Through God all things are permitted

The charge is often made that 'anything goes' in regard to morality if one is an atheist. The typical argument from the theist goes something like this: Theists have an ultimate and perfect being in which to ground morality, and absolute moral codes can be derived from the word, or holy text, of that ultimate and perfect being. But an atheist has only his or her own opinion. Because the atheists are not perfect beings no absolute moral codes can be derived from their ideas.

In reality the argument should be turned on its head. As an atheist I am bound to my reason, intellect, and emotions for guidance in moral matters. I cannot arbitrarily change my moral codes in order to allow me to do whatever I want, because I cannot be intellectually dishonest. My concepts of morality only change after careful reasoned analysis.

If you believe that morality is derived from the word of, for example, Yahweh, then you have the problem that moral codes can change arbitrarily and immediately. The ten commandments say "Thou shalt not kill" and yet Yahweh orders Moses to order his men to go slaughter various neighboring people, not to mention all of the other examples in the bible of which I am sure you are all aware.

The conclusion is that, however imperfect it may be, moral atheists are bound to reason and human emotion, but through God all things are potentially permitted.

 

I have no argument for anything you posted. I agree wholeheartedly.

 

Well said. Although reason and emotion do have the potency to change as well. But on the deepest level there is one moral code that holds true for both theists and atheists: "do not do upon someone else that you do not want to have done upon you". You can live that way with or without any God(s), but alas history has shown that in some cases God 'allowed' to break that rule.

 

does the phrase: "through god" have some specific meaning?

also a world in which self-discipline is immoral is not one i would wish to see, let alone live in.

diversity being the nature of reality does not depend on the existence or non existence of a god, or for that matter, anything else.

 

Why can't they? Reality seems to be different. People do it all the time.

 

Yes it means something along the line of "in regard to god's mandates", or "in god's authority", or "with god as the arbiter of morality any act is potentially morally permissible".

In reply to Asmodean, when you ask 'why can't they?' are you referring to my claim that my moral codes cannot change arbitrarily? If you are then allow me to elaborate. I was wondering when someone would call me out on that particular sentence.

I do not follow a set of moral guidelines that I have decided upon, as a matter of opinion or personal preference. Rather I feel as though I have 'discovered' the moral guidelines by which I live throughout my life. I could try to talk myself into believing that some heinous act is acceptable, so that I could then do it without any feeling of guilt, but this is not likely to be successful. I feel the pull of my moral convictions internally, a literal feeling. I cannot deny that feeling, or the effect it has on my behavior. This is what I meant when I said that I was 'bound' to my moral codes by reason and emotion.

 

Look at all the wars and suffering the world has seen because of religions. What if people had nurtured reason as much instead.

 

I'd agree with the first part of your conclusion, but not the second. I think morality must to some extent be independent of God's commandments. Otherwise, believing, as I do, that God is good would just be another way of saying "God is god." I think the standards we use to conclude that God is good are, as you say, reason and our moral sense. I guess where we differ is that I believe both are ultimately owing to God, through a long and continuing process of emergent evolution and moral reflection. In evolutionary terms, morality is grounded on reciprocal altruism which was important to human survival. Obviously, many humans, atheists and religious folks alike, don't always listen to the voice of reason, and many are adept at rationalizing it away when need arises. Religion, at its best, is a way of reinforcing the "still small voice" that keeps us on the straight and narrow. I find the teachings and example of Jesus to be vital in clarifying what morality and meaning are all about. I don't think that well-grounded moral codes can change "arbitrarily and Immediately", although they can adapt to changing human circumstances.

Funny you should mention Yahweh ordering Moses to order his men to engage in genocide, because I was in an inter-denominational Christian fellowship group last night and asked how we as Christians are supposed to deal with that. After a long silence, one of the members said: Well, there are some parts of the Old Testament we just don't believe. Another said;"There are some parts of the New Testament we don't believe either. We pick and choose", he chuckle. The rest of the group seemed okay with that. (I'd say "pick and choose", on the basis of the same reason and moral judgement you referred to.) In defense of Yahweh, most modern archaeologists and historians don't believe that these massacres of Canaanites actually happened, at least on the scale reported in the Torah. The massacres were supposed to protect the Israelites from the contaminating influence of the Canaanites and their abominable ways by showing how strongly Yahweh felt about the matter. Their purpose in the OT was to preserve the separateness of the Israelites, as a means of discouraging assimilation to foreign gods and values--a process which was very much underway when those passages were written by the "Yahweh only" group.

