a whole than I would like to admit as a non-Christian. I quit Buddhism precisely for the fact that I think that war is necessary, and even good, though this latter epithet will mark me to be tarred and feathered in nearly every "civilized" discussion. We want to enjoy its fruits without its necessary consequences.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"