It is a well-documented fact that Jesus existed and taught much wisdom. Indeed, the historical reliability of Jesus’ resurrection may easily be doubted, however, I just cannot seem to move completely away from thinking that Christianity best explains the following: 1) the human condition, 2) makes the most sense out of meaning since all humans are deemed as valuable creations, and 3) seems to make the most sense out of objective morality. Without God as a moral lawgiver, I do not know how the meaning of life would not be reduced to a hedonistic existence embedded with subjective ethics. These are irrational world-views because they cannot backup any objective morality. If subjective ethics are true, then what one person deems as “right” is groundless. Meaning, they have no claim to any standard that distinguishes “right” from “wrong.” So, assuming morals may be given an ontological status, how do personal realities such as morals arise from impersonal brute facts?
So, Atheists, I am curious what keeps you believing that you embrace the most coherent worldview? If it’s because of evil in the world, I wonder how Atheism can hold onto objective “right” or “wrong” in order to claim that something is evil in the first place. By what standard does Atheism use to determine what represents “good” or “bad?” While I do not deny that evil is a problem for an infinitely, perfect God, I don’t know how it’s not a problem for every worldview. My lingering question is, which worldview best answers the existence of evil?
While intellectually, I find philosophical skepticism most attractive, I struggle with its practical application. As you can see, I have way more questions than answers, so input is welcome!
Sarah, my answer can be found here.
John,
Thanks for the link. I just read through the series and agree that on some level, all act out of self-interest. However, I am at a loss on how Atheism may hold onto an objective “right” or “wrong” in order to claim that something is evil in the first place. By what standard does Atheism use to determine what represents “good” or “bad?” If it all depends upon one’s self-interest or happiness, it reduces to mere subjectivism, which means that one cannot deem another as irrational. Who are they to say another person is wrong or irrational?
Sarah
Why is objective morality a prerequisite for you? Isn’t it possible that morality is fundamentally subjective, but that we put up these semi-objective ethical superstructures in order to keep society moving along with a reasonable level of peace and cooperation?
Poppies:
Subjective ethics are absurd because there is no standard of “right” or “wrong.” If someone steals your stereo and they think it’s right, you cannot tell them they are wrong. If each individual person makes up the rules, who is anyone to tell someone else they are wrong? It’s all based on mere opinion.
Leaving aside the fact that I could claim theft is wrong per the rules my society has agreed upon, how can you be sure that reality isn’t fundamentally “absurd” in this manner? “Mere” opinion may indeed be all there is; at least, I’ve yet to encounter any solid argument which precludes this. I’m open to and seeking one, however.
Sarah, nothing changes when you become an atheist except you don’t go to church. Nothing. You simply use the same ethic you’ve had to judge things with. It’s the principle of harm. You will still judge most of the things as wrong based on harm. If it harms people it’s wrong. If it brings pleasure, real holistic pleasure, it’s good. This is no mystery. If you ask why should anyone be concerned about harming others then you not a member of the moral community and deserve none of the benefits, so don’t bother. This is a smoke screen with no substance to it. Of course you care about people. Apes and lions care for each other. As part of the evolutionary scheme so do we. There is no mystery to morality. It evolved to help us get along in a group and have the benefits of the group.
John,
Great points. I don’t think people need God to be good or have morality. I’m not sure either way whether a God exists, just because Christianity doesn’t have it right. So, perhaps Skepticism is where I will remain for quite some time.
Hi Sarah,
Hope I am not being a pest here. If I seem troll like to you, I will gladly desist commenting. I say this because I seem to be constantly taking you to task on things you are saying, and this can get old. All this by way of exordium because I am going to be lengthier and more of a lecturer here than I like to be. It is my desire to be putting material of interest rather than material of conflict here, so please try to bear that in mind.
First, to the title of the post, ‘Is atheism the most rational world view?’ Really it seems a pity to me that atheism is called a worldview. I would call my worldview rationalism. Under rationalism, all information subjected to my attention is subjected to skeptical inquiry. I try to ascertain, to the best of my ability, for each claim submitted to my attention, is this testable?, are other people making related claims and if so how do I discern which is the better claim?, how does this claim fit in with the body of knowledge already provisionally accepted as true because previously tested?, etc. Really, as far as I know, the Buddha started this with his dictum ‘test everything – don’t believe it just because I said it.’ (a paraphrase from memory) So a healthy or rational skepticism is what helps us to know better than to buy snake oil or believe that a certain used car has only been driven by a little old lady on Sundays. And a healthy or rational skepticism should likewise be directed toward the claims of the various religions, for they cannot in fact all be true, but can in fact all be false. Some criteria must choose one or none of them, and if not rational thought, what? (Martin Luther, stay out of this!)
Science is merely rationalism made more rigorous. The method of science is to formulate a hypothesis based on preliminary observation, and to try to devise tests that will provide further more detailed observations which tend to support or discredit the hypothesis. Only when scientists around the world continually test the hypothesis in various ways, seeking if possible to make observations that debunk the hypothesis, but find universally that the hypothesis is confirmed, does the hypothesis become a theory. I have belabored this point for your elucidation because of the loose way religious thinkers say ‘evolution is only a theory’, when they themselves do not understand the difference between what constitutes a scientific theory and merely somebody’s belief or hunch. It is both comical and sad that such is said by those who want to replace all of the lifetimes of hard work by dedicated and meticulous scientists around the world. And I have seen some of that echoed in your posts recently. Hence all of this.
