'No such thing as a good atheist'.

[idav]

The article said a crutch is when you appeal to answers outside the self but I didnt catch how that had to do with atheists. Then ended by implying atheists need a god for foundation. Oye the irony.

 

[Sees]

Kinda wanted to read the comments on bottom of their page but hard to after first few.

It is interesting the pastor blogger starts early saying an atheist has to believe in nothing supernatural, spiritual forces, etc. only in strict materialism. This isn't true but simply helps set the tone for him to narrow down and define a target for attack. Materialism, scary indifference of material world, etc.

 

[Father Heathen]

Goodness is determined by character and conduct; honesty, honor, integrity, and compassion. Belief in god is not a prerequisite.

 

[Looncall]

Ho-hum, just another con man bilking the superstitious masses.

This kind of tripe is how he keeps bums on pews, bucks in collection plates and his wallet full.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

His three 'affirmations' are simply incorrect (1 is not required, though extremely common - an atheist CAN believe in a supernatural dimension though it is rarer; 2 follows 1 and need not have been included; 3 is probably a valid assumption for most atheists by definition) but let us accept them temporarily as definitive to constitute the minimum premises of an atheistic worldview.

Assertion of a lack of objective morality or meaning without supernatural basis is provided without support; indeed what it means for something to be objectively moral or to have objective meaning is not discussed. Yet it is then claimed that most atheists live their lives as if there was an objective morality - what is objective morality and how would that have an effect on how we behave? Never examined.

This is then followed by a critique of the argument of morality influenced through socio-biological evolution, however he seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how evolutionary drivers effect behaviour of individiduals within a society, in particular with regards to group dynamics. The second critique he raises is quite unfortunate for his own argument, it shows just how subjective his approach to the situation is - he laments that if it were not true that there were an objective morality (which just so happens to coincide with his own society) that he could not criticise the morality of others or form a comparison of moral heuristics this is simply asserted without foundation. The third Critique (change agents) seems to completely misunderstand the difference between immoral and amoral nor have any degree of reflection of even basic group behavioural processes such as norming.

Then the critique of the argument of morality from logic. "Morality may be logical, but logic does not equate to morality", and? Did anyone ever assert that 'Tim is a human and humans are biological organisms therefore Tim is a biological organism' is a statement of morality? This entire section is completely missing the point or else deliberately disengenious (I assume the former). The scientific model of reality and indeed every science and human undertaking, relies on certain axiomatic assumptions (assertions even) such as 'our surroundings exist' that is an assertion and is actually obscenely difficult to prove, instead we assume it is valid - that our bodies are real, that the clothes we wear are real, that the input device we are using to access these forms is real and that indeed there is a website we are using - it could potentially be a simulation or a delusion, but in order to function we make assertions about reality. This is true in any field. The question therefore should be: 'what types of premises could be reliably incorporated that would prove a sound basis for the examination of morality' - and that is a very valid debate, what constitutes reliability, why is one particular type of premise a valid factor for morality, there are very significant areas of contention there without resorting to the fallacious.

His conclusion once again asserts objective morality, now as I just mentioned, we act under a wealth of assertions even in the most basic undertaking - but not all assumptions are corrrect, what IS an objective morality, how could we come to some level of awareness about what this objective moral heuristic might invovle? None of this is examined in this peice; instead what we get are some criqueues of particular perceptions of certain arguments for a non supernatural basis for morality, unfortunately the arrguments themselves were misunderstood and perhaps that is why the critiques levelled at those arguments missed their mark.

 

[nazz]

An opinion piece in the Huff Post I stumbled across.

Why There Is No Such Thing as a Good Atheist | Pastor Rick Henderson

Please discuss!

In a word, excellent! Nicely done!

 

[nazz]

This whole argument he presents is utterly foreign to Jewish thought, which judges actions, not beliefs.

Whether one believes in many gods, one god, or no god, a person is good if they treat others well, try to create a just society without oppression and poverty, give charity and help the vulnerable.

Goodness is not something innate, or acquirable by belief: it is the sum total of one's actions and behaviors. Whether a person may be in error about a couple of philosophical points-- even important ones like the existence of the One God who created the universe-- has nothing to do with how that person treats others, gives and helps those who need, furthers fairness and justice in the world around them.

I have met a number of atheists who were truly good people, and my disagreement with them about God changed nothing about my respect for their goodness. And I have also met many theists, who profess great religious faith, who were appalling people-- mean, greedy, selfish, bigoted, and oppressive-- and my agreement with them on the one matter of there being a God changed nothing about my revulsion with them as awful people.

The author does not contend atheists do not ethically; he simply says there is no basis for ethics in atheism.

