How can an Atheists support their view while also maintaining a morality?

Question

Considering this. We are in direct opposition to everything that is natural about this universe. All of nature both macro and micro operates according to selfishness and destruction.

Animals do not care for one another. The same for plants and minerals. Even Richard Dawkins states this with his selfish gene theory. All the cosmos operates this way.

Atheists say these are only systems that sentient man judges as right or wrong. Why is that you would judge things right or wrong in the first place? No other animal in existence does. Why not just be selfish, destructive, and inconsiderate as all of nature? Would that not ensure the survival of your species? It does the rest of the universe. Why not you? Why does man feel compelled to operate in a way opposite to what is natural to his habitat and cosmos?

Does that mean mankind is the pinnacle of evolution? If so, why keep the rest of the animal kingdom operating the old way? Without morality.

Answer 1

The flaw in this argument is that being destructive does NOT insure survival of your species; in fact, it will doom it.

But let's look at other things. Animals have a kind of morality.

Have you ever seen tiger p**n?

Do otters murder one another?

Has a gorilla burned down the houses of another for the insurance money?

Did you know that swans, wolves and eagles (among other animals) mate for life?

True, nature does what it does to survive, but I have never heard of the kangaroos mounting an offensive to wipe out the tasmanian devil race.

You do not have to have a faith to be moral and, if I may add, both Hitler and Stalin were Catholics and look what they did.

Answer 2

The power of any society is law handed down and administered by the elders of that particular tribe.

Usually contained in the tribal law is the governing fact of their religious beliefs held together by mythical beings and time frames of the nature's solstice occurrences.

When animals were Gods and formed mountains in their likeness and how the a white feathered bird became a black bird got its colour from falling into the coals of a fire after fighting with its brother are just some of the Dream-time mythologies of the Australian Aboriginals who have been on the continent for more than 40,000 years.

Another one is that the Aboriginals will never skin a Kangaroo as it is seen to be human like and it is only cooked with its skin on. The answer is would you like me to skin you alive becomes the metaphor

Answer 3

Do you honestly believe that before organized religion, mankind had no moral values? Pre-Christian Europe had a very complicated caste-system, they had organization, a law that counted for everybody as equal.

I personally believe that religious people are the ones who lack morality. The moral values of an atheist are for the good of the world, and of a religous person because they fear their God.

Answer 4

Morality need have nothing to do with religion and vise versa.

Aristotle wrote of ethics and morals and his writings and his opinions/beliefs on this subject are still the standard for the same.

The Gautama Buddha spoke of moral actions, thoughts and being, teaching the same for 47 years.

Confusicius and Lao Tze wrote and taught extensively about the need of and the development of the moral nature of the individual.

In contemporary times, one might consider person such as His Holiness , the Dalia Lama and his teachings on morals and ethics.

A large number of animals do clearly demonstrate social behavior by supporting and caring for other members of their herd, pride, pod, school and/or troop.

In fact, most animals nuture their young in manners that are profoundly caring.

The universe only seems cold and ungiving when one adopts the illusion of being separate from all that is.

In realtiy, the universe has provided you with air to breath, a place to stand, warmth from the sun, cool in the shade, food and water to nurish yourself with and a wide varitey of life and physical forms with which to celebrate life.

Self centered attitudes are destructive and inconsiderate of nature and have been practiced by a great number of cultures and societies as well as individuals for a long time.

This has lead to deforestation, polluted air, lakes, rivers and oceans, contamination of the earth and global warming as well as to the loss of over 1% of all animal species each year.

All that exist have arisen from the cause and effect nature of the interdependence of existence.  Each needs the other to survive as is being demonstrated by the ecological and environmental problesm that are now facing all of life on this planet as well as the planet itself.

Perhaps it would serve you and others who may hold similar views to study biology, ecology, planetology so as to have a better and more accurate understanding of how life occurs on this planet.

Perhaps studying ethics and philosophy, especially the history and development of the same might be a worthwhile pursuit also.

It would appear that your very subjective and inaccruate views have lead to opinions that are not supportable by reasonable and intelligent discussion nor by verifiable, reliable and measurabel facts.

Be well.

RESPONSE:

Aristotle professed to not belive in any of the gods.  The Buddha taught, even with his dying breath, that there is no god.  Confuscious and Lao Tze taught that if the gods existed they did nthing and were not worthy of devotion.  His Holiness the Dalia Lama, in accordance to the life philosophy he live, does not believe in any god.  Please, to remember that Buddhism is not a religion, nor is Taoism, etc.

Elephants have been seen to return to the place where the bones of a former herd member lay and gently caress them with their trunks  as they shed tears.

