I don’t understand how atheists adopt much of Christian morality while saying there’s no God. Many still profess to be kind, caring and loving. They aspire to be charitable to the poor and help friends in need.
In fact, they argue that this is evidence that people don’t need God to be good people. I actually had someone say to me a few years ago that “You don’t need to believe in God to be a good Christian.” Huh?
And when asked these good atheists don’t have any argument as to where their morality comes from. I can never seem to get them down to a basis for their definition of good other than they have some notion that it’s agreed upon in some manner. They don’t understand that they’re defining being good mainly by Christian standards. Even in supporting the abomination of abortion they often couch their support of it in terms of love and mercy for the would be mother. They are unwittingly but incorrectly following the morality which stems from Jesus’ teachings. In a chaotic universe, why strive after such things as love and mercy anyway?
Even a famous atheist like Richard Dawkins called himself a “Cultural Christian.”
But doesn’t the matter of whether we were created to love by God or we came about by freak chance have any difference in our morality. I’m telling you now that if I was an atheist I’d be a pretty bad guy.
As Jeff Miller asked the other day concerning the morals of atheists:
Jesus asked “Why do you call me good” trying to get a response of faith, but I might ask the atheist “Why do you want to be called good” in a morally relativist world?
So let’s say for a moment there’s no God. Why on Earth would I adopt the teachings of some lunatic from the Middle East who claimed to be God over 2,000 years ago who ended up being tortured and executed by the state.
And I’m supposed to allow my 21st century life to be based on the mores of a madman who was born 2,000 years ago? It makes no sense at all. Why not randomly pick another 2,000 year old criminal to base your life on? Why not Barabbas? That’s right. Why not be a Barabbian?
It would make just as much sense.
To drill it down to a finer point, if Jesus claimed to be God and was not you’d have to assume he was a raving lunatic. But how do you get from there to yeah he was a lunatic but he advanced the morality on which I base my life as does much of the world?
Seems kind of a jump, doesn’t it?
August 31, 2009 at 4:08 am
This dichotomy actually just points to the very reality of our creation; we are all drawn toward our final end. Atheists can deny it all they want and try to philosophize and psychologize it away, but just as we do they long for that eternal union with God.
They can't escape their Creator; so in their denial, they imagine Him away.
It is a state to be pitied, not ridiculed, a state to be addressed, and not ignored.
The fact is that this morality pre-dated Christianity, and we can't ignore that. It's legitimate because the death and resurrection of Christ didn't negate what was true, but defined it clearly and fulfilled it. That law written on our hearts has been there for a very long time.
I think that I read somewhere that in pagan religions, Buddhism comes closest to Christianity in its moral code and Hinduism comes close. Truth is found everywhere, and in that we don't see an endorsement of pluralism but in the reality of the Law implanted upon us at our very creation; we are all striving for God, especially those who fight so hard to deny Him.
I gotta say, though, your money quote in this post is this one:
"So let's say for a moment there's no God. Why on Earth would I adopt the teachings of some lunatic from the Middle East who claimed to be God over 2,000 years ago who ended up being tortured and executed by the state."
Yup. We have thousands of years' of martyrs who died for this very thing. No one dies for a lie, and those closest to Jesus were the most likely to be willing to stretch out their arms to receive the nails of execution.
No one dies for a lie.
It may be that certain weird cults are talked into suicide, but we see that those "religions" end very quickly and come to nothing for there is no truth there. Yet Christianity cannot even be destroyed from WITHIN. 2,000 years later, people are STILL dying for Christ.
Yet who will EVER be willing to die for an atheist beyond civic and moral duty if the situation requires? Who would ever put their life on the line for atheism? Maybe now, but for the same exact ideal in 2,000 years…..never.
August 31, 2009 at 5:15 am
The one thing atheists and other group do not want to do is admit their debt to Christianity. Even Pagan and Christian groups imitate Christians to an extent, but they assume any charitable aspects are natural and not due to what Christianity uniquely brought forth.
I know as an atheist I was totally ignorant of what Christianity gave us in the Hospital, the University, science, etc, All the western civilization brought me I assumed as being a natural thing. Boy was I ignorant.
