Tweet
I don't usually come to this subforum, but I do have something I would like to discuss and hear some opinions from those who post here and are deeper students of the religion than just casual observers.
My main philosophical question is about the concept of morality, especially in the "urban atheist" environment that seems to be so prevalent these days, particularly among the adolescents. Does the morality exist outside religion? Can it exist even in principle without a higher power as the source of authority?
The problem happens if I talk to someone who is a "militant atheist," making fun of religion in general, using phrases such as "man in the sky" or "flying spaghetti monster" to demean the very idea of any religious belief, only to come back and try to push a set of "moral norms" that he/she believes in. It's usually about environment, animals and human virtue signaling. I would always ask them not about the details of the moral norms they accepted as such, but about the authority for the norms that they have so arbitrarily picked. In essence, I turn it back on them to justify the core source of their moral authority without a higher power they so vehemently mocked just moments ago.
It almost always goes from the shock that they have to justify it in the first place (they claim it's obvious), to inability to come up with a logical explanation of why their arbitrary norms and morality should be binding on anyone else in the society, to ultimately declaring a hedonistic position that it's what they feel/believe in (there is that word "belief" again), and everyone who disagrees will be ostracized. At that time, I point out to them that they have not only discovered the need for a higher power as the source of human morality, but also that they are centuries late discovering the religious intolerance - the act of despising those who don't share the same beliefs, in this case the arbitrary moral norms. Incidentally, this also fits the adage that "the right believes the left is misguided, the left believes the right is evil." The "evil" part being not sharing their arbitrary and mutating "moral norms" and instead defining morality based on religion. Certainly anyone not toeing their line must be seen as immoral, evil, despicable, deplorable, etc., which is how they see religious people.
Which brings me to the main question. Can an atheist be a moral person? Not whether an atheist can act in a way that we would consider moral, but can an atheist even define the concept of morality. It appears that it's akin to asking whether an atheist can be a religious person. A contradiction in terms.
The majority of people who are not devout tend to want to be "good people" and want to do "good." They don't want to be "bad" or "do bad things," yet there seems to be no way to define "good," "bad," "moral," "immoral," "virtue" or "sin" without the higher power and faith. The science and nature certainly don't provide such concepts. These concepts are uniquely human, where we use restraint because we believe it is the moral thing to do. By contrast, nature and science are cold and brutal. Animals do things to each other that we wouldn't find acceptable. Science is a set of facts, methods and theories that describe the nature, without emotion or any other human trait.
Am I overthinking this? Any input is welcome.
My main philosophical question is about the concept of morality, especially in the "urban atheist" environment that seems to be so prevalent these days, particularly among the adolescents. Does the morality exist outside religion? Can it exist even in principle without a higher power as the source of authority?
The problem happens if I talk to someone who is a "militant atheist," making fun of religion in general, using phrases such as "man in the sky" or "flying spaghetti monster" to demean the very idea of any religious belief, only to come back and try to push a set of "moral norms" that he/she believes in. It's usually about environment, animals and human virtue signaling. I would always ask them not about the details of the moral norms they accepted as such, but about the authority for the norms that they have so arbitrarily picked. In essence, I turn it back on them to justify the core source of their moral authority without a higher power they so vehemently mocked just moments ago.
It almost always goes from the shock that they have to justify it in the first place (they claim it's obvious), to inability to come up with a logical explanation of why their arbitrary norms and morality should be binding on anyone else in the society, to ultimately declaring a hedonistic position that it's what they feel/believe in (there is that word "belief" again), and everyone who disagrees will be ostracized. At that time, I point out to them that they have not only discovered the need for a higher power as the source of human morality, but also that they are centuries late discovering the religious intolerance - the act of despising those who don't share the same beliefs, in this case the arbitrary moral norms. Incidentally, this also fits the adage that "the right believes the left is misguided, the left believes the right is evil." The "evil" part being not sharing their arbitrary and mutating "moral norms" and instead defining morality based on religion. Certainly anyone not toeing their line must be seen as immoral, evil, despicable, deplorable, etc., which is how they see religious people.
Which brings me to the main question. Can an atheist be a moral person? Not whether an atheist can act in a way that we would consider moral, but can an atheist even define the concept of morality. It appears that it's akin to asking whether an atheist can be a religious person. A contradiction in terms.
The majority of people who are not devout tend to want to be "good people" and want to do "good." They don't want to be "bad" or "do bad things," yet there seems to be no way to define "good," "bad," "moral," "immoral," "virtue" or "sin" without the higher power and faith. The science and nature certainly don't provide such concepts. These concepts are uniquely human, where we use restraint because we believe it is the moral thing to do. By contrast, nature and science are cold and brutal. Animals do things to each other that we wouldn't find acceptable. Science is a set of facts, methods and theories that describe the nature, without emotion or any other human trait.
Am I overthinking this? Any input is welcome.
Comment