Are Atheism and Morality Incompatible?

[randix]

It seems obvious to me that atheists can be (and many are) moral, are good parents, are helpful and cooperative contributors to their society, etc. Some religious people however seem to feel or believe that morality consists principally in following the "will" or dictates of one or more particular gods. Is morality compatible with a lack of belief in a god? The quotes below are presented for consideration.

Christian (Huguenot) philosopher and historian, Pierre Bayle (1647-1706) wrote the following--

"It is no stranger for an atheist to live virtuously than it is strange for a Christian to live criminally. We see the latter sort of monster all the time, so why should we think the former is impossible?"

"Thus we see that from the fact that a man has no religion it does not follow necessarily that he will be led to every sort of crime or to every sort of pleasure. It follows only that he will be led to the things to which his temperament and his turn of mind make him sensitive."

Regarding human conflict and competing religions--

"We know the impression made on people’s minds by the idea that they are fighting for the preservation of their temples and altars … how courageous and bold we become when we fixate on the hope of conquering others by means of God’s protection, and when we are animated by the natural aversion we have for the enemies of our beliefs."

However, Bayles also introduced a concept that many Christians since have used to question the "goodness" or "morality" of atheists--

"Because (atheists) do not believe that an infinitely holy Intelligence commanded or prohibited anything, they must be persuaded that, considered in itself, no action is either good or bad, and that what we call moral goodness or moral fault depends only on the opinions of men; from which it follows that, by its nature, virtue is not preferable to vice."

Regarding this last observation, I believe that people simply make choices in their behavior and actions based on personal beliefs and values, regardless of whether they are religious, nonreligious or atheist, and that most of those choices (whether the results are beneficial or detrimental) are made for what the individual involved believes are good or appropriate reasons. In this case, I believe it would be difficult to make a case for one authoritative, "absolute" morality, because the criteria by which we judge something to be "moral" or not can vary to such a great degree from person to person, culture to culture, religion to religion.

Some people seem to believe that morality consists of following a set of rules or dictates from a higher (or highest) authority or god. Ultraorthodox Jews come to mind. Yet this seems to be the same type of mentality sometimes used to justify horrible acts (such as Hitler's extermination-facility guards and personnel saying, "I was just following orders"). Others believe that we must actively and continuously or persistently gauge whether something is good or bad, right or wrong, using a particular idea or value, or set of ideas or values (not necessarily religious ones) to make the determination.
--

 

[ChristineM]

An atheist is someone who has no belief in the existence of gods.

Nothing more, nothing less.

Morality is a trait that existed long before any though up the idea if gods, without morality civilisation could not have flourished.

As i see it the two are not connected but many religious people seem to want morality all to themselves so they can look down and feel smug towards anyone not of their religion

One should not need a god sitting on ones shoulder to tell them what is right and what is wrong

 

[Nimos]

"Because (atheists) do not believe that an infinitely holy Intelligence commanded or prohibited anything, they must be persuaded that, considered in itself, no action is either good or bad, and that what we call moral goodness or moral fault depends only on the opinions of men; from which it follows that, by its nature, virtue is not preferable to vice."

If God punished those that did wrong, according to the general moral standards that human have. Then maybe the whole concept of a holy intelligence of justice would make slightly more sense.

However when God (Biblical) kills left, right and center and then in the same sentence say that killing is wrong, it makes little sense.

So for anyone based on the reasoning presented to us by the bible, claim that humans are able to distinguish between good and evil, that is clearly not the case. We are terrible at it to be honest.

The fact that we in a lot of cases do not have all information required to make such judgement, make us reach the wrong conclusions in a lot of cases. Obviously killing random babies is considered evil and is a pretty straight forward case, until you look back in history and see that human sacrifice including babies have been done, because it was believed to be for the greater good.

If humans were able to, as the bible claim, to know the difference between good and evil, that should apply to all humans at all times, yet it doesn't.

Therefore good and bad morals standards must be based on a biological code for survival and whatever influence humans are affected by over time, depending on what culture they are raised in. Which in the end make good and evil nothing more, than mere concepts that we use to describe what we personally agree or disagree with.

