Posted by Helen on: 01.06.2009 /
Lee Strobel recently took time to answer some atheist questions posed to him on Hemant’s Friendly Atheist blog.
While I appreciate him doing that I was disappointed in what he wrote. I would have hoped for consistency from a person who has written three “The Case for…” books. If he can’t be consistent in his answers on a blog that makes me wonder whether he achieves it in his books. And if he doesn’t then his ‘case’ in them is surely undermined.
Lee writes this about his former atheism and about atheists in general:
my problems with faith were not solely intellectual. I had a vested interest in the non-existence of God because I was living a rather immoral lifestyle and did not want to be held accountable for my behavior. To me, atheism opened up a world of hedonism that I knew wouldn’t be acceptable to God if he existed.
(Let me be clear: I’m not saying that all atheists are hedonists. I’m just saying that, for me, atheism cleared the way for me to live a self-indulgent, me-first, narcissistic life. And to be honest, to this day I can’t figure out why atheists would choose any other path, although I know many do.)
Lee implies it’s irrational of atheists not to be self-indulgent, me-first and narcissistic. I disagree: if I am kind to others they are more likely to be kind back, which for me is a win-win situation. If Lee truly hasn’t figured this out I have to think he hasn’t tried very hard. Or, more likely, he’s fallen into the unfortunate way of some conservative Christians, which is to cite Christian rhetoric regardless of whether it accurately reflects how life and human beings really are. Some groups of Christians make it possible to do this by validating each other’s rhetoric and not holding each other accountable for when the rhetoric departs from reality.
Not only is Lee wrong in his implication, it’s inconsistent with his own experience! Just a couple of paragraphs later he writes:
How did I become a Christian? My wife’s conversion to Christianity (which deeply troubled me at first) resulted in a lot of positive changes in her attitudes and behavior, which I found winsome and intriguing.
(emphasis mine)
If Lee is right about atheists then Lee the atheist should not have perceived his wife’s newly less self-indulgent and me-first behavior as positive. He should not have found it winsome and been attracted to it. That he did undermines his case that atheists always choose a self-indulgent, me-first life.
And if that case is so easily undermined then, as I mentioned, I wonder if the same is true of the cases in his three books.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
1I didn’t see this implication in the comment you quoted.
Oh! The last sentence.
Well, he was an atheist “of convenience”, not a real one.
He says that he is puzzled to see an atheist who is not self-indulgent, but he does not say he finds it unattractive, so that leaves the door open to be charmed by his wife’s attitude.
However, I think I do see your point: If he is puzzled to see that, he maybe has not thought deeply.
Comment by: Jim J
2I know that atheists hate to hear this argument but there isn’t much they can say against it. You can’t invoke an absolute moral code without borrowing from theism. It’s the nature of the beast.
What Strobel saw in his wife was a peace and a patience in all circumstances that didn’t exist before her conversion. That is more than just agreement with theism; it’s an assurance that God is in control.
If God exists and we are created in His image, then it would not be inconsistent to say that atheists lean on that subconscious awareness of God’s presence and an atheist couldn’t be drawn to a change in one’s behavior who was conscious of it. Just a thought. Regards.
Comment by: Helen
3Martin, I’m not sure what sort of atheist Lee was but evidently he has failed to understand the experience of many other atheists who want to be good people.
Jim J, I don’t see any need to invoke a universal moral code in order to realize that being kind and having people be kind back to you is a win-win proposition. It’s an informal social contract which doesn’t require a universal moral principle to back it up.
Comment by: Jim J
4Helen
And when someone breaks that social contract? Under what contract do you forgive them when they’ve broken the win-win contract?
Comment by: Helen
5Jim, they can break it if they want to and I can forgive them if I want to.
Comment by: Eliza
6“Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?” (This is the Euthrypho dilemma).
Is it, and has it ever been, moral to:
Enslave people?
Commit genocide because someone tells you they heard God give the go ahead?
Have more than one wife?
Divorce your spouse for any reason other than adultery or abandonment?
Offer a woman to a lecherous crowd, in order to protect a male guest?
Kill a child for dishonoring his parents, or for making fun of someone who is bald?
Threaten to torture someone for eternity because he didn’t (couldn’t?) sense or believe in God’s existence?
On what basis do we decide whether or not each of these is, ever was, or ever would be, a moral action?