August 31, 2009 at 5:37 am
As a former Atheist I can say that I looked towards a social contract theory somewhat based on the ideas of Rousseau and Darwin, but that ultimately upon further inspection seemed to be a dodge. Machiavelli illuminated the errors in this thinking when he wrote the prince. If indeed we acknowledge moral good and evil as social constructs rather than actual truths, what is us to stop us from using our power unjustly? Provided that we use our power as capital to help pay for our transgressions what can stop us from doing as we will? ultimately it was looking down this road that helped me understand that without any moral absolutes or an objective truth we would slowly degenerate into anarchy no matter what we set as our social contract. that idea led me away from atheism and more towards deism, which I believe is about as far as anyone may travel by logic alone, it embraces natural law insofar as it can lead us to understand philosophically the existence of a God or God-like event. to proceed onwards from there takes courage faith and grace, to understand this one must understand love. Love is the threshold of each expression of religion because it explains what mere science and philosophy alone cannot. nowhere else but in the Catholic church have I seen the marriage of faith and reason so joyously preserved, for both are needed to know fullest the meaning of love.
August 31, 2009 at 7:40 am
Atheists will argue that Jesus never claimed to be God in the first place and that it was man who proppeled him to this title after the fact. I don't agree, as I'm a believing Catholic. But setting up strawmen doesn't help in a legitimate argument.
August 31, 2009 at 3:06 pm
In his famous book Mere Christianity, Lewis makes this statement, "A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic – on the level with a man who says he is a poached egg – or he would be the devil of hell. You must take your choice. Either this was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us."
August 31, 2009 at 4:17 pm
amazing. maybe all the "Catholics for Free Choice" can create a new group for themselves — "Barabbians for Free Choice", that would surely make a lot more sense.
August 31, 2009 at 4:32 pm
This is why this is my favorite blog.
Thanks!
August 31, 2009 at 5:08 pm
"I don't understand how atheists adopt much of Christian morality while saying there's no God."
Sorry, Christians did not invent the concept of morality.
"I'm telling you now that if I was an atheist I'd be a pretty bad guy."
That statement says alot about you, but nothing about atheists or atheism.
August 31, 2009 at 6:04 pm
The great Fr. Schall always makes a point of teaching that the pagans new what virtue was, they just did not know how to practice it. Such is the case with atheism. Reason can bring us to the truth of what is and is not moral (and thus many atheists can be moral people). However certain aspects of morality (as it relates to how we should act towards others and not simply a statement of what is virtuous), such as unconditional mercy and forgiveness are distinctly Christian ideas. In this aspect atheists owe many of their moral ideas to Christianity. However, many other moral ideas can be found simply through reason. In any event, the Christian religion helps us to understand morality in its true profundity, and with God's grace, carry it out.
August 31, 2009 at 6:11 pm
"Sorry, Christians did not invent the concept of morality."
That is true, but for most of history in most cultures, most morality systems had some sort of supernatural entity as the basis of the morality.
It took materialistic Atheists to sever morality from any supernatural underpinnings. Why is this important? If all is just material, we are just doing what we simple material beings are materially developed to do: no free will, just drives from impersonal processes etc.
No God, no morality. Morality is just personal preference if there is no God.
"I'm telling you now that if I was an atheist I'd be a pretty bad guy."
"Bad guy"? Why wouldn't you be a good guy? It's just a preference if there's no God.
August 31, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Gutterball – not remotely true. If you equate morality with law (and early cultures saw the two as interchangeable, hence the law of Moses etc) then many early laws were made from secular authorities who did not claim divine inspiration. The rule of Hammurabi is probably the most notable example. Following that would be the Tao Qing of China, and the later Confuscious era. Roman law/morality was famously secular which allowed its citizens to practice any form of religion acceptible by the state (ranging from monotheism to pantheism).
Now, you can argue that Christian morality is by far superior to all others which is why Western civilization still relies on much of it for their moral and legal code (now very much separate unfortunately).
August 31, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Um, so, if you're an atheist, why be "good"? And how do you define "good"? It's not like you have anything to look forward to tomorrow except being food for worms.
This is a serious question. Craig, how do you define good? And why be that way?
August 31, 2009 at 10:20 pm
Mouse – that's the "beauty" of atheism: everyone gets to have their own definition of what "good" is. And they can be good when they feel like it…or not. Only consequences are social/legal/personal.
August 31, 2009 at 11:09 pm
One SMALL problem with citing the Rule of Hammurabi: There was no equality under the law. Everyone knows the "eye for an eye", but the provision applied to the freeman who destroyed the eye of a member of aristocracy. For a commoner's eye, it was one mina of silver. For a slave's eye (or bone) it was 1/2 the slave's value.
BTW, how does one *rationally* move past a utilitarian view of human rights and into the view that all humans have intrinsic value? Based on biology, it's simply not true that all people are equal. If one uses the Singer principles (and I don't suggest we do), then children don't have worth until their parents say they do – or they're able to survive on their own, around age 4.
FYI, saying the Rule of Hammurabi, the Tao Q'ing, etc. were "secular" is a stretch. The supernatural is in the framework. For example, if a freeman in Hammurabi's time accused his wife of adultery but she was not caught in the act, she was allowed to make "an affirmation by god" and return home. The idea being that if she's lying, she's dying.
September 1, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Mouse,
As Jean demonstrates admirably in her post, "good" is defined by the society and times in which you live.
At one time, it was "good" (and Biblically approved) to own slaves. Now it is not.
When colonists settled here in North America, it was perfectly acceptable to indiscriminately wipe out the natives who already lived here. Now its only acceptable to blow up wedding parties in foriegn lands in the name of freedom.
At one time it was "good" that women did not have the right to vote. Now it isn't.
etc., etc. ,etc.
September 1, 2009 at 1:13 pm
Craig,
That was not my question. As an atheist, what is *your* definition of good? And why be that way?
September 1, 2009 at 2:33 pm
"Gutterball – not remotely true. If you equate morality with law (and early cultures saw the two as interchangeable, hence the law of Moses etc) then many early laws were made from secular authorities who did not claim divine inspiration." -Anon. August 31, 2009 3:03 PM
What you talkin' 'bout Willis?
What's not true?
Ceasar was considered god. ("Divine Ceasar" and here) The leader was considered god, hence he (usually he) had the divine authority. Why were Christians thrown to the lions? Why was Danial thrown to the lions? They wouldn't acknowledge the ruler as "his worship".
It's all about authority. Who has the authority to dictate morality? The One Who has authority. Ultimately, it's the King of Kings. God of the universe/multiverse/etc.
BTW, law is not morality.
"As Jean demonstrates admirably in her post, "good" is defined by the society and times in which you live." -craig
If morality truly changes, there is no morality. It's just personal, or societal (material) preference (as I presented above).
"Rather more recently I have realised the great warning against human arrogance that is contained in it, the serpent?s [sic] silky promise that if we reject the supposedly foolish, trivial restrictions imposed on us by an interfering, jealous nuisance of a God, then we shall be liberated.
As the serpent promises: "Ye shall be as gods." These may be the most important words in the whole Bible.
Take the enticing satanic advice, and you arrive, quite quickly, at revolutionary terror, at the invention of the atom bomb, at the torture chamber and the building of concentration camps for those unteachable morons who do not share your vision of a just world." -PETER HITCHENS
September 1, 2009 at 2:46 pm
LOL. I never said I was an atheist, Mouse. Wonderful that you assume I cannot be a Christian because I don't believe that Christianity holds the title for "most moral religion evah".
I'll borrow Dr. Mark Vonnegut's words to help describe what I believe to be "good" behavior:
"We are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is."
As to why be "good", once I understood we are all united in this existence and that people are not just individual bags of skin there was no other way to try and be.
September 1, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Gutterball Master,
As I presented above, morality does change over time.
September 1, 2009 at 3:32 pm
craig,
I apologize for misunderstanding you religion. I guess I just misread your comments.
Incidentally, I've reached the point in my life where I'm an agnostic, much to the dismay of family members. So, I'm not speaking from a soap-box or anything.
I think looking out for others because we're all in this together is good. What if someone's interest directly opposes your own. Say there's one life-vest left on a sinking ship and you and two others without vests? where do you go from there if this life is all there is?