 

[Left Coast]

It seems obvious to me that atheists can be (and many are) moral, are good parents, are helpful and cooperative contributors to their society, etc. Some religious people however seem to feel or believe that morality consists principally in following the "will" or dictates of one or more particular gods. Is morality compatible with a lack of belief in a god? The quotes below are presented for consideration.

Christian (Huguenot) philosopher and historian, Pierre Bayle (1647-1706) wrote the following--

"It is no stranger for an atheist to live virtuously than it is strange for a Christian to live criminally. We see the latter sort of monster all the time, so why should we think the former is impossible?"

"Thus we see that from the fact that a man has no religion it does not follow necessarily that he will be led to every sort of crime or to every sort of pleasure. It follows only that he will be led to the things to which his temperament and his turn of mind make him sensitive."

Regarding human conflict and competing religions--

"We know the impression made on people’s minds by the idea that they are fighting for the preservation of their temples and altars … how courageous and bold we become when we fixate on the hope of conquering others by means of God’s protection, and when we are animated by the natural aversion we have for the enemies of our beliefs."

However, Bayles also introduced a concept that many Christians since have used to question the "goodness" or "morality" of atheists--

"Because (atheists) do not believe that an infinitely holy Intelligence commanded or prohibited anything, they must be persuaded that, considered in itself, no action is either good or bad, and that what we call moral goodness or moral fault depends only on the opinions of men; from which it follows that, by its nature, virtue is not preferable to vice."

Regarding this last observation, I believe that people simply make choices in their behavior and actions based on personal beliefs and values, regardless of whether they are religious, nonreligious or atheist, and that most of those choices (whether the results are beneficial or detrimental) are made for what the individual involved beliefs are good or appropriate reasons. In this case, I believe it would be difficult to make a case for one authoritative, "absolute" morality, because the criteria by which we judge something to be "moral" or not can vary to such a great degree.

Some people seem to believe that morality consists of following a set of rules or dictates from a god. Ultraorthodox Jews come to mind. Yet this seems to be the same type of mentality sometimes used to justify horrible acts (such as Hitler's extermination-facility guards and personnel saying, "I was just following orders"). Others believe that we must actively and continuously or persistently gauge whether something is good or bad, right or wrong, using a particular idea or value, or set of ideas or values (not necessarily religious ones) to make the determination.
--

Morality is a tool humans have invented and adapted many, many times over the course of millenia to learn how best to co-exist with one another. We're a social species that is interdependent on one another to survive and thrive. Now, if an individual doesn't care about themselves or others surviving and thriving, then it's true, there's no "objective" rule we can point to in order to convince them they should care about that goal. But that person is quickly going to be very isolated and lonely, if not actually quarantined from the rest of society (because the rest of us generally do care about our common goal to survive and thrive).

Positing a deity as the source of our moral code really doesn't help the situation, because it simply pushes the question back a step: why should we care what the deity thinks? Why does the deity consider the goal of their system to be the goal? Divine Command Theory is a philosophical dead end, unfortunately.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I suppose one can ask the question - would one want to live in a society where a consensus was formed as to what is considered to be moral or immoral or would one want to live in a society where such was perhaps dictated from a belief formed several thousand years ago. For me the former, especially when we seem to have so many variants of the latter, and such not being so susceptible to reasoned argument as to being right or wrong but mostly based in some text that many argue about anyway.

And as mentioned, morality is hardly the sole domain of religions, and no doubt preceded them by a long way.

 

[ChristineM]

Morality is a tool humans have invented and adapted many, many times over the course of millenia to learn how best to co-exist with one another. We're a social species that is interdependent on one another to survive and thrive. Now, if an individual doesn't care about themselves or others surviving and thriving, then it's true, there's no "objective" rule we can point to in order to convince them they should care about that goal. But that person is quickly going to be very isolated and lonely, if not actually quarantined from the rest of society (because the rest of us generally do care about our common goal to survive and thrive).