Comment by: Helen
7Eliza did you see Jason’s post which essentially is the Euthrypho dilemma?
Comment by: David H
8I’m not sure that your inference is based on anything Strobel implies. My reading of his entire response seems to be that he had some rational reasons for embracing atheism as well as some reasons of personal convenience. He doesn’t say that all atheists are hedonists, etc. Only that for him that seemed to be the most natural outcome from such a belief system. He acknowledges that at least some atheists don’t follow this path, he just doesn’t understand why (without the bonds of a universal moral imperative, why would anyone choose such moral bonds). Perhaps his admitted lack of understanding implies humility rather than arrogance.
I think the the Euthrypho dilemma goes to the heart of this. Most Christians I grew up with believe morality is something dictated by God. It is moral because God said so. I personally believe that much of what Jesus taught was simply moral. In other words it made sense regardless of whether it was commanded by God. It might even contravene something that God had commanded in the past.
I’m not sure where Strobel would stand on that question.
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
9Eliza kind of already touched on this. I just wanted to say:
Oh yes I can. I hereby invoke an absolute moral code devoid of theism. See–I did it! =)
(God, that’s so childish, isn’t it?)
I would actually go one further. Being finite, you can’t reasonably hope to make a great deal of good use out of an “absolute moral code” at all.
Comment by: Eliza
10Helen, I hadn’t seen that discussion, have been slacking off on-line! Thanks for pointing it out. Seren generalized my point, a few days ago, when she wrote in that discussion:
And your comment below was right on the mark (and so fair and even-handed, as usual!):
Can’t help but admit that I fail to see, even when I squint my eyes and tilt my head, how people today can feel comfortable with the claim that slavery, genocide, & other horrors were OK in the past, but aren’t today, because God was tailoring morality to the needs or understanding of the people at that time. And, how polygamy & slavery can be considered so clearly wrong by Christians today when there is no direct Biblical teaching against them. And how Christians manage to achieve a 50% rate of divorce, when that’s one teaching that the good book seems pretty clear on. Sometimes I feel like I missed the new, updated version conveying biblical morality for the 20th & 21st centuries.
Comment by: Seren
11David H:
The thing i find odd about these sorts of points is that they seem to be made by people who don’t actually like other people.
I think, basically, i do like other people. I know i can be selfish, and i usually look at my own needs and desires before those of others, but i don’t like the thought of someone else having their house flattened. Or starving to death. Or being beaten by their husband. Those would be horrible things to endure. It’s not a great effort for me to say, “that’s not right.”
Are Strobel and those who agree with him really saying that their default position is to think, “i don’t care what happens to other people,” and that they need the imperative provided by a deity to do something about it?
Comment by: David H
12I can’t speak specifically for Strobel, but for many of the people I grew up around, their default position is that they can’t understand how they would even pretend to care about what happens to other people without a deity who forces them to pretend. Those I knew were far more comfortable with a rigid and extensive structure for behavior as long as it left lots of wiggle room for thoughts and deeds outside the sphere of their religious social structure. Perhaps just my experience, but the care of many whom I knew as a child seemed more about helping them feel better about themselves than actually doing good for other people. But they did speak quite a bit about the imperatives provided by their deity.
Comment by: Jim J
13Helen said:
“Jim, they can break it if they want to and I can forgive them if I want to.”
And THAT is freedom??
I forgive my trespassers every time they trespass. I am forgiven. I am free.
How about you?
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
14did someone say it was freedom? I thought it was more like a description of the way things are.
What does that mean?
Comment by: gecko
15I think this “moral” codes like being nice to others so they are nice to you, honesty, doing social work, good working morals and so on are all based on Biblical values. They are valid if someone believes in God or not. and it’s quite easy to live according to it here in Switzerland, because we are a rich and social society. And even if there are not so many church-goers anymore, Christianity still is the most often lived and referred to religious system.
Compared to some areas in Africa where things are going terribly wrong at the moment: This Christian religious system goes away with the white people (please notice, I never talked of believers here, and I really do think that some of the whites in Africa did awfully bad things. I’m just talking of a system.) Economy goes down, and really disgusting behaviors spread again and are not sued. For example that sleeping with a virgin child (that means actually raping him or her) is practiced to cure aids… and there are others.
