Why are christians morally inferior to atheists

[Makaveli]

Tolstoy argued that a religion is the relationship a person has with God and other people, and therefore morality could not exist without religion. Ergo, since religion encompasses all of one's relations and interactions with other people, then morality can not exist outside of those associations.

Without a moral system, in this case without a religion, people have no incentive to behave in a moral fashion and there is nothing keeping them from a hedonistic lifestyle. However, many athiests seem to live a morally upright life without professing any religion. My theory on this is that, living in a society that is predominantly Christian, athiests take in the dominant mores of their society and, without professing any religion, still subconsciously hold a fascimile of one through their acceptance of dominant social mores.

 

[dogsgod]

Tolstoy argued that a religion is the relationship a person has with God and other people, and therefore morality could not exist without religion.

Then Tolstoy is an idiot.

Ergo, since religion encompasses all of one's relations and interactions with other people, then morality can not exist outside of those associations.Without a moral system, in this case without a religion, people have no incentive to behave in a moral fashion and there is nothing keeping them from a hedonistic lifestyle. However, many athiests seem to live a morally upright life without professing any religion. My theory on this is that, living in a society that is predominantly Christian, athiests take in the dominant mores of their society and, without professing any religion, still subconsciously hold a fascimile of one through their acceptance of dominant social mores.

Religion is a euphemism for superstition. Atheists (read non superstitious about gods), can be moral in spite of the superstitious influences on our culture.

 

[Makaveli]

Then Tolstoy is an idiot.

Instead of summarily dismissing arguments as idiocy, perhaps you should read them fully and then make a judgment. It would reflect better on you. The essay I reference is titled "Religion and Morality," and can be found in Google Books free of charge. His full summary of his positions: "Religion is a certain relation established by man between his separate personality and the infinite universe or its source, and morality is the ever-present guide to life, which results from that relation."

 

[dogsgod]

Instead of summarily dismissing arguments as idiocy, perhaps you should read them fully and then make a judgment. It would reflect better on you.

I doubt it. Besides, I'm not interested in peoples relationships with their so called God. It bores me.

The essay I reference is titled "Religion and Morality," and can be found in Google Books free of charge. His full summary of his positions: "Religion is a certain relation established by man between his separate personality and the infinite universe or its source, and morality is the ever-present guide to life, which results from that relation."

Man and his separate personality, you're losing me already.

 

[Fortunato]

Tolstoy argued that a religion is the relationship a person has with God and other people, and therefore morality could not exist without religion.

I hate to contradict Tolstoy, but perhaps morality means something different in Russian. Webster defines morality as a system of conduct that conforms to a standard of right behavior. Nowhere in it's definition does it say that it has to be based on religion (and please look it up if you don't believe me).

Without a moral system, in this case without a religion, people have no incentive to behave in a moral fashion and there is nothing keeping them from a hedonistic lifestyle.

This does seem to be a common view of most religious people I talk to. I'm curious - what do you mean by no incentive to behave in a moral fashion? Are you talking about things like robbery and murder or things like gay marriage and drug legalization?
Incidentally, have you ever heard of Antinomianism? It's the religious belief that people are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality, and that salvation is by faith alone.

However, many athiests seem to live a morally upright life without professing any religion. My theory on this is that, living in a society that is predominantly Christian, athiests take in the dominant mores of their society and, without professing any religion, still subconsciously hold a fascimile of one through their acceptance of dominant social mores.

Finally! One part of your post that I somewhat agree with! There is only one thing that I would add to it. All of the atheists I know, would say they also look outside of the dominant social norms (whether to western or eastern philosophy or other religions) to add to or modify their moral views.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

It is patently untrue that all humans have "evolved" powerful innate compassion. Nature versus Nurture. If you want someone to have a "powerful innate compassion" or "innate sense of empathy," then you have to do more than simply let genes take over. Some people are born more aggressive than others; some are born with very little vasopresin production and thus do not get very attached to their "mates."

