Have You Abandoned Faith but Kept Christian Morality?
In the past two decades, the rejection of religion has been on the rise. Atheists now account for 15% of our country.
As our country becomes more rational and scientific, more and more people find faith lacking. Gone are the days when superstition ruled men's minds unchallenged. We demand evidence before we will believe in things.
As a result, atheism is becoming more common. It's still a minority, but even those who still profess faith don't cling to it as fervently as they did in yesteryear.
In the dark and medieval ages, religion not only dominated men's thoughts and beliefs, but it also controlled kings and nations. At first, "free thinkers" were able to flee to a few countries to escape persecution. Over time these radicals began to influence thought, philosophy, science, and culture. In large part the enlightenment of the Renaissance flourished as society stopped looking to faith to answer every question.
The culmination of this philosophical shift came when the US constitution was written. It explicitly dethroned religion and said that congress could "make no laws respecting an establishment of religion". The overwhelming majority of the country was still religious, but the founders nonetheless saw the brutality that state sponsored religion could bring.
Since then, people have tended to take their faith less seriously, or reject it altogether. This rejection raises several questions for the new atheist. He realizes faith makes no rational sense, but still holds on to the moral indoctrination of his childhood unquestioningly. Man needs a philosophy, an ethical framework for life. No matter how distasteful it may be, religion does provide such a framework.
One of the most basic questions that new atheists should ask themselves is: what principles guide me? Atheism by itself is just a rejection of theism, it isn't a world view or a morality. In order to function at any level, the new atheist must have some way to tell what is right, and what is wrong.
Finding the right answer to this question is quite a challenging process, and many atheists try to cheat by keeping their old morality even though they reject the basis for it. Despite their new found ardor for reason and logic, many atheists forget to ask if Christian morality actually makes sense.
At its heart Christian morality is about Altruism. In philosophic terms, this means a duty to serve others at the expense of self. For example, Jesus said it was easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven. He praises the widow who gave all that she had, the money she needed to live, as the holiest of the donors to the church.
However, the only reason the Bible gives to justify this morality is a commandment from God. Absent that commandment from god, does it still make sense? Does this altruism make your life, or anyone's life better?
Of course not. We can look at numerous countries and government programs that have this view of morality at their base. All of the communists countries with their bloody histories stem from a secular attempt to implement altruism.
The entitlement programs that came with The New Deal that have brought America to the edge of bankruptcy are based on the same ideal. We have ample history to show that such ideals do not work, and cannot work.
We have seen generations of people kept mired in poverty and dependence thanks to our "War on Poverty" Have these programs actually helped? How many more years of failure do we need to see before we admit this is the wrong approach?
Yet many people, even atheists, continue to push for them because they are convinced that altruism is the right thing to do even if it is impractical.
But why should atheists view altruism as the moral ideal? What scientific or theoretical evidence do you have to support it? Have you really examined the subject thoughtfully, or have you unintentionally kept Christian morality even after you rejected god?
There is a rational alternative. An alternative that actually improves human life on Earth. That alternative is rational self-interest. Selfishness. A word that is a smear to some and a badge of honor to others. Acting in rational self interest is the only morality that makes sense in the absence of a god to command you.
Selfishness does NOT mean sacrificing others for the sake of yourself. Bloodthirsty dictators, thieves, and scam artists like Bernie Madoff rarely have long and happy lives. The people who do have long and happy lives are those that work for their own happiness without stealing from others.
This must be a long range calculation. Robbing a bank may seem to improve your life in the short run, but in the long run the decades in prison are a decided negative. Likewise, unrestrained hedonism may feel good in the short run, but it will not improve your life in the long run. This is why your morality must be rational selfishness. The phrase is redundant because irrational selfishness is not in your self-interest, and thus isn't selfish at all.
Imagine two extreme cases. In one everyone takes altruism seriously. They view the lives of others, all others, to be the highest priority in their lives. Everyone donates everything they make to charity, and whenever a charity tries to help him, he gives it to someone even more needy. That needy person donates it to charity since he views the lives of others as more important than his own. It's easy to see that in this world, no one even has enough food to eat. When people don't work for their own happiness, they don't get it.