In old-testament-times Israels people had the highest rate of over 80-years-olds by far. Why? They followed all the cleanliness rules and rites that were in their books. They didn’t have the scientific methods to prove those rules back then, they just lived accordingly. Foreigners who lived with them did so, too, as the society just worked that way. And their average life-span grew as well, no matter what faith they were following.
I really do think that the Bible gives humans the clues how to live well, as I’m convinced that God authored humans and knows them best. Having grown up in a western society we all are minted by this religious system, no matter if we consider ourselves Christians, Atheists or whatever. And that’s what makes us what we are.
Comment by: Helen
16David H wrote:
David I respect you giving him the benefit of the doubt. However in the context I find it hard to believe it’s a statement of humility rather than a figure of speech meaning “it’s irrational”. I say that because apologists like Lee Strobel are all about figuring things out. They go figure out the evidence for God (or so they perceive it to be) then write about it. They don’t just throw up their hands and say “I can’t figure this out” when they come up against something. So it would be very out of character for Lee to have done that in this instance. It’s also a very standard apologetic dig against atheists to say it’s irrational of them to hold to a moral code (as Jim J alludes to).
Jim, I don’t see why you think you’re more free than me. What’s more free than “I can do this if I want to?” Maybe you could elaborate on why you think you’re more free than me. Experientially I certainly feel way more free than I was in the days when I was continually trying to figure out what God’s will for me was, and then do it. I was never done and I was never sure I was hearing God correctly. I’m so glad those days are over.
gecko have you ever seen The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible? It has lists of Bible verses such as those which sanction cruelty and violence. (Maybe not all the cruelty and violence listed is sanctioned by God but some of it certainly is). Christians may choose not to emulate the cruelty and violence in the Bible (I certainly hope they choose not to) but it’s in there nevertheless.
And, with all due respect, I would be interested to see evidence that Israelites in Old Testament times lived longer than people in the Western World do today. I find that hard to believe.
Comment by: Jim J
17“I say that because apologists like Lee Strobel are all about figuring things out.”
And you’re not?
By the way, it seems the premise of your complaint is that Strobel is not consistent in his remarks about atheists. Yet in your own words, consistency doesn’t hold much water: “they can break it if they want to and I can forgive them if I want to”. Maybe Strobel reverted back to his old atheist ways and changed his mind. :-)
Comment by: Jim J
18The Skeptic’s Annotated Bible is, IMO, an embarrassment to atheists, or should be. It’s deliberately obtuse from the first mangled verse to the last. You can learn more about Christian thought from watching Penn and Teller. We can disagree but it’s still a shame if we descend into intellectual rot. Just thought I’d add that. Regards.
Comment by: Jason Horton
19My problems with faith are not purely intellectual either. I have emotional responses to strong faith and moral responses to the idea of deferring opinion to an ancient book, no matter how holy. I have no particular desire to embrace a life of hedonism and debauchery. I’ve been to college thank you very much and, while it was fun, it is hardly a recipe for long term happiness.
I read something by the Dalai Lama in The Art of Happiness a while ago. It essentially says that we gain a more fulfilling sense of joy through helping others than we do from helping ourselves. In order to gain a long lasting and fulfilling sense of joy in life we need to understand ourselves and become at peace with who we are while working to improve and build upon our positive aspects. One of which is tempering the hedonistic parts of life in order to gain a greater degree of life’s nuances. So rather than gorging on food to fill us we eat to appreciate the tastes and textures of our food. Learn to blend spices and herbs and flavours and enjoy a meal for all that it is rather than gobbling down piles of burgers.
One other point though is that an atheist like me is able to take moral lessons from the bible if I so choose. It seems so glaringly obvious a point that I hesitate to mention it but there is no exclusivity of biblical teachings to Christians. If I, an atheist, read of the Sermon on the Mount in Matthew and decide that being judgmental is negative (Matthew 7:1-6) then why can’t I use it? It seems like good advice to me as does the advice on forgiving others at least in principle.
Equally when I read the advice in Leviticus 25 on how to treat my slaves I am free to ignore or reject it. After all I have arrived at the conclusion that slavery is wrong independent of any religious teaching. I have no use for slave management advice.
Comment by: Benjamin Ady
20Gecko
I’m wondering how you could possibly know this?