If you want to ensure that someone has a "good sense of morality" then socialization is going to be necessary. How children are raised and schooled determines to some extent (modern psychology isn't sure; body development is correlated to age, but some adults never progress on to the last "stages" of morality, so genes and development cannot explain morality) how moral someone is later in life.


On the other side of the coin one should note that children of divorced parents and spousal abuse are more likely to become abusers themselves. But there is no guarantee that one will become an abuser even if all of the "risk factors" are present and courts of law do not allow behavioral conditioning to be an excuse for abuse. So socialization by itself is insufficient.


MTF

 

[Makaveli]

I hate to contradict Tolstoy, but perhaps morality means something different in Russian. Webster defines morality as a system of conduct that conforms to a standard of right behavior. Nowhere in it's definition does it say that it has to be based on religion (and please look it up if you don't believe me).

I am aware of the conventional definition, I was posting the personal definition of Tolstoy he wrote in response to prompting (the entire argument he proposes can be found in his essay Religion and Morality). Obviously, his personal definition is quite different from the conventional one.

This does seem to be a common view of most religious people I talk to. I'm curious - what do you mean by no incentive to behave in a moral fashion? Are you talking about things like robbery and murder or things like gay marriage and drug legalization?

To use a metaphor, there cannot be any flowers without roots. If there is no moral basis, it cannot be expected that there will be any moral action. Tolstoy wished to bring about the kingdom of God on Earth, rather than wait for it in heaven, by complete non-resistance to evil based on Jesus' teachings and through the fostering of brotherly love for all humanity. He saw the dogma of religion to be one of the main factors keeping people from uniting in love for one another, and he saw the usual incentives to keep people moral, such as eternal punishment, torture in hellfire, et cetera as evil and not the products of a loving god, but inventions of men. Instead, he saw the incentive as something psychological, inner peace achieved from a feeling of love and brotherhood for everyone.

I was talking about any action really. Without a moral framework and a sense of right and wrong, there is nothing keeping one from engaging in self-serving and hedonistic behavior. But as I said at the end of my last post, anyone growing up in a society will develop some sort of moral system; individuals do not exist in a vacuum whereby they will not have a moral system if they profess athiesm.

Incidentally, have you ever heard of Antinomianism? It's the religious belief that people are under no obligation to obey the laws of ethics or morality, and that salvation is by faith alone.

I never have, but I hope Wiki will be as trusty as always in this case. I will research it.

Finally! One part of your post that I somewhat agree with! There is only one thing that I would add to it. All of the atheists I know, would say they also look outside of the dominant social norms (whether to western or eastern philosophy or other religions) to add to or modify their moral views.

Athiests are blessed in that they use their reason to lead them to their conclusions, whether I agree with them or not. There is much good that can be learned from other cultures.

 

[Smoke]

This is, perhaps, why the religious will often say that to be an Atheist is to be immoral, because of the potential to commit immorality. Most religious know that Atheists are not immoral by nature and will most often do the moral thing when it comes down to it.

So, you're saying that many theists intentionally slander their atheist neighbors in order to make a point in favor of theism -- a point they know to be false?

That doesn't say much for theism as an inspiration for morality.

 

[TheKnight]

See, it is this mentality that concerns me about the inherent morality of christians. It is as if they are without a conscience. Even asking such a question shows that they are lacking this ability to self-regulate. It is the very definition of sociopathic behavior.

Excuse me for being capable of theoretical discussion. The entire point of my posing that question is, What is morality based on without religion?

It should be clear from the above definitions that one does not require religion to have morality. You may feel and believe that any moral code outside of the bounds of your own religion is inferior, but you should at least admit that it can exist. As to whether or not it is inferior is up to the individual or society to decide.