So what is the difference morally between an atheist doing his or her best to lead a moral life on the basis of reason and a sense of right and wrong and a Christian doing the same thing? According to Saint Justin Martyr, one of the leading thinkers of the early church, nothing much: "those who live according to reason are Christians, even though they are accounted atheists." I find in the teachings and example of Jesus the most inspiring guide for meaning and morality that I know about to live my life by. I don't think anyone does it better.

 

I would certainly expect you to disagree Okie. This is in part because I surmise from your posts that you do not believe in the type of god that would, for example, order a genocide. But you do have to admit that plenty of people do still believe in such a god. Also, it seems clear that you do not believe that the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of an act are synonymous with our having been told about the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of that act by God. In other words you seem to believe (quite logically) that morality is about more than mandates. Again, many people do not believe in that way, and it is really those people that I am addressing.

The very last part of your reply is, I think, very telling. Of course there is very little difference between an atheist and a Christian doing his or her best to be moral, because of course neither of them gets their morals from the Bible. The only reason that people are capable of cherry picking, or as you put it 'picking and choosing', from the Bible is because they have a system of morals and reason in place before they read scripture. In that way they are capable of saying this part about killing neighboring tribes is abhorrent but that part about loving one's neighbors is great. If it were not so, they would swallow the Bible whole.

 

I agree.

It worries me that a large number of theists seemingly require the over-watch of a powerful being to control themselves.

These are the ones who are first to pose the thoughts that atheists have no morals... if that's the case... why is not every atheist an axe wielding murderer?

I think they only assign this because of their own fears of what they might do should they not believe they are going to be judged at the end of their lives or similar.

 

I just feel most people, wether they are religious or atheist, adapt the morals of their environment and learn to see those as their own. As they realize in life that those morals are not followed by anyone they will customize their own morality. A lot of people are flexible in following these morals as they are aware they are not shared by anyone and so they just get pragmatic about them. This is not limited to a specific kind of theist or atheist. Everyone is guilty of it to some degree.

 

But then look at the the wars and suffering caused by people who thought there was no God and they had a "scientific" understanding of history. I'm thinking Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. We could add the authors of the Reign of Terror after the French Revolution.

 

But this is nothing new. Biblidolatry is a relatively recent, largely American invention. Saint Justin Martyr, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Saint Augustine, and various other Church fathers relied on reason to tell them what the Bible meant, and thought that God's will was inherently compatible with reason and Justice.

 

I agree that Christians and atheists who are doing their best to act morally are not different from each other, for exactly the reasons I said in my post. But for Justin Martyr to claim that 'Those who live according reason are Christians' is absurd in the highest degree.

First he would have to be saying that Christ is an insignificant part of Christianity, in order for those of us who deny Christ to be considered Christians.

Secondly the quote should be turned on its head. 'Those who claim to be Christians are really just living according to reason' would be more correct. I believe the reason for this was already covered in my previous post. Is it not obvious that people have their morals in place before they read the bible? If they did not then they would not be capable of distinguishing between the great parts of the bible and the horrible parts, and yet virtually everyone is capable of that.

Also, it is useless to attempt to use Stalin to demonstrate that evil can be derived from atheism. I doubt that Stalin was serious about science and reason. He gave no indication of being so in his actions and statements. I doubt he ever considered the philosophical arguments terribly deeply. And most importantly his atrocities were almost entirely carried out by theists, a large number of them Christian.

The same is true, of course, of Germany during that time. Hitler was not an atheist. He was not a christian but he certainly was not an atheist. But even if I grant that he was for the sake of argument, it still does the theist no good. The einsatzgruppen, or action groups, that carried out the task of genocide near the fighting fronts and in occupied territories were composed almost entirely of Christians and they were almost entirely volunteers.

The fact of the matter is that a state has never in history truly been established on the basis of reason, nor has one ever been ruled by people who were dedicated to science and reason.

I would however like to point out that at no point in this thread have I attempted to argue the point that theism is a source of evil. I have merely been attempting to overturn the common assumption that the basis of morality is on solid ground for theists and shaky ground for atheists. I believe I have argued that point.