On to the first line of your post. ‘It is a well documented fact ….etc’. It simply is not a well documented fact. The only material we have telling about Jesus is by members promulgating their sect. This material appears late enough to not possibly have been written by the deceptive ‘according to’ attributions that appear in the Bible. Mark appears earlier than Mathew, and every single time that Mark and Mathew differ about the nature of a Jesus miracle, Mathew cleans up Marks narrative and makes the miracle more impressive – I repeat – every single time. The story grows and becomes more impressive over time. Only in the last Gospel, John, has the story grown enough to have Jesus say unequivocally ‘I and the Father are one’.
Please read what the scientists say about evolution, and the skeptics say about religion, as opposed to what the apologists say that the scientists and skeptics say. Only then will you have sharpened the sword of your mind against both sides of the argument. There is no argument in real science about evolution. There seems to be a controversy only because creationists (excuse me, ID proponents) are desperately and dishonestly defending their faith. They do get a maverick scientist once in while, because, after all, most of us were indoctrinated into the faith as children and some very smart people fail to overcome that indoctrination. A truly comical fact is that the creation museum sits on land where fossils millions of years old are routinely found.
To attenuate my remarks, I will confine myself to one more observation re your point 2. You have said the Christian outlook is the one that most values humans. Although doctrinal uniformity does not exist, else there would not be thousands of different Christian sects each thinking they’ve got it right, I think the idea that we are miserable sinners, totally depraved and undeserving even of the wonderful sacrifice Christ made for us, is prevalent and contrary to what you have stated. Creating a hell for the vast majority of us doesn’t really give me a warm fuzzy feeling. I feel like Christianity affords humanity the same amount of respect that Rodney Dangerfield got.
Wishing you well.
Hi again, I’m late to this discussion but wanted to put in my two cents anyway.
The existence of evil is fairly easily explained without assuming the existence of god. (In fact, it may be easier than if you assume god does exist–i.e. why would he allow/create evil or at least the potential for it?) If you assume that evolution has shaped and molded us into the people that we are today, then evil must have been selected for (as well as goodness, because it too exists) and passed down through the many generations since humanity first existed. Why would evil be selected for? There are probably hundreds or thousands of reasons different types of “evil” behaviors could be beneficial to our species (as well as to other animals). For instance, aggression/selfishness/greediness allowed animals and humans to protect themselves, their offspring, their food and shelter, etc. The urge to kill may be selected for in order to hunt or for protection. Even stealing can be beneficial if you would die without doing so. Acting in one’s own interest makes sense if the ultimate aim is to survive and reproduce.
In similar fashion, goodness was selected for, for different reasons but with the same ultimate aim (survival of one’s genes). There are again hundreds or thousands of reasons and ways goodness and thinking of others has been selected for over the millions and billions of years. For example, animals are often social creatures, depending on others in the species for help in surviving. (like herds of grazing animals that stick together to help their odds against predators, or carnivores that share food that is caught). Protecting each other, especially one’s offspring but also other in the species, would make sense because it helps ensure your own survival as well as those around you.
As for the other major question in your post, how do atheists define good and evil if there’s no lawgiver? There’s never going to be clear-cut, black-and-white rules to what is ok and what is not in every situation. There are gray areas, even when there is a moral lawgiver (for instance, religions and denominations disagree on the details of some of their morals– like abortion, homosexuality, murder, sex, birth control, etc). But there CAN be a general rule-of-thumb for behaving morally without god. Ultimately it comes down to an agreed-upon (even when it’s unspoken) social contract within the species or a particular society or group. This is how I define it, off the top of my head: People have the freedom to behave however they wish to as long as they aren’t infringing on other people’s right to do the same. This is good for the bigger issues: murder (takes away the freedom of others to live their lives, therefore wrong. However, when someone tries to take away your right to live as you wish, you have the right to protect your well-being and the well-being of others), rape (again takes away someone’s freedom, thus it is wrong, and again those who attempt this can be kept from doing so), hurting someone else (same), etc. Stealing gets a little harder because it’s not someone’s physical being that’s hurt, but it may be possible to extend this idea to property.
In the end, I’ve realized much of our laws or moral guidelines we abide by in our society are simply agreed-upon rules by the people within that society. They originate from the desire to protect ones own freedom/possessions/way-of-life and because they don’t want people to infringe on these things in their own lives, they agree to give up their right to do these things to other people. People who want the freedom to do things to others but don’t want those same things done to themselves, have an unbalanced social contract which generally equates to “immorality” in the agreed upon social structure of our societies.
Sure, societies have agreed upon laws that were later considered immoral, but if you really look at these situations, they almost all violate the first social contract rule: not to infringe on the freedom of others to live as they wish…etc. Examples include: slavery (took away their freedom, obviously), rights for minorities, for women, for homosexuals and transsexuals, etc. Social progress seems to be made as societies conform more and more to the social contract.
I’m sure this is over simplified, and I haven’t thought about all this is many years (so the specifics get a little hazy) but there are ways to be moral without God. It just takes some applied reason and rationality