Positing a deity as the source of our moral code really doesn't help the situation, because it simply pushes the question back a step: why should we care what the deity thinks? Why does the deity consider the goal of their system to be the goal? Divine Command Theory is a philosophical dead end, unfortunately.

Not just humans, any degree of social interaction requires morality and there are many social animals

 

[`mud]

No idols

No worship

No heaven

No angels

No hell !!

No satan

No `Gods`

Just Life and Stuff

And the Cosmos

 

[Samael_Khan]

It seems obvious to me that atheists can be (and many are) moral, are good parents, are helpful and cooperative contributors to their society, etc. Some religious people however seem to feel or believe that morality consists principally in following the "will" or dictates of one or more particular gods. Is morality compatible with a lack of belief in a god? The quotes below are presented for consideration.

Christian (Huguenot) philosopher and historian, Pierre Bayle (1647-1706) wrote the following--

"It is no stranger for an atheist to live virtuously than it is strange for a Christian to live criminally. We see the latter sort of monster all the time, so why should we think the former is impossible?"

"Thus we see that from the fact that a man has no religion it does not follow necessarily that he will be led to every sort of crime or to every sort of pleasure. It follows only that he will be led to the things to which his temperament and his turn of mind make him sensitive."

Regarding human conflict and competing religions--

"We know the impression made on people’s minds by the idea that they are fighting for the preservation of their temples and altars … how courageous and bold we become when we fixate on the hope of conquering others by means of God’s protection, and when we are animated by the natural aversion we have for the enemies of our beliefs."

However, Bayles also introduced a concept that many Christians since have used to question the "goodness" or "morality" of atheists--

"Because (atheists) do not believe that an infinitely holy Intelligence commanded or prohibited anything, they must be persuaded that, considered in itself, no action is either good or bad, and that what we call moral goodness or moral fault depends only on the opinions of men; from which it follows that, by its nature, virtue is not preferable to vice."

Regarding this last observation, I believe that people simply make choices in their behavior and actions based on personal beliefs and values, regardless of whether they are religious, nonreligious or atheist, and that most of those choices (whether the results are beneficial or detrimental) are made for what the individual involved beliefs are good or appropriate reasons. In this case, I believe it would be difficult to make a case for one authoritative, "absolute" morality, because the criteria by which we judge something to be "moral" or not can vary to such a great degree.

Some people seem to believe that morality consists of following a set of rules or dictates from a god. Ultraorthodox Jews come to mind. Yet this seems to be the same type of mentality sometimes used to justify horrible acts (such as Hitler's extermination-facility guards and personnel saying, "I was just following orders"). Others believe that we must actively and continuously or persistently gauge whether something is good or bad, right or wrong, using a particular idea or value, or set of ideas or values (not necessarily religious ones) to make the determination.
--

The very fact that atheists do many things that Christians believe are holy and just disproves their point that one can be moral without God.

Another fact, that morality has evolved to a higher level in many aspects despite the Bible approving the opposite (the abolition of slavery as an example), shows that humanity develops morality independent of the existence of Gods.

The problem with religions is that they change peoples mindsets to agree with something that they wouldn't agree with normally. So on average a human will disapprove of genocide. But if a god human believes in says that genocide is just, they will go ahead with it despite the conflict with their own moral judgement.

The bible itself shows a progression in morality between the old and new testaments. The Old testament laws were barbaric, cruel and unjustified. The new testament taught a more peaceful narrative afterwards. Too bad even those saying that Christianity is a religion of peace wish for non believers to be destroyed at the end times and to be tortured forever in hell as per the book of Revelation and other scriptures.

 

[PureX]

Are Atheism and Morality Incompatible?

Of course not.

Morality is the value assessment of behavior based on one's ethical imperatives. And atheists are just as willing and capable of determining ethical imperatives as anyone else is. So they are as capable of assessing the morality of behavior based on those imperatives as anyone else, is. And clearly, the evidence of this can be seen all around us in the fact that atheists do not behave in any less 'moral' a way as anyone else does.

