Although I’ve never been asked, I think the following would be a fair and reasonable question:
“Why do you spend so much time knocking atheism on your blog?”
For those who are new, the majority of my posts are either explicitly or implicitly “Christian” in nature. I spend a lot of time defending and articulating the Christian worldview, and it’s true that I spend a disproportionate amount of time contrasting it with the atheist’s worldview (rather than, say, that of the Hindu or the Muslim). There are a number of reasons for this, including my current position in science (a field increasingly populated by atheists), the fact that I’m not as well-read in other philosophies and religions, and the fact that I have a number of childhood friends who have “de-converted” from Christianity to atheism.
Regardless, I figured I should remedy this blog’s overabundance of atheism-related posts by…you guessed it…writing another post about atheism.
I understand your skepticism (pardon the pun), but all I ask for is a little faith (okay, I’m finished). Although I don’t really have much positive to say about atheism, I do have some kind things to say about certain atheists.
Given atheism, there is no ultimate meaning or significance to life. While it’s possible for the atheist to create for himself a personal sense of meaning (through his family, career, legacy, etc.), he lives with the conviction that – billions of years from now – all of his actions and accomplishments will have been for naught. With death comes nothingness. Humanity must eventually die out, and the universe itself will ultimately succumb to heat death. All sense of meaning is, therefore, both personally subjective and temporal.
And yet many atheists lead admirable, industrious lives in spite of this. While it’s true that some atheists become nihilists (and I know a few), it would seem that MOST atheists persist with an optimistic, humanistic outlook on life. This blows my mind, to be entirely honest. If one is convinced of the truth of atheism, it must surely require a tremendous and courageous act of will to maintain a positive outlook in spite of the crushing existential ramifications of one’s worldview. And I say that with complete sincerity. I’m convinced, based on the evidence, that the atheist’s understanding of the universe (and our role in it) is entirely false. Yet in a way, I can’t help but admire the personal attributes of those atheists who choose to live as if the universe had meaning anyway. (This is not to make light of the atheist’s rejection of God; rather, it’s a recognition of other admirable characteristics that he possesses.)
Given atheism, there are no objective moral values or duties to strive toward. This should be self-evident, since any objective moral standard would require an outside “Moral Arbiter” of some kind (or at the very least, some kind of external, impartial, authoritative standard against which to measure moral opinions). Again, it’s possible for the atheist to create for himself a personal system of morality (or even attempt to ground morality in biology), but these solutions necessarily involve some degree of subjectivity. Historically speaking, one of the great appeals of atheism (to many, at least) is its rejection of any absolute source of moral authority. Without a moral Lawgiver, man is free to define his own rules and pursue his own desires.
And yet, by human standards, many atheists lead outstanding, morally-praiseworthy lives. Granted, I’ve been personally mistreated and verbally assaulted by my fair share of atheists…and I can’t even count the number of times I’ve had atheists say to me, “I don’t NEED a magical sky-fairy threatening ME with hell to be a good person!” Yet look at that last statement more closely. If we set aside the spiteful tone, the simplistic characterization of theist belief, and the mistaken notion that anyone can truly be a “good person” (by absolute standards…not society’s standards), then there’s actually a glimmer of truth here. All of us have an innate, God-given sense of right and wrong – whether we acknowledge God as its source or not. Comparatively speaking, many of my atheist friends DO seem to possess more compassion, more selflessness, and a greater sense of purpose than some professing Christians I know. In other words: if these individuals were drawn to atheism for its promises of moral autonomy, they don’t seem intent on abusing that freedom.
I think it’s praiseworthy that many atheists strive toward optimism and moral decency – in spite of holding a belief system that is clearly incompatible with concepts like “objective meaning” or “objective morality”. When we look past the worldview, we find that many atheists possess personal qualities that would put many of us to shame.
This also provides Christians like myself with a chance for some introspection. If our atheist friends and neighbors can find purpose and optimism and compassion in the face of a cold, uncaring universe…then how much more purposeful, optimistic, and compassionate should our lives be? (Ephesians 4:32, Romans 15:13, Hebrews 10:23).
Well done.
Hey, Matt! As I said on FB, in many ways my reading this post is inevitable. Less inevitable but still probable is this response.
