tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post3688475936687608269..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Bigotry and the Necessity of God to MoralityAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-85335102613689877912009-03-24T11:07:00.000-06:002009-03-24T11:07:00.000-06:00Tom - on a purely literal level, you're probably r...Tom - on a purely literal level, you're probably right. But in the real world, it is almost never the case that a group of ethicists comes together and asks this in an attempt to answer it empirically. (they generally have enough training that this would be akin to a group of physicists and chemists gathering to empirically answer why soda cans don't explode when they're opened) Rather, it is nearly always the case that this question is asked by a theist trying to show that atheists are immoral and dangerous creatures. An anti-atheist bigot.<BR/><BR/>Also, the FAQ linked in the side-bar of the main page is a good starting point for DU. :) Yay Luke!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-63653739107701272352009-03-24T10:51:00.000-06:002009-03-24T10:51:00.000-06:00"What if there is no God? How do you get people to...<I>"What if there is no God? How do you get people to act morally in that case?"</I><BR/><BR/>So here's another question- what if "morality" is inherent? What if it's an instinctual offshoot of empathy? <BR/><BR/>I think what gives me difficulty with this question (and yes, I'm an atheist), is the idea that you have to "get" people to act a certain way in the first place.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps it's a chicken/egg argument, but my thought has always been that codified rules- whether they are religious or civil- are just men writing down what is already inherent in our nature.<BR/><BR/>I guess it's a belief system thing, but I can't wrap my head around the idea that "without God" there is no objective measure of morality- I view it as an inherent, instinctual human trait, so how does the presence (or not) of a supernatural being change that?Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01165028149731657418noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-34480356110516880702009-03-24T09:16:00.000-06:002009-03-24T09:16:00.000-06:00Your analysis here has a lot in it that is correct...Your analysis here has a lot in it that is correct, Alonzo, but you also make one mistake that's common in discussions on this topic. <BR/><BR/>When theists say atheists have no reason to be good, or that they're necessarily worse than theists, then I stand with you and say that's not the case. But that wasn't the question you started with. The question you started with was, "how do you get people to act morally if there is no God? If you take away God, what reason is there not to rape and pillage ..."<BR/><BR/>The difference between the two questions is the difference between belief and ontology. You ended (and I began here) by talking about belief. But you had begun by talking about whether there is a God. That's a different question.<BR/><BR/>If there is no God, then there is no God equally for theists and atheists. This is not a matter of bigotry, then. If there is a God, there is a God for theists and atheists alike. Of course they do not stand in the same relationship with God in that case, but God exists for them just the same. And if there is no God, then again theists' and atheist's standing before reality is also not the same. One group's understanding of reality is much more nearly correct than the other's.<BR/><BR/>With that in mind, here again is the question you began with: <I>What if there is no God? How do you get people to act morally in that case?</I> The theist answer would be that the second question has no objective meaning if there is no God, for there is no objective morality. It's not a motivation question, it's a definition question. What is morality if there is no God? Is it a system that explains and undergirds right and wrong? Does it involve duties? Is it relative to the person or the culture?<BR/><BR/>I'm not assuming I know your answer to those questions. I'm intrigued by your theory of desire utilitarianism, and I'd be grateful if you would point me to a good online introduction to it. What I've seen of it so far appears very similar to Mary Midgley's motive-based morality. As a theist, I find Midgley's work to be among the best among non-theistic versions of morality, but it's still lacking. I've been working through a series on this at my <A HREF="http://www.thinkingchristian.net" REL="nofollow"> Thinking Christian blog</A>.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I won't try here to work through what I take to be the answer to the questions raised, I just wanted to clarify what the question is. If you start with "What if there's no God?" and end with "what about those who don't believe in God?" then you've switched subjects right in the middle of the discussion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com