Theists and religious believers of various kinds can of course ask: What is the alternative advocated by atheists with regard to morality? This is one area where I think atheists need to be more explicit in formulating and expressing, for the public, their beliefs. Although atheists' beliefs, collectively, are not homogenous, I think there is a high degree of uniformity on certain issues. However, these views, to my knowledge, have not been well-articulated in a popular source. For one thing, I have not seen any popular atheist presentation which is based on a systematic study of past ethical systems, and which arrives at a coherent presentation of what atheists generally believe (in the moral sphere) and why, and how this differs from religiously-packaged moral systems. This is a large project, not to be taken lightly, and not something to be expressed at all until it is thoroughly developed. Until such a presentation is made, the general public, particularly in the U.S., will continue to associate atheism with Marxism, Stalin and Mao; ultra-hedonistic decadence, superficiality, and amorality; and anarchy and nihilism.

May I point you to Ebonmuse's essay, The Ineffable Carrot and the Infinite Stick, which appears to lay some exellent groundwork for such a project.

Archi Medz, fair enough. For what its worth, I do not think atheists are (by virtue of being atheists) morally bad or morally inferior to theists. But then I'm pretty eccentric, as SpeirM has discovered.

Hey, are you a father? Happy Father's Day, if so.

In fact, Happy Father's Day to everybody who qualifies.

Sorry for the late response. I meant condemn in the most general sense of the word, realizing that there are some differences between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam in exactly what condemnation entails within each. (I do not yet know enough about Hinduism to comment on that). At minimum, and most generally, I meant condemn as "judge to be morally bad or morally inferior." I also want to reiterate, for clarity, that I was referring exclusively to the condemnation of someone for not believing in an invisible, undetectable deity.

You will get plenty of people, theists or otherwise, who believe it is acceptable to condemn people for their honest beliefs. I imagine most of us would condemn racists for instance.

Not to but in, but sensible theists of any bent don't tend to be overly concerned with doctrinal technicalities.

Comment by: Padishah | June 16, 2006, 8:23 pm

My (empirical) prediction as to what most atheists and theists believe, specifically with regard to condemning someone for not believing in an invisible, undetectable deity, may or may not hold up. I wasn't referring to all beliefs! Until I've seen some research results on this particular issue, I'm not drawing any firm conclusions about it. (I focussed on that particular issue in my example only because I think it is a major weakness in the theologies of the three main religions, i.e., it is not a trivial issue).

Re Jews and Christians, I'm not all that concerned or worried about them (i.e., they don't pose a significant threat to me or anyone else in my neck of the woods. I am concerned about Christian fundamentalism in the U.S, as well as the impact generally of religious beliefs in the third world, and the impact on non-religious dogmas in places like North Korea and China. However, my chief focus is Islam, because I think, globally, it presents (and will continue to present) the biggest problem among the ideologies that tend to cause problems.

I drew attention to this point because this issue, specifically the belief in metaphysical punishment (or, at minimum, belief in the idea that it is wrong morally to disbelieve in said invisible undetectable deity) is a basic aspect of the three main religions cited. This is both a popular belief among the general public and a technical matter for theologians. (Personally, I'm not interested all that much in the theological arguments, except insofar as they can be made socially-relevant in more popular discussions). The level of popularity of the belief that non-believers should be condemned is an empirical question.

Of course I accept that the sky is blue and the grass is green. I believe in the external reality I percieve.

"how has anything in the spirit world ever been proved to you in the ways that things in the physical world have?"

Well, I consider consciousness as part of the spirit world, so I have more direct experience of it than of the physical world external to me. Generally speaking the sense that I seemed to percieve God through was that of hearing. I now think that experience was largey delusional, but just because one has delusions doesn't mean the real thing doesn't exist.
Now, if consciousness lies within the spritual world, its existence is fairly apparent. As for reliance on others, that is how we learn about most of the physical world.

There is no sense in denying reality. For me, that means there is no sense in denying God. For you, perhaps it has a different meaning. My knowledge of the spiritual world is not more reliable than my knowledge of the physical, I wasn't claiming that.