One final point on objectivity. You concede that outside of a religious frame work, morality is subjective. One of the greatest appeals of having a morality based on religion (for a person of faith) is that because it is based on God's laws, the resulting moral code would be both absolute and unchanging. But looking at history it's obvious that church doctrine and the moral views of it's followers have changed over time. At *best*, one could say that perhaps God's morality didn't change, just peoples understanding of it has. But from an outsiders perspective, it looks every bit as subjective as any other moral code or system does.

This is true. I suppose I should change my position to "Religion offers the best external source of morality." After all, if it is accepted that God gave a moral code, then it is much easier to enforce logically.

However, I do see how it would appear every bit as subjective as any other moral system. My apologies.

So, you're saying that many theists intentionally slander their atheist neighbors in order to make a point in favor of theism -- a point they know to be false?

That doesn't say much for theism as an inspiration for morality.

I think it's more for the sake of theoretical discussion. As I said, the reason they mention it is because the potential for immorality is greater (in a sense). They're not necessarily saying that Atheists are let moral (although that argument could be made), they use that example because of the potential for immorality.

 

[Aquitaine]

Hello all.

Interesting discussion we've got going on here, I've always been attracted to conversations about Morality, especially with religious people since they generlly seem to take the stance that TheKnight is in that Morality cannot exist without God.

I have to start by saying, that I totally disagree with you, TheKnight. I understand that you're "views" of killing someone just because they made you angry etc aren't your general views, and you're only doing it for theoretical debate, however if someone in general did say to me something along the lines of:
"If there is no God, then why be moral? Why be nice to others, why not just abandon all sense of Morality and do whatever we want?"
- I'd actually be quite nervous!

Also I must take sides here that I agree with the other posters that Morality is subjective, to say objective Morality exists is basically like saying an objective opinion or taste in music exists - the idea that there is some sort of "correct" or "devine" or "superior" taste in music that is correct, whilst all others are wrong. It's the same with Morality, in a simple sense one could perhaps say that Morality is nothing more than one's own opinion on what is right and wrong. Just like how "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", it's the same for Morality and any other opinion.

Objective Morality doesn't exist AFAIK, otherwise life would be too simple, not only that but if Morality was objective it would contradict itself and therefore would no longer be Morality. To put it in a simple way: if there was objective Morality, Morality wouldn't therefore "exist" since people would just be "following orders" rather than assessing situations themselves. If it was possible to just have a superior source say to you "do this, this is right, don't do this, this is wrong" wouldn't that make the people who followed those orders no more Moral than anyone who doesn't, since all they're doing is obeying commands blindly?

It get's kinda confusing and I'm sorry if my points haven't been presented properly but I'm sure you get the idea

One last point, when you said how Morality doesn't exist and therefore people are left to their own judgements to decide what is right and wrong for them, and that that means people can be selfish and base their judgements so that their needs are greater than anyone elses - I'd say.......

Welcome to the real World, we have a***holes amongst us!

 

[TheKnight]

- I'd actually be quite nervous!

Everyone keeps saying something along these lines, but they haven't actually answered the question. Yes, it's terrible that I wouldn't care, but why should I care? Is there a reason why I should? Because it's nice? What if I don't care about being nice?

My point is, what makes any action moral or immoral? The fact that we either like the action or don't like it? The fact that "good" gives us warm fuzzies and "bad" doesn't?

Also I must take sides here that I agree with the other posters that Morality is subjective, to say objective Morality exists is basically like saying an objective opinion or taste in music exists - the idea that there is some sort of "correct" or "devine" or "superior" taste in music that is correct, whilst all others are wrong. It's the same with Morality, in a simple sense one could perhaps say that Morality is nothing more than one's own opinion on what is right and wrong. Just like how "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder", it's the same for Morality and any other opinion.

Objective Morality doesn't exist AFAIK, otherwise life would be too simple, not only that but if Morality was objective it would contradict itself and therefore would no longer be Morality. To put it in a simple way: if there was objective Morality, Morality wouldn't therefore "exist" since people would just be "following orders" rather than assessing situations themselves. If it was possible to just have a superior source say to you "do this, this is right, don't do this, this is wrong" wouldn't that make the people who followed those orders no more Moral than anyone who doesn't, since all they're doing is obeying commands blindly?

