Nietzsche Would Laugh (14)
BarrenPneuma: From Chuck Colson
Morality without God
“One of the biggest obstacles facing what’s called the “New Atheism” is the issue of morality. Writers like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens have to convince people that morals and values are possible in a society that does not believe in God.
It’s important to understand what is not in doubt: whether an individual atheist or agnostic can be a “good” person. Of course they can, just as a professing Christian can do bad things.
The issue is whether the secular worldview can provide a basis for a good society. Can it motivate and inspire people to be virtuous and generous?
Not surprisingly, Richard Dawkins offers a “yes”—grounded in Darwinism. According to him, natural selection has produced a moral sense that is shared by all people. While our genes may be, in his words “selfish,” there are times when co-operation with others is the selfish gene’s best interest. Thus, according to him, natural selection has produced what we call altruism.
Except, of course, that it is not altruism at all: It is, at most, enlightened self-interest. It might explain why “survival of the fittest” is not an endless war of all against all, but it offers no reason as to why someone might give up their lives or even their lifestyle for the benefit of others, especially those whom they do not even know.
Darwinist accounts of human morality bear such little resemblance to the way real people live their lives that the late philosopher David Stove, an atheist himself, called them a “slander against human beings.”
Being unable to account for human altruism is not enough for Sam Harris, author of Letter to a Christian Nation. In a recent debate with Rick Warren, he complained about Christians “contaminating” their altruistic deeds in places like Africa with “religious ideas” like “the divinity of Jesus.” Instead of rejoicing at the alleviation of suffering, he frets over someone hearing the Gospel.
In response, Warren pointed out the inconvenient (for Harris, that is) truth: You won’t find many atheists feeding the hungry and ministering to the sick in places like Africa or Mother Teresa’s Calcutta. It is precisely because people believe in the divinity of Jesus that they are willing to give up their lives (sometimes literally) in service to those whom Jesus calls “His brothers.” And that’s why my colleagues and I spend our lives ministering in prisons.
In contrast, the record of avowedly atheistic regimes is, shall we say, less than inspiring. Atheist regimes like the Soviet Union, Red China, and Cambodia killed tens of millions of people in an effort to establish an atheistic alternative to the City of God. For men like Stalin and Mao, people were expendable precisely because they were not created in the image of a personal God. Instead, they were objects being manipulated by impersonal historical forces.
One atheist understood the moral consequences of his unbelief: That was Nietzsche, who argued that God is dead, but acknowledged that without God there could be no binding and objective moral order.
Of course, the “New Atheists” deny this. Instead, they unconvincingly argue that you can have the benefits of an altruistic, Christian-like morality without God.
Nietzsche would laugh—and wonder why they don’t make atheists like they used to.”
Morality without God
“One of the biggest obstacles facing what’s called the “New Atheism” is the issue of morality. Writers like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens have to convince people that morals and values are possible in a society that does not believe in God.
It’s important to understand what is not in doubt: whether an individual atheist or agnostic can be a “good” person. Of course they can, just as a professing Christian can do bad things.
The issue is whether the secular worldview can provide a basis for a good society. Can it motivate and inspire people to be virtuous and generous?
Not surprisingly, Richard Dawkins offers a “yes”—grounded in Darwinism. According to him, natural selection has produced a moral sense that is shared by all people. While our genes may be, in his words “selfish,” there are times when co-operation with others is the selfish gene’s best interest. Thus, according to him, natural selection has produced what we call altruism.
Except, of course, that it is not altruism at all: It is, at most, enlightened self-interest. It might explain why “survival of the fittest” is not an endless war of all against all, but it offers no reason as to why someone might give up their lives or even their lifestyle for the benefit of others, especially those whom they do not even know.
Darwinist accounts of human morality bear such little resemblance to the way real people live their lives that the late philosopher David Stove, an atheist himself, called them a “slander against human beings.”
Being unable to account for human altruism is not enough for Sam Harris, author of Letter to a Christian Nation. In a recent debate with Rick Warren, he complained about Christians “contaminating” their altruistic deeds in places like Africa with “religious ideas” like “the divinity of Jesus.” Instead of rejoicing at the alleviation of suffering, he frets over someone hearing the Gospel.
