After having some wacko try to harass my family over my lack of belief, can you honestly be surprised that I'm a bit touchy? And the point stands about how you should have worded your question more carefully. As it was originally written, it very strongly implied that atheists are a special case with respect to morality, and you know it.XPViking wrote:Sigh. The questions that I posed are of a truly inquiring nature, not some hidden agenda to bash anyone. Please drop your paranoia at the door.
No. As I said before, the elements of sympathy for your neighbour and a sense of fairness are the basis of all morality all over the world. They are common to all religions (or lack of religion). The rule of reciprocity, for example, is found in the writings of every world religion from shamanism to Confucius and the Bible.Fair question don't you think to a Taoist, Buddhist, or whatever? Don't you wonder about such things?
Interaction with other human beings in general. Few of my acquaintances are outright atheists. But I think the reason that reciprocity, sympathy, and fairness are universal to all moral schemes (even if they're submerged beneath a lot of crap in some) is that to a certain level, they're almost instinctive. There is an instinctive physiological reaction associated with hearing a baby cry, for example. Similarly, children start complaining about unfairness long before you try to teach the concept of justice to them.So where do you "get" it from? Life experience? Books? Interaction with other atheists? How? I think you, Mr. Wong, are reading in the word here "justify" in place of "get". In my dictionary, "get" is not synonymous with "justify".
As you get older, you try to figure out schemes of justifying the morality you carry around with you. These can be religious (ie- moral parables which become mythologies), philosophical (see objectivism), or pseudo-religious (see humanism). The problems only start when the means become more important than the end or an individual teacher of morality becomes lionized despite human frailty so that his opinions are presumed perfect, eternal, and universally applicable. This is how many religions can get on the wrong track. Many prophets did not see themselves in this way: there is little evidence that Buddha, Confucius, or Jesus intended to found organized religions (most Christian dogma comes from Paul, not Jesus).
So do I. Analogies are an excellent teaching tool. But to me, the underlying message behind the use of analogies is that you must reason your way to conclusion, rather than concocting sets of rules by assuming perfection in a book or a person and then basing an entire scheme of morality on trying to guess what that book or person would say.So some Christians derive their moral code from a certain interpretation of the Bible. I think in this category the Christian Fundametalists go here ... Same as above really, except that here you might find the more moderate Christians. I do think the parables are a great teaching tool.
Individual moral judgements are open to debate, but the underlying basis of morality (sympathy for your neighbour, a sense of fairness) does not change. Think of it as a constitution and a set of laws. The constitution is virtually unassailable (eg- no one can seriously deny that suffering or injustice are bad), and the laws are presumably made to conform to the constitution. But if someone points out that the laws do not conform to the constitution, then the laws can change.I would like to ask some more questions. Once you (here I'm referring to atheists in general) have your moral code, can it change? Is it always changing?
I am accountable to human society, I am accountable to my own conscience, and I am accountable to my children, for whom I must set an example.As well, are you accountable to anyone?
The law of the land is not necessarily moral. The "highest form" of moral code is that which is most successful, ie- actually reduces suffering and injustice (again, presuming that you agree suffering and injustice are bad).What I'm trying to say here is that if you break your moral code in some way, do you submit yourself to the law of the land? Is that the highest form of "moral code" that there is? What do you do if there is a conflict between your moral code and the law of the land?
In engineering terms, a theory is judged by its observed effectiveness, not by a bunch of philosophers arguing about its merits or by a bunch of priests telling you what to believe. The level of suffering, injustice, and general poverty which results from Islamic fundamentalist law, for example, strongly suggests that it is not an effective moral code. The same goes for the Christian fundamentalist intolerance of the Dark Ages. All forms of bigotry similarly create divisions and foster enmity, and are clearly immoral. Can you see where I'm going here? Observed effectiveness is the judge, not a bunch of philosophers or priests.
That depends on what you mean by "override". If you meant that I think I can force someone else to live by every aspect of my moral code, I would say no. The use of force must be reserved for preventing those violations of morality which actually harm others, rather than enforcing conformity (otherwise, it is counterproductive; the intolerance inherent in such coercion would create enmity and suffering, which would defeat the purpose).Can one atheist feel that his moral code can override anothers? I would hazard to guess that the answer for the last question is no.
. If you meant the second, then absolutely not. I have no right to tell someone what to believe.
).