Wow! Are we to understand that rape of children doesn’t happen in Switzerland, nor in other “Christian” nations? I wouldn’t mind living in such a place–sounds brilliant.
I wonder to what extent the current ongoing difficulties on the continent of Africa are caused by “Christian” nations coming and stealing millions of them away as slaves to help “white” western nations grow so rich?
Comment by: Martin Gugino
21Re: Euthrypho
When Christians say “God is good”, they are not saying the equivalent of “God is God”. Some Christians even wonder at times whether God is good because of the bad things that happen. As Teresa of Avila said to God, in a moment of stress, I am not surprised that You have so few friends, considering how You treat them.
Therefore, in the context of Christianity, it is not correct to assert that what is good is defined by what God does, and I do not believe that this Greek play, which considers this assertion, is important to the discussion here.
—-
Right on Benjamin. Regarding Africa, his Highness, the Magnificent King Leopold II of Belgium exploited the “Belgian” Congo mercilessly and savagely.
Comment by: Helen
22Jim, I posted the link to the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible because it was easy for me to find and I didn’t have time to search the Internet for other lists of cruelty and violence in the Bible, not because it was necessarily the best list out there. It makes the point I wanted to make but I’m not claiming it necessarily does it as well as it could. If you know of a better list of Bible verses showing cruelty and violence sanctioned by God please post a link to it.
Consistency - what I’m saying about Lee is that a) real life and b) his own experience contradict his implication that it’s irrational for atheists to choose to be good. I don’t claim to be consistent but I do my best not to make assertions and hold viewpoints that are directly contradicted by real life and my own experience.
Comment by: David H
23This book uses archeology and other techniques to try and paint a picture of normal life in Israel during the Iron Age. I can’t say how definitive it is, but the authors conclude that ages of 70-80 years, while not uncommon, were not the norm. Their supposition appears to be that the average life span of an Israelite during that time frame was 40-50 years.
If that information is correct it still is far better than the world-wide average lifespan for the Bronze Age (3300-1200 BC) which has been estimated at 18 years. It is even better than the average spans from Classical Greece and Classical Rome (roughly 5th Century BC to 5th Century AD), which were 20-30 years. While these latter lifespans come from Wikipedia there are considerable links on those pages leading to outside verification of the numbers.
One very interesting note on the Wiki page is the average lifespan from the Medieval Islamic Caliphate. Good records were kept indicating that the average man on the street could expect to live something like 35 years. However, the average lifespans of the scholarly class were 59–84.3 years in the Middle East and 69–75 in Islamic Spain. The differences are probably due to better food, better sanitation, less work and some access to health care.
Not sure of Gecko’s source, but this information does not contradict it.
Comment by: Doreen
24Benjamin wrote
Oh Benjamin, I am reminded of how much I love you, and why!
No, we cannot say child abuse doesn’t happen in Switzerland, and its drug problems are well-documented. The author kinda lost me on the Switzerland-African comparisons, to be honest…..
Comment by: Eliza
25The discussion here, and here, is reminding me of Christopher Hitchens’ challenge:
Note that he says “ethical statement or action”, which I take to mean something which can be demonstrated to and confirmed by others, and which would be accepted by theists & non-theists as an ethical statement or action. (Some people have suggested that “believe in God” or “love God with all your heart and mind” answer the challenge, but nontheists wouldn’t find these to qualify. Nor would believing anything, or loving anyone/anything qualify. However, acting in loving ways could.)
Comment by: Martin Gugino
26Helen - just another attempt to understand Lee’s statement about atheism and rationality:
#1) If: a rational atheist will chose self-indulgence over goodness, and
#2) If: some atheists are not self-indulgent
#3) Then: those atheists are not rational.
This chain of reasoning does lead to #3, which you see in Lee’s position. However, Lee does not say #1.
The closest he says is “I am puzzled that not all atheists are self-indulgent”. I took his puzzlement to be founded in his lack of thought about the matter, rather than in his view of the ethics of rational atheists.