Now, imagine a world where everyone is selfish. Each man wants to have the best life he can. He wants that in the long run, not just tomorrow. This would motivate everyone to be as productive and industrious as they could. They would go to school to learn valuable skills, they would invest and save for retirement. They wouldn't violate the rights of anyone else, because they know it can only harm their own life in the long run. Such a world would ensure that everyone is working to maximize their own happiness. The overwhelming majority of them would get it too.
If life on this Earth is all we have, then improving and enjoying our own lives can be our only moral purpose. Without a supernatural god keeping score, man must judge actions as good or evil by how they help him and the people he cares about. Actions must be evaluated on their actual impact. Good intentions do not suffice.
There is no rational basis for altruism, and atheists should reject it. You abandoned god, don't keep his moral commandments.
Comments
Yeah... Christian morality. Why do you think modern Christians do not take those parts of their "moral" religion seriously? Because anybody with a brain and sense of ethics/morals knows that it is ridiculous.
Just because you don't like Objectivism doesn't make it a faith.
The dark ages were indeed a low point in the history of western civilization. What evidence do you have to argue otherwise?
If you don't understand the connection of Altruism to the Soviet Union, perhaps you don't understand the definition of Altruism. Altruism means: having a moral duty to sacrifice the self for the benefit of others. That's not my definition, that is Comte's, and he invented the word.
It should be easy to understand how I link Comte's "moral duty" to Marx's "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"
As for abolition of slavery, I don't see how that is automatically altruistic. Where all the abolitionists determined to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the slaves? Or did they prefer a world that respected all people's individual rights and act to get it?
I'm not arguing that Altruism is an exclusively Christian concept. It clearly predates Christianity altogether. However, it is overwhelmingly the biggest source of our country.
When I open the paper, I am bombarded by calls to sacrifice for the benefit of others. Politicians from both sides of the aisle have a plainly altruistic code of morality. That is the basis of the welfare state, which is supported by nearly every politician in Washington.
"Hetman, Faith means: believing in an idea or system of beliefs with no evidence to support them. Or even belief despite evidence to the contrary. Just because you don't like Objectivism doesn't make it a faith."
It takes faith to believe that Rand was an erudite rather than the lump of festering insanity she actually was.
'The dark ages were indeed a low point in the history of western civilization. What evidence do you have to argue otherwise?"
*Democracy wouldn't exist without medieval culture.
http://books.google.com/books?id=7zN4crdeEWoC&pg=PA131&dq=norman+davies+athens+democracy+diets&hl=en&ei=7LaWTZr8IZO6sQOWyaW8BQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
*Modern medicine wouldn't exist without the innovations of the Byzantine empire.
Just a few points, read the article I wrote below.
http://livinghistory.ie/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1676
"If you don't understand the connection of Altruism to the Soviet Union, perhaps you don't understand the definition of Altruism."
Marx and Engels were not altruists they believed in 'counterrevoluti onary' nations that should be exterminated, Stalin was not an altruist neither was Trotsky (an advocate of slavery). Communism was not altruistic; it was anti-individualistic .
"As for abolition of slavery, I don't see how that is automatically altruistic. Where all the abolitionists determined to sacrifice themselves for the benefit of the slaves? Or did they prefer a world that respected all people's individual rights and act to get it?"
You are being to literal about altruism; abolitionists saw themselves as having a duty to their species to end slavery and in some cases they were willing to risk their lives.
"I'm not arguing that Altruism is an exclusively Christian concept."
Then why refer to it as "Christian morality"?
"When I open the paper, I am bombarded by calls to sacrifice for the benefit of others. Politicians from both sides of the aisle have a plainly altruistic code of morality. That is the basis of the welfare state, which is supported by nearly every politician in Washington."
If you think politicians are altruists you need to watch Cspan more, it would be more accurate to say that they use guilt tactics.
Altruism and selfishness both have a place in life. People are always looking for a philosopher's stone to avoid having to think too much about their actions, but in reality, you always have to think about the best balance between opposing viewpoints.
RSS feed for comments to this post