It get's kinda confusing and I'm sorry if my points haven't been presented properly but I'm sure you get the idea

One last point, when you said how Morality doesn't exist and therefore people are left to their own judgements to decide what is right and wrong for them, and that that means people can be selfish and base their judgements so that their needs are greater than anyone elses - I'd say.......

Welcome to the real World, we have a***holes amongst us!

My opinion is that there is no such thing as morality. It's not relevant. There are events that happen, and there are actions that people do. Those events and actions are neither moral nor immoral, good nor bad. They are neutral in nature because unless you have a goal or a defined purpose (both of which depend on the individual), those actions have no intrinsic meaning.

Shooting someone with a gun. Immoral if it's a burglar shooting a child. Moral if it's a cops shooting someone who's trying to kill other people.

Cutting people up. Immoral if it's a man eating another human against his will. Moral if it's a surgeon with a scalpel.

Intercourse. Moral if it's two consenting parties. Immoral if it's an old man and a little girl.

From my perspective, none of these actions is neither moral nor immoral and we shouldn't try to classify them as such. The reason for this is that we cannot prove to another person that any action is intrinsically immoral or moral.

We can simply evaluate actions within the context of a goal. If we have a certain goal, then there is a methodology to reach that goal. Those actions which do not conform to that methodology (and therefore take us farther from the goal) are those which we normally classify as immoral.

As a society, this means that we shouldn't classify actions as wrong. Instead, we should say "Our society has goal X and your actions do not allow for that goal to be accomplished and instead go directly against that goal, therefore your actions are harmful to us and must be stopped (by force if necessary)."

All in all, arguments about the morality of particular actions are pointless.

 

[Aquitaine]

Well yeah of course Morality doesn't "exist" in the sense of that it can be "defined". Also, yeah you're right there is no universal relevence whether one cares for others or not, and there isn't neccessarily an obligation for one to do so either, as one could live an isolated live if they wished too etc.

The thing is, I may be wrong but now you seem to be changing your side, first you argue about how religion provides Morality (i.e. support the idea of Objective Morality) and now you change to the complete opposite and appear to support the idea of subjective Morality.

IIRC your original point was that Morality cannot exist without Religion/God, so for you to now take this complete opposite direction leaves me confused as to what side you're actually supporting :S

 

[CarlinKnew]

My opinion is that there is no such thing as morality. It's not relevant. There are events that happen, and there are actions that people do. Those events and actions are neither moral nor immoral, good nor bad. They are neutral in nature because unless you have a goal or a defined purpose (both of which depend on the individual), those actions have no intrinsic meaning.

Shooting someone with a gun. Immoral if it's a burglar shooting a child. Moral if it's a cops shooting someone who's trying to kill other people.

Cutting people up. Immoral if it's a man eating another human against his will. Moral if it's a surgeon with a scalpel.

Intercourse. Moral if it's two consenting parties. Immoral if it's an old man and a little girl.

From my perspective, none of these actions is neither moral nor immoral and we shouldn't try to classify them as such. The reason for this is that we cannot prove to another person that any action is intrinsically immoral or moral.

Is it also your opinion that words don't exist? They're just sounds emitted from our voicebox or lines drawn on a page. Actions have no intrinsic meaning just as words have no intrinsic meaning, but they have meaning to us. This is subjectivity. This is what I've been saying.

We can simply evaluate actions within the context of a goal. If we have a certain goal, then there is a methodology to reach that goal. Those actions which do not conform to that methodology (and therefore take us farther from the goal) are those which we normally classify as immoral.

:yes:

As a society, this means that we shouldn't classify actions as wrong.

Why not? We consider them to be wrong, so we classify them as wrong.

Instead, we should say "Our society has goal X and your actions do not allow for that goal to be accomplished and instead go directly against that goal, therefore your actions are harmful to us and must be stopped (by force if necessary)."

That's what we mean when we say an action is wrong. It's a shorthand for that. If you'd rather spell it out, go ahead.

All in all, arguments about the morality of particular actions are pointless.

They can't discover an action's "intrinsic morality" because such a thing doesn't exist, but each side can explain why they believe it's moral or not in hopes of coming to an agreement.

 

[Fortunato]

Athiests are blessed in that they use their reason to lead them to their conclusions.

I'm sorry, but i found the above quote rather humorous!

...he saw the incentive as something psychological, inner peace achieved from a feeling of love and brotherhood for everyone.

Please correct me if I am mistaken (I don't mean to construct a straw man), but this sounds like you're talking about how a moral code can be used as a personal incentive towards living a better life. That is almost like using morality as some sort of personal life coach.

I was talking about any action really. Without a moral framework and a sense of right and wrong, there is nothing keeping one from engaging in self-serving and hedonistic behavior.

I mostly agree with this part of your post except for the phrase "...there is nothing keeping one from...". You postulate a person who has no sense of right and wrong. I can think of several things which would prevent such a person from engaging in hedonistic, self-serving behavior. The first that comes to mind is our system of laws. An amoral person won't engage in behavior which is destructive towards others because of the threat of imprisonment or fines. I can also envision a person who has no sense of right or wrong stopping hedonistic behavior based on the request of a loved one (think of a mother asking her child to stop using drugs). These examples of course wouldn't stop every person from committing acts which are self-serving or hedonistic, just as Jesus' example doesn't stop every Christian from committing sins, but they would stop some.

This is true. I suppose I should change my position to "Religion offers the best external source of morality." After all, if it is accepted that God gave a moral code, then it is much easier to enforce logically.

However, I do see how it would appear every bit as subjective as any other moral system. My apologies.

No apologies needed! I agree with the thought that IF God gave man a moral code, then that would have a higher claim to authority than any other moral code out there. But that presupposes that there is a god and that we can correctly determine which religious teachings contain his morality, neither of which mankind has had much success in resolving.

 

[Autodidact]

I think that Christians (and other religions) use it to show that outside of religion, there really is no reason to be "moral". Sure, I could refrain from sex, and drinking, etc etc etc. But, without religion, I am nothing more than an animal. After all, this is what many Atheists will say in debate with religious people. That human beings are animals. Well, animals have instincts. Without religion, there is no external reason to refrain from indulgence in every bodily physical pleasure that exists.

I have heard people say that "it is best for a society if the individual behaves morally", but the response to that would be "Why should I give a damn about society? It was here before me, it will be here after me and all I must do is leave my mark."

This is, perhaps, why the religious will often say that to be an Atheist is to be immoral, because of the potential to commit immorality. Most religious know that Atheists are not immoral by nature and will most often do the moral thing when it comes down to it.

It is best for the individual in question to behave morally, and that is the reason to do it. Many religionists seem too morally retarded to grasp this. For example, they will argue with a straight face that infanticide is not inherently immoral, but only because God commands it so, and that when God commands infanticide, it then becomes moral. This position is obviously a morally infantile level of development, and results in a lot of dead babies.

 

[Autodidact]

Well yeah of course Morality doesn't "exist" in the sense of that it can be "defined". Also, yeah you're right there is no universal relevence whether one cares for others or not, and there isn't neccessarily an obligation for one to do so either, as one could live an isolated live if they wished too etc.

The thing is, I may be wrong but now you seem to be changing your side, first you argue about how religion provides Morality (i.e. support the idea of Objective Morality) and now you change to the complete opposite and appear to support the idea of subjective Morality.

IIRC your original point was that Morality cannot exist without Religion/God, so for you to now take this complete opposite direction leaves me confused as to what side you're actually supporting :S

I don't think I've ever met a religonist who wasn't an utter moral relativist.