Really, you don't find some things inescapable? Is the sky blue or the grass green? Will you quibble and say, "Not always?" just to avoid having to concede a point?

"I grasp that there is a difference there, but I don't consider it an important one."

But how has anything in the spirit world ever been proved to you the way things in the physical world have? By what sense has it come to you? It wasn't sight, touch, smell, taste, or hearing. And yet, we all make mistakes with those all the time--even though we spend our whole lives honing our skills with them in the physical world. The spirit world, if there is such a place, is largely veiled to us. Exactly what sense is it that so reliably tells you it even exists, much less what its attributes are? It's not your experience you're relying on? Then whose? That of Moses or Paul or Jesus or some Pope? You've only removed the problem one step and added another. You still have to explain what sense of theirs was so reliable. Then you have to explain why you trust in that sense secondhand.

No, there's nothing that can be proven to 100% certainty, not even our own existence. But what's the sense in denying it? If we do, then let us lay down our swords--nothing is knowable! Why retreat to such a position, especially since nothing you've said is meaningful in the slightest unless you claim to be able to know? Again, what makes your knowledge of the spiritual more reliable than your knowledge of the physical?

I don't know the physical world exists, but I choose to assume it. The choice is a product of my reasoning and the apparent evidence of my senses, which is all I have. Same for the spiritual world.

By "objective criteria", I meant that a non-Catholic can tell when the Pope makes a pronouncement that falls within the critieria for infallibility. For example, the Pope must say he is doing so.

I have no evidence that makes my conclusions inescapable, on this or any other subject (I have toyed with the idea that I necessarily exist, but even this is dubious).

Well, if you like to compare knowledge to a hot air balloon you can do so. I'm not quite sure where you're going, but then I guess balloons are carried by the wind rather than directed.

I can't demonstrate anything unless we assume some axioms. As a liberal I would be horrified to imagine I was compelling anyone to agree with me. I imagine God does realise that no evidence can be compelling. Whether a being outside time can be said to expect anything is rather problematic, but I think He makes allowance for such matters...

Your point isn't entirely missed. I, myself, on this site have said that the assertions of science become matters of faith for most of us. I can't prove such things as evolution or even that the Earth goes around the Sun.

But there's still a big difference. On the one side of the scales I have the words of thousands of people who have studied and practiced their subjects for years and have built upon the learning of others. More compelling is that they deal with the physical world--something I know exists by my own experience. On the other side I have the claims of thousands-years-old documents by men (?) whose names we often don't even know for sure. That and the traditions of men--founded upon those documents--who have demonstrated time and again that they have religious axes to grind, often not to the good of humanity as a whole. Worst of all, they deal with things that are anything but objectively provable. I DON'T know the spirit world exists. Thus, as far as I'm concerned, the burden of proof is on those who insist it does. Why shouldn't I expect better evidence that somebody's word before I believe in it?

When I weigh the evidence like that, the choice is easy.

Christianity, Protestant and Catholic, has had a long time to tweak things such that its worldview has achieved a degree of internal consistency. (At least, rationalizations have been formulated to explain away the inconsistencies.) To me, that's all but meaningless. Objectivity, to me, is a lot more than "Does our doctrine square with our own doctrine?" It has to square with objective reality. The question isn't, "Is the Pope or the Church infallible (any time or ever) according to what we believe to be true?" It's more like, "Can they be demonstrated to be infallible to those who aren't already biased in their favor?" What evidence do you have that make your conclusions inescapable? If you don't have any, what's the point of your own faith? Why do you hold it?

Building empirical systems on faith is kind of like soaring in a hot air balloon. It looks pretty and it flies high, but eventually it's going to have to come down, because, well, it's just hot air. (It'll either come down or it'll wind up being altered so that its lift comes of something more material. Christianity has taken that latter route a lot.) That's all that's holding you up. Or, if there is something more substantial, you can't demonstrate that there is. Not in any way that would compel others to agree with you. God, if he exists at all, must surely realize the evidence isn't compelling. (He wouldn't be omniscient otherwise.) Consequently, he couldn't seriously expect our faith.