 

[Brickjectivity]

It seems obvious to me that atheists can be (and many are) moral, are good parents, are helpful and cooperative contributors to their society, etc. Some religious people however seem to feel or believe that morality consists principally in following the "will" or dictates of one or more particular gods. Is morality compatible with a lack of belief in a god? The quotes below are presented for consideration.

Whatever you believe, you're still vulnerable to bitter reprisals which can become endless spirals and violent. You still have to contend with limited resources and learn to share them. What religions often provide is they can emphasize forgiveness. This does not mean that you can't be both an atheist and learn the importance of forgiveness, but it does mean that atheism by itself is not a way of life which is compatible with a modern society. You have to add things: meaning, compassion, plans etc. You still need big ideas and politics, and in the end you wind up with a religion. You may call it an atheist religion, but its still going to be a religion. It ceases to be mere atheism.

 

[IbnAbdallah]

I personally have never seen anyone claim that it is impossible to be moral without God, but the argument has always been that religion is the only rational basis for morality. When you really get down to it, secular morality is simply a matter of might makes right. Whoever has the biggest stick and whoever can swing it the hardest is able to establish a monopoly on morality. They determine what's good and what's bad, and you better obey them or else. In such a world there is no real morality, where people are only following their whims and desires which they codify as law, and it is treated as a mere coincidence with no hint of irony that, somehow, every single time, whatever happens to be the supreme moral law for the generation just so happens to coincide exactly with what everyone already wanted to do in the first place. It seemingly does not register in people's brains how unlikely it is that, despite them believing their ancestors to have been on the wrong path and to have been evil people violating all sorts of moral laws, their generation has finally, for the first time, somehow figured out morality; and they do not realize that their descendants will no doubt have different morals and consider them to be evil people as well. This does not strain their conscience at all. That's because this way of thinking is not morality; it's just a fancy dressing for people's desires. This isn't the case in most religions, with laws often lacking immediately apparent rationalizations, and which require people to suspend their judgement and defer to one wiser than themselves: to God; and ideally, people would not choose their religion based on which has their favourite morals that they can pick and choose but on which seems truest to them, which has the strongest foundation. For example, I do not believe in Islam because I dislike pork but because I am convinced of the prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him).

 

[Bear Wild]

Not just humans, any degree of social interaction requires morality and there are many social animals

To me morals are basically expected patterns of behavior in a social group and I agree with you that they are seen in social animals. There is growing evidence to support that many social animals have theory of mind which is an important aspect of understanding morals. A good review of this information is presented in the following article

www.hrstud.unizg.hr/_download/repository/Theory_of_mind_in_animals_-_Current_and_future_directions.pdf

Morals have been present with humans to maintain social groups long before any were written in stone or on paper. They have also changed over time are attributed to a deity because humans decided to attribute them to that deity. Many societies with more intimate connections between the individuals of a group do not have a moralizing god or goddess. Atheists are social animals just like Theists are so they also have morals.

 

[PureX]

I do see that religions tend to help the people engaged in them to contemplate, debate, and evaluate their chosen moral imperatives, and in that way religions do tend to keep people focused on the moral assessment of human behavior. But this does not make those people "more moral" because of it. It just makes them more morality-minded.

 

[McBell]

Moral:

a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.​

This is, IMO, the best definition for the word.
It shows that everyone has morals.

Everyone does not share the same morals.

So what does it mean when it is claimed that so-and-so is immoral?
It means nothing more than the morals are different.

 

[Agnostisch]

There are misconceptions among religious people about morals and behaviors, they perceive that the moral law is the production of God came through religion and they are in the fallacy of deciding that the atheist is a human being immoral as long as he is not a believer to God and religion.

 

[`mud]

….OH.....I forgot....

We don't believe in witches either...
I think !