He says: atheism cleared the way for me to live a self-indulgent life; ie, he gave more thought to hedonism than to atheism, or ethics.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
27Not obvious…
Comment by: Eliza
28Depends…I have no trouble with the “without borrowing from theism” part, having been raised without any overt religious influence (yet still, I hope, being a person of acceptable morals). Moral behavior may be consistent with Biblical teachings (as selected from the entirety of the Bible’s offerings, by people) - but that could simply mean that people wrote moral teachings into the Bible. It in no way proves the supposition that human morality comes out of the Bible & nowhere else. (If it did, people would presumably not have to - or be able to - pick & choose certain parts, & explain away others, to come up with a moral code based on the Bible.)
I do have trouble with there being “an absolute” moral code, regardless of whether one is referring to a theistically based moral code or a “natural” one. I’d need someone to define “absolute” here. Does it imply black/white judgments in which the situation never matters?
Comment by: Helen
29Martin, what Lee actually wrote was not “I am puzzled” but “to this day I can’t figure out”. His phrasing implied to me that he had tried to figure it out and couldn’t - meaning to him it wasn’t figure-out-able i.e. irrational.
Comment by: gecko
30Helen - I didn’t say that Israelites of the old-testament-times lived longer than Westerners today. I said that they lived longer than the other peoples at that time (to be exact I meant: the times when the first 5 books of the Bible were written).
And I didn’t know the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible, thanks for the link. It will be really interesting to read it, but at the moment the subtle or not so subtle cruelties in churches today are more imminent to me. I know that the Bible is very cruel in places, and I’m one of those who chose not to act according to this.
David H - My source is a open lecturing of a medical doctor who read through all those rules and rites that are “ordered” in the books from Genesis to Deuteronomy and looked at them from a today’s scientific point of view. He said that following every single one of them all is the very best anyone could have done at these times with the then available means and knowledge (seen from today’s scientific and medical point of view). Where he got the numbers for the average life-span from, I don’t know. I even forgot his name, I’m afraid. This lecturing was about 7 years ago, a time I went to several different ones, and I didn’t keep the materials. But I do remember these points, because I was very fascinated of them. Sorry, perhaps I shouldn’t have written it, but I’m really convinced that it’s true.
Benjamin Ady - come on, I didn’t say that no children are being raped in Switzerland or in other “Christian” countries. But in some parts of Africa raping children is considered as a remedy against aids. It’s not sued, because it has become so common, and there’s only a comparably small outcry over it there. I’m pretty sure you can call this remedy superstitious, but for them it’s an outcome of their beliefs.
Martin Gugino - I know that European “Christian” countries have destructed and exploited Africa so have they done with the Americas, the Pacific Islands, Australia…
The only point I wanted to make is, that every religious system marks the culture of the people living there. This imprint has not much to do with what every single person believes, it’s just kind of an average common understanding. And these average common understandings differ (perhaps the comparison between my country and some parts in Africa was not very lucky to show that). China is different again, the Islamic world again, and so are lots of other places. I didn’t even mean that our Bible-imprinted Western society is the best in every aspect, I know we can learn from every other one. But I’m convinced that this Bible-imprint is the best for mankind, because God authored humans and the Bible. One of the reasons for it is this ancient Israel comparison I mentioned earlier. That doesn’t mean that Christian and others have not made some huge mistakes or haven’t deterred the whole thing and won’t do so in the future. And yes, I like best living in an Bible-imprinted land as the member of society I am: Coming from a family of hard-working, not much earning people, having had the opportunity to study, not rich, part-time working mother of three children. And I think that there is no absolute moral code if one thinks as an atheist. One has to value all the codes the same, and the choices one is making depends on the religious system one is minted with.
I hope I’m clearer this time and I apologize to have created a small outcry here.
Comment by: Jeff Eyges
31Helen,
When someone tries to argue that you can’t have morality without theism, you can always hold up Buddhism.
Comment by: Helen
32gecko, I’m sorry I misread your comment. (Don’t worry about the ‘outcry’ - it keeps things interesting :)) I expect we both appreciate similar values about the countries we live in. I’m not convinced these values came from God but I do appreciate them wherever they came from.
Jeff, thanks. Based on past experience discussing this issue with theists, I expect that whatever a-theistic system of morality I hold up, some theists will still assert that anything good in it is borrowed from theism. After all, even though Buddhism is old, people who believe the Bible literally would say the first humans, Adam and Eve, were theists, so that morality came first.
Comment by: Jeff Eyges
33Good point!
BTW, the Dalai Lama, who is not a theist but not a materialist, believes it possible to have a secular basis for compassion, ethics and morality. He feels it’s an intrinsic part of human nature.
Comment by: Helen
34Jeff - right; I feel the same way. I like the Dalai Lama - I was pleased to have the privilege of attending a private prayer breakfast with him and Archbishop Desmond Tutu last Spring.
Comment by: Jeff Eyges
35Oh, right, I remember. I think I said something to you about it at the time. A tremendous privilege. I’ve been face to face with him a few times, shaken his hand, but breakfast trumps that.
There’s no one else quite like him. A couple of years ago, I met Father Thomas Keating, who reintroduced contemplative prayer into Christianity. He impressed me, and I compared him to the DL. He replied, “You’re very kind, but His Holiness is in a class by himself.” I agree completely.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
36Ok. I will accept that. Sort of.
He says
But don’t you agree that most people are drawn to hedonism not by reason, but because they like it?
I don’t think he is saying that atheists are irrational, but … they don’t like fun? Some of them. I don’t know. I have never found him terribly convincing, and I was dragged by my cousin and by a neighbor to one of Lee’s talks, on evolution or creation.
I think that he said that you can’t add anything to infinity. That is just bad math. No that was Geisler.
Comment by: David H
37The issue of the origins of morality reminds me of “Mere Christianity.” Like many I was introduced to it while young as one of the key works on faith. A few years ago I was asked to teach a Sunday School class on it. Of course I re-read the book (after having referenced it but not read it for more than 20 years). What a shock for me when I discovered I disagreed with the central concept of the book: that the existence of God can be proved because of humanity’s adherence to common moral standards.
I had a few significant arguments with people in my church and outside of it regarding universal moral concepts. Apparently a lot of people would like to believe that they exist, but there is lots of evidence that they are not now and have not ever been universally accepted by humans. Right and wrong/good and bad have been redefined by many societies. Perhaps ethics and morality are an intrinsic part of human nature (in that we are driven to have some sort of standards), but those standards often evidence a degree of flexibility that would seem to indicate society (the need for humans to interact together) rather than something spiritual is at the root of them.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
38I think it is the phrase “borrowed from theism” that is the problem. Borrowed how and by whom, and from what, exactly? An alternate formulation that “God” places a sense of fairness in everyman’s heart avoids the notion of “borrowing”, and seems about the same in meaning.
I liked Mere Christianity, too. Do I need to re-read it? I hope not.
Comment by: Jim J
39MG–I think it is the phrase “borrowed from theism” that is the problem. Borrowed how and by whom, and from what, exactly?
Since I used the phrase “borrowed from theism” I can explain. Theism is an underlying idea that there is some transcendent entity (by transcendent meaning “going beyond what we know”) who records our good behavior.
I don’t know where you guys live, but here in South Florida there are a lot of brutally rude and nefarious people; enough to say that half the time my good behavior is punished. So if you believe that you should “Do unto others what you would have them do unto you”, you are inferring an entity beyond what we know that can rescue that idea from descending into chaos.
Thus “borrowing from theism” is borrowing from a theistic ideal. The Dalai Lama does the same thing when he talks of how we should treat each other.
It’s one thing to make a suggestion, it is wholly another to say it is binding. If our morals are only a suggestion, then they are only material words.
Comment by: David H
40Are our morals more than just a suggestion? What makes them binding? Many are only enforced by societal norms. Thus the morality of Jim Crow is still considered right and good by some of my relatives. They find it unGodly that society has strayed from something that was accepted and enforced for more than a century.
Besides the influence of polite society, the other major enforcer of so-called moral behavior are laws. However, they aren’t realy about morality either. They are just another form of societal norms. Thus one society can legally approve gay marriage while another adds a constitutional amendment in an attempt to ban it forever; one society says killing other humans is always bad while another says it’s fine as long as it serves the greater purposes of that society.
Perhaps both the norms and the laws borrow something from theism, albeit in a rather haphazard and arbitrary fashion. But most aren’t ideal in their formation or execution. Maybe their concept had some idealism. However, does borrowing from something transcendent (i.e. outside of what some consider normal human experience) equate to theism? I am not at all sure even I (a confirmed theist) can agree that one must infer a transcendent entity in order to rescue an idea or a society from descending into chaos. Social order is a Darwinian concept. Some societies keep order via despots, while others hold up the golden rule as a way of maintaining order.