THANK YOU for clarifying the vast, meaningful, important differences between an “ultimate” meaning or significance to life — and a “personal” meaning or significance to life. Understanding this contrast and its implications is absolutely vital to understanding how atheists and other non-religious people establish and follow their own moral codes.
So many religious people have said, through the years – how can you be an atheist and be moral, implying that atheists don’t have any meaning or significance in life — when clearly, the error is one of ignorance, from religious people who are not familiar with this distinction you have so ably elaborated. I am glad you are aware of this point – that, I cannot emphasize enough.
All that being said, it should cease to “blow your mind” that most atheists are optimists instead of nihilists. Given the strong reality of personal meaning and significance in the present contexts of our lives, there should be no surprise that most atheists “lead admirable, industrious lives”. I am glad you are evolving (pun only somewhat intentional) in your outlook.
I agree with you that a naturalist outlook requires an act of willing. On the other hand, we differ because in my opinion a religious outlook also requires many levels (often more subtle ones) of willing. The process – from my perspective – is just more transparent and obvious for the atheist. So, I contend, *given religion*, there are also no absolutely objective moral values or duties. We are in the same fog, using a similar moral process, only you are standing on the shoulders of some people who think they have an objective guide but really relate with their ideas and traditions in a subjective way — and I am doing the same thing, but I’m not making an extra claim to authority that you’re making.
Yes, I’m not surprised that some atheists have mistreated you – just as you will not be surprised when I tell you that some religious folks – including Christians – have mistreated me. We agree that what one professes to believe is not the sole determinant of a person’s actions or character, even though the other factors we feel are important differ.
Here, I need to make a brief aside: your understanding of atheism and its relationship to moral autonomy and freedom is – in my opinion – limited. As an atheist and humanist, I only have one opportunity to create a world that I want to live in, so all of my actions carry supreme urgency and weight. Sure, atheism isn’t a positive creed, but atheism can be a first step that leads to many important moral revelations that do actively promote compassion, empathy, and cooperation. The suggestion that there is no outside force managing the world’s affairs directly or indirectly is liberating for some, but it’s terrifying for others. Humans have the ability and technology to obliterate our own existence, and if there is no greater outside force stopping us, we only have ourselves to ensure our future. We can save ourselves, but we could also destroy ourselves — that awareness imbues in me and many others a profound and weighty sense of responsibility and obligation.
To summarize, I am glad that you are learning more about atheism and atheists, what we believe and seek to promote, and how we live our lives. That is a good effort. People of every belief should learn more about people of every other belief. I firmly believe in that goal, and take steps to realize it in my own life. I sincerely hope that you now are learning that “optimism and moral decency” are not incompatible by any means with meaning and morality — even if our opinion of the source differs, our commitments are similar. You say that being a Christian gives you reason to be more optimistic and more decent, and whether you are a Christian or not, I hope you will be. I must say that if the Universe is as cold, uncaring, and indifferent as I suspect — then there is every reason for each of us to be the opposite!
Hey Alex,
Thanks for the response! I really hate the “quote-response-quote-response” method of replying to comments…but I always end up doing it anyway. I still haven’t figured out a better way to respond to specific sentences, haha. So my apologies in advance:
“All that being said, it should cease to “blow your mind” that most atheists are optimists instead of nihilists.”
Maybe it’s just my subconscious speaking (i.e., Maybe it’s because I would be the “nihilist” kind of atheist rather than the “humanist” kind – thus making me unable to fully grasp the “humanist-atheist” outlook. But I haven’t really given that matter much thought before, haha.)
“(pun only somewhat intentional)”
http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Billy-D_Approves.gif
“So, I contend, *given religion*, there are also no absolutely objective moral values or duties. We are in the same fog, using a similar moral process, only you are standing on the shoulders of some people who think they have an objective guide but really relate with their ideas and traditions in a subjective way — and I am doing the same thing, but I’m not making an extra claim to authority that you’re making.”
I see what you’re saying here, but I think this is more from *your* perspective, rather than actually *given religion*. If Christianity is true, and if God really *does* exist and really *has* given us moral commands (via Scripture), then wouldn’t those be considered objective moral values and duties? If our entire universe is contingent on an omnipotent, omniscient Being, then must not our moral values and duties also be contingent on said Being? And doesn’t this make those moral values and duties *objective* in nature?
