Sensible people understand that there is little connection between belief in God and moral conduct. As has wisely been noted, with or without religion good people will do good, and evil people will do evil.
On the other hand, we could survey the nations of the world and note a strong inverse correlation between the level of religiosity in a society and its level of morality and basic decency. The least religious nations in the world are among the most socially conscious and morally decent on earth. The most evil and despotic are also the most theocratic.
Nor is it hard to fathom a connection between certain extreme forms of religiosity and immorality. Believing that you are in possession of personal communications from God telling you beyond question what is right and wrong makes you a fanatic, not a clear-thinking moral philosopher.
While we’re at it, there are certain sorts of moral depravity that are encouraged by many of the world’s most popular religions. Appalling treatment of women and homosexuals, for example, or the notion that dissenters and nonbelievers are just enemies to be conquered. The belief that those who disagree with you are destined to burn in hell is hardly a strong foundation for treating all people with decency and respect.
So if you really want to have this discussion, then I think theists have far more to be embarrassed about than atheists do. Religious societies have had ample opportunity to prove to the rest of us that they have special insight into morality. They have never availed themselves of that opportunity.
Lydia McGrew disagrees. She thinks she has a really whiz-bang argument to establish that atheism “interferes” with morality. I shall present her argument momentarily, but I think you should prepare to be underwhelmed.
McGrew opens as follows:
There are two atheist “memes” (to use a jargon term) that seem to me to be in prima facie conflict. I will not claim to be able to cite chapter and verse showing that the same atheist uses both of these memes. But I’m quite sure that there are atheists out there who have done so.
So these are not exact quotes from anyone but approximate statements that reflect things that I, and I suspect you, dear Reader, have heard and read.
Atheist meme #1: It is offensive to imply that being an atheist is in any way detrimental to being a moral person. Atheists can be just as moral as religious people.
So far, so good. That meme is correct; I said almost exactly that in Among the Creationists.
What’s the second meme?
Keep your eye on the ball. The question of what is meant by “just as moral” will be crucial.
Atheist meme #2: The idea that man is in any way special is speciesism derived from religious ideas like the image of God. Once we get rid of those religious concepts we can see that man is just another animal, though a highly evolved one. Man’s continuity with the animals means that abortion, euthanasia, killing those in “vegetative states,” and even infanticide are all “on the table” for ethical debate. The decision in specific cases should be made on the basis of utilitarian considerations without any notion that human life per se is valuable.
This one’s just a mess. There are very few, if any, atheists who would agree with the first sentence. That this is a common atheist meme is something McGrew just made up. That human beings have a special status in the natural order is an obvious empirical fact. You hardly need religion to justify it.
Then McGrew compounds her error by suggesting that what she regards as objectionable views on abortion and the rest derive from a rejection of “speciesism,” or from notions regarding our continuity with animals. I have no idea where she got that from. The pro-choice view on abortion, for example, is based on the idea that it is absurd to argue that a fetus, especially in its early stages, is the moral equivalent of an actual human woman. McGrew might disagree with that view, but what matters for the moment is that it has nothing to do with speciesism.
But wait a second. Let’s accept for the sake of argument that McGrew’s meme is accurate. How does this lead to the conclusion that atheism interferes with clear moral thinking?
It should be pretty obvious that the proposals in atheist meme #2 are socially radical. They represent a departure from what a lot of people for a long time in Western society have thought of as moral behavior. Yet atheist meme #2 says that, once you are an atheist, you should consider them to be viable options.
Prima facie, this conflicts with atheist meme #1. It’s pretty obvious that, if atheist meme #2 is true, atheist meme #1 is false: Atheism does make you a less moral person if atheism leads you to consider doing all those things or even advocating them.
Did you catch that? If I may fill in a few unstated premises, then McGrew’s argument is this: Atheists sometimes come to moral conclusions that are different from those commonly held by religious folks. But religious folks are in possession of the absolute truth about morality. Therefore, that atheists often disagree with religious folks on morality is proof that atheism interferes with being moral.
Of course, atheists would simply turn that around. We would reply that standard Judeo-Christian morality leads to plainly immoral outcomes on a host of issues, especially those related to sex or to questions related to the beginning and ending of life. That religious folks so often come to absurd conclusions (for example, the idea that a fetus is the moral equivalent of a human being), and that these conclusions lead to obvious suffering and misery in societies that base public policy on them (for example, poor treatment of women and homosexuals), is proof that theistic belief interferes with morality.
But McGrew has anticipated me:
Suppose someone wanted to hold both of these to be true. What could he say? He could try to say that, since the ethical system outlined in atheist meme #2 is actually correct, atheism doesn’t really make you less moral. It just leads you to redefine what constitutes morality so that it allows things that previously (traditionally, according to Judeo-Christian morality, etc.) were not allowed.
