• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Secularists have no ethics, any refutations?

Craig4 said:
Rand ignored the elephant in the room which is the question of whether or not society has a responsibility to those unable to help themselves. She also fails to make the link between the immorality of the villains (socialists and such) and their beliefs. She has characters who she doesn't agree with do bad things but fails to establish that their beliefs lead them to their immorality.
Click to expand...

The other elephants in the room that get ignored are: who is "society"? Who is it, that is actually responsible, and what are the limits of that responsibility?
 
leonAzul said:
If Jesus paid for my sins, I see no reason why I shouldn't get my money's worth.
Click to expand...

Reminds from a line from a play I was in in college. It was the motto of the First Existentialist Church: "Christ died for our sins. Dare we make his martyrdom meaningless by not committing them".

I can't remember the name of the play right now, but I believe it was written by Edward Albee.
 
Ethics is a system of moral principles. The only people who have no ethics are those who require their moral principles to be prescribed to them by others.

Anyone who insists that morality comes out of a book fits squarely in this category, in my opinion.
 
I find that just starting from the single assumption that people you don't know are very similar to you, you can derive all sorts of well known moral rules.

ETA: And of course the assumption that unpleasant things are things to be avoided where possible.


The golden rule follows directly from that.
Reciprocity follows from it.
Not killing people,
Not stealing,
Judging people by their actions, not appearances
Charity,
etc.

And using knowledge of evolution and game theory, you can explain a lot of moral dispositions, as well as immoral behaviours that won't go away, and why.
 
Last edited:
Paradox74 said:
I have heard the argument that nonbelievers (atheists in particular) have no morality because they do not believe that god watches over them, or something like that.
Click to expand...

All you need to do is take a close look at the people shouting this argument from their pulpits. He who smelt it, dealt it.
 
All you have to do is browse this website.


A bigger bunch of immoral criminals would be hard to find.


Or you might turn to the parable of the good Samaritan...a bigger pack of lying propaganda I never heard.
 
Refutation: secularists wouldn't tell a bunch of gullible innocents they'll be raptured so they don't need to worry about little things like keeping their job or savings past May 21st.

But I can't think of anything bad a secularist would do that a supernaturalist wouldn't...or hasn't.
 
Mister Agenda said:
Refutation: secularists wouldn't tell a bunch of gullible innocents they'll be raptured so they don't need to worry about little things like keeping their job or savings past May 21st.

But I can't think of anything bad a secularist would do that a supernaturalist wouldn't...or hasn't.
Click to expand...

Make the baby Jesus cry?
 
Paradox74 said:
I have heard the argument that nonbelievers (atheists in particular) have no morality because they do not believe that god watches over them, or something like that.
Click to expand...


Not doing bad things because "God is watching" has nothing to do with morals or ethics; it is simply fear of retribution.

This argument may give an insight into the minds and motivations of people who use it, but it says nothing about the morals or ethics of atheists.
 
Paradox74 said:
I have heard the argument that nonbelievers (atheists in particular) have no morality because they do not believe that god watches over them, or something like that. (Yes, there ARE the atrocities in the Old Testament and whatnot, but that is a bit of an ad hominem tu quoque fallacy).

Are there any articles or books out there that refute this kind of argument?

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Assuming you are having this argument (or anticipate having this argument :rolleyes: ) with Christians, why not turn to Christian writings?

I don't offhand know of any books (I don't have a copy, but "Catholicism for Dummies" - make your jokes ;) - is actually approved for teaching Catholicism, e.g. adults considering converting to Catholicism, and I'd assume it has something in there about this with references).

See e.g. Catechism of the Catholic Church sections 846 to 848. S. 848:

""Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.""

I am Roman Catholic, the way it was summarized to me is, there is a difference between rejecting God (very bad) vs. not believing (following your conscience). Someone who is an atheist may still be a good person, etc. A lot of this is phrased as what happens to an atheist after death (from the Catholic view, rather than the atheist view :D ), which is directly related to the morality of the atheist.

Some Christian denominations have a much more restrictive/exclusive view.

One thing that even many Christians/Catholics don't understand (my view, compared to the subtler distinctions I was taught) and with reference to the Catechims above is that just because you've heard of Jesus, God and the Bible and even if you've read the Bible or are otherwise familiar with Christianity, one's lack of belief is not necessarily wilfull. It may be, maybe it even often is a deliberate rejection, but is not necessarily (a lot of Christians seem to think that unless you're living in some remote tribe in the Amazon, you can't be innocently ignorant of the Gospel).

As I recall I've read that (not surprisingly) a number of religious child abuse victims have become atheist or agnostic (I don't know if there's been any survey of percentages, this is anecdotal from news stories). Their disbelief/doubting is I think not "willful", but based upon the evil behaviour of others (or, it may in some cases be willful, i.e. a deliberate rejection of God based on what was done to them, which would be a problem).

The site:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rcc_salv.htm

has some reference to Roman Catholic documents, I'd add

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_.../vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

"Gaudium et spes" from Vatican II (a very important statement) discusses atheism, and I think this section as well as others may be apropos to your arguments:

"While rejecting atheism, root and branch, the Church sincerely professes that all men, believers and unbelievers alike, ought to work for the rightful betterment of this world in which all alike live; such an ideal cannot be realized, however, apart from sincere and prudent dialogue. Hence the Church protests against the distinction which some state authorities make between believers and unbelievers, with prejudice to the fundamental rights of the human person. The Church calls for the active liberty of believers to build up in this world God's temple too. She courteously invites atheists to examine the Gospel of Christ with an open mind." [emphasis added]
 
leonAzul said:
If Jesus paid for my sins, I see no reason why I shouldn't get my money's worth.
Click to expand...
Not just that, but who are we to cause his sacrifice to have no meaning by not committing as many sins as we can? Without our sins he just had a really bad weekend.
 
Dunno all the theology or philosophy but I based my morals and ethics on what felt right or wrong, adjusted by my parents and society's input.
Didn't need the carrot of heaven or the stick of hell, it was just common sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom