Posted by
Norman on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 9:15:08 PM
I've been having an interesting exchange with an atheist over at Paul Edwards' article, "Seeing the need for Gospel (sic) in 'There Will Be Blood," which is one the worst-written articles I've ever read (although I think that I would agree with its thesis, if I could figure out exactly waht it was). I wrote better stuff as a undergraduate after an all-night at "Coochie's"--my favorite local watering hole. See for yourself:
My correspondent, "ModMark," is a sharp fellow, and I elected to post my latest reply to him here, since it fits so nicely with one of my main hobby horses--the intersetion of religion and culture.
To: Mod Mark
From: Norman
Re: Morality
You ask some very thoughtful and reasonable questions.
I'll do my best to give equally thoughtful answers, without (hopefully) being too gaseous. :-)
You ask: "Can atheist (sic) be just as moral as Christians?"
Absolutely. I have known some wonderful atheists, and some truly rotten Christians. Heck, some people think I'M a rotten Christian! :-)
As an only child in a basically secular household ("Sword of Light" is thinking "Aha, so THAT explains the 'chip'!"), I grew up surrounded by adults--some of the most decent atheists one could ever hope to meet. The key, though, is that they weren't "really" atheists, just as I suspect that you aren't "really" an atheist. (I intend no offense, and will explain my meaning.) Their conduct was guided by the standards and beliefs they internalized as children from their parents. This "moral osmosis" allowed them to lead often exemplary lives, and to be very decent people, without adopting their parents' religious worldview--or so they thought.
In fact, what they believed to be their own man-made, ethical code was essentially that of their religious parents--just without the religious part.
So far, so good. Decent people, wonderful lives. No God taking up valuable weekend hours and making them feel guilty all the time. Sounds great, no?
The trouble is that their moral code had no foundation. None. To put this in the egghead terms I used as a professor, they had the "praxis" (roughly, "habit") but had lost the "arche" (the root or basis). They knew what to do, but could not provide a rational justification for it.
So, a person without a divinely-oriented worldview can be very decent person, but can't pass it on very well. "Dad, WHY should I refrain from cheating/work hard/not sleep around/show mercy to others/show generosity/be forgiving, etc.?" "Well, because it's the right thing to do." "Why?" "Er, um, well, I . . ."
Point being--atheism has no core, and also lacks what are called "first principles." Such as there may be, are all lifted from religiously based worldviews. Immanuel Kant tried to establish a morality on the basis of pure reason, and ended up providing partial justification for Naziism. Rene Descartes tried to follow up his smashing success in his "Meditations on First Philosophy" with an ethics. He failed (and he was one of the smartest men ever to grace our big blue marble).
More to follow on natural law. Thanks for the thoughtful posts!