Ori, 2+2=4 is not a moral decision. I think even an atheist would agree that his/her own moral decisions aren’t binding on anyone else. In other words everything is relative. And that’s exactly the problem.

Ori: No. This is like an Atheist who comes to the conclusion that 2+2=4. S/he is right. If anybody comes to a different conclusion, then that person is wrong. Rationalism means that morality can be deduced rationally, not that any conclusion is moral.

My problem with Atheism, and the reason I ditched it once I figured (or was shown) the philosophical problem of car seats, is that Atheism does not allow for free will.

Let me just say I admire your patience as you view comment after comment that may say interesting things, but bear only faint relation to your post. It would be helpful if commentors would take the time to read your post, well, including your subsequent comments.

Research in linguists has demonstrated that the hearer or reader’s linguistic and personal bias, which is structured as a mental script or schema, may color what they hear/read accordingly, resulting in an altered version of the original communication.

So it’s not you, and it’s not your readers, it’s a linguistic reality.

I believe that your article is misplaced in time. There was a time when atheists were trying to push their ideas by proclaiming that a country not tainted by religious fervor would be superior ethically. This was debunked by the results of Nazism and refuted with many of your arguments.

Current events, as they are, leave your article hanging and people are hard pressed to place it in the proper perspective. We are now suffering from the evil actions of theists not atheists.

David,

An atheist would counter that the killing of a person for gathering wood on the sabbath, even if done by a court of law, is just as morally depraved as murdering a helpless mentally disabled person, or a Gadol Hador.

Morality depends on what perspective you are comimg from.

I fear you misunderstand my article (don’t feel bad, you’re clearly not alone). I did not (as I noted above, several times) negate the self-consistency of an atheistic philosophy, and fully acknowledge that a truly thoughtful atheist considers those of us who believe in a Creator to be deluded. I have no problem with that. To be sure, I believe him to be the deluded one, but he is entitled to his opinion.

My point – my entire one – was simply that armchair atheists need to follow the logic of that approach to its full conclusion. If indeed we humans are but accidents of evolution, then we do not really have free will (we are, rather, puppets of our needs, desires and evolution-bred delusions of morality and ethics), our senses of right and wrong are just evolutionary baggage and nothing we do is more meaningful in a transcendent sense than the actions of a cat, or an amoeba. If an atheist is truly willing to concede all that (and thereby render terms like “morality” and “ethics” meaningless as well), then he is consistent But if he is not so willing, then he is not consistent. And I believe that the vast majority of self-described “atheists” are indeed unwilling to abandon their deep feeling that there is right and there is wrong – in an ultimately meaningful sense. My essay was intended to get them to think.

Your empathy and the smiles it elicits are, to me as to you, wonderful things. But to Jeffrey Dahmer, killing and eating other people are the equivalent of your empathy, and what bring a smile to his face. To a true proponent of random evolution, none of us can judge him as a lesser person than either of us.

That being said, I would say that “God-based morality as ultimately meaningful” vs. “God-less morality is meaningless” is a false dichotemy. meaning doesn’t have to be “ultimate” to be meaningful.
Even if my actions have only the meaning that I give them, that’s enough for me. If the empathy wired into my system propells me to help another person, and the resulting smile makes the world a slightly brighter place, that’s meaningful to me.

From Wikipedia:
“…Throughout its history, opponents of atheism have frequently associated atheism with immorality and evil, often characterizing it as a willful and malicious repudiation of God or gods. This, in fact, is the original definition and sense of the word, but changing sensibilities and the normalization of non-religious viewpoints have caused the term to lose most of its pejorative connotations in general parlance.”

Rabbi Shafran,

You reject the rationalistic basis for morality.
I reject the theistic basis for morality.

Many people believe as you believe, and many people believe as I do.

So… Which one of us is correct?

Mike: I am using the dictionary definition of atheism, the belief that there is no Higher Authority beyond nature, and that all life is the product of random evolution. And there is indeed no way to square that conviction with the concepts of right and wrong (as transcendent, truly meaningful categories; obviously one can decide to arbitrarily label things “right” and “wrong” by whim). And the question is not whether there can be good, morally-acting atheists, but rather whether, when push comes to shove, an atheist has any reason to put some arbitrary concept of right or good above what will most benefit him personally.

