Virginia Tech: Defending morality in an athiest's [sic] culture is challenging

[Synnical]

http://www.collegiatetimes.com/stories/2008/03/25/column__defending_morality_in_an_athiest_s_culture_is_challenging

Column: Defending morality in an atheist's culture is challenging
Allison Aldrich, regular columnist
Tuesday, March 25; 12:00 AM
Frequently, when students aren't discussing the previous week's basketball game or a looming midterm, the conversation drifts to the uncomfortable territory of whether or not God exists.

Lately this age-old question has become a topic brought up by those who have read Christopher Hitchens' emotionally-charged book, "God is Not Great." Perhaps they have addressed this subject in philosophy or religion classes. Rather than try to tackle the question of God's existence in a thousand-word article, I'll focus my attention on those atheists who try to defend the essence of morality in an atheist culture.

When asking an atheist what motive they have for choosing good over evil, for being nice to others, and/or for maintaining good character, I often hear one of two responses. Either it's because they worry about consequences of the law (jail time, fines, etc.), or because it makes them "feel good" when they do the "right" thing. Where exactly does this idea of "right" come from? Who decides what the "right" thing is? Is it from societal norms and the government? Is it from an innate feeling in each individual? Surely it can't be societal norms or government regulation that determines whether behavior is acceptable. Those who believe in that line of reasoning would have to argue in favor of slavery during America's founding and women's limited rights up until recently. Also, it couldn't possibly be one's personal definition of what is acceptable. I for one wouldn't want to give that privilege to people who might think it personally acceptable to steal or lie in order to improve their lot.

Some human cultures of other parts of the globe suggest strongly that we do not come hard-wired from the factory with feelings of good will toward others. Mass murder has too often reared an ugly head with no apparent religion having been taught. It seems more likely that the suggestion of God causes deeper thinking in directions of wrong and right. Without a higher being, there could be no guarantee of consequences for our actions. No consequences would result in chaos and anarchy.

Where do most people get this sense of right and wrong? I believe that it comes from a set of natural, universal standards that have been refined since the beginning of human existence. This set of standards, which is often called the "Laws of Human Nature," has to have originated somewhere. These agreements between humans allow us to differentiate between what is right and wrong and it appears obvious that there is intelligent design behind these universally-held beliefs.

More at link. Standard "Blind Watchmaker" Argument.

:boring: if this person wasn't a regular columnist at Virginia Tech where the shootings took place. Comments are interesting.


-Cindy in Fort Lauderdale

[and-justice-for-all]

1. I do not need an 'invisible hand' to guide me...

in right or wrong decision making. One can not rationalize the irrational, religion is the utmost irrational fraud in human history.

You are wired for moral behavior vs immoral behavior. You know that there is benefits to doing 'good' vs doing 'bad', we all know this and for the most part act accordingly. You do not have a predisposition for murder and other acts of violence, ones moral behavior is not the result of invisible guidance.

All behavior is learned, but there is also genetic reasons for why we act the way we do. Obviously those who claim to be 'morally superior' are also the ones that commit some rather atrocious crimes. The prison population is a prime example; the majority in prison profess to religiosity and only a small fraction claim to be Nontheist.

Just because one has invisible friends and worships dark age religion, does not make them morally superior.

[YankeyMCC]

2. The author is clearly ignorant

about the wide range of secular ethical reasoning, and the history of philosophy.

Just happens to be an Atheists Ethicist post today that might be a good response to this:

http://feeds.feedburner.com/%7Er/blogspot/inod/%7E3/258086646/atheists-problem-with-morality.html

[lizerdbits]

3. Yep it's pretty conservative down there

I graduated in 97 and a lot of the CT opinions were like that. I remember an 'abortion increases risk of breast cancer so we should bad it because I care about women' article (which isn't actually true). I spent my freshman year at Mississippi State so it was really an improvement. That year in MS was when I decided on the lack of sky daddy.

[Deep13]

4. Even if she is right in supposing godless morality to be arbitrary...

...that does not prove god is real, but only that god's existence is desireable.

[trotsky]

5. "Mass murder has too often reared an ugly head with no apparent religion having been taught."

Like Hitler, right? :eyes:

[onager]

6. No apparent religion?

Then the atheists must have been running Russia long before Stalin showed up. Has this woman ever heard the word "pogrom?"

During a recent R/T fracas somebody dragged out the "Hitler/atheist" meme. I'm repeating myself here (as usual).

But I thought it might be interesting to look at Hitler's WWII allies and see how many atheists we could find...

SPAIN: Francisco Franco, fascist tinpot dictator and devout Catholic. But you knew that.

SLOVAKIA: Hitler's man was Josef Tiso--a former Catholic priest.

CROATIA: Ante Pavelic, obviously an atheist. He went to Rome and had a personal audience with the Pope. That would be Pope Pius XII, who watched from his window as Italian Jews were rounded up in St. Peter's Square and hauled away to the death camps. (When I went to Rome back in February, I mentioned that while I was standing in St. Peter's Square. Oddly enough, I think some of the tour guides may skip that story.)

HUNGARY (post-1944): Ferenc Szalasi, leader of the anti-Semitic fascist Arrow-Cross Party. Arrow-Cross Party? HAD to be an atheist!

ROMANIA: raving anti-Semite Ion Antonescu, leader of the Iron Guard and devout member of the Romanian Orthodox Church.

And this story shows just how sneaky those damn atheists are! One of Antonescu's most fanatically anti-Semitic student leaders in the Iron Guard was Viorel Trifa.

After WWII, Trifa fled to the USA and eventually became Bishop of the Romanian Orthodox Church in America. On one occasion, the saintly Bishop Trifa was invited to lead the prayers in Congress.

After his past came to light, Trifa was stripped of his US citizenship and deported in 1984.

Nice bunch of atheists, eh?

[trotsky]

7. Obviously, dear onager,

they truly were atheists, PRETENDING to be Christians in order to try and blame Christianity. And an EAC shoutout goes to brother Trifa for keeping up appearances years after the atrocities!

[immoderate]

8. From the comments...

I mean, certainly the principles of theism can be explained, in the most simple terms, by a continual search for answers to the unanswerable questions...

I agree with that. It doesn't stop them though. :rofl:

--IMM

[skepticscott]

9. So where does this intellectual lightweight

think that these "natural, universal standards" were hibernating for 99+% of human existence? And where does she think they would be they reflected, if NOT in societal norms? For most of recorded human history, slavery has been the norm, with very little dissent. Even in the supposed enlightened societies of classical Greece and Rome, no one questioned the notion that human beings owning other human beings was perfectly normal and natural. Ditto for the notion that a husband has the unchallenged right to beat and rape his wife whenever he pleases, a notion challenged in our society even more recently than slavery, and without help from religion, btw.

[regularguy]

10. OY!

I talk with many people, religous and not, about morals without God. I've never, and I mean not once, had a non-religous person indicate that they follow moral rules to either not go to jail or because it makes the "feel good". The author is just making shit up I suspect.