 

[TheKnight]

Why not? We consider them to be wrong, so we classify them as wrong.

Eh, I guess on a practical level that makes sense.

They can't discover an action's "intrinsic morality" because such a thing doesn't exist, but each side can explain why they believe it's moral or not in hopes of coming to an agreement.

:yes:

It is best for the individual in question to behave morally, and that is the reason to do it. Many religionists seem too morally retarded to grasp this. For example, they will argue with a straight face that infanticide is not inherently immoral, but only because God commands it so, and that when God commands infanticide, it then becomes moral. This position is obviously a morally infantile level of development, and results in a lot of dead babies.

There is no such thing as an inherently immoral action. As I said, there is a goal and there are actions which either promote that goal or detract from it. In the religious perspective (or at least my religious perspective), Service of God is the goal. Therefore there are those actions which He tells us to do, and those which He does not. The morality of an action, in this context, is based upon what He tells us to do.

 

[Makaveli]

Please correct me if I am mistaken (I don't mean to construct a straw man), but this sounds like you're talking about how a moral code can be used as a personal incentive towards living a better life. That is almost like using morality as some sort of personal life coach.

Not a moral code, but feeling a true and genuine love and brotherhood for mankind will lead to a higher moral plane. The incentive is inner peace, achieved by the above.

I mostly agree with this part of your post except for the phrase "...there is nothing keeping one from...". You postulate a person who has no sense of right and wrong. I can think of several things which would prevent such a person from engaging in hedonistic, self-serving behavior. The first that comes to mind is our system of laws. An amoral person won't engage in behavior which is destructive towards others because of the threat of imprisonment or fines. I can also envision a person who has no sense of right or wrong stopping hedonistic behavior based on the request of a loved one (think of a mother asking her child to stop using drugs). These examples of course wouldn't stop every person from committing acts which are self-serving or hedonistic, just as Jesus' example doesn't stop every Christian from committing sins, but they would stop some.

Of course, we don't live in a vacuum! I thought I made that point in this thread, but I did it in another one it seems. Based on your model, a hedonistic and completely amoral person would still be restricted in his actions by the dominant social mores and laws of the society he lives in. However, a completely amoral person would not be possible in such a society, because people from the youngest age take in a sense of right and wrong based on their society, and short of mental illness I do not believe a completely amoral person is possible in any functioning society.

In short, a fully amoral, hedonistic individual is impossible in the real world, a point I should have made earlier. This point of course hinges on the existence of a societal moral system, which everyone in the society ascribes to in some degree.

 

[Autodidact]

There is no such thing as an inherently immoral action. As I said, there is a goal and there are actions which either promote that goal or detract from it. In the religious perspective (or at least my religious perspective), Service of God is the goal. Therefore there are those actions which He tells us to do, and those which He does not. The morality of an action, in this context, is based upon what He tells us to do.

I rest my case.

 

[Aquitaine]

"There is no such thing as an inherently immoral action. As I said, there is a goal and there are actions which either promote that goal or detract from it. In the religious perspective (or at least my religious perspective), Service of God is the goal. Therefore there are those actions which He tells us to do, and those which He does not. The morality of an action, in this context, is based upon what He tells us to do"

Right okay, fair enough, that seems to be the stance with most religious people. But it doesn't make you any more Moral simply by following a religion and it's protocol just because it claims to be true, divine and "moral". So I don't know why you said earlier that without Religion we'd loose our sense of "Morality". After all, no-one has tre "moraliy" because such a thing doesn't exist. If Morality did exist, it wouldn't be Morality itself, since if one could define and objectify "good" and "bad" and simply follow them, they'll just be sheep following orders rather than questioning things for themselves.

If we lost religion, we'd loose Religion's opinion on what is Moral. We wouldn't be any worse off in general since..... what is Morality?