Perhaps a thought experiment can best illustrates my essay’s point (from which things here have far disgressed).

Imagine a crime against another person that one can get away with easily, without the person even knowing he’s been wronged. Example: Reading someone’s diary or otherwise invading his privacy for personal gratification. Or shoplifting from a store that has insurance to cover the loss. A more troubling example: giving a comatose patient a fatal dose of a drug because one is certain that the patient will be better off dead. A more troubling example still: Killing someone whom one hates, someone with no relatives or friends and who seems without any redeeming social value.

A believer in a higher code of right and wrong will have Yir’as Shamayim and at least a fighting chance at overcoming his desire to do the act – born of his conviction that the act is inherently wrong. Someone who believes that we are mere accidents of evolution, while he might also choose to refrain from the act, has no compelling reason to do so.

Caliban Darklock (what a mellifluous name!): The “free market” of ideas does not necessarily yield (and seldom yields) moral truth — any more than the free market in economics yields the valuing of what is truly, inherently valuable (in contrast to what people consider valuable).

Steve Brizel: You are simply, straightly, and concisely correct.

Sarah M.: As I noted in my previous comment, I do not claim that our sense of good and bad cannot be explained by random evolution, and that humans can be seen as mere animals (who, like elephants their trunks and skunks their stink, evolved our perception of right and wrong). There will always be two ways to look at the world: G-d-sourced and meaningful or nature-centered and meaningless.

My point is simply that a true and honest atheist, who takes the second approach, must admit that his definition of good and bad is itself, like everything, devoid of any larger meaning. He thus cannot condemn a rapist-murderer-cannibal (who is just doing his evolutionary “duty” to the species), nor does he have any true reason to not steal his neighbor’s car or wife or credit card if he wants them and can get away with it. He might refrain from doing so, but that restraint calls into question whether he truly believes what he professes to believe.

The question, though, is not what atheists – or believers in G-d – do or don’t do, will or will not do. It is: In what world-view can there be ultimate, beyond-the-here-and-now, meaning to our actions? And the answer is: Only in a world-view in which there is a Higher Authority than ourselves.

Rabbi Shafran, if I understand correctly, points out that atheists or humanists recognize “something unique” about humans, and this deep down, is contradictory to atheism. I agree, however, with you that rationalism can indeed practically and philosophically be a basis not to murder, even if atheists realize some conflict because ultimately, they are merely animals(the extent depending on how exactly they view humanism).

Regarding the point Re: R’ Elchanon in Berlin and fear of G-d as a deterrent, R Shafran quotes parrying of some bloggers that Hitler had religious leanings, and refers to other tyrants instead(I’ve seen secular humanists argue this as well); however, what about secular people? Why couldn’t German philosophers, and secular humanism prevent the Nazis?

Perhaps, the social and political forces of economic depression, nationalism, and imperialism were extremely strong, that mere rationalism couldn’t serve as a deterrent. That is the point, I think of R. Elchanon, as R Shafran also mentioned. Perhaps had the Nazis(and collaborators) been genuinely religious people(not under influence of religious Jew-hatred), the “fear of G-d” could have prevented what rationalism wasn’t able to prevent. Perhaps someone who knows the history of the Third Reich and Weimar government can develop this further(see link below).

http://experts.about.com/e/n/na/nazism.htm

This general argument, which appears frequently, conflates two separate problems.

The first of the 10 Commandments says “I am the Lord your God”
The second is “You shall have no other Gods before me” Both are necessary.

It is not only NO RELIGION which is no good, it is also the WRONG RELIGION which is no good.

I think the Rambam described what kind of religion is no good and must be actively opposed. It is a religion which goes against the 7 Mitzvos B’nai Noach. Of cours a religion which says that God rewards what any normal person would understand as wanton murder is wrong.

As to which is worse, possibly no religion is worse. Because no religion really has no room for the whole concept of morality. A person with the wrong morality at least has some kind of a beginning and also may be led back by logic to something better. And the wrong morality has all sorts of arbitrary restruictions, which gives hope.