In response, Warren pointed out the inconvenient (for Harris, that is) truth: You won’t find many atheists feeding the hungry and ministering to the sick in places like Africa or Mother Teresa’s Calcutta. It is precisely because people believe in the divinity of Jesus that they are willing to give up their lives (sometimes literally) in service to those whom Jesus calls “His brothers.” And that’s why my colleagues and I spend our lives ministering in prisons.
In contrast, the record of avowedly atheistic regimes is, shall we say, less than inspiring. Atheist regimes like the Soviet Union, Red China, and Cambodia killed tens of millions of people in an effort to establish an atheistic alternative to the City of God. For men like Stalin and Mao, people were expendable precisely because they were not created in the image of a personal God. Instead, they were objects being manipulated by impersonal historical forces.
One atheist understood the moral consequences of his unbelief: That was Nietzsche, who argued that God is dead, but acknowledged that without God there could be no binding and objective moral order.
Of course, the “New Atheists” deny this. Instead, they unconvincingly argue that you can have the benefits of an altruistic, Christian-like morality without God.
Nietzsche would laugh—and wonder why they don’t make atheists like they used to.”
I probably shouldn't say it this way, but "damn, that is interesting"!
------ This thread is Archived ------
BarrenPneuma: From Chuck Colson
Morality without God
“One of the biggest obstacles facing what’s called the “New Atheism” is the issue of morality. Writers like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens have to convince people that morals and values are possible in a society that does not believe in God.
It’s important to understand what is not in doubt: whether an individual atheist or agnostic can be a “good” person. Of course they can, just as a professing Christian can do bad things.
The issue is whether the secular worldview can provide a basis for a good society. Can it motivate and inspire people to be virtuous and generous?
Not surprisingly, Richard Dawkins offers a “yes”—grounded in Darwinism. According to him, natural selection has produced a moral sense that is shared by all people. While our genes may be, in his words “selfish,” there are times when co-operation with others is the selfish gene’s best interest. Thus, according to him, natural selection has produced what we call altruism.
Except, of course, that it is not altruism at all: It is, at most, enlightened self-interest. It might explain why “survival of the fittest” is not an endless war of all against all, but it offers no reason as to why someone might give up their lives or even their lifestyle for the benefit of others, especially those whom they do not even know.
Darwinist accounts of human morality bear such little resemblance to the way real people live their lives that the late philosopher David Stove, an atheist himself, called them a “slander against human beings.”
Being unable to account for human altruism is not enough for Sam Harris, author of Letter to a Christian Nation. In a recent debate with Rick Warren, he complained about Christians “contaminating” their altruistic deeds in places like Africa with “religious ideas” like “the divinity of Jesus.” Instead of rejoicing at the alleviation of suffering, he frets over someone hearing the Gospel.
In response, Warren pointed out the inconvenient (for Harris, that is) truth: You won’t find many atheists feeding the hungry and ministering to the sick in places like Africa or Mother Teresa’s Calcutta. It is precisely because people believe in the divinity of Jesus that they are willing to give up their lives (sometimes literally) in service to those whom Jesus calls “His brothers.” And that’s why my colleagues and I spend our lives ministering in prisons.
In contrast, the record of avowedly atheistic regimes is, shall we say, less than inspiring. Atheist regimes like the Soviet Union, Red China, and Cambodia killed tens of millions of people in an effort to establish an atheistic alternative to the City of God. For men like Stalin and Mao, people were expendable precisely because they were not created in the image of a personal God. Instead, they were objects being manipulated by impersonal historical forces.
One atheist understood the moral consequences of his unbelief: That was Nietzsche, who argued that God is dead, but acknowledged that without God there could be no binding and objective moral order.
Of course, the “New Atheists” deny this. Instead, they unconvincingly argue that you can have the benefits of an altruistic, Christian-like morality without God.
Nietzsche would laugh—and wonder why they don’t make atheists like they used to.”
The Noble Soul Has Reverence For It Self!Morality without God
“One of the biggest obstacles facing what’s called the “New Atheism” is the issue of morality. Writers like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens have to convince people that morals and values are possible in a society that does not believe in God.