“As an atheist and humanist, I only have one opportunity to create a world that I want to live in, so all of my actions carry supreme urgency and weight…We can save ourselves, but we could also destroy ourselves — that awareness imbues in me and many others a profound and weighty sense of responsibility and obligation.”
I sincerely do appreciate your sense of responsibility and obligation, and am grateful for it (speaking as a fellow citizen). I actually can understand how atheism would cause you to value your own life/happiness/experiences, but I guess my question would take this form: If *all experience* (as far as you’re concerned) will cease when you die, then why does your sense of duty extend beyond “a world that I want to live in” in order to encompass “a world that I want future generations to live in”. And by “future generations”, I mean, say, 1000 years in the future (because I *can* understand you feeling a sense of obligation for your immediate loved ones). As an example, why would you care about global warming, when it’s a *certainty* that the Earth will eventually be swallowed up in the distant future by an expanding Sun? Even the most dire global warming projections are extremely unlikely to have a significant, life-altering impact on our generation, or our children’s generation. So why do you care about people 200 years from now having a habitable planet (or solar system, if you like), when it’s a certainty that mankind (or some evolved form of mankind with a larger frontal cortex, if it pleases you) MUST eventually come to an end. The *universe itself* must eventually come to an end. Is your obligation based merely on a utilitarian sense of duty? An attempt to maximize the number of future generations that can exist before we go extinct? If I were an atheist, I’d find it very difficult to care very much whether mankind goes extinct in 500 years or 5000. I’m out of the picture either way, and mankind is ultimately out of the picture either way. (On a side note, I believe that the Bible provides a strong basis for caring for ourselves, our planet, and future generations. And I share your concern with certain “end times” sects of Christianity that view the Earth – and future life – with an unconcerned, “God will take care of everything” sort of attitude.)
“I am glad you are evolving in your outlook…I sincerely hope that you now are learning that “optimism and moral decency” are not incompatible by any means with meaning and morality — even if our opinion of the source differs, our commitments are similar.”
My views haven’t actually changed at all in this regard, for as long as I can remember. But I apologize if anything I’ve said in the past led you to believe otherwise!
Great post Alex…
The issue here is that Christians themselves are defining “significance” and “meaning”, although I fail to see how they are entitled to do so.
In my opinion, the idea that a divine being created the universe just for Mankind and his associated journey towards salvation is… excessively anthropomorphic?
But even worse, the apologists’ objection here seems to be based on an appeal to consequence. “We don’t like not being significant, and we don’t like not having an objective moral arbiter, so an atheist lifestyle is unsatisfying and/or wrong”. If you’re arguing against atheism using this logic, then you commit the aforementioned fallacy. Craig commits this fallacy in Reasonable Faith, in his chapter outlining the Argument from Morality. But if you’re just expressing why you *personally* don’t find atheism satisfying… well…
I also don’t feel that I can somehow redefine my morality however I choose…this seems to be a really common Christian perception. In fact, I find morality by way of Divine Command Theory to be much less satisfying. It reduces goodness to mere divine whim, and there’s really no defending against that conclusion. A Christian can’t say “well, it’s ok for morality to be divined by God’s whims, because God is pure and good”, because purity and goodness are themselves defined by God’s whim, meaning that only thing a Christian can really say is “well, I think He has our best interests at heart”.
And you get the additional problem of trying to figure out God’s whims while breaking new moral ground. I don’t find this to be particularly “objective”. Even many Christians have different ideas about what God’s whims are (and, as a result, have different ideas about which Christians are “true Christians” and which are immoral posers), which makes this “objective morality” less than useful. You can argue about epistemic/ontologic distinctions all you want, but if objective morality is controversial and in many cases difficult to discover or agree upon, then it isn’t useful as a moral system. We’ve previously discussed Nomianism vs. AntiNomianism- this is just the tip of the iceberg.