The problem with that response is that it turns atheist meme #1 into a pointless tautology. If atheist meme #1 has a point in communication, it must be either to reassure people about atheist morals or to shame those who question them. Neither of these ends is served if “moral” in atheist meme #1 could mean “Moral according to norms radically redefined by atheists themselves.” If that’s the only meaning, atheist meme #1 is compatible with, say, finding that atheists are bank robbers at a much higher rate than the general populace, so long as they are following some atheist redefinition of morality that makes it okay to rob banks. But that would certainly undermine the point (at least if enough people noticed), because then people would decide that atheists qua atheists are less likely to be “nice people.”
But I could turn this around as well. I could say that the theistic claim to having special insight into morality is a pointless tautology, since theists simply assume that morality is defined by what they believe. If you start from the assumption that religion already knows the truth about morality, then it is easy to argue that theists have a leg up over atheists. I would think, though, that this is an instance of assuming what you were supposed to prove.
Skipping ahead:
What this shows is that anyone who trots out atheist meme #1 but also plans to advocate atheist meme #2 is doing a bait and switch… I have sometimes wondered, when atheists complain (a la meme #1) that others think they are less moral than theists, what they would say if asked, “What do you think of abortion, infanticide and euthanasia? Is your position on these matters at all influenced by your atheism? If yes, and if I consider your position grossly immoral, then why should you be offended to learn that I consider that your atheism makes you less moral?”
Now who’s engaging in a bait and switch! If McGrew wants to point to specific atheists who have made their views known and say that she finds their views immoral, then that is fine. I certainly have no problem criticizing specific theists for the grossly immoral views their theism has led them to endorse. But that is a far cry from a blanket statement that atheism interferes with morality. Her article is titled, “Does Atheism Interfere With Being Moral?” Apparently it should have been titled, “Do Some Atheists Disagree With My Opinions On Morality?” Far less dramatic.
The best part is that after hectoring atheists for so many paragraphs, she then gives away the store at the end:
The funny thing is that I actually believe that the true positions on these issues are available by the natural light and hence do not require theism to understand. (Though theism helps. Human beings always find it useful to have more sources of information than strictly necessary.) I examined some of these issues in this essay. In Western society, however, the brand of atheism most commonly held is not some sort of virtuous, Platonic atheism that cleaves to the Good and accesses the natural light but rather some version of naturalism. And that is highly detrimental to moral insight.
Go back to the original for the link.
That is indeed funny, since it simply concedes everything to the atheist. That you do not need theism to understand morality is precisely the main claim atheists are keen to defend. If you are defending your moral views without reference to God, or scripture, or revelation, then you are playing on the atheist’s turf. And good for you for doing so! For now we can have a reasonable conversation about morality, instead of having one side pretend that they are in possession of the absolute truth, because God graciously revealed it to them.
from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1N7kJww
Sensible people understand that there is little connection between belief in God and moral conduct. As has wisely been noted, with or without religion good people will do good, and evil people will do evil.
On the other hand, we could survey the nations of the world and note a strong inverse correlation between the level of religiosity in a society and its level of morality and basic decency. The least religious nations in the world are among the most socially conscious and morally decent on earth. The most evil and despotic are also the most theocratic.
Nor is it hard to fathom a connection between certain extreme forms of religiosity and immorality. Believing that you are in possession of personal communications from God telling you beyond question what is right and wrong makes you a fanatic, not a clear-thinking moral philosopher.
While we’re at it, there are certain sorts of moral depravity that are encouraged by many of the world’s most popular religions. Appalling treatment of women and homosexuals, for example, or the notion that dissenters and nonbelievers are just enemies to be conquered. The belief that those who disagree with you are destined to burn in hell is hardly a strong foundation for treating all people with decency and respect.
So if you really want to have this discussion, then I think theists have far more to be embarrassed about than atheists do. Religious societies have had ample opportunity to prove to the rest of us that they have special insight into morality. They have never availed themselves of that opportunity.
Lydia McGrew disagrees. She thinks she has a really whiz-bang argument to establish that atheism “interferes” with morality. I shall present her argument momentarily, but I think you should prepare to be underwhelmed.
McGrew opens as follows:
There are two atheist “memes” (to use a jargon term) that seem to me to be in prima facie conflict. I will not claim to be able to cite chapter and verse showing that the same atheist uses both of these memes. But I’m quite sure that there are atheists out there who have done so.
So these are not exact quotes from anyone but approximate statements that reflect things that I, and I suspect you, dear Reader, have heard and read.
Atheist meme #1: It is offensive to imply that being an atheist is in any way detrimental to being a moral person. Atheists can be just as moral as religious people.
So far, so good. That meme is correct; I said almost exactly that in Among the Creationists.
What’s the second meme?
Keep your eye on the ball. The question of what is meant by “just as moral” will be crucial.
Atheist meme #2: The idea that man is in any way special is speciesism derived from religious ideas like the image of God. Once we get rid of those religious concepts we can see that man is just another animal, though a highly evolved one. Man’s continuity with the animals means that abortion, euthanasia, killing those in “vegetative states,” and even infanticide are all “on the table” for ethical debate. The decision in specific cases should be made on the basis of utilitarian considerations without any notion that human life per se is valuable.
This one’s just a mess. There are very few, if any, atheists who would agree with the first sentence. That this is a common atheist meme is something McGrew just made up. That human beings have a special status in the natural order is an obvious empirical fact. You hardly need religion to justify it.
