Atheism is moral.

Reading this simplistic book called "The Reason For God" by Timothy Keller. Basically one of his arguments is that humans need some kind of morality that can only be supplied by belief in God. But, doesn't morality have a human reason?

Having some difficulty with this since I am new at atheism and secular humanism. It sometimes is scary... I do not know how to express myself.

in the bible, both old and new testament, that even avowed christians would not regard as "moral" if taken literally. Consequently, they will usually find some way to interpret them "metaphorically". Obviously, their personal moral sensibility is causing them to do this, and therefore morality precedes religion. Moreover, if you read ancient Greek literature, such as the tragedies or plato, it is easy to identify a world of values (love, respect for the law, etc.) similar to our own. These values came neither from the bible, nor from the greek religion which was largely amoral (the mystery religion may be an exception, but no one really knows what was taught). Aristotle was a dominating influence on christian theologians through the middle ages - why did they need the guidance of a pagan philosopher? In addition, studies show that small children develop a sense of fairness well before they could be indoctrinated by religion.

Conversely, people who feel sanctioned and protected by their religion, will often act out on prejudicial feelings. Witness the likes of Fred Phelps and the whole homophobic agenda of the religious right, as well as pogroms and antisemitism.

Personally, I think that religion has contributed very little, if anything, to the ethical development of mankind. And in any case, even if you could argue that it has, that is not an argument towards god's existence.

I'm certainly NOT an expert, but from my reading, many Xian theologians didn't care much for Aristotle. He was too scientific and materialistic. Considering the way things are nowadays, it's ironic that early Muslim theologians had a lot of respect for Aristotle. They not only translated his works but debated them in writing. The Xians mostly ignored him, which is one reason so few of Aristotle's works survived in Europe.

A few years ago, a previously unknown work of Aristotle turned up in India. It was written in Arabic. In general, the EARLY Muslims weren't bothered by using pagan knowledge. I've even read some enthusiastic writings from them, paying homage to the great pagan thinkers. It was the Muslims who gave astronomer Claudius Ptolemy's works the name "Armagest"--The Greatest. (Which didn't keep them from arguing with his conclusions about the geocentric universe.)

Again from my limited knowledge, the Xians were most impressed by Plato, who wrote a lot of mumbo-jumbo that the Xians simply stole and applied to their idea of God.

Socrates was another fave, because they compared his death to that of Christ. That's also ironic. Socrates was executed for "impiety," something like atheism nowadays. Athens didn't even have any laws against "impiety" for a long time, and those laws were passed to combat the influence of the Atomists and other irreligious scientific types. Just in time to get their greatest philosopher killed by the Moral Majority of his era!

Another big influence on early Xians was the philosopher Philo Of Alexandria. But he just stole some of Plato's mumbo-jumbo and applied it to his own religion, Judaism. His big idea was the "mediating Logos," which the Xians later converted into the Holy Ghost. Or something like that.

Because I'm in Alexandria, Egypt, I do a lot of reading about this place. One article I read was pretty funny and snarky. It suggested that Philo only came up with his ideas because he regularly got his philosophical butt kicked by all the great pagan thinkers working at the ancient Alexandria Library. They kept asking him detailed questions about his weird little invisible God and his writings were an attempt to answer them.

I think ethics has a lot to do with survival instincts from human evolution. A society will only last if people refrain generally from murder and theft.

I used to believe that the moral arguement was a proof of God, but not any more. It seems part of a logical instinct, nothing supernatural about it.

by Victor Stenger. Stenger is a scientist, and the book is a systematic analysis of all the various arguments used to assert the existence of god. It's a quick read and as I recall it avoids the diatribes of Hitchens or Harris (although I enjoyed these too). I agree with you that morality is a matter of evolutionary development.

Thanks for recommending him. IMO, Stenger doesn't get enough recommends.

Over in the DU Skeptic-Tank, whenever the topic of Quantum Woo-woo comes up, I recommend Stenger's book Quantum Quackery. He just demolishes those Deep Scientific Thinkers like Deepak Chopra and Frijot Capra. (I heard him lecture on that topic once, at the Skeptics Society in Los Angeles. He has the ability, like Richard Feynmann, to take incredibly difficult topics and make them understandable by idiots like me.)

Stenger is uniquely qualified to do that. He is a quantum phyicist who, IIRC, actually worked on the teams that discovered the quark and other subatomic particles.

To the woos, of course, that means he is a cold, unspiritual scientific type who doesn't go around pondering the beauty of the universe.

Unfortunately for them, he does. Since Stenger is also a professor of philosophy. Heh!

Because I did rather like The Tao of Physics. But I think Capra went further in later books?

He summarized The God Hypothesis. It was a beautiful lecture, full of wisdom and humor.

--IMM

Also 'Atheist Universe' by David Mills

Moral Minds: how nature designed our universal sense of right and wrong, by Marc Hauser. I must admit it's still in my "to be read" pile, so it's a bit presumptuous of me to recommend it, but the extracts I've read so far have been good.

I never found the moral argument convincing evidence for a god. Even as a child, you reason about why some behaviours are good and some are bad, and wonder why different gods have different rules.

in The God Delusion. I already bought it but haven't had the chance to touch it yet. I do want to take my time reading it since it seems fascinating.

It'll probably stay on the list if I don't get offline a little more often. ;)

to read list also.
Thanks moggie. :hi:

If it's not literal and you have to interpret it to make it fit the morals that you already have, why not just dump it?

Atheism alone is amoral, it is not a basis for a moral code or guide of what is good or bad or effective or ineffective in achieving good goals.

So an atheist must find a way to build a moral code, that typically involves self-reflection, learning and exploration. All things that promote critical and effective thinking.

As opposed to an externally imposed moral code based on false beliefs without any critical examination or self-examination, which is a common religious model.

Give those two paths I think the atheist path is more likely to result in a good moral code.

Atheism is not a belief system, nor a philosophy. Atheism does not have a code of ethics.

Atheism is simple, please don't make it difficult.

You have to find your own moral ground, your own ethics.

I base mine on the society around me.

Search this forum, I don't want to repeat what many other posters have all ready well-written.

I still like George Smith's "Atheism: The Case Against God."

-Cindy in Fort Lauderdale

I did not mean to say that atheism has a certain code of ethics, what I meant to say is that atheism is can be moral. How am I making it difficult? I am sorry. What did I do wrong?

On edit: I just tried to edit the OP, but the time expired. Sorry for yet another lame excuse for a thread.

with new people. You might get fresh ideas expressed. If we limited ourselves to only new ideas there would be few conversations in the world. We would just sit around and read books. I've enjoyed watching this thread, and have had several books recommended that I have not been aware of.

here. I don't get out much or interact with people.

With respect,

Cindy in Fort Lauderdale

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

On the topic of game theory and altruism..Both systems explain animal behavior and can explain quite nicely how "morals" are evolutionary traits and quite firmly genetically based...basically I think it illustrates that what most religions think of as their teachings of right and wrong are really behaviors that are genetically based and would quite likely emerge without their help!