 

[nazz]

The good pastor Henderson neglects to mention that, following his approach, there can be no such thing as a good theist either. All morality is ultimately subjective, even if and when some intellectually incompetent dolt reasons that his or her morality is made objective by his or her belief in a supernatural entity that sanctions it.

That's really beside the point though. There is certainly basis for ethics in religion.

 

[savagewind]

The author does not contend atheists do not ethically; he simply says there is no basis for ethics in atheism.

There is no "underlying support" (basis) for "moral principles that govern a person's or group's behavior" (ethics).

Sometimes I feel like I am ALICE.

 

[nazz]

I think that the author is right about much of what he says. But is overshadowed by his poorly attempted quasi-attack on atheists. What he should have said, in my opinion, is that there's no such thing as good or bad people.

What I mean by this is that the morality of, say, one country is not the morality of another. In Saudi Arabia a man can have as many wives as he can afford. In America you may only have one wife, and having more than one wife is considered illegal and immoral. In America (growingly) homosexuality is considered okay, where as in Saudi Arabia homosexuality is considered immoral.

In the above examples Religion was the prime dictator in those particular moralities. Particularly in the case of homosexuality, which is why it is now undergoing review and revolution.

I think what the reverand should have said instead is that there is 'no such thing as a good or a bad person'. In that everyone is normal according to the country, society or culture they grow up in. You grow up to consider the goings on of your country, society or culture to be normal behaviour. If you lived in Ancient Maya where the people sacrificed someone (often children) to appease the gods every day, and if that was your only experience of life, being within that culture, then that behaviour would seem normal to you.

If you grew up in Nazi Germany and your only influences in life were Nazi propaganda, you would become a Nazi, that would seem quite normal to you. Your whole family would be Nazi, your friends, friends of friends. It would just seem like the normal and natural thing to do to be a Nazi.

What about religious people in different countries. I am sure that the western Christian considers himself right and moral, going about his business in his idea of what he thinks is good and moral but never once stopping to consider that his iPhone may have been made using slavery and sweatshops, and that his clothes may have been made using forced labour, and so on. Is it moral to use goods made by force labour or slavery?

Maybe I missed it but I did not see where he discussed whether someone's ethics were ethical in the view of someone else.

 

[savagewind]

Maybe I missed it but I did not see where he discussed whether someone's ethics were ethical in the view of someone else.

Please elaborate. My mind can not wrap around this.

 

[nazz]

Kinda wanted to read the comments on bottom of their page but hard to after first few.

It is interesting the pastor blogger starts early saying an atheist has to believe in nothing supernatural, spiritual forces, etc. only in strict materialism. This isn't true but simply helps set the tone for him to narrow down and define a target for attack. Materialism, scary indifference of material world, etc.

But let's be real. The vast majority of atheists see the universe as purely material, impersonal, and scientifically ascertained.

 

[nazz]

Please elaborate. My mind can not wrap around this.

He's not discussing meta-ethics, the ethics of ethical systems. He is simply talking about the basis of ethics. Atheists have no basis for ethics in atheism. Their ethics are based on something else.

 

[savagewind]

But let's be real. The vast majority of atheists see the universe as purely material, impersonal, and scientifically ascertained.

Scientifically ascertained is not correct.

 

[savagewind]

The the un iverse is
1. Material. Check!
2. Impersonal for most Check!
3. Scientifically ascertained We don't know what this is.

 

[nazz]

The the un iverse is
1. Material. Check!
2. Impersonal for most Check!
3. Scientifically ascertained We don't know what this is.

from the article: It is observable, knowable and governed strictly by the laws of physics.

 

[savagewind]

So why not tell us what Scientifically ascertained means please?

Oh! The chioces are so many!!!

 

[savagewind]

from the article: It is observable, knowable and governed strictly by the laws of physics.

And how isn't it?

 

[Sees]

But let's be real. The vast majority of atheists see the universe as purely material, impersonal, and scientifically ascertained.

Many do, but to me it shows he is trying to set to a target that really doesn't believe in anything by starting off with this. It is the old speech of the materialistic non-believer who sees nothing grand about our life and the existence of the cosmos. Suggesting with the initial criteria atheism must be life lived with as a lifeless faith in science and the senses.

This isn't terribly awful or anything - but its a somewhat cheesy way to poke at something and take little shots while not really getting on with the main battle.

But yeah it does encapsulate some or even many atheists who think this themselves.

Not many people touch on theists who see virtue as it's own reward and see morality and ethics as completely human...with equal meaning regardless of truth claims on existence of gods. When comparing theism to atheism it never makes sense to do it from one flavor of philosophy and theology of either side.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The author does not contend atheists do not ethically; he simply says there is no basis for ethics in atheism.

He's wrong. Atheism has a better basis for morality than does theism.