An atheist doesn’t *just* peg morality to biological instinct. They also peg to higher-level social behaviors, such as the ability to model others. Of course, this means morality is still bound to particular “neuro-formats” or “bio-formats”, as you’ve pointed out before, but then again, so are many other things in our existence. But I find it more “objective” than divine whim, because it depends on the use of external references for making moral valuations. And the process for doing this, as Roy Wood Sellers wrote in “Principles of Emergent Realism”, is reflexive and relational;
- “Moral objectivity, for instance, consists in setting aside private involvements and stressing reciprocity and long-run consequences.”
- “Value judgments are justifiable rather than true in a cognitional sense.”
- “The expression ‘intrinsic values’ is misleading. Why not merely speak of ‘satisfactions’?”
So he, and I would argue most atheists, maintain that things which we traditionally consider to be objective moral considerations are really forged out of empathy-driven harm avoidance and survival-grounded consequentialism.
I think it’s in Christians’ best interests to at least partially embrace this way of thinking about morality, because otherwise, Christians can’t have open moral dialogue with non-Christians- they’d be forever consigned to moral disagreement with those who have differing beliefs about the nature or existence of God. And even if you think God is coming back soon…remember, you still have to live on this planet with 5 Billion non-Christians, of which 1.1 Billion aren’t religious. If you can’t talk morality with us using *some* sort of common system, then the Earthly existence of *all* of us is going to be miserable.
And you might ask, as you asked Alex, why my sense of obligation extends past the point of my destruction. But you’re still coming at this from the “ultimate meaning” standpoint. I’m alive *right now*.
I can still model, still empathize with, the plight of those living in the future after my death. Just because I won’t be around to think about it after my death doesn’t mean that I can’t make moral considerations about it *now*. Making moral judgments about the future is functionally identical to making moral judgments involving the here and now… the same cognitive processes, emotions, and values are at play. Perhaps the only difference is that the reciprocative element has a temporal offset, meaning that the beneficiary will be my children instead of myself. The reflexive element, however, is the exact same…I would have wanted *my* great-great-grandparents to make the same consideration, so I will do so for my progeny. If you don’t get this, that’s fine…maybe you aren’t cut out to be atheist.
“…the idea that a divine being created the universe just for Mankind and his associated journey towards salvation…”
That isn’t my viewpoint.
“‘We don’t like not being significant, and we don’t like not having an objective moral arbiter, so an atheist lifestyle is unsatisfying and/or wrong’. If you’re arguing against atheism using this logic, then you commit the aforementioned fallacy.”
It’s a fallacy to conclude that atheism is “wrong” based solely on this premise, but it’s not a fallacy to conclude that it’s “unsatisfying”. I actually have Reasonable Faith (3rd edition) sitting open right in front of me. Can you show me where Craig commits this fallacy?
“Even many Christians have different ideas about what God’s whims are, which makes this “objective morality” less than useful.”
That’s a question of our interpretation/understanding of objective morality, rather than the *existence* of an objective moral standard. If you’re arguing against the Christian’s claims about morality on this basis, then you’re confusing ontology with epistemology. If you’re simply making a point about the *practical applications* of the Christian’s understanding of morality, then I would point out that all methods of defining morality (including “empathy-driven harm avoidance” and “survival-grounded consequentialism”) run into similar difficulties in their practical application (to borrow some of the wording from your sentence: “Even many atheists have different ideas about the biological, psychological, and/or evolutionary basis for morality, which makes this approach less than useful”). I’m not necessarily opposed to debating the “usefulness” of various competing moral frameworks…but that’s an entirely separate discussion.
“The reflexive element, however, is the exact same…I would have wanted *my* great-great-grandparents to make the same consideration, so I will do so for my progeny. If you don’t get this, that’s fine…maybe you aren’t cut out to be atheist.”
No, I understand it. There’s just nothing *binding* there…especially when the atheist is fully “aware” of the evolutionary/neurobiological explanation for his reflexive moral instincts. If it becomes painful or inconvenient to act “morally” in a given situation, then why should he act against his own self-interest? Why should he “do the right thing”, even when it requires taking an action tremendously at-odds with his personal safety, comfort, or well-being? Why shouldn’t he coolly and rationally ignore the neurobiological reflexes telling him to jump on that live grenade to save those three complete strangers?
On the Christian’s view, conversely, all of our actions have eternal consequences. We’re accountable for our moral decisions, even after we die, so we have a motivational basis for acting morally…even at the cost of our personal safety, comfort, or well-being. (Although, again, this is getting more into the “usefulness” of these competing moral frameworks, rather than their actual veracity.)
“That isn’t my viewpoint.”
You don’t believe in fine-tuning? Or maybe you object because maybe God created the universe for aliens as well? Or maybe God didn’t anticipate requiring a salvation narrative to save his creations? I’d like to know why you think it isn’t your viewpoint, and also why God’s existence makes you significant. And I’d also like to know why this significant is desirable.
“Can you show me where Craig commits this fallacy?”
Argument from Morality, Nazi example. Actually there’s more than one in there, but that’s the one I remember. I can’t access Reasonable Faith on Google Books any more for some reason.
I mean, I would think he was just be explaining why he finds naturalism unsatisfying, but he restates this over and over. Here’s another one from him:
“First, if atheism is true, objective moral values do not exist. If God does not exist, then what is the foundation for moral values? More particularly, what is the basis for the value of human beings? If God does not exist, then it is difficult to see any reason to think that human beings are special or that their morality is objectively true. Moreover, why think that we have any moral obligations to do anything? Who or what imposes any moral duties upon us?”
Basically any place where he’s supporting objective morality/attacking naturalist morality on the basis of something he likes/doesn’t like is an appeal to consequence. If he wants to avoid this, then he needs to keep this stuff out of his argumentation and associated explanations, or else put it in a separate section entitled “why I don’t like naturalist morality”.
“If you’re arguing against the Christian’s claims about morality on this basis, then you’re confusing ontology with epistemology”
No, I was telling you about why I don’t find it useful (in other words, what use is objectivity if you don’t have access to it?), but since you took it as a formalized argument against objective morality and decided to put forward Craig’s standard bogus excuse, I’ll have a go at showing you why this doesn’t make sense.
If you don’t think objective morality is accessible in an epistemic sense, you have to show why naturalist morality can’t possibly be true by demonstrating its exclusive warrant. There are two ways of doing this that are compelling enough to require an objection. For the first, I think I’ve already stated that the whole “naturalism can’t ground subjects” objection looks like it has little substance owing to a number of successful models and experiments associated with subjective self-representation. The only remaining way Craig fights naturalist morality is by presenting the EAAN, which has been completely dispatched by everyone from fellow philosophers to cognitive scientists to evolutionary biologists.
Composed by Plantinga, the EAAN fails to distinguish between types of beliefs and the constraints they are placed under by their relative utility to survival. In other words, believing in something that we can perceptually verify is untrue is selected against by evolution. So a continuum of beliefs related to accurate sensory representation can be known under naturalism. But beliefs which are more abstract, such as those passed from person to person about entities which have no associated sensory data, may in fact not be selected against. In other words, believing in bigfoot won’t weed you out. And Plantinga drastically underestimates the survival impact of various beliefs with ridiculous objections like “Paul wants to be eaten, but runs away from a tiger because it doesn’t seem likely to eat him, because it might just be a big friendly pussy cat” (this is selected against…humans can’t outrun tigers). Stephen Law also has a much more detailed and expanded objection encompassing the constraints on semantic mental content presented by evolution.
This means that Objective Morality doesn’t have exclusive warrant, It thus needs to be justified epistemically. Which means this whole ontological-epistemic distinction is an excuse that falls flat. So to justify objective morality, you need to demonstrate objectivity. I’m not seeing objectivity among believers or anybody else, and I think naturalist behaviors are more likely to be responsible than “well, some of my fellow churchgoers are being led astray by Sin and Satan”.
“If you’re simply making a point about the *practical applications* of the Christian’s understanding of morality, then I would point out that all methods of defining morality (including “empathy-driven harm avoidance” and “survival-grounded consequentialism”) run into similar difficulties in their practical application (to borrow some of the wording from your sentence”
I’m not convinced, but even if this is true, I would argue that it’s a much more complete description of morality because it answers questions like “why should I do that?” more often than “why should I do that, oh ancient book?”. Christians already attempt some of this, but many continue to ignore critical places where a dogmatic command mandates a position. This leads to tension.
“Why should he “do the right thing”, even when it requires taking an action tremendously at-odds with his personal safety, comfort, or well-being? Why shouldn’t he coolly and rationally ignore the neurobiological reflexes telling him to jump on that live grenade to save those three complete strangers?”
If we were to have the time necessary to considering this rationally, then I’d say that if you were close enough to the grenade to be able to jump on it (the same as your fellows), then you gain nothing by running because you’ll still be caught in the blast. But you gain the life of others if you jump on it, and because you aren’t dead (yet), you have a chance to positively weigh and enjoy the prospect of the gain. If we’re all going to die some day anyway, would it not be more satisfying to make a distinct impact than miserably scrabbling to constantly push death back by one more decade and then being forgotten upon death?
But I also imagine that few people, atheist or Christian, actively contemplate their looming death in such circumstances, because instinct, emotion, and adrenaline take control. If you care about those in danger, then in the split second you have to make the decision, you’ll sacrifice yourself. And if that didn’t occur, if that sort of behavior didn’t exist, then it’s possible our species would be not exist right now because no parent would ever have sacrificed themselves to save their children. So depending on the circumstance, it might be a neurobiological instinct, but that doesn’t make it any less important. I think you’re trying to imbue greater moral meaning in an instinct than is warranted.
“On the Christian’s view, conversely, all of our actions have eternal consequences. We’re accountable for our moral decisions, even after we die, so we have a motivational basis for acting morally…even at the cost of our personal safety, comfort, or well-being”
Sure, but look at this “motivation” as atheists see it. It resembles a crazed ex in a hostage situation. “I love you, but obey me (of your own free will, of course!) or burn!”. I care about people. I think good Christians do as well. But I can do without the hostage baggage. Avoiding harm to other people because you want it and because there are external reasons for it, is, in my opinion, more compelling than the command of a deity.
My apologies, first off. I meant to respond to a couple of your specific questions, but got busy with other stuff and spaced it.
“I’d like to know why you think it isn’t your viewpoint, and also why God’s existence makes you significant. And I’d also like to know why this significant is desirable.”
To the first question: It isn’t my viewpoint for several reasons, one of which you kinda-sorta touched upon (the possibility of other human-like races existing elsewhere). But even discounting the possibility of aliens, I don’t think the idea that “a divine being created the universe just for Mankind…” is really that accurate. Why insert the word “just”? The creation account suggests that man is the “highest creature” on this planet, but it doesn’t suggest that God created the universe “just for us”. I believe God delights in His creation like an artist delights in his painting – which includes birds, trees, and that cool-looking geological formation on that random planet thousands of light-years from here.
To the second question: I don’t know that God’s *mere existence* makes me significant…but I am significant, in part, because I’m significant to Him. Kind of in the same manner that I possess significance for being significant to my wife. Yeah, I could always say that I’m “significant to myself”…but I would argue that *real* significance requires that one be significant *to someone*.
To the third question: Same analogy as above, basically. I’m not a philosopher or a poet, but the desirability of being significant to my wife just seems…self-evident.
“Basically any place where he’s supporting objective morality/attacking naturalist morality on the basis of something he likes/doesn’t like is an appeal to consequence.”
Is that what he was doing in that quote? I didn’t read it like that. I would want more context, but I take it more as an argument for theism *directed toward those who already believe in objective moral values and obligations*.
“…then you gain nothing by running because you’ll still be caught in the blast.”
Lol…I should have made my scenario more tamper-proof.
In this case, there’s just enough time to either jump on the grenade (saving three strangers), or duck inside a reinforced steel bunker (saving yourself).
“But I also imagine that few people, atheist or Christian, actively contemplate their looming death in such circumstances, because instinct, emotion, and adrenaline take control.”
That’s not the question, though. The question is whether or not one has a *rational basis* for this kind of radical self-sacrifice-for-strangers. Since I’m convinced that this sort of self-sacrifice is a moral good, I believe that any “moral system” that’s unable to rationally ground such an action is a deficient system.