Many people set standards for themselves and/or others. Some justify them by claiming they come from God while others (Hitler, Stalin, Ghengis Khan come to mind) used other means to encourage adherence. Still the way many — even those with a theistic bent — often follow those standards would seem to indicate they view them as suggestions for themselves even if they are commandments for others.
Comment by: Jeff Eyges
41The Dalai Lama does the same thing when he talks of how we should treat each other.
Jim, I’m sorry, but I daresay I know more about this than you do - and, no. I’m not going to get into it, but that simply isn’t the case. It’s an entirely different worldview.
Above, Helen said, Based on past experience discussing this issue with theists, I expect that whatever a-theistic system of morality I hold up, some theists will still assert that anything good in it is borrowed from theism.
That didn’t take long!
Comment by: Martin Gugino
42Jim, your explanation did not help me understand what you think.
Your response talked about theism, which I already understand ok enough. Then you talk about people in Florida. Then you assert that the existence of morality implies the existence of God, which I don’t think is obvious.
What do you mean by “borrow”.
Comment by: Helen
43Jim wrote:
Jim, are any of these rude people theists? (Based on most statistics more than half the US population believes in God, as best I recall) If so then it doesn’t seem to me that decent people are necessary borrowing theist morality…
Jeff wrote:
lol :)
Comment by: Jason Horton
44As a bit of an aside it is a truism that the Hebrew God was the first god whose mythology indicates a real concern with morality. God forms the universe, making Earth the most important and man the most important creation. He grants dominion over the other creatures and the earth itself. Man’s responsibility is to husband the world and to obey and worship God.
Much of Genesis reflects these themes of obedience to authority and responsibility to others. Adam and Eve are cast out of Eden for disobedience. Noah is rewarded for obedience and faith by being chosen to lead humanity and what remains of creation through the Flood. The Hebrews distinguished their god from that of their neighbours gods who acted without any regard to the world in their own mythologies.
Thus concerned with morality rather than crops, seas, the sun or something natural God has a special place for humanity. God is not the God of something like weather but the God of People. Instead of reflecting the characteristics of lightning for example God reflects the characteristics of humanity including the moral obligations we hold to one another.
Rather than secular morality borrowing from theism it is probably truer to say that theism borrows from the morality of the people. I am well aware that I say this from a position of someone who believes that God is a human construct rather than real but even if God were real the situation would be the same by virtue of the choice to grant human beings free will. God has to allow us to form our own morals in order to allow for free will. Couple this to religion, as opposed to God or faith, as a construct of human beings and religiously based morality derives from human decisions and opinions.
You may consider, as I do, that this begs the question of where our morality comes from if not from religion. There is a wide range of opinion on the subject. I tend to follow the idea that we are social animals who have developed a social compact as part of our evolution. This has been further developed and codified in recent centuries as we are unique in the ability to record our thoughts and opinions across generations. There are plenty of other explanations of course.
Comment by: Jim J
45JH–”Thus concerned with morality rather than crops, seas, the sun or something natural God has a special place for humanity. God is not the God of something like weather but the God of People.”
I disagree. See Job 38-40, Psalm 19, Genesis 1-3, etc. God is God of both.
Martin,
My point was that an atheist can participate in a “social contract” as Helen put it, but what happens when their kindness is met with rudeness? If, as Helen said, they can choose to forgive, WHY would you?
Borrowing from theism is done by leaning on some transcendent entity to assure oneself that forgiving is the right thing to do.
I want to address Helen’s point about Lee Strobel’s inconsistency. He was convinced of theism by his wife’s witness but not convinced of atheism’s goodness by the good behavior of atheists. This is only inconsistent if the behavior was similar. It was not. A woman authentically committed to her faith who, as a result, dedicates countless hours to serving others in charities and private life is not the same as an atheist who is fun to hang out with. If you know of a prominent atheist who dedicates their life to serving others, let me know. Regards.
Comment by: Martin Gugino
46Jason
I found your post very interesting, contrasting the Hebrew’s God with the other gods.
Jim J
I don’t think that atheists lean on a transcendent entity, a transcendent theistic entity.
They would know it if they did, for how can you lean and not know it?
