3 ms·

The stronger form of this argument is made by Nietzsche, not by Christian propagandists. Without God, there is no objective moral foundation. Obviously, people

The stronger form of this argument is made by Nietzsche, not by Christian propagandists. Without God, there is no objective moral foundation. Obviously, people remain 'moral' regardless of their religious orientation, because morality is a social phenomenon, it's the 'herd instinct in the individual'. But this morality shifts and changes with times and cultures. You have no perch from which to stand and declare yourself objectively morally correct relative to some other time or culture, aside from "well, I said so." You think human sacrifice, torture of children, throwing gay people off buildings is wrong - great, sure, but here's Society X that doesn't think that, that has a whole different moral framework, and in that context those actions may be entirely moral. Phrases like "decent human being" simply mean "conforms to societal expectations." That's why Nietzsche's famous death of God speech is directed to the atheists, not to believers. > The meaning of our cheerfulness.— The greatest recent event—that “God is dead,” that the belief in the Christian God has become unbelievable—is already beginning to cast its first shadows over Europe. For the few at least, whose eyes, the suspicion in whose eyes is strong and subtle enough for this spectacle, some suns seem to have set and some ancient and profound trust has been turned into doubt: to them our old world must appear daily more like evening, more mistrustful, stranger, “older.” But in the main one may say: the event itself is far too great, too distant, too remote from the multitude’s capacity for comprehension even for the tidings of it to be thought of as having arrived as yet; much less may one suppose that many people know as yet what this event really means—and how much must collapse now that this faith has been undermined because it was built upon this faith, propped up by it, grown into it: for example, the whole of our European morality. This long plenitude and sequence of breakdown, destruction, ruin, and cataclysm that is now impending: who could guess enough of it today to be compelled to play the teacher and advance proclaimer of this monstrous logic of terror, the prophet of a gloom and an eclipse of the sun whose like has probably never yet occurred on earth? On a historical note, viewing the outcomes and events of the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Soviet-era, and the like, I think it may be worth considering even for a non-believer that the "objective" moral foundation provided by Christianity serves as a useful brake on the worse excesses that arise during societal upheavals.

krapp 6y ago
Except Christian morality also shifts and changes with time and culture, because religious practice is a social phenomenon. There has never been a universal, objective Christian morality. The Bible says slaves should obey their masters, that women are as far beneath men as men are beneath God, and that homosexuality is an abomination worthy of death. Christian morality used to allow killing pagans, Jews and Protestants as heretics. Christians from a century ago would see modern Christians as weak-willed apostates (you don't even read the Bible in Latin, but gutteral English you swine!) and Christians from a thousand years ago might not even recognize the religion as theirs. Atheists reject the premise that morality presupposes God not because they reject morality but because they recognize that all moral systems are relative, and yet still have value. And yes, being a "decent human being" does simply mean "conforming to societal expectations," even when that society's expectations are based on the current generation's fashion in interpreting Biblical teaching. But it's enough for me to believe in the value of human life because I believe it, not because my society tells me a man in the sky will send me to hell if I don't. And from an atheist point of view it's obviously possible to accept a moral framework in a morally relative universe because that is what everyone, including religious people, are actually doing. Accepting the truth of the matter isn't going to cause society to collapse into barbarism and hedonism.
- Amezarak 6y ago
  Yes, this is why I put "objective" in quotes and compared it to a brake. Traditions do evolve over time, and even text-based religions see changes in practice and interpretation. But at the end of the day, people can make powerful moral arguments based on a long-existing foundation. That slows down the pace of change. > Accepting the truth of the matter isn't going to cause society to collapse into barbarism and hedonism. Unmooring social norms and mores from traditional foundations has indeed historically resulted in extremely violent periods. I am not assigning a moral value to this violence, but I am glad I didn't live through it. > And from an atheist point of view it's obviously possible to accept a moral framework in a morally relative universe because that is what everyone, including religious people, are actually doing I am not arguing that people do not accept moral frameworks (as social animals we do whether we like it or not), but that typically, atheists, like most people, do not acknowledge that moral frameworks are relative, and jump at every chance to sanction people from different cultures for violations of their moral code. Of course, some atheists might avoid making a moral argument for this very reason! We can always acknowledge that things are simply a matter of our preferences and still advocate for them. But typically, you instead get vague, waffley treatments about how we have made new discoveries in human rights that, for example, require you to permit gay marriage or face the imperial might of the US. At the end of the day, exactly because this sort of morality lacks persuasive force, it relies more on various sanctions. Meanwhile, theists of varying stripes can fall back on the very powerful argument of "God said so", and trust that he will reward you accordingly for disobeying his dictates. Of course, it's not always the case that atheistic moral realists will bomb you into submission, just as it is not always the case that theistic moral realists won't decide they're the scourge of God. But in 2021, that's how it typically plays out. In short, this particular brand of moral realist seems to be the one presenting to the most danger to the rest of us. > The Bible says slaves should obey their masters, that women are as far beneath men as men are beneath God, and that homosexuality is an abomination worthy of death I left off this until the end of the post because I don't feel particularly comfortable defending Christian thought, but I think these are misleading characterizations of what they say. The Bible, including the New Testament, does say that slaves should obey their masters. But the same individual (Paul) writes that there is neither slave nor free among Christians. Men are equal before God, though in the world they are placed in hierarchies - this is a common theme. Paul preaches for servants to obey masters for the same reason that Christians are instructed to bless their enemies and do good to them that hate them and persecute them - because by so doing they show their faith in God. I don't think this is itself morally objectionable even from our perspective. 'Turn the other cheek' is still considered the moral high ground by most people, and this is coming from the same place. Similarly, although homosexual behavior is definitely treated as an abominable sin, it is not treated as worthy of death moreso than other sins, including heterosexual adultery. Although Christians are instructed to cast out other Christians who continue practicing sinful ways, they are otherwise told not to judge. Indeed there is a specific passage where Jesus stops an execution. Of course, once Christians were in actual power, they did often legally sanction sins beyond those we might consider civically useful, but this rarely occurred in a way worth mentioning - homosexuality and adultery remained common and were rarely carcerally punished for most of their 2000 years in power. They certainly were sometimes, though! I am not aware of any part of the Bible that takes such an extreme view on women. The most extreme stance I know of is taken in Timothy 1, where Paul claims that women should not teach and that men have authority over women because Adam was created first and was not deceived. But nowhere can I find a statement as extreme as yours. It would not surprise me if it were the case many or most practicing Christians still believed these things, although obviously the first one has become moot.

krapp 6y ago

Except Christian morality also shifts and changes with time and culture, because religious practice is a social phenomenon. There has never been a universal, objective Christian morality. The Bible says slaves should obey their masters, that women are as far beneath men as men are beneath God, and that homosexuality is an abomination worthy of death. Christian morality used to allow killing pagans, Jews and Protestants as heretics. Christians from a century ago would see modern Christians as weak-willed apostates (you don't even read the Bible in Latin, but gutteral English you swine!) and Christians from a thousand years ago might not even recognize the religion as theirs. Atheists reject the premise that morality presupposes God not because they reject morality but because they recognize that all moral systems are relative, and yet still have value. And yes, being a "decent human being" does simply mean "conforming to societal expectations," even when that society's expectations are based on the current generation's fashion in interpreting Biblical teaching. But it's enough for me to believe in the value of human life because I believe it, not because my society tells me a man in the sky will send me to hell if I don't. And from an atheist point of view it's obviously possible to accept a moral framework in a morally relative universe because that is what everyone, including religious people, are actually doing. Accepting the truth of the matter isn't going to cause society to collapse into barbarism and hedonism.

Amezarak 6y ago
Yes, this is why I put "objective" in quotes and compared it to a brake. Traditions do evolve over time, and even text-based religions see changes in practice and interpretation. But at the end of the day, people can make powerful moral arguments based on a long-existing foundation. That slows down the pace of change. > Accepting the truth of the matter isn't going to cause society to collapse into barbarism and hedonism. Unmooring social norms and mores from traditional foundations has indeed historically resulted in extremely violent periods. I am not assigning a moral value to this violence, but I am glad I didn't live through it. > And from an atheist point of view it's obviously possible to accept a moral framework in a morally relative universe because that is what everyone, including religious people, are actually doing I am not arguing that people do not accept moral frameworks (as social animals we do whether we like it or not), but that typically, atheists, like most people, do not acknowledge that moral frameworks are relative, and jump at every chance to sanction people from different cultures for violations of their moral code. Of course, some atheists might avoid making a moral argument for this very reason! We can always acknowledge that things are simply a matter of our preferences and still advocate for them. But typically, you instead get vague, waffley treatments about how we have made new discoveries in human rights that, for example, require you to permit gay marriage or face the imperial might of the US. At the end of the day, exactly because this sort of morality lacks persuasive force, it relies more on various sanctions. Meanwhile, theists of varying stripes can fall back on the very powerful argument of "God said so", and trust that he will reward you accordingly for disobeying his dictates. Of course, it's not always the case that atheistic moral realists will bomb you into submission, just as it is not always the case that theistic moral realists won't decide they're the scourge of God. But in 2021, that's how it typically plays out. In short, this particular brand of moral realist seems to be the one presenting to the most danger to the rest of us. > The Bible says slaves should obey their masters, that women are as far beneath men as men are beneath God, and that homosexuality is an abomination worthy of death I left off this until the end of the post because I don't feel particularly comfortable defending Christian thought, but I think these are misleading characterizations of what they say. The Bible, including the New Testament, does say that slaves should obey their masters. But the same individual (Paul) writes that there is neither slave nor free among Christians. Men are equal before God, though in the world they are placed in hierarchies - this is a common theme. Paul preaches for servants to obey masters for the same reason that Christians are instructed to bless their enemies and do good to them that hate them and persecute them - because by so doing they show their faith in God. I don't think this is itself morally objectionable even from our perspective. 'Turn the other cheek' is still considered the moral high ground by most people, and this is coming from the same place. Similarly, although homosexual behavior is definitely treated as an abominable sin, it is not treated as worthy of death moreso than other sins, including heterosexual adultery. Although Christians are instructed to cast out other Christians who continue practicing sinful ways, they are otherwise told not to judge. Indeed there is a specific passage where Jesus stops an execution. Of course, once Christians were in actual power, they did often legally sanction sins beyond those we might consider civically useful, but this rarely occurred in a way worth mentioning - homosexuality and adultery remained common and were rarely carcerally punished for most of their 2000 years in power. They certainly were sometimes, though! I am not aware of any part of the Bible that takes such an extreme view on women. The most extreme stance I know of is taken in Timothy 1, where Paul claims that women should not teach and that men have authority over women because Adam was created first and was not deceived. But nowhere can I find a statement as extreme as yours. It would not surprise me if it were the case many or most practicing Christians still believed these things, although obviously the first one has become moot.