As to the general point, theer is a lot of “moral capital” in the world.
Someone in Austria in 1938, I think, observed that Germany was using uop its moral capital (from Nazi principles, for instance, maybe crime shouldn’t be punished, at leats niot in all cases uin which it was - theer should not be any help to the poor, or worker protection laws or what have you. There was a lot of moral capital built into the workings of society and it was only slowly gotten rid of. Some of it, like the geneva Convention for some foreign POWs ouitlasted the entire Nazi regime)

And on an individuallevel there is habit.

A lack of belief in God - or traditional morality - may not cause a person to reject morality - the morlaity that he is already observing. It is in the second and third generation that you get this effect. This is what happened in Germany. Religion (and the impetus toward morality that goes with it) was detached from everyday life. A different set of values governed people. The rot really started in the mid-1800’s but it took till 1914 and especially the 1930’s to take full effect. There was little or no principled opposition to murder in Germany.

>> So why begrudge anyone his will to discard the “excess baggage” of ethical behavior?

This is exactkly what Hitler wanted to do - to remove from the world - and he blamed the Jews for the existence of morality. I think an article in Atlantic two or three years maybe showed that.

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200305/ryback

The Atlantic Monthly | May 2003 Hitler’s Forgotten Library

I think the disagreement atheists are expressing is not so much on the question of whether they have an idea of good and bad, but whether that idea is intended to be objective. It can’t be, so it isn’t. They have no illusions about that. I believe the atheist perspective is directed toward what amounts to a free market economics of morality: just get out of the way and let the market handle it.

I don’t have a problem with this idea, because if you let the market handle it, what emerges is eventually the truth. There is no need to fear the truth unless you are trying to lie.

I believe that what you are saying is that rationalism does not automatically lead one to live a moral life. If this is what you are saying, then I agree with you. There are good people in this world, and then there are the jerks. I believe Shakespeare said that there is nothing either right or wrong, but thinking makes it so. Yes, the people who behave properly as well as the people who do not behave properly both use the thought process to guide their behaviors.

Please understand, David, that the same can be said about religion. Belief in the divine also does not automatically lead one to behave properly. How many people are there in the world today who profess to believe in God, and then use that belief to justify doing terrible things?

There are many good, moral people who are theists, and there are many good, moral people who happen to be atheists. The theists use revelation as their source of morality, while the atheists use reason as their source of morality. Both revelation and reason can be (and is) used to justify what you and I agree to be bad behavior.

Who decides…? People do. You and I. We do not need God for us to make this decision. We do not need God to tell us that the nazis were reprehensible people. God depends on us to make the right decisions. He gave us the tools. Use them.

The answer to your questions, is, in a word, rationalism. Please look up the definition of rationalism in wikipedia. An atheist is capable of being repulsed by naziism by method of using his brain as a guide as to what is right and wrong.

Are you telling me that the only basis a theist has of rejecting crime and naziism is that god told the theist that its wrong? The theist can not be relied upon to arrive at the conclusion by using his brain?

Again, before answering these questions, look up rationalism.

I am Protestant by faith, but we also follow what we call the Old Testament (much like the Jewish Torah), which comprises the vast majority of our Bible. So we, too, value the writings of your faith.

While your comments have been limited to “good” and “evil”, what has been overlooked are other similar categories: “beautiful”, “loving”, etc. In a mechanistic world without any external reality, how can we believe in beauty? or love? They become mere personal preferences, like the preference not to be killed and eaten for lunch. There is no real meaning outside subjectivism.

In this deterministic world, the genius of Mozart becomes random sounds, mere noise. The selfless sacrifice of Mahatma Ghandi or Mother Theresa becomes stupidity. All that is logically left is nihilism, or subjective existentialism, where meaning is created by competing individuals and their self-interests.

Even if G-d cannot be proved, I much prefer to live in a world filled with beauty and love, created by a Creator, than to abandon hope and embrace existential despair. The rewards to my own spirit are much larger, even just in this life.

We “theists” value human life and possessions of others because we see humans as being special creatures, made unique by G-d, different than animals. While we can argue about the details of moral behavior, it is the Source which makes the argument possible. And ultimately, arguing about morals becomes arguing about the character of G-d, for our understanding about G-d’s character will inform our beliefs about right and ethical behavior. While theists can have this argument, and thereby derive some basis for moral rules for living, atheists cannot.