 

[McBell]

What is morality in any given time or place? It is what the majority then and there happen to like, and immorality is what they dislike.​

~Alfred North Whitehead, Dialogues, 30 August 1941

When we start deceiving ourselves into thinking not that we want something or need something, not that it is a pragmatic necessity for us to have it, but that it is a moral imperative that we have it, then is when we join the fashionable madmen, and then is when the thin whine of hysteria is heard in the land, and then is when we are in bad trouble.​

~Joan Didion

​

 

[randix]

atheism by itself is not a way of life which is compatible with a modern society. You have to add things: meaning, compassion, plans etc.

Conversely, one could say that belief in a certain god or religion by itself is not a way of life which is compatible with a modern society. You have to add things: acceptance of diversity of belief, behavior and values, for example.

You still need big ideas and politics, and in the end you wind up with a religion. You may call it an atheist religion

I suppose that would depend upon one's proposed definition of the word religion.

 

[Nakosis]

It seems obvious to me that atheists can be (and many are) moral, are good parents, are helpful and cooperative contributors to their society, etc. Some religious people however seem to feel or believe that morality consists principally in following the "will" or dictates of one or more particular gods. Is morality compatible with a lack of belief in a god? The quotes below are presented for consideration.

Christian (Huguenot) philosopher and historian, Pierre Bayle (1647-1706) wrote the following--

"It is no stranger for an atheist to live virtuously than it is strange for a Christian to live criminally. We see the latter sort of monster all the time, so why should we think the former is impossible?"

"Thus we see that from the fact that a man has no religion it does not follow necessarily that he will be led to every sort of crime or to every sort of pleasure. It follows only that he will be led to the things to which his temperament and his turn of mind make him sensitive."

Regarding human conflict and competing religions--

"We know the impression made on people’s minds by the idea that they are fighting for the preservation of their temples and altars … how courageous and bold we become when we fixate on the hope of conquering others by means of God’s protection, and when we are animated by the natural aversion we have for the enemies of our beliefs."

However, Bayles also introduced a concept that many Christians since have used to question the "goodness" or "morality" of atheists--

"Because (atheists) do not believe that an infinitely holy Intelligence commanded or prohibited anything, they must be persuaded that, considered in itself, no action is either good or bad, and that what we call moral goodness or moral fault depends only on the opinions of men; from which it follows that, by its nature, virtue is not preferable to vice."

Regarding this last observation, I believe that people simply make choices in their behavior and actions based on personal beliefs and values, regardless of whether they are religious, nonreligious or atheist, and that most of those choices (whether the results are beneficial or detrimental) are made for what the individual involved beliefs are good or appropriate reasons. In this case, I believe it would be difficult to make a case for one authoritative, "absolute" morality, because the criteria by which we judge something to be "moral" or not can vary to such a great degree.

Some people seem to believe that morality consists of following a set of rules or dictates from a god. Ultraorthodox Jews come to mind. Yet this seems to be the same type of mentality sometimes used to justify horrible acts (such as Hitler's extermination-facility guards and personnel saying, "I was just following orders"). Others believe that we must actively and continuously or persistently gauge whether something is good or bad, right or wrong, using a particular idea or value, or set of ideas or values (not necessarily religious ones) to make the determination.
--

Morality is more about social interaction and depends a lot on culture. Civil laws are what set up actual boundaries of acceptable behavior.

As long as folks remain in the boundaries of civil laws, individual morality is a personal issue. The consequences of "bad" morality would be social acceptance.

 

[randix]

the argument has always been that religion is the only rational basis for morality.

Religion seems like a very arbitrary basis for morality, in light of the fact that different religions have different sets of moral dictums, while many people can and do have moral opinions or ideas that are the same or similar to some of those often proposed by religion (proscriptions against murder and theft, for example), but completely independent of religious beliefs (those people might be non-religious or atheist).

When you really get down to it, secular morality is simply a matter of might makes right. Whoever has the biggest stick and whoever can swing it the hardest is able to establish a monopoly on morality.

To me, that sounds very much like saying that religious morality is simply a matter of might makes right. -- "My god is the only true god, is all-powerful, and is the ultimate, absolute authority regarding who gets punished, and why. My god is bigger, better and more powerful than you or your god, so what my god says, goes!"