It’s important to understand what is not in doubt: whether an individual atheist or agnostic can be a “good” person. Of course they can, just as a professing Christian can do bad things.
The issue is whether the secular worldview can provide a basis for a good society. Can it motivate and inspire people to be virtuous and generous?
Not surprisingly, Richard Dawkins offers a “yes”—grounded in Darwinism. According to him, natural selection has produced a moral sense that is shared by all people. While our genes may be, in his words “selfish,” there are times when co-operation with others is the selfish gene’s best interest. Thus, according to him, natural selection has produced what we call altruism.
Except, of course, that it is not altruism at all: It is, at most, enlightened self-interest. It might explain why “survival of the fittest” is not an endless war of all against all, but it offers no reason as to why someone might give up their lives or even their lifestyle for the benefit of others, especially those whom they do not even know.
Darwinist accounts of human morality bear such little resemblance to the way real people live their lives that the late philosopher David Stove, an atheist himself, called them a “slander against human beings.”
Being unable to account for human altruism is not enough for Sam Harris, author of Letter to a Christian Nation. In a recent debate with Rick Warren, he complained about Christians “contaminating” their altruistic deeds in places like Africa with “religious ideas” like “the divinity of Jesus.” Instead of rejoicing at the alleviation of suffering, he frets over someone hearing the Gospel.
In response, Warren pointed out the inconvenient (for Harris, that is) truth: You won’t find many atheists feeding the hungry and ministering to the sick in places like Africa or Mother Teresa’s Calcutta. It is precisely because people believe in the divinity of Jesus that they are willing to give up their lives (sometimes literally) in service to those whom Jesus calls “His brothers.” And that’s why my colleagues and I spend our lives ministering in prisons.
In contrast, the record of avowedly atheistic regimes is, shall we say, less than inspiring. Atheist regimes like the Soviet Union, Red China, and Cambodia killed tens of millions of people in an effort to establish an atheistic alternative to the City of God. For men like Stalin and Mao, people were expendable precisely because they were not created in the image of a personal God. Instead, they were objects being manipulated by impersonal historical forces.
One atheist understood the moral consequences of his unbelief: That was Nietzsche, who argued that God is dead, but acknowledged that without God there could be no binding and objective moral order.
Of course, the “New Atheists” deny this. Instead, they unconvincingly argue that you can have the benefits of an altruistic, Christian-like morality without God.
Nietzsche would laugh—and wonder why they don’t make atheists like they used to.”
Friedrich Nietzsche
------ This thread is Archived ------
------ This thread is Archived ------
Good one Barren!
------ This thread is Archived ------
I had this hypothesis once......... well, maybe just a silly thought.
Global companies need customers to buy their products.
Wars kill customers = bad for business.
Peace is good for business (ok, most business part from the arms industry)...........
Enlightened self interest?
I wouldn't imagine global businesses bothering much with prisoners and other people who were not potential customers though.......... as long as the majority were able to afford their products the minority would be of no concern to them at all.
Global companies need customers to buy their products.
Wars kill customers = bad for business.
Peace is good for business (ok, most business part from the arms industry)...........
Enlightened self interest?
I wouldn't imagine global businesses bothering much with prisoners and other people who were not potential customers though.......... as long as the majority were able to afford their products the minority would be of no concern to them at all.
------ This thread is Archived ------
Wow - that is an amazingly poor discussion of non-theist morality! You'd think the author never actually read any philosophers, since morality has been a hot topic for millenia. Neither Hawkins, Harris, nor Darwin can claim any particular expertise in moral philosophy.
That atheists are not personally ministering to the world's sick as much as religionists hardly demonstrates their absence of morality (their moral principles may simply differ from those of religionists).
That atheists are not personally ministering to the world's sick as much as religionists hardly demonstrates their absence of morality (their moral principles may simply differ from those of religionists).
------ This thread is Archived ------
Ambrose2007: Wow - that is an amazingly poor discussion of non-theist morality! You'd think the author never actually read any philosophers, since morality has been a hot topic for millenia. Neither Hawkins, Harris, nor Darwin can claim any particular expertise in moral philosophy.