Female gorillas, chimpanezes and other primates have been known to carry their dead infants with them for weeks in mourning.

Many herd animals have been witnessed standing in a protective circle around an injured or dying herd member until their own needs for food and water caused them to have to leave.

Birds have been witnessed to continue to sit on the brood their eggs long after the normal time for the hatching has passed.

There are many other such examples such as a mother dog taking orphaned kittens to rasie as her own...the signing gorrilla Koko with her pet cat All Ball...

At no time would this one say that the earth should kill humans or the other life forms present on this planet.

This one specifically stated that all are interdependent uopn all else that is for the existence of all.  The loss of any harms all as none are separate from all else that is.

Perhaps this ones English is not correct and for that this one apologizes and will work to correct the same.

Be well.

RESPONSE:

In the more than one half century this one has be in this present manifestation and from having lived in many parts of the world (and now residing in the USofA), smile, this one has met many Taoist which is life philosphy and not a religion expect according to the understanding of those who only speak, read and write English and some other Western cultures.  This one also knows many Buddhist, and members of a majority of the various religious/faith and philosophical systems and thoughts of the world.  This one even knows some who profess to be Christians, Muslims and Jews, smile.

In India, the vast majority of person are Hindu, not Taoist.

Buddhism is not a religion as such supposes and implys a belief in a supreme being and Buddhism does not do so.

In this ones personal and educational experience and background, this one has witnessed a wide variety of animals tending to the needs of their own kind which was viewed with objectivity and not subjectivity.

Perhaps it is not a sign of wisdom to generalize or to judge others without possessing accurate, objective knowledge of the same especially when supposing to assess what another knows or does not know as it may be easier to then be incorrect rather than correct.

Perhaps it is wiser to only ask questions when one is truly seeking an answer which may be different from that which the individual originally sought.  Otherwise, presenting ones personal opinions might be better done in a 'blog".

When one begins with a personal bias, it often deters that one from seeing what is for what it is.

Be well and please to open oneself to the learning that others have gathered in their lives which may be different from your own as such is not a competition but a sharing.

Be well.

Answer 5

Let's whittle this down to your question.

Atheist: one who lacks belief in a deity.

All this means is that an Atheist uses morals without reference to a higher power handing them down. That's all.

This does not mean an Atheist sees himself as a bag of chemicals that can only consider immediate moments of pleasure with no forethought. On the contrary, few, if any, do.

It just means that morality must be found without reference to some old books. The list of moral sources is long and varied; I'm sure entire books can be written on them. Some sources used:

1 - The law (I'd like to post an example, but I'm sure you get it)

2 - Relativism (sometimes cultural, sometimes not)

3 - An ethic based on objective truths about human nature and how the world operates (such as Objectivism)

4 - Greatest good for the greatest number (utilitarian ethics)

Finally, some of your specific points, which have nothing to do with Atheism or morality:

"Animals do not care for one another."

I take it you aren't close with any mammalian pets.

"Atheist say these are the only systems that sentient man judges as right or wrong."

Nope. Atheist might pass judgement on models of how the natural world works as "true" or "false," but that isn't restricted to Atheism.

"Why is it that you would judge things right or wrong in the first place?"

What you're saying is, 'Why make choices?' And that's easy: to live, we must take action. To take action, we must decide between alternatives based on our abilities and the predicted outcomes.

"Why not just be selfish, destructive, and inconsiderate as all of nature?"

How would that lead to long-term benefit?

"Would that not ensure the survival of your species?"

'Our' species would be more appropriate. We're just as human as you are. Also, maybe "survival of the species" is not a goal of each individual. Finally, how does making the entire universe an enemy ensure the survival of the species?

"Does that mean mankind is the pinnacle of evolution?"

Heck no. Evolution isn't directional; it doesn't have a 'pinnacle' or a 'bottom.' It contines, generation to generation. Please do not talk about a theory that you do not understand, and please unlink it from Atheism. They are two different things.

EDIT: In response to your comments to me:

"Unlink Atheism from evolution? Do you seriously stand by that? Atheists are almost overwhelmingly evolutionists. I know. I used to be one."

Yes, unlink it. Most Atheist do use science as a part of their epistemology. Not all do. If you want to talk about how can Atheistic Naturalists support their view while maintaining morality, that's a different subject.

Let me put it this way: if evolution were disproven, would that make Atheists wrong about the existence of a deity? Not necessarily; a gap in our understanding of biodiversity would not be proof of a deity. Therefore, under your question's wording, the two should be unlinked. I stand by my words.

"Relativism is cultural, absolute morality is not."

