Chatological Humor
:
Begging the atheist question
Getting Even with Dad dvd
: I think you were a little hard on the person who asked last week why atheists don’t act completely selfishly all the time. I would venture — dare I say — that you begged the question.
Your answer was basically “I am moral because I have a moral compass.” That is at best an answer to a simple, uninteresting question (“Do atheists have a moral compass”) and at worst begging the interesting question “In the absence of deity, on what do you base your moral compass?”
Boiling it down further, the question really is “Given that you have a moral compass, what is its pole?” For example, I can answer the same question by saying I follow the teachings of Jesus, because I believe he was God. You could disagree or think I’m stupid, but it’s an answer.
The interesting philosophical question is what is moral? Or how do you define moral, absent an outside standard of conduct?
So — asking in all friendliness and not being bitter or anything else (hard to convey in a chat) — As an atheist, where does your standard of morality come from?
Gene Weingarten Bad Company ipod White Nights divx : As an atheist, and a human, I believe that one should strive not to hurt people, I should try to conduct myself in a way that contributes in some way, even a small way, to the public good. That I should keep my promises and carry out my responsibilities, particularly to my family, whom I have a strong obligation to. I brought my children into the world and I have an obligation to help them navigate it as best as I can.
I believe, in most cases, it is clear what is the right thing to do, and what is the wrong thing to do, and I try to stay on the right side as often as I can.
I don’t think ethics and morals are all that difficult, in general.
Gene Weingarten
: Oh, and I should add one thing. Being an atheist does not mean rejecting religious teachings. I find much to admire in the Bible. The lessons taught by Jesus contain remarkable wisdom. Darwin, too. And Gandhi. And Kierkegaard. And Clarence Darrow. And Adlai Stevenson. Shakespeare: An amazing humanist. You know? There is a lot of value out there. Much of it is religious, and much of it is not.
I’ve had this discussion with a few people before, so I thought I’d post this up. I really like Weingarten’s explanation: “I believe, in most cases, it is clear what is the right thing to do, and what is the wrong thing to do, and I try to stay on the right side as often as I can.”
There are a number of devisive arguments this country has come up with that do seem to blur that definitive line of morality, but I think what it all really boils down to is the golden rule: Treat others as you would want to be treated. I think a lot of the people trying to take away or prevent others from having certain rights in order to “protect” their own are choosing not to put themselves in someone else’s position and consider how they would want to be treated.
So how’s that for morality?