There is nothing inherent in atheism which precludes the possibility that some behaviors are inherently good and others bad. You are making up your own definition of atheism.

If I were an atheist, I would answer that surely my right to protect the old lady’s money is at least as strong as the crook’s right to run off with it. In a universe which simply does not care, much of humanity has found that the best way to maximize happiness is to be moral. A life in which only the strong survive runs up against two problems - that even the strongest eventually weaken, and that the united might of many weak people can be greater than a single strong person. One of the best features of (some) atheisms, in my experience, is that it makes the atheist reluctant to impose their will without a good reason. An atheist may chase after the thief becaue they know one day they too will be old, but they will be unlikely to punish people for what they eat. “I think this is right but I might be wrong’ is a more modest position to hold than ‘The universe and/or its creator endorse what I say as true’.

In this context nothing shuold come first, no religious places,relics or items,which are in a way signs of getting close to Avodah Zara.

After reading Rabbi Shafran’s article ,I would like to emphasize that I ‘d prefer a non believer who cares first about how to get along peacefully with any man than a believer who fulfills every requirement of his religion’s praying ritual.

Rab Nahman of Bratzlav once said:

“worry about the other person’s belly and your own soul and not about the other person’s soul and your own belly”

the faith in the Almighty fills us with humility and obliges us to behave with responsibility G-dly since we are created in his image.

as Simeon the Just in Pirkey Avot wisely put:…be rather like servants who serve their master without the intention of receiving reward…

a good comment and philosophy for believer and non believer who arrived to the awareness of being obliged for the Other.

W

To be as clear as I can: I did not argue that human beings’ sense that some things are right and others wrong proves that Judaism is the true faith, or that our sense is a reliable identifier of all that is good and bad. Nor was I arguing that the sense of good and bad proves the existence of G-d. I was not arguing that atheists are bad people (or even more likely to be bad people than theists) or that theists are necessarily good. I was not arguing that our sense of good and bad cannot be explained by random evolution, or that atheists cannot formulate justifications for ethical systems, or that social contracts are not useful constructs.

I was making a very simple and limited point, and not trying to “prove” anything at all. The point? That true, committed, honest atheists (not agnostics but rather committed deniers of G-d’s existence) cannot claim that some behaviors are inherently good and others bad – and that if they do assert some such judgments, they are contradicting their claimed belief (or, better, disbelief).

It is a point as straightforward as it is unarguable. If we are mere products of random evolution, than any repugnance we feel at, for examples, incest, child-molestation, stealing or murder is meaningless (no, not less meaningful but meaningless). Just as we don’t think to judge non-human animals through a moral lens, no true atheist has any justification to judge fellow humans through one (any one).

If an atheist replies “That is true; so what?” then I have nothing more to say; he or she is carrying his or her belief to its logical conclusion and entirely consistent. But if the atheist squirms and reserves the right to condemn incest (particularly between consenting fathers and daughters or mothers and sons) or thievery (particularly when the particular act is “victimless,” as in the case of shoplifting from an insured store or cheating on income tax) or sexual exploitation (especially of infants, where there aren’t even any psychological scars), then said atheist is, simply put, hypocritical.

To be sure, I certainly mean to challenge those atheists who are not ready to relinquish their abhorrence of things unethical or immoral, to push them to the point of either forcing themselves to abandon their evolution-fueled morality-baggage or (I hope) recognize that there is indeed good and bad and that for such concepts to exist there must be recourse to Something outside of the nature we experience physically. I did not attempt to identify that Something or His will, only to raise the issue of His necessity for any claim that there are inherently good and evil acts.

If an atheist chooses to deny, along with G-d, the idea of inherent good and bad, then I have no argument whatsoever to convince him or her otherwise, and never claimed to have one. Such people are honest, if amoral. I may not want to share a desert island with them, but inconsistency is not one of their sins. Those, though, who want to have their atheism and meaningful morality too are the ones I described as being able only to fume at the challenge. And their angry, insulting reactions, I believe, say it all.

I have much to say about distinctions among believers in G-d, and about Judaism as the authentic faith. But that was not my topic here, and, should I ever endeavor to treat it properly one day, it will have to be in a book-length project, not a short essay.

Again, my thanks to all who shared their thoughts here.