That atheists are not personally ministering to the world's sick as much as religionists hardly demonstrates their absence of morality (their moral principles may simply differ from those of religionists).
That atheists are not personally ministering to the world's sick as much as religionists hardly demonstrates their absence of morality (their moral principles may simply differ from those of religionists).
So they're just spewing their hatred then?
------ This thread is Archived ------
Ambrose2007: Wow - that is an amazingly poor discussion of non-theist morality! You'd think the author never actually read any philosophers, since morality has been a hot topic for millenia. Neither Hawkins, Harris, nor Darwin can claim any particular expertise in moral philosophy.
That atheists are not personally ministering to the world's sick as much as religionists hardly demonstrates their absence of morality (their moral principles may simply differ from those of religionists).
That atheists are not personally ministering to the world's sick as much as religionists hardly demonstrates their absence of morality (their moral principles may simply differ from those of religionists).
hello ambrose
------ This thread is Archived ------
The moment I see the name Charles Colson....I know there is no need for me to read it
------ This thread is Archived ------
In response to: Atheist regimes like the Soviet Union, Red China, and Cambodia killed tens of millions of people in an effort to establish an atheistic alternative to the City of God. For men like Stalin and Mao, people were expendable precisely because they were not created in the image of a personal God. Instead, they were objects being manipulated by impersonal historical forces.
Sad but true...
I shouldn't mention this, but Chuck Colson was found guilty of having one FBI file in the White House during the Nixon admin.
I believe he works as a Christian speaker at men's prisons around the country.
------ This thread is Archived ------
What is Morality then?
"Judgment to distinguish Right and Wrong,Vision to see the Truth,Courage to act upon it,Dedication to that which is Good,Integrity to stand by the Good at any price!"
Ayn Rand in "ATLAS SHRUGGED"
And for that you don't need Religion,definitely not the CRAMMED ONE!!!!!!!!
"Judgment to distinguish Right and Wrong,Vision to see the Truth,Courage to act upon it,Dedication to that which is Good,Integrity to stand by the Good at any price!"
Ayn Rand in "ATLAS SHRUGGED"
And for that you don't need Religion,definitely not the CRAMMED ONE!!!!!!!!
------ This thread is Archived ------
mbcasey: Sad but true...
I shouldn't mention this, but Chuck Colson was found guilty of having one FBI file in the White House during the Nixon admin.
I believe he works as a Christian speaker at men's prisons around the country.
I shouldn't mention this, but Chuck Colson was found guilty of having one FBI file in the White House during the Nixon admin.
I believe he works as a Christian speaker at men's prisons around the country.
correct.
------ This thread is Archived ------
The issue herein has little to do with organized religion of any type or organized anti-relgion for that matter. Morality is not affixed upon us without choice. To blankly attribute the evils of any other person, never mind any historical or current group upon any other individual is the crisis faced every day on these forums and in life outside of the digital world.
Blanket assumptions lose definition of the character of the individual and are a cheap and callous means of demeaning people in large groups. Militant declarations of truth universal are bereft of the reason they often shelter in the shade of as they promote hatred and meaningless strife.
Atheists have as much right to their personal beliefs as any organized religion. I do not wish any of them to gain the upper hand in society by any means. The individual beliefs of any person should never be under the scrutiny of others. Morality is internal and its bearing is subjective not objective.
Social morality is the common denominator of what is deemed permissable by the collective and is merely a guideline which encompasses the entirety of the specific ethical virtue of each and every person under its banner. As long as these personal beliefs do not rebuke or remove the freedom of any other individual to believe or act in accordance with their own belief I am fine with that. Of course there must be limitations of some sort as all must follow the banner ideal of allowing their belief to only affect themselves and not be an imposition upon others.
The point of fact is that the leaders or individuals who perpetrate their crimes upon mankind are guilty not the generalized mass that may in some way be seen to shelter under their far-reaching banner.
Responsibility liers with the doer not the children or friends of said doer.
Blanket assumptions lose definition of the character of the individual and are a cheap and callous means of demeaning people in large groups. Militant declarations of truth universal are bereft of the reason they often shelter in the shade of as they promote hatred and meaningless strife.
