Posted on 01/03/2008 8:33:44 AM PST by Mr. Silverback
One of the biggest obstacles facing what’s called the “New Atheism” is the issue of morality. Writers like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens have to convince people that morals and values are possible in a society that does not believe in God.
It’s important to understand what is not in doubt: whether an individual atheist or agnostic can be a “good” person. Of course they can, just as a professing Christian can do bad things.
The issue is whether the secular worldview can provide a basis for a good society. Can it motivate and inspire people to be virtuous and generous?
Not surprisingly, Richard Dawkins offers a “yes”—grounded in Darwinism. According to him, natural selection has produced a moral sense that is shared by all people. While our genes may be, in his words “selfish,” there are times when cooperation with others is the selfish gene’s best interest. Thus, according to him, natural selection has produced what we call altruism.
Except, of course, that it is not altruism at all: It is, at most, enlightened self-interest. It might explain why “survival of the fittest” is not an endless war of all against all, but it offers no reason as to why someone might give up their lives or even their lifestyle for the benefit of others, especially those whom they do not even know.
Darwinist accounts of human morality bear such little resemblance to the way real people live their lives that the late philosopher David Stove, an atheist himself, called them a “slander against human beings.”
Being unable to account for human altruism is not enough for Sam Harris, author of Letter to a Christian Nation. In a recent debate with Rick Warren, he complained about Christians “contaminating” their altruistic deeds in places like Africa with “religious ideas” like “the divinity of Jesus.” Instead of rejoicing at the alleviation of suffering, he frets over someone hearing the Gospel.
In response, Warren pointed out the inconvenient (for Harris, that is) truth: You won’t find many atheists feeding the hungry and ministering to the sick in places like Africa or Mother Teresa’s Calcutta. It is precisely because people believe in the divinity of Jesus that they are willing to give up their lives (sometimes literally) in service to those whom Jesus calls “His brothers.” And that’s why my colleagues and I spend our lives ministering in prisons.
In contrast, the record of avowedly atheistic regimes is, shall we say, less than inspiring. Atheist regimes like the Soviet Union, Red China, and Cambodia killed tens of millions of people in an effort to establish an atheistic alternative to the City of God. For men like Stalin and Mao, people were expendable precisely because they were not created in the image of a personal God. Instead, they were objects being manipulated by impersonal historical forces.
One atheist understood the moral consequences of his unbelief: That was Nietzsche, who argued that God is dead, but acknowledged that without God there could be no binding and objective moral order.
Of course, the “New Atheists” deny this. Instead, they unconvincingly argue that you can have the benefits of an altruistic, Christian-like morality without God.
Nietzsche would laugh—and wonder why they don’t make atheists like they used to.
Last night I got a survey call about blood donation as apart of a study being run by Northern Illinois University. At one point during the survey, when he was asking about how much I cared that the blood I donated went to someone I knew, or someone here in town, it dawned on me that not only could I not care less who it went to, but that my blod might save some guy's life and his first stop after the hospital would be the nudie bar or his dope dealer's house. I donate five or six times a year, so theoretically I could be saving the lives of six saints or six enthusiastic sinners, even criminals. Since some blood is made into three different products, it could be 18 sinners or 18 saints.
But I realized I don't care. I do it because I have O+ blood and people in trouble need my blood. What gene is there that makes me do that? There's no reinforcement, there's no certainty that my cooperation will make society stronger and make it more likely that I (along with the recipient) will be more likely to pass on my awesome genetic material. I do it because I follow a Lord who is the ultimate in altruism, but without doubt there are many atheists and agnostics who donate blood. Can there really be a gene sequence that makes them do that? How would such a gene work, since it would basically require that certain very abstract thought patterns trigger a very concrete and specific behavior? To me, that takes more faith to believe than believing in God.
There are links to further information at the source document.
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
BreakPoint/Chuck Colson Ping!
If anyone wants on or off my Chuck Colson/BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
There is no morality without God.
“It is precisely because people believe in the divinity of Jesus that they are willing to give up their lives (sometimes literally) in service to those whom Jesus calls “His brothers.”
End of discussion. Count me as one who does not believe that a true atheist exists, based on personal experience.
Atheists are those that cannot let go of something personal in order to accept what the universe screams at them daily.
God is Dead, Nietzsche 1882.
Nietzsche is Dead, God 1900.
Nietzsche is Dead and in Hell, God 1900.
“Nietzsche tells us that out of chaos comes order” - Howard Johnson
“Blow it out your ass Howard” - Emil Johnson
“...what the universe screams at them daily.”
