I am treated as evil by people who claim that they are being oppressed
because they are not allowed to force me to practice what they do.” ~D. Dale Gulledge



Ignorance is our natural state: we were born that way. We learn what we know as we grow up and gradually replace ignorance with understanding (though not completely). Ignorance isn't inherently good or bad, right or wrong. It just is. However, willful ignorance is another matter entirely.

Whether Christian or Muslim, we've all had our fair share of experiences with true believers and have come to understand what William G. McAdoo meant when he said, “It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.” They are oblivious to reason and anointed in denial. Many (most?) Christians and Muslims, when faced with irrefutable evidence or an iron-clad argument, will almost never admit they are wrong. Instead, like the Catholic Church, they back-pedal and modify their arguments to mitigate the damage of evidence and logic. In other words, they selectively cultivate willful ignorance. Why is that?

Revealed religions claim to have a superior and objective moral system or standard because it is handed down by God via divinely inspired scripture. They are right when they claim that, without a supernatural entity to dictate behavior, there can be no objective morality. An omniscient God is the only possible source of objective morality because there is none to be found in nature. Nature has only a prime directive: survive. So, because we (atheists) believe God does not exist, most of us also believe morality can only be subjective.

One doesn't need to be religious to believe in an objective morality: I've even seen so-called atheists tout various ethical systems as objective moral standards -- Utilitarianism, survival-based cooperation, the avoidance of unnecessary pain or suffering, etc. Even Sam Harris believes in an objective moral standard with his "science can answer moral questions" thesis. But, of course, these are not objective moral standards at all . . . Who decides what serves the greater good? In what context are we to make survival-based decisions? Why do you claim something is unnecessary? Who collates and interprets the data? . . . Value judgments are at the heart of any moral or ethical system and they are, by definition, subjective. Pay attention to what these people say and you're likely to see that they are didactic pedagogues attempting to force their pedantic dogma down your throat. Whether or not such a person is aware of it -- or just good at disguising it -- he or she harbors at least a little holier-than-thou (or more zen-than-thou) smugness.

Morality is subjective. Collectively, much of morality is determined by social norms. Majority opinions form socio-cultural norms that vary from place to place and over time and are often codified into law. Morality isn't exactly dynamic but it does evolve as the human condition evolves. Even if an objective morality did exist, it could not evolve with us: it would be independent of us and unchanging in the same way scriptural morality is "written in stone". When people imbue their personal ethics (religious or not) with certainty, they are, in effect, objectifying it: turning it into a quasi-objective morality. That's the hubris called Playing God. Certainty is an illusion: especially where morality is concerned. Scientists and philosophers agree that certitude is a sure sign of trouble.

Oh . . . and about the so-called "superior and objective" morality of religion? Even if there is a personal God, EVERYBODY overrides his moral dictates (as contained in scripture). We reject slavery and the subjugation of women no matter what God tells us. WE decide what is morally worthy: WE decide what is religious. Even if there is a God of Abraham, we don't need him for moral guidance . . . so why do we need him at all?

It's easy to understand the allure of an objective moral system. It offers a simple way to resolve complex issues. And it makes it easy to judge others with the comfortable self-righteousness of certainty. But we pay a price when others morally cop-out. Conflict. These people tend to relinquish critical thinking and to indulge in judgmentalism -- a potent combination that leads to, and reinforces, fundamentalism. And when they feel the backlash of our objections, they perceive it as persecution. It's the perfect recipe for simple-mindedness and denial -- and unnecessary conflict. If you doubt that, turn on CNN and within half an hour you'll see confirmation of this unnecessary conflict.

That's what religious thinking does. And the main mechanism for that is the false belief in an objective morality. But it's not just religious thinking: it's any kind of dogmatic zealotry based on certainty of one's personal moral system. Vegetarian/vegan zealots and pro-life fanatics leap to mind as do other extreme left or right political wingnuts. Be wary of the certainty of moral absolutists: it indicates totalitarians in sheep's clothing.


© Copyright 2012 AtheistExile.com
eMail: AtheistExile@AtheistExile.com


Views: 242


You need to be a member of Atheist Nexus to add comments!

Join Atheist Nexus

Comment by Atheist Exile on April 16, 2012 at 5:02am

I just made some major revisions to this post and changed the title. I decided that, although I knew what I was saying, I hadn't properly fleshed out my thoughts for general consumption. So I revised it to be more readable and connect ideas together more coherently. I hope you find this version makes more sense and is easier to read.

Comment by Atheist Exile on April 14, 2012 at 3:49am

Just edited OP a little.

Comment by Loren Miller on April 13, 2012 at 9:54am

Indeed, ANYONE can be an absolutist, treating any violation as a capital crime, requiring the same penalty in all cases.  About all it requires is a sense of self-rectitude and a disinterest in anything other than those standards as inviolable referents.  Admiral Satie displayed those very qualities in the TNG episode, "The Drumhead," and all she needed to attempt to institute them was the authority granted to her by Starfleet.  Her mistake, of course, was to carry those standards to an absurd extreme in the presence of her fellows, one of which was of sufficient rank to counterbalance her actions.

Granted, I'm referring to a fiction above, but the very fact that the idea of drumhead trials even exists points to the reality of dismissive, absolute justice or morality.  Where that absolute standard sources from may not be the point.  That it is absolute, inflexible, and unconcerned with nuance or detail IS.

Comment by Atheist Exile on April 13, 2012 at 9:00am

Well put, Loren.

I'd like to point out something I omitted: one doesn't have to be religious to subscribe to a moral system perceived as objective. I've even seen atheists do it.

Comment by Loren Miller on April 13, 2012 at 6:54am

Whenever someone wants to tell me that there can be one absolute and universal standard for morality, I'm reminded of a line from Star Trek: The Next Generation:

When has justice ever been as simple as a rule book?
-- Cmdr. William T. Riker

Justice which fails to consider the situation and the participants is the brand of drum-head justice Captain Picard would later deal with in another episode of TNG, and it is no better than that meted out by the bible. It is rubber-stamp justice, requiring no deliberation regarding circumstances and No Thought. This is a continuing theme of the bible, indeed of many religions: Don't Think - I will provide your thoughts for you.

I can think of no more pernicious or dangerous cultural tenet than that.



Update Your Membership :



Nexus on Social Media:

© 2020   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: The Nexus Group.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service