“To the first question: It isn’t my viewpoint for several reasons, one of which you kinda-sorta touched upon (the possibility of other human-like races existing elsewhere). But even discounting the possibility of aliens, I don’t think the idea that “a divine being created the universe just for Mankind…” is really that accurate.”
I think that’s reasonable.
“To the second question: I don’t know that God’s *mere existence* makes me significant…but I am significant, in part, because I’m significant to Him. Kind of in the same manner that I possess significance for being significant to my wife.”
Ok, now here we go. One of my big points is that no such analogy holds for much of the world’s population. They do not hold that they are significant because they are significant to someone. And many have no need for the concept of “significance” at all.
“Is that what he was doing in that quote? I didn’t read it like that. I would want more context, but I take it more as an argument for theism *directed toward those who already believe in objective moral values and obligations*.”
I don’t think so. First, a book called “Reasonable Faith” would, I think, not be directed just toward believers. That is, unless Craig is fond of zero-sum insular self-reinforcement (what Reddit profanely calls “circlejerking”). Second, it doesn’t matter if it’s already directed at believers. If you’re seriously arguing for the objective Truth of something, it’s incorrect to include how much you like the result of believing because it’s deceptive, a play on our personal biases. We hear the emotional bits and literally use it as evidence, because we’re naturally prone to the trap of motivated belief. But an honest and competent arguer tries to separate these out, so that our fondness or dislike of the conclusion does not have any affect on the perceived truth value of the consequent. It’s the same reason why I’ve never read any of Hitchens’ atheist works, because he subtly throws in the “God is a meanie” rants into the same places as he argues for God not existing. It’s bad, deceptive rhetoric.
“That’s not the question, though. The question is whether or not one has a *rational basis* for this kind of radical self-sacrifice-for-strangers. Since I’m convinced that this sort of self-sacrifice is a moral good, I believe that any “moral system” that’s unable to rationally ground such an action is a deficient system.”
First, let’s tackle rationality here (I think we’ve had this discussion on FB before). A rational choice is a choice that maximizes an organism’s gain in a given context with a given set of constraints.
Under your prior, less-defined scenario, it is rational for the individual to jump on the grenade owing to a sort of “grenade wager”. The individual gains nothing by just standing there, because he’ll die anyway. He gains satisfaction at the knowledge he’ll be saving others by jumping on the grenade, so he does it. Given the constraints, his choice is rational.
As for your updated scenario, I’m going to assume no more loopholes here, even though I sincerely doubt the prevalence of no-win scenarios (Wikipedia mentions that putting a helmet over the grenade and lying on it is survivable). Under your updated scenario, it would not be rational for a person who values his own life over other considerations to jump on the grenade. It would be rational for a person who values the satisfaction of saving others over the satisfaction of living to jump on the grenade. The rationality of the choice in this scenario vastly depends on the person, how they define gain, and the timescale of their priorities.
There are many atheists who figure that no matter how long one lives, Nothing is the ultimate destination, which means there’s no compelling reason not to jump on the grenade and gain fleeting satisfaction and the immortality of being a hero. There are other atheists who would value the continued experiences of their transient life over the satisfaction of saving others. It depends on how the atheist frames their life and experiences as compared to eternity.
Also, the quoted paragraph is very loaded. A few points:
First, you assume that a moral system must be rationally grounded. That literally means “a moral system must be grounded in maximizing an organism’s gain”. I don’t see why this needs to be the case…as I stated above, Sellars asked why we don’t merely speak of “satisfactions”. And really, what are you talking about when you mean “ground”? That something Christians never define in their objections.
Second, does the assumption of rational grounding mean your own moral system is grounded in maximizing an organism’s gain? Would you jump on a grenade, but only because it would please God enough that you’d get Martyr brownie points in the hereafter? Or were you only talking about a naturalist system of morality? That wasn’t made clear.
Third, I think you’re getting “moral obligation” and “moral ideal” confused here. I mean, we generally consider “morality” to be desirable, yes? So we generally want to go out and be moral, right? So why aren’t you and I looking for ways to get ourselves killed in order to save other people? But only the suicidal would contemplate that. So maybe self-sacrifice is not a moral obligation? Maybe we should consider self-sacrifice a moral ideal instead, because idealizing self-sacrifice is different than considering it to be a moral obligation in any given scenario. To illustrate the difference, we idealize heroes, but we don’t necessarily always try to be the hero.