Atheists have as much right to their personal beliefs as any organized religion. I do not wish any of them to gain the upper hand in society by any means. The individual beliefs of any person should never be under the scrutiny of others. Morality is internal and its bearing is subjective not objective.
Social morality is the common denominator of what is deemed permissable by the collective and is merely a guideline which encompasses the entirety of the specific ethical virtue of each and every person under its banner. As long as these personal beliefs do not rebuke or remove the freedom of any other individual to believe or act in accordance with their own belief I am fine with that. Of course there must be limitations of some sort as all must follow the banner ideal of allowing their belief to only affect themselves and not be an imposition upon others.
The point of fact is that the leaders or individuals who perpetrate their crimes upon mankind are guilty not the generalized mass that may in some way be seen to shelter under their far-reaching banner.
Responsibility liers with the doer not the children or friends of said doer.
------ This thread is Archived ------
This Thread is Archived
This Thread is archived, so you will no longer be able to post to it. Threads get archived automatically when they are older than 3 months.
« Go back to All Threads
« Go back to All Threads
More Threads
Ladies
the way you look
Kultur-multur
The weird and the random facts around the world
wanting beyond need
men's perspective towards women
Are the ads on here as phony as some of the profiles?
Democrats destroyed America
Why is this shameful?
beauty of the heart
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).
Stats for this Thread
543 Views
13 Comments
Created: Nov 2008
Last Viewed: Apr 5
Last Commented: Nov 2008
0 Likes
Morality without God
“One of the biggest obstacles facing what’s called the “New Atheism” is the issue of morality. Writers like Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens have to convince people that morals and values are possible in a society that does not believe in God.
It’s important to understand what is not in doubt: whether an individual atheist or agnostic can be a “good” person. Of course they can, just as a professing Christian can do bad things.
The issue is whether the secular worldview can provide a basis for a good society. Can it motivate and inspire people to be virtuous and generous?
Not surprisingly, Richard Dawkins offers a “yes”—grounded in Darwinism. According to him, natural selection has produced a moral sense that is shared by all people. While our genes may be, in his words “selfish,” there are times when co-operation with others is the selfish gene’s best interest. Thus, according to him, natural selection has produced what we call altruism.
Except, of course, that it is not altruism at all: It is, at most, enlightened self-interest. It might explain why “survival of the fittest” is not an endless war of all against all, but it offers no reason as to why someone might give up their lives or even their lifestyle for the benefit of others, especially those whom they do not even know.
Darwinist accounts of human morality bear such little resemblance to the way real people live their lives that the late philosopher David Stove, an atheist himself, called them a “slander against human beings.”
Being unable to account for human altruism is not enough for Sam Harris, author of Letter to a Christian Nation. In a recent debate with Rick Warren, he complained about Christians “contaminating” their altruistic deeds in places like Africa with “religious ideas” like “the divinity of Jesus.” Instead of rejoicing at the alleviation of suffering, he frets over someone hearing the Gospel.
In response, Warren pointed out the inconvenient (for Harris, that is) truth: You won’t find many atheists feeding the hungry and ministering to the sick in places like Africa or Mother Teresa’s Calcutta. It is precisely because people believe in the divinity of Jesus that they are willing to give up their lives (sometimes literally) in service to those whom Jesus calls “His brothers.” And that’s why my colleagues and I spend our lives ministering in prisons.
In contrast, the record of avowedly atheistic regimes is, shall we say, less than inspiring. Atheist regimes like the Soviet Union, Red China, and Cambodia killed tens of millions of people in an effort to establish an atheistic alternative to the City of God. For men like Stalin and Mao, people were expendable precisely because they were not created in the image of a personal God. Instead, they were objects being manipulated by impersonal historical forces.
One atheist understood the moral consequences of his unbelief: That was Nietzsche, who argued that God is dead, but acknowledged that without God there could be no binding and objective moral order.
Of course, the “New Atheists” deny this. Instead, they unconvincingly argue that you can have the benefits of an altruistic, Christian-like morality without God.
Nietzsche would laugh—and wonder why they don’t make atheists like they used to.”