“Righteousness even in the face of despair marks the genuinely moral person”
Frequently atheist arguments, when simplified enough for a blog post, end up squarely in “Shut up, you’re not helping” territory. And despite several misfires, I would recommend “It’s no mystery how Nonbelievers stay moral without God”, if only for the presentation of a false syllogism that seems to explain the believer’s logic:
1. If God does not exist, then there is no guarantee that moral goodness will ultimately prevail.
2. If there is no guarantee that moral goodness will ultimately prevail, then there is no guarantee that moral conduct is meaningful.
3. If there is no guarantee that moral conduct is meaningful, then people cannot be reasonably motivated to behave morally.
4. People should be reasonably motivated to behave morally.
Therefore,
[5]. God exists.
In these situations, I am often struck with the idea that I must be completely missing some subtlety — the conviction that in the argument, surely one of us is being a moron. But the justifications for faith really do seem pervasively fear-based. I run up against “If there is no guarantee that moral goodness will ultimately prevail, then there is no guarantee that moral conduct is meaningful” all the time. My response is, “So?!” What bearing has an idea’s ability to comfort have on an existential claim?
I must — must — be missing something. I know there are several devoted readers of my blog of an Abrahamic bent, and I would be indebted for an explication.
The reflexive claim of religionists seems frequently to be “without the fear of damnation, I surely would rape, torture, steal, and murder.” Really? Seriously, have you thought this through? If it is only the fear of divine retribution that keeps you from commiting atrocities, would you be so kind as to stay the fuck away from me and my child? Or, at the very least, comment on this post?
[ Replace this ad for $1/month ]
|
3 Responses to ““Righteousness even in the face of despair marks the genuinely moral person””
Leave a Reply, but read first
- Feel free to leave replies even to very old posts.
- Is your comment not specifically about this post? Great! Go here.
- Flame, swear, rant, shout — just don't spam! You won't increase your PageRank, even temporarily (the URLs are tagged 'nofollow'), and I'll delete it anyway. Save us both time.
Subscribe by email
June 9th, 2009 at 09h24
Ok, I’m going to take a crack at an explanation. Please note that this does not mean that I at all endorse the theory that morality requires religion, because that is not a view to which I subscribe. Of the ten people in my life of whom I think as having the strongest moral conviction, I would say that three are religious (with only two of them sharing the same religion), two are confirmed atheists, and four are agnostic. The final remaining member of the list’s beliefs are unknown to me. With that in mind, the best that I can offer is my views on the forces at work that might cause someone to endorse such a belief.
The notion that “without x we would all be monsters”, where x has a value equal to whatever the speaker holds dear, is neither new nor particularly confined to religion (although the religious community has always recognized its utility as an argument). How many times have anarchists been told that without a system of hierarchy codified by laws and maintained by force, we would immediately descend into a non-stop orgy of rape and murder? What was Children of Men, if not a warning that we would revert to either barbarism or tyranny if we didn’t maintain our drive to create smaller versions of ourselves? Haven’t transhumanists been told time and again that in attempting to surpass human limitations they are threatening to become something worse than human (as though such a thing could exist)? Isn’t the drug war predicated on the idea that we’d all be selling our daughters for crack if it weren’t for the billions that we pour into their budget?
I’m of the opinion that all ethical systems are essentially survival strategies for societies. Sometimes they work very well (“Share your crops with your neighbors”). Sometimes they need to be revised or dropped as society evolves (“This class of people can be the property of this other class of people”). Sometimes they backfire disastrously (“This group of people is more deserving; let’s invade Poland”). The thing to keep in mind when dealing with arguments like the one we’re discussing is that when people are being asked to revise the ethical system that they know, they’re being asked to drop their society’s current survival strategy. Given the stakes, that’s expecting quite a bit of them. A lot of societies have had religion as a part of their strategy for a very long time, and it has worked (or at least been non-disastrous) in the case of the surviving ones. So for a lot of people, it’s impossible to envision society turning away from the ethical framework that they’ve always known without it having horrific consequences.
June 9th, 2009 at 09h37
Ok, I’m going to take a crack at an explanation.
Explanation or excuse? Your exposition seems, essentially, to be “it’s really tough for these people”.
I don’t care. A lot of things are tough.
So, it might be hard for religionists to believe otherwise. They may want to cloister themselves and repeat over and over that they are the thin pearly line between society and the rise of Satan or whatever other mythical boogeyman they, as adults, are afraid lies under the bed. They may want to set up their own schools and refuse to teach science or anthropology or history because it contradicts an antique book or their own myopia. Great. Have at. But there is one thing you cannot expect from me when I exercise tolerance in this realm, and that is respect.
In these situations, I am often struck with the idea that I must be completely missing some subtlety
To be clear, your point is that I am not missing any subtleties, right? This does not mean that no such subtleties exist, of course, but, to be clear, you are saying you do not believe there are any?
June 9th, 2009 at 10h01
Explanation or excuse?
Explanation. Your post seemed to wonder why fear-based arguments (which, again, I want to state are not my arguments) would be put forward, and I’m saying that history has shown people that fear-based arguments are often successful in winning mass support, and that (all other things being equal) forces will tend to follow the path of least resistance. That you’re offering resistance to the fear-based method is a good thing, because it makes it less likely that people will follow that path in the future, but I read at least a portion of your post as asking why anyone would think that such an argument would work, and my answer is that the argument has nothing to do with whether or not it is correct, and everything to do with whether or not it has historically secured the result that the person arguing it desires. If I misread the intent of your post, if you did not in fact wonder why anyone would use such an argument, then I withdraw my comment.