Helen, et al
Me too :-)
Comment by: Eliza
47One reason: while theists can ask for, & feel they have received, forgiveness from their god, atheists have to live w/ themselves & their own judgment of their own behavior, for the rest of their lives.
Comment by: David H
48One thing that constantly confuses me is not why atheists would choose to forgive (when it is up to them) but why followers of Christ so often choose not to forgive when it supposedly isn’t up to them. Jesus told his followers to love their enemies, more specifically to do good to those that harm them. Yet “Christians” today and in the past have often encouraged their national leaders to do just the opposite.
Those that set their own standards are free to follow them with the consistency they can muster for whatever reasons feel right to them. I can understand that. I can’t fathom how those who claim to follow Jesus can so clearly and frequently violate some of his most basic teachings and then justify their choice as coming from the same God who Jesus used as the basis for what he taught.
Were those Christian theists to simply say: I choose to return evil for evil because that feels right to me. It might not make me happy but it would make sense. Instead they embark on a supposed contract with Christ, but set aside the tenants of that deal at their convenience and rather than ask forgiveness of their God frequently use him as the justification for why they don’t need to be forgiven.
I find that far more arbitrary than the atheistic approach to “morals.”
Comment by: Jeff Eyges
49David, you know the answer to that: “Christians aren’t perfect, just forgiven.”
(Alternately: “They aren’t ‘True Christians’™)
Comment by: Martin Gugino
50David - I agree of course with your confusion. But I wonder about this:
The “resist not evil” advice is in the context of someone harming you (Mat 5:39)
I wonder if someone else is being harmed if that is not a different case in some way.
Jesus does not say this, but the OT says rescue the innocent who are being led to death. (citation?)
I am only just now considering this.
Comment by: Eliza
51Another explanation, which I heard again tonight, is that Jesus’ comments were specifically directed toward specific situations he encountered, or (if more general) for the specific time and culture he encountered.
It came up tonight when a Christian said that the churches she’s gone to have always stressed that Christians are supposed to keep their own family safe & provide for them (finanacially and materially), and also should help those in need - and I commented that I didn’t recall Jesus including the part about one’s own family and material goods, in fact just the oppposite. (Give all you have to the poor, consider the lilies of the field, turn a man against his father, who is my mother & my brothers, someone takes your cloak do not stop him from taking your tunic, etc).
Apparently I was Mistaken, and was Reading Too Literally.
Comment by: David H
52That is Proverbs 24:11. Proverbs is one of those books that gives me trouble. Many of my older relatives were very fond of “spare the rod and spoil the child.” They either didn’t know what my father was doing at home, approved or ignored the verse about the innocent being led to slaughter.
However, Proverbs doesn’t claim to be words from God, just from Kings Solomon and David. The verse right before it has some positively unGodly wisdowm: If you fail under pressure, your strength is too small.
So much for try, try again.
Here is my other problem: who decides not only the innocent in need of rescue, but the means necessary to rescue them. If God, to whom does he speak — our president? Starts to get dicey then. What if the means for rescuing the innocent leads to the death of many (innocent and guilty alike). Does that fulfill this biblical admonition? How many innocent have to die before we reconsider the means to save them? 50,000? 500,000? A million?
Of course when governments get involved in this whole process then the issue of innocence may become secondary to national interests, etc.
Sorry, I don’t see where Jesus left room for his followers to violently react toward anyone.
Comment by: Seren
53Reminds me of the “we had to bomb the village to save it” line.
Comment by: Seren
54Jim:
But, if what he says about atheists is true, he should have thought their “goodness” was silly.
A consistent conclusion for Strobel to come to might be something like, “an atheist can recognise a good thing when she sees it.”
Comment by: Martin Gugino
55Eliza - I like your capitalization. :-)
Comment by: Helen
56Eliza I liked the capitalization too. “That doesn’t apply to us” is a common way Christians explain why they aren’t following a specific exhortation from the Bible. Maybe they’re right - but I suspect they often fail to realize how much like excuse-making that sounds to ‘outsiders’. (Especially those who generally talk about the Bible with insiders and not outsiders, who don’t bring up the same questions and challenges outsiders tend to raise)
Comment by: Jim J
57Seren–But, if what he says about atheists is true, he should have thought their “goodness” was silly.
Strobel’s wife didn’t impress him with her “goodness” but her godliness.
Sorry, I repeat, it isn’t the same.