 

As I understand it, his position is not far removed from that of present-day Catholic theology. The Church, for example, acknowledges that devout Muslims go to heaven, even though they "deny Christ". Of course, the life and sacrifice of Christ is central to Christian spirituality, and for those who understand the message and role of Jesus, there is no substitute. "For those to whom much is given, much is expected". Yet for those who sincerely strive to do good but are prevented by "invincible ignorance" from understanding Christ's truth, sincere striving is good enough. Conscience is the key. For example, I believe that the teachings and example of Jesus are the most perfect expression of moral truth, but Buddhism comes close. I'd consider it arrogant to presume that I am somehow more likely to be saved than the Dali Lama. I also think it's possible to identify the working of the Holy Spirit through the demeanor and actions of individuals. There are some people who I'm convinced are "Spirit filled". Some of these are atheists. Justin Martyr was thinking of people like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle who obviously could not know Jesus, and the many good pagans of his own time who followed their example. It would be absurd in the extreme to presume them less likely to be saved than Christians.

Not necessarily. It's my experience that most people get their morals in place by socialization. Morals don't come naturally. They typically come through training and example, ideally through good parenting, good teaching, or good preaching. Most Christians don't start out reading the Bible. Some never read it at all. The Bible is read to them, often selectively, by opinion leaders, which I think is a good thing. But the opinion leaders read the Bible

I find this statement baffling. What Stalin was serious about is a matter of surmise, but he claimed to be atheist, imposed atheism on others, and was head of a party apparatus that was officially atheist. He derived his legitimacy from an ideology that was officially rationalistic, scientific, materialist and atheist, and he persecuted religion, unless on occasion it suited his interests to accommodate it for tactical reasons. His atrocities were carried out by his subordinates, in the first instance by Communist Party members, who were atheist by necessity. Hitler is another story. But it is certainly a double standard to say that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Kim Jong-il, etc., were just individual bad guys without religious orientation, while arguing that the Crusaders, Conquistadors, Klansmen and other perpetrators of atrocities in the name of Jesus were all devout Christians motivated by the teachings of Christ.

If "the fact of the matter is that a state has never in history truly been established on the basis of reason," then it can be said that a state has never in history truly been established on the basis of Christ's teachings, regardless of pretense. Millions of idealists around the world served Communism because they believed in the legitimacy of dialectical materialism, which is rooted in perceived reason.

I have no quarrel with that proposition.

 

The atrocities of Stalin's and Hitler's regimes were not carried out by the dozen or so individuals that they kept close to them. They were carried out by the ordinary citizens of those countries, most of whom were Christians. I refer here to the einsatzgruppen and the Russian groups like the NKVD. The average Russian was very religious under Stalin's rule. Read the memoirs of Hans Von Luck and his experiences with the average Russian.

Also, I think you aren't reading my posts carefully, or you are mixing my posts with those of another. You can disagree with me if you want but please stick to things that I actually said. I don't believe I have put any words in your mouth and I would like the same in return. At no point did I even mention the crusades or attempt to make any claim that religious people who do bad things are doing it because of the teachings of Jesus.

I also, at no point, made any claim about a state being founded on the principles of Christianity. I still find it absurd to claim that Stalin was a rational person dedicated to reason and science.

Also, the Church can say whatever they want about not condemning people to hell for not abiding in Christ, but in that case they are going against scripture.

Also, I am glad that we can agree on my last point, because that is really the only point I was trying to make. I enjoy our discussions very much Okie, I hope we can continue them.

 

with or without "god" "all things" are permitted. reality merely permits us to destroy ourselves with them.

 

Yup. That's fantastic. Really deep stuff.

Do you know how many people on death row said "God told me to kill"?

I'm going to stick to my inflexible rationality.

 

All things lawful, (extant if at all). Not all things are helpful, helpful being a matter of space and time.

There is one identifiable moral impulse endemic to life, the instinct for self preservation/extension. The expression of that single moral impulse is consistent with the level of self identification and in no wise inconsistent with the diversity we see.

 

I agree with the OP, more so I'm a bit afraid of the people that say they are only morally upholding because they believe in god - as if they didn't they would some how become morally bankrupt and wreck havoc. To me, that sounds much worse than someone who can deduce a good sense of morality on their own.

Wars would still happen, we're still human and money, resources, power, reign of territory are still a factor in the lead up to wars - actually most religious wars are for those reason, beliefs are just a nice window dressing to get people to die for the cause.