I agree completely. I listed sources that are commonly used for morality. That does NOT mean I personally endorse the 4 that I listed! I think relativism is illogical, so I do not abide by it in any way, shape or form. Nevertheless, I do recognize that some Atheists use it. We are in agreement on this particular point.

"No, what I'm saying is NOT why do we make choices. Please stop putting words in my mouth."

Read your post. You imply that that's how an Atheist should think: acting as a form of unwitting destruction. Or, as you say: "Why not just be selfish, destructive, and inconsiderate as all of nature?"  How can you make a choice and be inconsiderate at the same time? What, exactly, would you base your choice on, if not the outcomes that would occur given the repurcussions of your decision?

"You haven't addressed the key point. How is it that destruction ensures our survival? That's my point. It does everywhere else. Why not us?"

I did address this: that long-term benefit requires working in a specific way with the world, making choices based on the way that the world works. If you do nothing but destroy, you would not have food to eat. You would not be part of a group that offers protection and shelter from the elements. No food and no protection leads to death for us.

Destruction does not necessarily ensure survival. As people, we create means to surviving. If we destroy those means, we do not survive.

Answer 6

atheists just dont belive in a magical, supreme being that can hear the whisper of all people around the world, the way Sta claus was portrayed to be the christmas guy who can give gifts to children all over the world. Atheists are not barbarians with no sense of morality.(but some believers like radical moslems forget morality for their supreme being) Atheists just dont believe on the magical things you believers associate to your magical supreme being...

Answer 7

I find it to be a tragic misunderstanding to think that the universe is full of destructive chaos. If that were the case, there would be nothing left: it would have caused it's own destruction. The truth is, the universe is in balance: a star born for a star perished, a puppy born for a dog dying.

Nature shows that animals kill one another, but they do not kill for joy. They kill for food or in self-defense. No chaos there. The difference between man and beast is rational thought. We still have our animalistic instincts, and they still drive us in much, but our minds are capable of processing more complex thought processes. Indeed, maybe the reason we persecute murderers is because our animalistic instincts say killing out of self-defense or in search of food is wrong.

Atheists are still humans. Religion did not create morals (as was said by other posts). Man created morals, ethics, values, and laws. Don't get me wrong, there are bad atheists just as there are bad people of every race, creed, and religion. However, atheism is not the root cause.  Atheists have morals not because a book told them to, or out of fear of eternal damnation, but because it is the right thing to do. It gives few people joy to cause pain and destruction and atheists are no exception. I just want to be happy, and helping others makes me happy.

To think that religion has a monopoly on morals and values is an insult to every human being. Our religions do not create nor define us or our core beliefs: we define and create our religions.

Answer 8

Mankind has evolved past mere animal instinct - don't get me wrong we are still animals and have primal needs - but there are cases where humans go against what is natural everyday e.g. priests not having s*x (or so they tell us), emergency servicepeople putting themselves in danger for strangers, climbing mount everest etc. We aren't the pinnacle of evolution, but we are no longer mere cogs in the food chain and in the world, but rather we have harnessed the world to work for us. Therefore we need our own morality, to be unselfish as a control.

Answer 9

Moraltiy does not derive from "being told" what is moral.  Thus the architecture of religion is not the imbuer of morality on adults.  Morality derives from the soul of each of us when we are mentally healthy and engaged in an authentic loving relationship.  We codify it as religion, because it is a fleeting glimpse we get of it, once in a while, and not everyone ever gets it at all.

Atheists just don't attribute it to god.

Answer 10

I agree with Jtrusnik ... you're unneccesarily connecting Theism and morality. The two do not necessarily go together.

One place where I ... respectfully ... disagree with Jtrusnik is that evolution IS directional. Evolutional theory suggests that organisms move from lower complexity towards higher complexity. I'm not aware of any evolutional theory that suggests otherwise.

Answer 11

Human beings are endowed with free will, regardless of their creed.

I'm an Atheist, a Secular Humanist, which means for me the highest authority is not some divine God(s) but Man. All my morality derives from this highest value (i.e. Man) and is subordinate to it. In my opinion, a believer is more likely to commit immoral acts. Since the believer's highest value is represented by God(s), it will seem all right to her/him to sacrifice human rights or lives in the name of this supreme value.

It is my conviction that, whether religious or not, human beings are capable of great acts of morality due to their capacity to control their instincts and desires through reason. Due to free will.

Answer 12

Religion is just a form of atheism, as atheism is just another form of religion.   This is the case (logically) at least related to the question you posit.

In other words, both ideologies can equally justify and rationalize a systematized form of morality.