Albert Einstein:
“There are two ways to live your life - one is as though nothing is a miracle, the other is as though everything is a miracle.”
It is stunningly obvious which is the true reality.
Untrue. There one can define all sorts of moral systems based on ... well, whatever principles one decides are important. "Might makes right" is one, for example.
The distinction is, rather, the what basis by which can one say "that is wrong," or "this is the right thing to do," and have it mean only one thing.
At root, the questions boil down to these two:
1) Do you propose that true "morality" is based on a set of fixed and immutable principles?2) If so, on what basis do those principles come into being?
It's at that point where one gets into the necessity of God, if one is to assume that moral principles are absolute, rather than relative.
Nice Blazing Saddles pick up.
So we do good for others based on Darwin?
So the USA killing all of these wacked out “religion of peace” terrorist is an act of natural selection?
I guess in this one case I back Darwin.
“I wash born here, an I wash raished here, and dad gum it, I am gonna die here, an no sidewindin bushwackin, hornswaglin, cracker croaker is gonna rouin me bishen cutter.” Gabby Johnson
It takes an understanding of how human society has developed over hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of years.
Even studies of many animal species have demonstrated how many share resources and food, take care of each other and the sick, show compassion, etc.
We had a very sick cat and while he was sick, another cat looked after him and even licked his butt clean - something even the most avid theist wouldn't do for his fellow man.. ;)
It could be that species which have learned to take care of each other have a better chance of surviving and reproducing.
I’m glad the children who read this board got to see that fine example of frontier gibberish.
“I heard you was hung.”
The crux and crucible.
It doesn’t bother you that Colson is a convicted felon?
ping
Einstein didn't believe in God
Let’s see, that was years ago and he’s had his rights restored. He has received numerous awards for the change he made during/after prison and the good he has done for others. Nope, couldn’t care less. I don’t agree with everything he says, but his past means little.
I would disagree.
You can be in one of three states:
moral
ethical
legal
Without God you can not be moral, it maybe possible to be ethical.
Since ethics are in general based on morality it may not be possible to even be ethical.
So I believe without God the best state one can be in is legal.
So the “God doesn’t play dice” quote referred to perhaps Gaia?
I really need to make that into a T-Shirt.
There used to be a Living Epistles shirt (a hockey jersey, IIRC) with “Sorry, Charlie” on it in reference to Darwin.
Forgive him, but don’t rely on his judgement regarding morality.
Morality isn’t in the genes or God, but in memes (also a Dawkins formulation). These memes existed long before Jesus was born and salvation was possible. Mencius had a version of the golden rule as did Socrates as did Buddha as did Hillel.
Societies that acquired the meme grew and supplanted ones that didn’t. Of course no society could ever actually live up to the golden rule in reality. It only works when it is restricted to a group and not to enemies of the group. As a goal, however, it serves as the glue that holds families, tribes, nation-states, countries and cultures together. Although many people require a supernatural being as a lawgiver, the law stands on its own and its evolution is consistant with observed human history under many gods and no gods..
He was explicit in his rejection of the Judeo Christian concept of god. Look it up. The quote you cite was simply a figure of speech.
So that explains a human getting a needle shoved in their arm in order to help someone they've never met, a person who may indeed damage society?
Also, couldn't your animal examples point to God as well, that He has established an order that includes mercy? The fact that they're animals doesn't mean their behavior is removed from the Creator, if he exists.
When a guy spends minutes, hours, even a few days committing a felony, pays for it with 7 months of his life and then spends 32 years devoting himself to the Gospel, I couldn't care less about the felonies.
Why do you?
You’d think an individual of his intellect would be more careful with his “figures of speech”.
In any case, Einstein’s personal gross mis-reading of the reality that screams in our face everyday is hardly the point anyway.
I personally can interpret the thought, which had been articulated by others, in various forms, long before Albert Einstein, in any way I choose.
Um...no. Here's just one paragraph from Wikipedia about it:
The question of scientific determinism gave rise to questions about Einstein's position on theological determinism, and even whether or not he believed in God. In 1929, Einstein told Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."[50] In 1950, in a letter to M. Berkowitz, Einstein stated that "My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment."[51]
He also said "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind ... a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist."
About 4 billion people walking the planet right now explicitly reject the Judeo Christian concept of God. That doesn't make them atheists.
See post 29, you are 100% right about Einstein.
Please put me on your Chuck Colson ping list. Thanks.