Then McGrew compounds her error by suggesting that what she regards as objectionable views on abortion and the rest derive from a rejection of “speciesism,” or from notions regarding our continuity with animals. I have no idea where she got that from. The pro-choice view on abortion, for example, is based on the idea that it is absurd to argue that a fetus, especially in its early stages, is the moral equivalent of an actual human woman. McGrew might disagree with that view, but what matters for the moment is that it has nothing to do with speciesism.
But wait a second. Let’s accept for the sake of argument that McGrew’s meme is accurate. How does this lead to the conclusion that atheism interferes with clear moral thinking?
It should be pretty obvious that the proposals in atheist meme #2 are socially radical. They represent a departure from what a lot of people for a long time in Western society have thought of as moral behavior. Yet atheist meme #2 says that, once you are an atheist, you should consider them to be viable options.
Prima facie, this conflicts with atheist meme #1. It’s pretty obvious that, if atheist meme #2 is true, atheist meme #1 is false: Atheism does make you a less moral person if atheism leads you to consider doing all those things or even advocating them.
Did you catch that? If I may fill in a few unstated premises, then McGrew’s argument is this: Atheists sometimes come to moral conclusions that are different from those commonly held by religious folks. But religious folks are in possession of the absolute truth about morality. Therefore, that atheists often disagree with religious folks on morality is proof that atheism interferes with being moral.
Of course, atheists would simply turn that around. We would reply that standard Judeo-Christian morality leads to plainly immoral outcomes on a host of issues, especially those related to sex or to questions related to the beginning and ending of life. That religious folks so often come to absurd conclusions (for example, the idea that a fetus is the moral equivalent of a human being), and that these conclusions lead to obvious suffering and misery in societies that base public policy on them (for example, poor treatment of women and homosexuals), is proof that theistic belief interferes with morality.
But McGrew has anticipated me:
Suppose someone wanted to hold both of these to be true. What could he say? He could try to say that, since the ethical system outlined in atheist meme #2 is actually correct, atheism doesn’t really make you less moral. It just leads you to redefine what constitutes morality so that it allows things that previously (traditionally, according to Judeo-Christian morality, etc.) were not allowed.
The problem with that response is that it turns atheist meme #1 into a pointless tautology. If atheist meme #1 has a point in communication, it must be either to reassure people about atheist morals or to shame those who question them. Neither of these ends is served if “moral” in atheist meme #1 could mean “Moral according to norms radically redefined by atheists themselves.” If that’s the only meaning, atheist meme #1 is compatible with, say, finding that atheists are bank robbers at a much higher rate than the general populace, so long as they are following some atheist redefinition of morality that makes it okay to rob banks. But that would certainly undermine the point (at least if enough people noticed), because then people would decide that atheists qua atheists are less likely to be “nice people.”
But I could turn this around as well. I could say that the theistic claim to having special insight into morality is a pointless tautology, since theists simply assume that morality is defined by what they believe. If you start from the assumption that religion already knows the truth about morality, then it is easy to argue that theists have a leg up over atheists. I would think, though, that this is an instance of assuming what you were supposed to prove.
Skipping ahead:
What this shows is that anyone who trots out atheist meme #1 but also plans to advocate atheist meme #2 is doing a bait and switch… I have sometimes wondered, when atheists complain (a la meme #1) that others think they are less moral than theists, what they would say if asked, “What do you think of abortion, infanticide and euthanasia? Is your position on these matters at all influenced by your atheism? If yes, and if I consider your position grossly immoral, then why should you be offended to learn that I consider that your atheism makes you less moral?”
Now who’s engaging in a bait and switch! If McGrew wants to point to specific atheists who have made their views known and say that she finds their views immoral, then that is fine. I certainly have no problem criticizing specific theists for the grossly immoral views their theism has led them to endorse. But that is a far cry from a blanket statement that atheism interferes with morality. Her article is titled, “Does Atheism Interfere With Being Moral?” Apparently it should have been titled, “Do Some Atheists Disagree With My Opinions On Morality?” Far less dramatic.
The best part is that after hectoring atheists for so many paragraphs, she then gives away the store at the end:
The funny thing is that I actually believe that the true positions on these issues are available by the natural light and hence do not require theism to understand. (Though theism helps. Human beings always find it useful to have more sources of information than strictly necessary.) I examined some of these issues in this essay. In Western society, however, the brand of atheism most commonly held is not some sort of virtuous, Platonic atheism that cleaves to the Good and accesses the natural light but rather some version of naturalism. And that is highly detrimental to moral insight.
Go back to the original for the link.
That is indeed funny, since it simply concedes everything to the atheist. That you do not need theism to understand morality is precisely the main claim atheists are keen to defend. If you are defending your moral views without reference to God, or scripture, or revelation, then you are playing on the atheist’s turf. And good for you for doing so! For now we can have a reasonable conversation about morality, instead of having one side pretend that they are in possession of the absolute truth, because God graciously revealed it to them.
from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1N7kJww
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire