The Morality of Atheism

[Copernicus]

My opinion about where morality comes from is that everyone is raised by parents or, at least, adult caretakers, who serve as authorities on right and wrong behavior. Authoritarian-based morality is our first experience of how to behave properly, and that is the most natural state of mind for human beings. Religion, particularly god-based religion, simply takes the place of moral authority in adulthood. However, social convention and habit tend to be the guiding principle. We learn from our families and community how best to interact with other human beings in a safe and comfortable manner, and empathy tends to be the glue that holds us all together in such behavior. Gods tend to prescribe behavior that preserves social bonds and promotes social harmony. As we mature, we find different ways to rationalize our behavior, especially if we give up the authority of an imaginary deity as the source of moral correctness. Religion is primarily a handy excuse to justify and reinforce the moral sentiments, but more educated folks, especially those who look beyond religious authority, tend to look for deeper philosophical motives.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I read an article today that I thought might make an interesting discussion. It describes some statistics about the moral values of atheists versus theists. ( well at least until we derail it

https://thehumanist.com/commentary/the-morality-of-atheism

According to the latest General Social Survey results–and for the first time in such survey history—the percentage of Americans who are absolutely convinced of God’s existence has fallen below 50%. And just last year, Gallup found that church membership in the US—also for the first time–has fallen below 50%.

Many will find such news worrisome, given the widespread prejudice that nonreligious people are, at root, immoral. After all, if you don’t believe in God, how can you be moral? What do you even base your morality on? The likes of Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao certainly didn’t help much on this front: as bloody dictators who caused unimaginable misery and destruction—and were explicitly atheistic–their carnage only deepened atheism’s linkage with immorality in many people’s minds.

And yet, contrary to the widespread stereotype of atheists as immoral, the surprising reality today is that atheists and agnostics actually exhibit very compassionate, ethical, altruistic, and humane proclivities. Indeed, if anything characterizes the personal orientation of contemporary secular people, aside from their godlessness, it is their care and concern for the well-being of others—care and concern that is often stronger and more pronounced than that of religious people.

Does the above description fit you or other atheists who you've known? And, while I have seen some examples of racism from some of the atheists on this forum, the atheists I know in real life have never appeared to be racists. I've met and joined in with the Black Nonbelievers of Atlanta a time or two and everyone got along very well and seemed to appreciate the diversity when the group met up with Atlanta Freethought. Btw, the Black atheist group is lead by women, unlike most Black churches. Our local group, which hasn't been active much at all since the pandemic, is racially diverse as well, unlike the majority of Christian churches in my area. Atheist groups usually include members of the LBGTQ community as well. Our local group has always had at least one gay member or couple, as well as mixed race couples. Considering that our group is very small, and our town is rather conservative, that's a bit of an accomplishment.

The point of the piece isn't to necessarily claim that atheists have the moral high ground. The point is to give evidence that atheists tend to be at least as morally inclined as any religious group. I am almost always open about my atheism, partly in an attempt to help theists realize that we tend to be just as morally concerned and compassionate as people who claim to be religious. I don't like being in the closet about my atheism, although sometimes when I meet an overly zealous Christian who starts talking about the end times etc.,.....it's usually easier to be polite and walk away.

When it comes to compassion and sympathy for racial minorities, especially African Americans, the secular community again stands out. Numerous studies have found that atheists and agnostics exhibit markedly lower levels of racism than their religious peers, are the least likely of all religious groups to blame African Americans for the suffering they endure, and are far more supportive of social justice/civil rights movements than religious people. That is, despite the apparent religious emphasis on caring for others, sympathy for racial minorities is actually much more pronounced among white Americans who are notreligiously active than among those who are.

I think this is a fundamental misunderstanding of atheism, religion and also ethics.

Foucault's critique of secular humanism is that it's just more Christianity. Only that God is switched out for Humans. Hardly a positive development. I agree with Foucault on this. The problem with the Christian paradigm on morals is that morals and ethics come from an external source. And humanities job is to understand the rules and submit. No need to think. Just obey. Ex-Christian converts have a really bad habit of keeping the Christian paradigm as if nothing had changed. Making secular humanists, incredibly arrogant. It often ends up scientistic. Because for people within this paradigm thinking and feeling seem unbearable. It's based on Gnostic mind/body dualism, ie any authentic feelings must be suppressed for the theatre of goodness.

This way of thinking can be contrasted with Hinduism, Buddhism or paganism (or any non-Abrahamic religion). They have none of this. Their sacred texts aren't there to tell you what is true. They're to inspire you to grow and become a better person, and thereby change for the better. It's a completely different way of thinking, and is a thought paradigm most people on this planet follow.

This article is written by someone completely enmeshed in Abrahamic thought and unable to escape it, even after becoming an atheist. And so enmeshed by it, completely blind to the fact that it's not a normal way of thinking. It's completely perverse.

It doesn't matter if you are moral or not. Morality and caring about your and other's morality is complete bullshit. Christian poison. What matters isn't why people do things. What matters is the result of their actions. That's not being immoral. It's being amoral.

 

[Jarhyn]

Some years back I was having a conversation with an atheist. As we parted ways he said 'Enjoy being Hedonistic'. I turned and said
'Why do you think being atheist means being Hedonist?'. He had no reply.

Anything wrong with hedonism?

Hedonism: living and behaving in ways that mean you get as much pleasure out of life as possible, according to the belief that the most important thing in life is to enjoy yourself

Only when it steps across the boundaries of mutual compatibility of goal.

Which is to say exclusionary hedonism.

You are not allowed to eat every grape vine in the world so nobody else may eat every or even any grape.

 

[Hermit]

Some years back I was having a conversation with an atheist. As we parted ways he said 'Enjoy being Hedonistic'. I turned and said
'Why do you think being atheist means being Hedonist?'. He had no reply.

Anything wrong with hedonism?

Only when it steps across the boundaries of mutual compatibility of goal.

:nod:

 

[Jarhyn]

Some years back I was having a conversation with an atheist. As we parted ways he said 'Enjoy being Hedonistic'. I turned and said
'Why do you think being atheist means being Hedonist?'. He had no reply.

Anything wrong with hedonism?

Only when it steps across the boundaries of mutual compatibility of goal.

:nod:

Interesting enough the spirit of MukBang, as I understand it, is entirely around the idea that we understand that while one must not eat every grape vine, and while it may suck to have a year without grapes, occasionally, it's fun to watch someone eat every grape.

It just is important to have consensus on who, when that occasionally happens, the person to eat every grape may happen to be and that they may do it in a way we may all enjoy the largess!

 

[rousseau]

You're one of us, Politesse.

Depends on your preferred definition. I don't consider myself an atheist, and participate regularly in two theistic religious communities despite my philosophical convictions regarding the possibility of knowledge in that domain. But to me, labels are also not as important as people make them out to be. Certainly, I don't make moral determinations solely based on a faith tradition, but nor do I think most religious people do when you really get down to brass tacks. Morality is complicated, and we take more cues from the culture and society of our times, and from our own personal relationships and experiences of life, than from any particular source of moral teaching. If you want to know whether someone approves of, say, legal abortions, you could ask whether or not they are a Christian and be correct in your subsequent guesswork 55% of the time, or you can just ask them what they think and thus not have to guess at all. If you had asked my mother what she thought about public homosexuality in 1995, you would have gotten a fairly critical and skeptical response, which she would have described as having its roots in her faith and in what Scripture says. If you ask her now, you get a much more tolerant and humanistic response... which she will also phrase in Biblical terms and an appeal to Christ's teachings on universal love. Nothing actually changed about Jesus, his teachings, or everyone's favorite Book between 1995 and 2020. You could have looked at the full corpus of his teachings and make the same pro- and anti- arguments at either date, and people did. But my mother's position never truly originated in those teachings. I'm the thing that changed. (Well, that and the debut of the Rachel Maddow Show...)

Agreed. I think most of us are putting the cart before the horse. Christianity isn't an original source of moral attitudes, our moral / cultural attitudes are reflected in Christianity at any given time. Christianity might reify some of our attitudes, but isn't a direct cause of them.

If you look at the ten commandments for example, you're looking at cultural universals for the most part.

But it's likely true that pre-conventional, and conventional thinkers are more widely represented among Christianity, while Atheists have a higher share of post-conventionalism (people who are internally principled). Atheism in many places is by definition post-conventional.

Although anymore I don't know that it's so simple to equate 'doesn't believe in God' with 'non-religious' - atheism isn't a totally reliable indicator of who someone is.

 

[southernhybrid]

I was going to say earlier today before I got distracted at home, that many of the things that are considered moral are human universals, found in all known cultures past and present. I got the impression after reading the linked article and several others that were linked to that article, that atheists don't have the negative parts of religion to confuse them when it comes to basic moral values. Many if not most of the world's major religions claim that homosexuality is wrong, for example. Plus, when it comes to Christianity, most churches are limited to one race, with very few exceptions. There were many things in the surveys that showed that non believers base a lot of their values on science. For example, one of the articles stated that over 80% of nonbelievers took the COVID vaccine, compared to about 60% of Christians. I'm sure you are aware that many American Christians felt all they needed to do was to trust in god and they wouldn't get sick. A higher percentage of nonbelievers wanted stricter gun control compared to Christians. A higher percentage of atheists were accepting of people with minority sexual orientations or gender identification, etc. Religion tends to be static. That's the problem I see.

Compassion is found in all societies, but I got the impression from my reading about these issues, that religious groups tended to be more tribal so they are less likely to care about those outside their in-groups. Again, we're talking about statistics. There will always be exceptions. I was almost able to talk my evangelical Christian mother into understanding why gay folks wanted to be legally married. She was accepting of gay civil unions but simply couldn't understand why a gay couple wanted to be married. She was in her 80s at the time, so I think it was just too hard for her to see marriage as anything but an agreement between a man and a woman. I think I helped her change her mind about a lot of things. So, perhaps some of us who hold humanist values can convince religious people to be more accepting of those outside their groups without giving up their most basic beliefs. I honestly don't care if someone has religious beliefs, if they aren't hateful. I'm just hoping that religion will become more progressive over time. Keep the sweetest cherries and throw out the bitter ones.

I think one of the reasons the article was written was an attempt to change the terrible stereotype that many people have about atheists. The statistics show that we aren't the evil little tyrants that a lot of people believe we are. That may be primarily a problem in the US, where religion remains very influential.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think in general it's more possible for an atheist to be ethical: when you accept that your ethics are not revealed truth, you MAY investigate beyond the "revelation" and resolve more securely the idea of what is right.

I think in general if is ALSO more possible for an atheist to be an unapologetic solipsist.

It is however equally possible and bad to be a religious zealot to what is "themselves, externalized as 'god'"

It is more possible for a religious person to be "moral", to have feelings which drive their decisions with regards to others.

This set of feelings may be "prosperity gospel" and "manifest destiny": not all "morality" is good.

So, in short, it's a hopeless mess, and if there is a god, he's probably more happy with the atheists who do the work to figure out the best social principles, but probably not unhappy with those who are least HAVE social rather than solipsistic or zealotous ends.

 

[Hermit]

I've been hanging out in atheist majority spaces for a very long time, and would have to be convinced that there is any meaningful difference between religious and non-religious folks where morality is concerned. I'm not sure what makes someone more or less "moral" to begin with -this seems rather subjective- but I find that other factors, such as political affiliation or level of education, are better predictors than religion on the matter whether or not I will find myself agreeing with their general moral perspectives.

Yes, the effects of political affiliation, level of education and religiosity are almost impossible to disentangle from each other. Sociology is not a hard science. The postulates arising from that field have more of an appearance of hypotheses than theories.

Take Phil Zuckerman claim that the differential of vaccination rates between religious people and atheists, is evidence that the latter are more are more community minded, for example. Could it possibly be due to a differential in education levels? Surveys keep showing that higher education levels go with lower levels of a belief in a personal God. Higher education levels also engender a better appreciation of science. People with lower education levels may be less likely to wear masks or get vaccinated because they simply do not believe what science says about pandemics. In that case a lack of altruism or some such moral turpitude simply does not enter into the equation.

That said, religion does have an impact on morality, and too often it is negative, at least in the protestant sector and especially among the baptist varieties. I put it down to their emphasis on the individual - as in the importance placed on individual salvation. While no religion neglects the social aspect (do unto others... et cetera) of an individual's conduct, the focus is placed on each person as an individual. It should also be noted that these religions have a tendency to promote some quite pernicious values, particularly concerning sexuality, marriage and abortion. They also adopt a very judgemental view concerning individuals who do not share those values, again viewing individuals overwhelmingly as autonomous agents rather than as members of a social fabric whose actions and attitudes are largely shaped by whatever society they happen to live in. People with higher levels of education tend to see the influence of the social web we find ourselves in more easily.

TL;DR When looking at what factors influence our behaviour and moral stances, political affiliation, level of education or religiosity, it's a case of a bit of this, a bit of that and a bit of others.

P.S. I will make no attempt to quantify how much of each.

 

[Ruth Harris]

I think most of us are putting the cart before the horse. Christianity isn't an original source of moral attitudes, our moral / cultural attitudes are reflected in Christianity at any given time. Christianity might reify some of our attitudes, but isn't a direct cause of them.

Really nicely stated. I agree.

I have said this before - morality and Christianity are two entirely separate things. Morality existed long before Christianity appeared. And those Christians who claim a person cannot be moral if they are not Christian are completely wrong.

Ruth

 

[Copernicus]

I think most of us are putting the cart before the horse. Christianity isn't an original source of moral attitudes, our moral / cultural attitudes are reflected in Christianity at any given time. Christianity might reify some of our attitudes, but isn't a direct cause of them.

Really nicely stated. I agree.

I have said this before - morality and Christianity are two entirely separate things. Morality existed long before Christianity appeared. And those Christians who claim a person cannot be moral if they are not Christian are completely wrong.

Ruth

I agree that this is an important observation, but I think that the problem is more subtle. This objection doesn't tell us where morality comes from or what it is. It tells us where morality doesn't come from.

The instinct we have as hierarchically self-organized social animals is that it flows down to us from authority. Whoever leads the pack determines what is good and bad behavior. Since God is the leader of the human "pack", that is where morality comes from. If one does not acknowledge the leader's authority, then that makes one without any moral code at all. Hence, our godless philosophers debate endlessly over what the basis of morality can be. Where does moral authority come from, if not from God?

And that is one of the reasons why atheism is so stigmatized. In the eyes of believers, atheists have no basis for doing right or wrong, so they can behave any way they please. The problem for atheists is that atheism, like theism, is a philosophical position, not a religion. It doesn't promote any authoritarian basis for a moral code, so these claims that atheists are somehow more moral or "better" than believers have a lot of traction among atheists, but not among believers. It is really difficult to have a rational discussion with those of religious persuasion, because you need to get people to understand that authoritarianism is not a reasonable foundation for morality. Most people don't seem to have the patience to listen to such an intellectual argument.

 

[steve_bank]

There is no atheist morality, there are people who reject gods and who derive a morality, for example secular Humanism which has a nuber of declaration.

Secular humanism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There are also Hedonists, exemplified by the late Hugh Hefner. He surrounded himself with young women and lived for sexual pleasure.

I've been hanging out in atheist majority spaces for a very long time, and would have to be convinced that there is any meaningful difference between religious and non-religious folks where morality is concerned. I'm not sure what makes someone more or less "moral" to begin with -this seems rather subjective- but I find that other factors, such as political affiliation or level of education, are better predictors than religion on the matter whether or not I will find myself agreeing with their general moral perspectives.

That is my experience as well.

The obvious problem with many Chrtiastains is the presumption of an absolute morality with no alternatives. I belive in Jesus and god therfore I am moral, and whatever I do from how I internet scrptiure is moral and right.

 

[Valjean]

Religion can be a crutch. It offers a set of simplistic, deontologic rules, often with no apparent practical utility.
Accepting a set of external rules enables one to dismiss questions of consequence or utility, it obviates the need for an internalized, consequentionist morality. It retards the formation of any strong, internalized morality.

Religious morality is often a house built on sand. I'd expect an internalized, principled, consequentionalist morality to be both more practical, compassionate and robust.

 

[Jarhyn]

Religion can be a crutch. It offers a set of simplistic, deontologic rules, often with no apparent practical utility.
Accepting a set of external rules enables one to dismiss questions of consequence or utility, it obviates the need for an internalized, consequentionist morality. It retards the formation of any strong, internalized morality.

Religious morality is often a house built on sand. I'd expect an internalized, principled, consequentionalist morality to be both more practical, compassionate and robust.

This is my experience as well. Worse, the foundation of sand, which admittedly was firmer than the much wetter, quicker sands of the day, advertises itself as if it were the concrete of systemic axiomatics.

 

[rousseau]

Religion can be a crutch. It offers a set of simplistic, deontologic rules, often with no apparent practical utility.
Accepting a set of external rules enables one to dismiss questions of consequence or utility, it obviates the need for an internalized, consequentionist morality. It retards the formation of any strong, internalized morality.

Religious morality is often a house built on sand. I'd expect an internalized, principled, consequentionalist morality to be both more practical, compassionate and robust.

This is my experience as well. Worse, the foundation of sand, which admittedly was firmer than the much wetter, quicker sands of the day, advertises itself as if it were the concrete of systemic axiomatics.

Although, I don't know that you need to appeal to religion to find moral principles built on a foundation of sand. I'd argue that most of us, Christian or not, appeal to an arbitrary set of rules and principles that were passed from somewhere else. Even some of the most educated, atheistic people I know believe and adhere to principles that simply aren't true or realistic.

The important part is that everyone agrees on the rules that actually matter: don't kill, don't be violent, don't steal, don't cheat on your partner.

For many Christians, I think it's the conceptual simplicity that appeals - there might be a handful of things that they find important, belief in God validates them as righteous, and they don't have to give it anymore thought. But I don't think atheists should get too smug, Christians don't have a monopoly on this type of thinking.

We likely get a slanted view of Atheism spending so much time at this forum, which filters for highly intelligent people.

 

[Jarhyn]

This is my experience as well. Worse, the foundation of sand, which admittedly was firmer than the much wetter, quicker sands of the day, advertises itself as if it were the concrete of systemic axiomatics.

Although, I don't know that you need to appeal to religion to find moral principles built on a foundation of sand. I'd argue that most of us, Christian or not, appeal to an arbitrary set of rules and principles that were passed from somewhere else. Even some of the most educated, atheistic people I know believe and adhere to principles that simply aren't true or realistic.

The important part is that everyone agrees on the rules that actually matter: don't kill, don't be violent, don't steal, don't cheat on your partner.

For many Christians, I think it's the conceptual simplicity that appeals - there might be a handful of things that they find important, belief in God validates them as righteous, and they don't have to give it anymore thought. But I don't think atheists should get too smug, Christians don't have a monopoly on this type of thinking.

We likely get a slanted view of Atheism spending so much time at this forum, which filters for highly intelligent people.
[/QUOTE]
As I said, sand still firmer than the adjoining sand.

I've been digging in this dirt for my life trying to find something more solid than jelly and pith and the only time I ever get anything remotely solid is when I strike math.

Precious few people, atheist or not, actually appreciate math to the depth that they can even perceive the philosophical solidity of it.

The filter bubble created by the community bias has been popped for me and none-too-kindly by interactions with atheists here. Just check out the Free Will/Compatibilism threads, and you'll see a whole dumpster fire around an atheistic assembly of absolutive principles.

 

[rousseau]

I've been digging in this dirt for my life trying to find something more solid than jelly and pith and the only time I ever get anything remotely solid is when I strike math.

Precious few people, atheist or not, actually appreciate math to the depth that they can even perceive the philosophical solidity of it.

The filter bubble created by the community bias has been popped for me and none-too-kindly by interactions with atheists here. Just check out the Free Will/Compatibilism threads, and you'll see a whole dumpster fire around an atheistic assembly of absolutive principles.

Breaking through the chaff is difficult. People get caught up in discussions of morality, but in practice behavior in a moral context usually boils down to don't offend people who are important to your well-being. For most, there's no need to think any more deeply than that. Instinct does a great job of guiding (most of) us, while the ego flails around thinking it's the boss.

Ironically, being good at this type of thinking gives rise to the very self-deception that inhibits more sound principles. We're better off with the ability to not piss off our friends, than to fully think through our behavior.

I agree with you, though, if you can break through that barrier it's pretty close to magic.

 

[Hermit]

I don't know that you need to appeal to religion to find moral principles built on a foundation of sand. I'd argue that most of us, Christian or not, appeal to an arbitrary set of rules and principles that were passed from somewhere else.

Spot-on.

 

[Voland0]

I read an article today that I thought might make an interesting discussion. It describes some statistics about the moral values of atheists versus theists. ( well at least until we derail it

https://thehumanist.com/commentary/the-morality-of-atheism

According to the latest General Social Survey results–and for the first time in such survey history—the percentage of Americans who are absolutely convinced of God’s existence has fallen below 50%. And just last year, Gallup found that church membership in the US—also for the first time–has fallen below 50%.

Many will find such news worrisome, given the widespread prejudice that nonreligious people are, at root, immoral. After all, if you don’t believe in God, how can you be moral? What do you even base your morality on? The likes of Stalin, Pol Pot, and Mao certainly didn’t help much on this front: as bloody dictators who caused unimaginable misery and destruction—and were explicitly atheistic–their carnage only deepened atheism’s linkage with immorality in many people’s minds.

And yet, contrary to the widespread stereotype of atheists as immoral, the surprising reality today is that atheists and agnostics actually exhibit very compassionate, ethical, altruistic, and humane proclivities. Indeed, if anything characterizes the personal orientation of contemporary secular people, aside from their godlessness, it is their care and concern for the well-being of others—care and concern that is often stronger and more pronounced than that of religious people.

Does the above description fit you or other atheists who you've known? And, while I have seen some examples of racism from some of the atheists on this forum, the atheists I know in real life have never appeared to be racists. I've met and joined in with the Black Nonbelievers of Atlanta a time or two and everyone got along very well and seemed to appreciate the diversity when the group met up with Atlanta Freethought. Btw, the Black atheist group is lead by women, unlike most Black churches. Our local group, which hasn't been active much at all since the pandemic, is racially diverse as well, unlike the majority of Christian churches in my area. Atheist groups usually include members of the LBGTQ community as well. Our local group has always had at least one gay member or couple, as well as mixed race couples. Considering that our group is very small, and our town is rather conservative, that's a bit of an accomplishment.

The point of the piece isn't to necessarily claim that atheists have the moral high ground. The point is to give evidence that atheists tend to be at least as morally inclined as any religious group. I am almost always open about my atheism, partly in an attempt to help theists realize that we tend to be just as morally concerned and compassionate as people who claim to be religious. I don't like being in the closet about my atheism, although sometimes when I meet an overly zealous Christian who starts talking about the end times etc.,.....it's usually easier to be polite and walk away.

When it comes to compassion and sympathy for racial minorities, especially African Americans, the secular community again stands out. Numerous studies have found that atheists and agnostics exhibit markedly lower levels of racism than their religious peers, are the least likely of all religious groups to blame African Americans for the suffering they endure, and are far more supportive of social justice/civil rights movements than religious people. That is, despite the apparent religious emphasis on caring for others, sympathy for racial minorities is actually much more pronounced among white Americans who are notreligiously active than among those who are.

Those who suspect the morality of atheists do so because their reckoning of cause-and-effect has been poisoned by proponents of religious delusions, who attempt to inculcate fear along with devotion akin to Stockholm syndrome. The fact is that the basis of all morality is the identification of an observer with the observed, wherein the neural paths that process pleasure and pain are activated when we see others in those states. Initial results of analysis or study attribute this to "mirror neurons".

Religious indoctrination can work against morality, by programming other associations with out-group members, making them enemies.

 

[steve_bank]

Those who suspect the morality of atheists do so because their reckoning of cause-and-effect has been poisoned by proponents of religious delusions, who attempt to inculcate fear along with devotion akin to Stockholm syndrome. The fact is that the basis of all morality is the identification of an observer with the observed, wherein the neural paths that process pleasure and pain are activated when we see others in those states. Initial results of analysis or study attribute this to "mirror neurons".

Religious indoctrination can work against morality, by programming other associations with out-group members, making them enemies.

Again the word atheist has no real meaning as to any beliefs, it is a rejection of deities not an afirmation of a belif.

What you said is applicable to any human social group. China's forced social and political conformity. North Korea. Cuba. Democrats and Republicans over here.

I know about mirror neurons. What does that have to do with the OP?

The OP is abut religious vs atheist values.

As a naturalist, weak agnostic, strong atheist how do you derive your morality and sense of right and wrong? As compared to Christians and the bible.

I can never understand mixed atheism, you either accept or reject religious gods or you don't.