Fourth, why does a moral system need to ground self-sacrifice in particular? It seems like you’re projecting your own ideals and priorities onto the general concept of morality. I don’t think a naturalist morality is under any obligation to “ground” every aspect of Christian morality.
“Wikipedia mentions that putting a helmet over the grenade and lying on it is survivable”
Now that is pretty awesome.
I do want to respond to the rest, but I want to give it some thought first. I have an exam to study for in a few days, then I’ll be backpacking in the Smokies over spring break…so I probably won’t be very active online until mid-March.
I kind of lost my train of thought, haha…but here goes anyway:
“Ok, now here we go. One of my big points is that no such analogy holds for much of the world’s population. They do not hold that they are significant because they are significant to someone. And many have no need for the concept of “significance” at all.”
Well, you asked why God’s existence makes *me* significant, and why that significance is desirable. I was honestly just responding from my own perspective, because I thought that’s what you were asking for.
I don’t deny that one might experience a sense of “self-significance”, without being significant to someone else. I wasn’t arguing that significance *requires* a second party, but I do maintain that being significant to a second party adds a layer of depth and richness that can’t be experienced in isolation (or by rejecting the concept of significance, for that matter). I have a pretty culturally diverse collection of friendships and social connections…and from *my* perspective, the people of the world who “have no need for the concept of ‘significance’ at all” are missing out on a critical piece of the human experience.
“I don’t think so. First, a book called “Reasonable Faith” would, I think, not be directed just toward believers.”
One need not be a believer in order to “already believe in objective moral values and obligations”. According to the atheist survey I posted earlier this week, 5 of the 23 respondents answered in the affirmative when asked “Does objective morality exist?” I also know plenty of agnostics who believe that objective moral values and obligations exist.
___
Regarding the grenade/self-sacrifice bit…I really have too much to say to attempt a response right now. If I’m able to organize my thoughts a little better, I’ll likely write a future blog post on this issue.
It’s nice that you are aware that many atheists are not immoral or evil people. I am an atheist myself and I really appreciate your effort in being balanced here. I think this is something other religious people (not only Christians) should take into account or we will run into the risk of demonizing a segment of the population because of their beliefs. I think part of how outspoken atheists have become in America boils down to the fact that they need to re-affirm themselves after feeling persecuted by a great deal of Christians. In Spain, for example, being an atheist is quite normal so there is no need for atheist forums or any of the confrontation I see in American media.
“all of his actions and accomplishments will have been for naught.”
Forgive the pragmatism…but I’ve always thought “why should I care?” whenever this is brought up. It’s a billion years in the future. So what if I don’t matter then?
“Without a moral Lawgiver, man is free to define his own rules and pursue his own desires.”
Of course, WITH a moral lawgiver, you don’t have morality. You have ‘might makes right’.
I do admire your acknowledgement of the good qualities atheists can have. Despite thinking that your analysis is completely wrong. Cheers.
Well written Matt! I appreciate your gracious honesty and ability to not lose sight of the immediate person when discussing the larger subject of what a person(s) believes.
I confess to not having read extensively through your blog, though I have only followed for a few weeks! I say this only because I am not sure if you have covered the following topic before:
This post makes me think that perhaps this innate morality in all people is the evidence of “the requirements of the law are written on their hearts,” (Romans 2:14-15) that God has put His law within every human. It is up to them to listen to that law. (This is leaving the matter of faith to another time!)
Hi Daniel – great to hear from you! I definitely agree with you about our innate sense of morality being evidence for the God we know through Scripture. I haven’t *directly* covered this before, but I’ve sort of touched on it in a couple previous posts:
http://wellspentjourney.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/origins-of-the-moral-law/
http://wellspentjourney.wordpress.com/2012/09/16/the-paradox-of-moral-intuition/
I also really like this (much more comprehensive) article from Dr. Craig:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/meta-eth.html
Pingback: Church | Logan Lo
Pingback: Conversing with atheists and former christians « Confessions Of A YEC
Pingback: God was here first « CFCSPN Network
Pingback: How To Convert An Atheist? | Why I Believe in God