where progressives network
The Ethics of the Atheist
This is an immensely difficult area - ignore any who advocate answers with ease in this area. In this article, I begin by defining my terms, noting how ethics has rested on God, then I promote the view that ethics fundamentally shifts in character without God. From there I make an attempt to examine exactly how it has shifted - this is the difficulty. I arrive at the conclusion that atheists can have ethics by accepting lesser authority than God - whether that is one's government, one's parent or one's self. Should they, though?
Atheism is not a movement; it is not a binding oath, a world view or a even a position to adopt. It is merely the absence of belief in a higher being. An atheist need not agree with philosophically uneducated, non-reflective, gormless, arrogant idiots like Dawkins and Hitchens who spout on endlessly about how religions are such a great evil, while propagating a religion-style Atheism themselves, whereby you are presented with doctrine and commandments by which to live.
Atheism is an empty term, applicable to those who refrain from belief in God, but in no way defining them in their everyday activities or views.
Ethics, however, seems to require an authority or guaranteer. In Abrahamic traditions, God enforces the consequences of our moral decisions in an afterlife or a 'world to come' - God keeps score of our works and weighs whether we deserve hell or heaven or to be favoured or damned by virtue of them. With no God and probably no afterlife, should the atheist pay attention to the score? Is ethics obsolete without an enforcer? This is the essence of this debate.
Humanism arose as an early remedy for this problem. The philosophy of Ludwig Feuerbach and the writings of George Eliot together formed the humanism of the 19th century. In their view, though God was a creation of man, a projection of those things we honour and cherish most highly, adhering to Christian ethics was peremptory as they are singularly valuable to human progress.
This sort of thinking drew the scorn of Nietzsche, dismissing Eliot for a lack of consistency. Without God, the whole way we view good and evil should transform. Simply sticking to the same ethics without God is like football players sticking to the same rules with no referee. Without the referee there is no one to call foul, no one to award a score or to judge the players. The game ceases to have its rules without its referee and the aims of its players become unclear - but everything is still at stake.
Humanism is an absurdity; it requires a suspension of one's disbelief and offers nothing in compensation for adherence. Should we continue to dance long after the music stops?
For an atheist to hold and maintain an ethical framework they must infuse it with their own vigour - instill a meaning for themselves. I would say it should not be one provided for them by authority, as that is just another religion, another god, though on the other hand, an atheist need not trouble themselves with this: They are afloat in an absurd existence and if they decide to follow some code as spoon-fed by media tycoon or faux beatnik then that is their decision.
Atheism can lay bear the absurdity of ethics. Atheists still may adhere to ethical systems, not for the purposes of eternal life to please some transcendant being, but for reasons arrived at by the individual, or accepted from authority (there are those who spout Dawkins verbatum, after all). In essence, for very much the same reasons that theists profess to follow ethical systems - either because of individual meditation or acceptance of the testimony of authority.
"Meet the new boss/Same as the old boss" (Pete Townsend, Won't Get fooled Again)
But Atheism is not a group; it is not a section of society; it is not a network or a creed. Some may try to tell you that it is a progressive movement - but progress is a false idol whose worshippers are blind to their own fanaticism. The ethics of atheists are, in the main, no different to the god-fearing. The possibilities for atheistic ethics are limited to ground already covered by religion. Atheism cannot create ex nihilo, cannot present a different kind of human interaction. Only a creed can do that; only a God can do that.- or a madman.
Atheism is not a movement; it is not a binding oath, a world view or a even a position to adopt. It is merely the absence of belief in a higher being. An atheist need not agree with philosophically uneducated, non-reflective, gormless, arrogant idiots like Dawkins and Hitchens who spout on endlessly about how religions are such a great evil, while propagating a religion-style Atheism themselves, whereby you are presented with doctrine and commandments by which to live.
Atheism is an empty term, applicable to those who refrain from belief in God, but in no way defining them in their everyday activities or views.
Ethics, however, seems to require an authority or guaranteer. In Abrahamic traditions, God enforces the consequences of our moral decisions in an afterlife or a 'world to come' - God keeps score of our works and weighs whether we deserve hell or heaven or to be favoured or damned by virtue of them. With no God and probably no afterlife, should the atheist pay attention to the score? Is ethics obsolete without an enforcer? This is the essence of this debate.
Humanism arose as an early remedy for this problem. The philosophy of Ludwig Feuerbach and the writings of George Eliot together formed the humanism of the 19th century. In their view, though God was a creation of man, a projection of those things we honour and cherish most highly, adhering to Christian ethics was peremptory as they are singularly valuable to human progress.
This sort of thinking drew the scorn of Nietzsche, dismissing Eliot for a lack of consistency. Without God, the whole way we view good and evil should transform. Simply sticking to the same ethics without God is like football players sticking to the same rules with no referee. Without the referee there is no one to call foul, no one to award a score or to judge the players. The game ceases to have its rules without its referee and the aims of its players become unclear - but everything is still at stake.
Humanism is an absurdity; it requires a suspension of one's disbelief and offers nothing in compensation for adherence. Should we continue to dance long after the music stops?
For an atheist to hold and maintain an ethical framework they must infuse it with their own vigour - instill a meaning for themselves. I would say it should not be one provided for them by authority, as that is just another religion, another god, though on the other hand, an atheist need not trouble themselves with this: They are afloat in an absurd existence and if they decide to follow some code as spoon-fed by media tycoon or faux beatnik then that is their decision.
Atheism can lay bear the absurdity of ethics. Atheists still may adhere to ethical systems, not for the purposes of eternal life to please some transcendant being, but for reasons arrived at by the individual, or accepted from authority (there are those who spout Dawkins verbatum, after all). In essence, for very much the same reasons that theists profess to follow ethical systems - either because of individual meditation or acceptance of the testimony of authority.
"Meet the new boss/Same as the old boss" (Pete Townsend, Won't Get fooled Again)
But Atheism is not a group; it is not a section of society; it is not a network or a creed. Some may try to tell you that it is a progressive movement - but progress is a false idol whose worshippers are blind to their own fanaticism. The ethics of atheists are, in the main, no different to the god-fearing. The possibilities for atheistic ethics are limited to ground already covered by religion. Atheism cannot create ex nihilo, cannot present a different kind of human interaction. Only a creed can do that; only a God can do that.- or a madman.
About
Badge
© 2009 Created by Davis Fleetwood on Ning. Create a Ning Network!
