Review 2 (General)

by dhw, Tuesday, October 21, 2008, 12:11 (5673 days ago) @ Mark

Mark claims that atheists (and presumably agnostics too) "can find no ultimate basis for morals outside of themselves. An atheist may choose to submit to an authority. An atheist may choose to follow the prevailing moral code of society. An atheist may choose to live by the rule "do not murder". But none of these decisions can be based on an obligation from without. The atheist cannot hold that any of his moral principles are objectively true." - I'm sorry to have misrepresented your views, but this may give us the chance to clarify a number of misunderstandings. All human beings may choose to follow a code, and I see no difference between the atheist choosing society's code and the Christian choosing Jesus's code. No-one "from without" obliges you to do the latter. That would dispense altogether with free will. But once the choice is made, whether social or religious, then that provides an "ultimate basis" outside oneself. Perhaps you will object to the social code being called "ultimate", on the grounds that it is not "objectively true". However, I see no sign of objectivity in religious codes either, because they are constantly changing and even Christians cannot agree among themselves what they are: there is no consensus over God's attitude to homosexuality, contraception, civil liberties, the role of women, etc. (we have discussed the long list several times). The scriptures provide a written basis ... as do society's law books ... but interpretation of them is subjective. What, then, is the point of claiming that there is an objective moral code if none of us can know it? And to be frank, I'd prefer the company of a kind-hearted atheist who acknowledges his subjectivity to that of a Muslim fundamentalist who claims objectivity and brings the message that God wants him to blow me up. But you are right that the atheist cannot claim objective truth for his principles. No-one can. - You go on to say that the horrors of evolution "may confirm atheism, because of the tension of belief in God and the observation of suffering in creation. But the rejection of God just leaves a different tension, for the revulsion at the suffering then loses any foundation." I'm not sure that I've understood any of this, but I would suggest that the "tension" lies between the concept of a loving God and the suffering that he has created. The horrors of evolution do not confirm atheism (i.e. they do not provide evidence against design), but they bring into question the nature of God (if he exists). I find your second statement disturbing. As an agnostic, I feel a deep revulsion at suffering, and it is based on sympathy, empathy, human compassion. How can you say that these feelings are without foundation if I don't accept God? They have nothing to do with God. They are basic human qualities which you will find in all societies, from Christian to Muslim to pagan, and they are common to believers and non-believers alike. They are the bedrock of humanism, and without them human life - with or without religious faith - would be unbearable. - To sum up, theists and atheists may both choose to accept an authority outside themselves; their moral principles depend to an equal degree on their subjective interpretation of the rules offered to them; revulsion at suffering has nothing to do with one's belief or non-belief in God. - Once again, though, please accept my apologies if I've misunderstood your arguments.