Comments on: Atheism and Morality http://ftlog.meanderwithme.com/2006/05/atheism-and-morality/ Deities. Dogma. Dating. Diapers. Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:57:21 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.2 by: Mike http://ftlog.meanderwithme.com/2006/05/atheism-and-morality/#comment-1027 Mon, 22 May 2006 17:18:54 +0000 http://ftlog.meanderwithme.com/2006/05/atheism-and-morality/#comment-1027 Alli: For this response, I will leave aside the question of whether atheists have a "reasonable" foundation for a moral consensus. I also don't believe they have one, but I also believe many atheists are moral. However, their morals are simply personal choice and cannot be reasonably passed on to society in general. The question is, "How does a theist posit a moral position, and why?" Your commentator posts some reasons why Theists would follow God's laws, but they are hardly the most powerful reasons. That makes their argument a typical "Straw Man" rhetoric. Easy to knock over. Here are my three reasons for following God's laws in the way I live my moral life. 1. It is a healthier way to live. I assume that the God who made me understands how my body, soul, and spirit work in tandem with each other. An atheist is a Naturalist, believing only in body functions. Since I believe in tripartite man, everything I do is much more complicated than a biological function. If I am only a sack of chemicals, then having sex is no more meaningful than peeing. They both use the same equipment. But seeing morality as a combination of my body, my soul and my spirit, I know that I need help in understanding what would be healthy for all three. 2. Appeal to a Higher Authority: There can never be a moral consensus without appealing to an authority higher than us. If atheists are correct, then the only two consistent philosophies are Hedonism (every man does what is right in his own eyes, for his own benefits) or Fabian Socialism (all of society changes as the whims of the ruling party change). In either case, those who are weak, disenfranchised or sick will get short shrift. Only when I believe that there is an absolute source of morality can I appeal to others for a consistent law based upon a higher law. 3. The Laws make more sense: It makes sense to have laws that are based upon "Love the Lord your God and Love your neighbor as yourself". Those don't sound petty and hedonistic. I get nothing directly out of loving another person with the intensity I protect myself. But I do it because I have a relationship with the One who created everything. Religion without relationship with God is phony. I agree that religion is very much about getting what you want out of the afterlife. Relationship is enjoying God now. Those are my reasons for following a theistic morality. To me, they are much more appealing than the Straw Man presented above. Alli: For this response, I will leave aside the question of whether atheists have a “reasonable” foundation for a moral consensus. I also don’t believe they have one, but I also believe many atheists are moral. However, their morals are simply personal choice and cannot be reasonably passed on to society in general.

The question is, “How does a theist posit a moral position, and why?” Your commentator posts some reasons why Theists would follow God’s laws, but they are hardly the most powerful reasons. That makes their argument a typical “Straw Man” rhetoric. Easy to knock over.

Here are my three reasons for following God’s laws in the way I live my moral life.

1. It is a healthier way to live. I assume that the God who made me understands how my body, soul, and spirit work in tandem with each other. An atheist is a Naturalist, believing only in body functions. Since I believe in tripartite man, everything I do is much more complicated than a biological function. If I am only a sack of chemicals, then having sex is no more meaningful than peeing. They both use the same equipment. But seeing morality as a combination of my body, my soul and my spirit, I know that I need help in understanding what would be healthy for all three.

2. Appeal to a Higher Authority: There can never be a moral consensus without appealing to an authority higher than us. If atheists are correct, then the only two consistent philosophies are Hedonism (every man does what is right in his own eyes, for his own benefits) or Fabian Socialism (all of society changes as the whims of the ruling party change). In either case, those who are weak, disenfranchised or sick will get short shrift. Only when I believe that there is an absolute source of morality can I appeal to others for a consistent law based upon a higher law.

3. The Laws make more sense: It makes sense to have laws that are based upon “Love the Lord your God and Love your neighbor as yourself”. Those don’t sound petty and hedonistic. I get nothing directly out of loving another person with the intensity I protect myself. But I do it because I have a relationship with the One who created everything. Religion without relationship with God is phony. I agree that religion is very much about getting what you want out of the afterlife. Relationship is enjoying God now.

Those are my reasons for following a theistic morality. To me, they are much more appealing than the Straw Man presented above.

]]>