[PW] Athiests and Morality

[burchell at telusplanet.net]

Hi!
Look up the word: "eudaemonics."  A moral imperative as demanding as any
religion could wish, but without the guilt! When you consider all the wars
that have been fought over religious differences and add up the deaths,
dismemberments and the long term agonies suffered by the families who have
lost loved ones, religion doesn't have a moral leg to stand on!
When you ascribe morality to religion you assume that you will be rewarded
by the "good" things that you do, and seek to avoid punishment by not doing
"bad things." I would encourage you to read "The God Delusion" by Richard
Dawkins for a fresh perspective. Judging by the absolutist tone of your
e-mail, I doubt that you will read anything that contradicts your point
of view, but one can hope!
Cheers!
Jiom 
Quoting "Hadden, Robert L ERDC-TEC-VA" <Robert.L.Hadden at usace.army.mil>:

> 
> 	The defense of religion is older than the 19th century. This was an
> important point in 17th and 18th century Europe, especially after the French
> Revolution and the excesses of the Terror. Since many of the revolutionaries
> proclaimed themselves atheist, many non-Frenchmen placed the horrors of the
> revolution on their lack of Christian morality.
> 	Morality as a shared system of ethics comes from divine authority.
> Absent this authority, there is no common voice to say what people can and
> can't do. If there is no divine authority of good, there is no divine
> authority of evil. Thus, why not raise children as a food source? After all,
> if God says to save the children, then if there is no God, who is to say
> that
> devouring your children during time of famine is wrong instead of rational
> and clever? Or destroying today's natural resources for temporary personal
> gain, which will beggar the next generation? And if you don't believe in
> divine law and retribution, you cannot be judged in this matter, especially
> by other atheists who don't share a common belief with you.
> 	Richard Bentley (1662-1742), neatly states the view that many
> atheists hold concerning the relationship between religion and morality:
> "And
> if Atheism should be supposed to become universal in this nation... farewell
> all ties of friendship and principles of honor; all love for our country and
> loyalty to our prince; nay, farewell all government and society itself, all
> professions and arts, and conveniences of life, all that is laudable or
> valuable in the world." [Bentley, Folly of Atheism, in Works, III, 25] 
> 	The general view defended by Bentley, and many other apologists for
> religion, is that without religious principles and institutions to guide and
> motivate us, the moral world will collapse into nihilism, egoism and the
> arbitrary rule of power. This view of things was further confirmed, as
> Hume's
> near contemporaries saw it, by the philosophy of Hobbes. See:
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume-religion/#9	
> 	Many atheists share a common morality, but it isn't universal.
> However, there is no agreed principle of morality among atheists like there
> is among Christians or Jews or Hindus, etc. If all is rational, then only
> rational morality is valid. There is breakdown between common good and
> individual ethics. 
> 
> Lee
> 
> R. Lee Hadden
> Geospatial Information Library (GIL)
> Topographic Engineering Center
> ATTN: CEERD-TO-I (Hadden)
> 7701 Telegraph Road
> Alexandria, VA 22315-3864
> (703) 428-9206
> Robert.L.Hadden at usace.army.mil
> 
> See some of my writings, both online and on paper, at my author page at:
> http://www.librarything.com/author/haddenrobertlee
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 
> Message: 4
> Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:53:26 -0500
> From: Paul Zimmerman <pzimmer at wcnet.org>
> Subject: [PW] Atheist (im)morality
> To: list at project-wombat.org
> Message-ID: <47B1F936.5000907 at wcnet.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> 
> The common belief among many of the "faithful" that atheists are 
> necessarily immoral people is fairly well known. That this is not 
> necessarily so is also well known to anyone who thinks. But all 
> stereotypes or folk beliefs have an origin. In this case it was probably 
> the rebellion against the sanctimonious hyper-morality of the Victorian 
> era. I seem to recall but cannot locate a specific example. A prominent 
> 19th century person, author, scientist, philosopher (one of the 
> Utilitarians, perhaps?), I'm not sure, who said specifically "Morality 
> is bunk" -- not meaning that he had the right to lie, steal, or whatever 
> he pleased, but simply that Pecksniffian decorum was over the top. It 
> might have been that he wanted to be able to get a divorce, which was 
> definitely an outrageous thing in the 19th century.
> 
> Now, this phrase has had a recent revival. I am _not_ looking for the 
> modern repeater(s) of this phrase, but the original, which I am fairly 
> certain is in the mid-19th century.
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Project Wombat
> list at project-wombat.org
> http://www.project-wombat.org/
>