Einstein believed in God. The Lamestream Media ignores this. Einstein struggled with his belief in God his entire life.
When Nietzsche wrote that God was dead, he meant dead in the minds of Europe’s elite. He feared the consequences of that belief, and his concept of the Uebermensch was an unsuccessful attempt to fill the void.
Agnosticism is rationally defensible; atheism is not. To believe that what we have is an accident requires a high degree of gullibility.
“Einstein believed in God.”
Quotes:
If this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him? [Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years (New York: Philosophical Library, 1950), p. 27.]
If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. [Albert Einstein]
I do not believe in the God of theology who rewards good and punishes evil. [Albert Einstein, as quoted in a memoir by Life editory William Miller in Life, May 2, 1955]
It has not done so up to now. [Einstein’s reply to a reporter’s question if religion will promote peace]
A man’s ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. [Albert Einstein, Religion and Science, New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930]
During the youthful period of mankind’s spiritual evolution, human fantasy created gods in man’s own image who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate influence, the phenomenal world... The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old conception of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes... In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vase power in the hands of priests. [Albert Einstein, reported in Science, Philosophy and Religion: A Symposium, edited by L. Bryson and L. Finkelstein. Quoted in: 2000 Years of Disbelief. by James Haught]
I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it. [Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, and published by Princeton University Press.]
The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action. [Albert Einstein]
I cannot conceive of a personal God who would directly influence the actions of individuals, or would directly sit in judgment on creatures of his own creation. I cannot do this in spite of the fact that mechanistic causality has, to a certain extent, been placed in doubt by modern science. [He was speaking of Quantum Mechanics and the breaking down of determinism.] My religiosity consists in a humble admiratation of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance — but for us, not for God. [Albert Einstein, from Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press, p.66]
...a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests.... The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge. [Albert Einstein, address at the Princeton Theological Seminary, May 19, 1939, published in Out of My Later Years, New York: Philosophical Library, 1950.]
ping
You’re added!
Einstein believed in a God who was the overall creator of the universe but, not in God as someone you could have a personal relationship with. Einstein understood the conflict between science and religion as revolving around the concept of a personal God.
For some people, miracles serve as evidence of God's existence. For Einstein it was the absence of miracles that reflected divine providence. The fact that the world was comprehensible, that it followed laws, was worthy of awe.
Let's look at some of Einstein's quotes regarding spirituality:
So is this meme learned or inherited?
And a spiritual veil.
it is passed on from one generation to another
“See post 29, you are 100% right about Einstein.”
I believe Einstein’s “religion without science is blind”, is that most fundamental pillar of belief in God.....faith.
A magnificently challenging intellectual concept, yet fully accessible and understandable to even the most humble of men.
Nobody in this thread (or anywhere else that I'm aware of) said that Albert Einstein was Billy Graham with weird hair, we said he believed in the presence of a Creator.
“So I believe without God the best state one can be in is legal.”
You can believe whatever you want. What matters is behaviour. Does belief in God prevent a Mafia Don from ordering a hit? Is he more moral than the ‘atheist’ who goes to work every day to make an honest living?
See post 43. It’s for you, too.
“You can believe whatever you want. “
Thanks.
One atheist understood the moral consequences of his unbelief: That was Nietzsche, who argued that God is dead, but acknowledged that without God there could be no binding and objective moral order.
In fact most of his writings exist to extoll the binding order which he saw looming, and urged the world on to. He also saw this moral order as both older and more correct than the Christian moral order, which he dismissed as weak.
I would say that Nietzsche did more to build the moral order of the modern world than anyone else. Sadly, it has not worked out as he hoped and we are left with the chaos we see all around us.
But that still doesn't excuse Colson's poor summary, especially in this discussion where the other side has done the same thing (poor summary of Christianity) and been called on the carpet for it by Colson.
“Agnosticism is rationally defensible; atheism is not.”
These are all very shadowy terms. Smart people, in my view, are neither atheists nor embracers of any organized religion, but I’m not sure agnostic is the correct term. I prefer to call them ‘seekers of truth’.
“Agnosticism is rationally defensible; atheism is not.”
These are all very shadowy terms. Smart people, in my view, are neither atheists nor embracers of any organized religion, but I’m not sure agnostic is the correct term. I prefer to call them ‘seekers of truth’.
The purpose of this thread was to make the claim that morality required god. Einstein was quoted as parabolically supporting the notion. I supplied a quote where he specifically states that he does not believe that morality needs a god and I proved nothing to you. That is because you obviously don't know what constitutes proof.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.