I seem to run into a number of atheists who believe that while theism is an irrational belief in the supernatural, moral principles that seem to be part and parcel of Judaism and Christianity are fine - and often questions around this are treated as though the questions themselves are out of place.
Does anyone have thoughts, good, bad or indifferent, as to the path of rejecting the supernatural element(s) of Judaism and Christianity, but then addressing the moral teachings/principles?
3
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
17 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I'm kind of just getting to know the agnostic.com system and one of the things is that in this sort of general discussion area, as opposed to a specific group, the posts kind of quickly become less discoverable (at least, to my eye) and so the discussion tends to die down. Also, there seems to be some sort of default that is hard to control when one goes to browse posts, as to which topics are included.
In any case, my point is that I think this round, on this topic, has reached what appears to be a stopping or pause point, and that's fine. We can always start up again in another thread, or in this one. However, as the original poster on this thread, if it's more or less fading, I want to bookmark these thoughts:
This (...the question of what is the good, and what is virtuous behavior, and whether or not leaving behind the metaphysics and cosmology of Judaism and Christianity also entails leaving behind all or part of their moral and ethical teachings....) is, in my view, an important and potentially rich topic for discussion. While there are pithy statements that may at times seem to sum up all or large portions of the matter succinctly, my own view is that for deeper discussion of the topic will require more time-consuming consideration and mulling-over.
And, to get to an additional point here, I do disagree with the kind of generic/summary statement we sometimes hear of how altruism and selflessness are sort of "obviously" moral ideals, and noting some connection points to Judeo-Christian writings/teachings. Yes, I've read this in a book or two critical of such writings and teachings, but I'd also have to say it comes as well from my own thinking.
kmaz
Level 7
June 29, 2018
0
There are always directions such as the golden rule, "do as you wish to be done by". That is basically the starting point for morals, and if you take it literally it would include directives like no killing, no stealing, no lying, no sexual misconduct... its beginning to sound a lot like the basic 5 precepts of buddhism.
Denker
Level 7
June 9, 2018
0
I asked this question a while ago in a different way and got some great responses and visceral responses.
Saying that theism is bad is not enough. Saying what is good and doing what is right is actually more important.
Humanist principles are a valid response to that problem and fit agnostics pretty well in my opinion but lack for an atheist because they don't usually make a clear statement, in my humble opinion. I think that humanist literature that I've seen is trying so hard not to offend believers that they fall short in the truth.
I'm still looking for good example.
CK-One
Level 6
June 8, 2018
1
kmaz:
"...Saying that theism is bad is not enough. Saying what is good and doing what is right is actually more important...."
this is a bit of where I'm coming from.
I see most or all religions as early philosophies (or with philosophies mixed in) with a mixture of rational and irrational. I see them as a response to real human needs,
- to identify physical and conceptual basics and make sense of the world we are in,
- to suggest or prescribe personal practices for living
- to suggest or prescribe group/social practices
that will be of value to the adherent.
I see the Abrahamic religious tracts almost as "manuals" for living. There are pros/cons to being willing to follow the manual. Even if there might be profound strength in the argument not to try to replicate thousands of years of wisdom from scratch, in the brief period one has on Earth, I think there is some danger in basing anything (particularly key aspects) of one's existence on second-hand thinking. There is no avoiding at least some of it, but there is a minefield there nonetheless, IMO.
In any case, it's one thing to take a look at the Abrahamic religious thinking and realize the nonsense of any supernatural supreme entity hypothesis, but it's another thing to say "I'm doing ok with first-hand thinking, and integrating the contributing thinking of my fellow humans, on the surrounding physical world and cosmology and such, but this does not answer for me yet, how is best, and why is best, for me to live? Are these religions as clearly wrong about those points as they are on others? Should I bother with their approach on these points, given their botched track record as to our physical surroundings?
@kmaz "the Abrahamic religious tracts almost as "manuals" for living. There are pros/cons to being willing to follow the manual." Totally agree. Religion is a social construct that follows anecdotal evidence (like old wives tales) and sometimes gets it right.
The natural world is very complex and they did not understand it well. It was easy to say God did it but also to get others to do it because God told them to do it. Each religious dogma fit into a purpose at the time. Not eating pork or "unclean" parts of other animals saved lives. Even having rabbis call it kosher or priests blessing a meal can provide a quality check. It wasn't always correct but it was a best guess of the best way to live. Some of the rules still make sense and others do not but at the time with the information they had they tried to guide others.
These 'only religions can be moral' memes are getting tiresome.
Ellatynemouth
Level 8
June 8, 2018
1
kmaz:
Hi -
Not to be overly-defensive, but I'm not sure I understand. Are you referring to this thread? I do not believe that "only religions can be moral". Or perhaps you were referring to another thread. If so, then sorry the misunderstanding is on my side.
I think that the specific moral teachings of Judaism and Christianity should be called into question. It''s not just a matter of thinking that non-theists can be moral (certainly they can) but also that non-theists have the right to define and re-think and take a tabula-rasa approach to what they think is and is not moral.
@kmaz
It's a recurring theme and topic of conversation. That atheists can't be moral. I'm not referring to this thread, but the pattern.
kmaz:
Thanks for the clarification. I do agree with you.
One of the paths of reasoning that critics or opponents of atheists follow is to reason that the old and new testaments and related books not only accurately define reality (as to the existence of a god and such) but also accurately define moral and ethical philosophy (the commandments, rules, moral teachings and comments from Jesus and prophets, etc.). So, they reason that someone who rejects the bible as a basis for thinking and living rejects not only a primitive belief in the supernatural god stuff, but a belief in the moral teachings. Or, they may just simply equate, in some way, "believing in the bible" with "being and doing good" and so someone who is not down with believing and honoring the Bible may, by definition, to these critics, supposedly be rejecting the very idea of wanting to be idealistic or good.
My main thought in starting this thread was that over the years what I see many atheists doing is something along the lines that they finally put it together and realized what nonsense the Bible is, as to the supernatural claims. Or, maybe a better way to put it is that they will ask on what basis are the claims of the bible made? Yet, often these same atheists will leave open the possibility or even the probability that the moral teachings of the bible still are valid take-aways.
Yet, on what basis are these teachings made?
I think we get intimidated by one or more of some things:
-
It may seem do-able to start tabula rasa on coming up with (or acknowledging we have each already come up with, just as part of living and thinking) some first-handed framework for one's own metaphysical beliefs and and reject belief in the supernatural, but some of us may be intimidated by the idea of starting tabula rasa and coming up with (or acknowledging some first-handed personalized framework for defining some value system by which to live. This may seem like a herculean task.
-
It is one thing to reject the sillier more obviously nonsensical aspects of Judaism and Christianity, but it is another thing to try to argue against (or partly against) what may be more abstruse moral aspects.
-
doing so may set us much further apart from our family and friends and community than any simple statement of "I am not buying into this supernatural entity hypothesis".
Okay - everyone on this site can sit back and get ready to laugh their asses off. I have been watching a show called "Supernatural" for a little while now. It wasn't all that great in the beginning but when the writers started bringing in the angels and lucifer and the king of hell and his mother - the powerful witch - I have to say.....it it sooooooo freakin' entertaining. Maybe if Catechism had been this interesting, I would have paid more attention. 
Lavergne
Level 8
June 8, 2018
1
kmaz:
It sounds a bit like the show Lucifer.
It is another case of man proliferating on stories of hell which may later seep into the consciousness as fact. For example hell was a largely Catholic invention that didn’t show up until quite late, after Martin Luther kickstarted the Protestant reforms in 1517.
Ethics and morals are ethics and morals. If the ideas result in positive outcomes, it doesn't matter where they come from. Most fail to understand that those teachings as presented in the bible came down a long evolutionary path. They were part of the package of humanity. No religion invented them. As an example, the Golden Rule was around long before any organized/codified religion arrived on the scene.
The element to be avoided in relation to these notions is absolutism.
evidentialist
Level 8
June 8, 2018
1
If you want to follow their morals, you can. Everyone has to make their own choices.
A couple of thoughts:
-
As the Rush song says. If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
-
No one ever sees themselves as evil. If you'd ask any personality you could think of -- Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Benito Mussolini, Genkis Khan, Vlad the Impaler, Pol Pot, whoever, knock yourself out -- they'd answer that they were doing what they needed to to make their situation/country successful.
I think it's up to each of us to do the best we can given what we have.
I see no benefit in behaving any other way.
RichCC
Level 8
June 8, 2018
0
I've often heard from theists that without god we would be without good morals. This is of course completely untrue as we can see from animals that positive morals emerge in the natural world without any help. I also think we'd be hard pressed to find a moral that 1st appeared in either the torah, bible or quran. But i am not saying that conveying morals is a bad thing either. They're just not exclusively from god.
Nardi
Level 7
June 8, 2018
1
Some of the 'moral' teachings are reprehensible (treatment of women, slaves etc.), some are irrelevant and arbitrary (worship God, take Sundays off etc.) and whatever's left is just common sense and decency, which most of us have anyway without any religious underpinning.
Gareth
Level 7
June 8, 2018
7
You nailed it my friend.
Eggzackly!
Agreed.
Questions: by "most of us" are you talking about us on this site (agnostics/atheists/critical thinkers) or people in general?
I have found 'common sense and decency" to be lacking in a lot of "humans".
I seem to find more moral atheists than Christians. Ironically funny since we're the heathens. Go team Heathen!
@Green_Chile_Type Notwithstanding what you've posted, how do you know what my concept of "common sense and decency" is?
Morality does not come from religion. Theists like to argue otherwise. Their arguments fail any test of scientific rigor.
Mitch07102
Level 8
June 8, 2018
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.