Tuesday, March 6, 2007 | Reason : Backlash | print version

Why there are almost no genuine atheists

by Paul C. Campos

Reposted from:
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/nationalcolumns/article_1596785.php

Thanks to Barbara B. for sending this our way!

One of my best friends grew up in the Mormon Church. I asked Steve recently what he thought of Mitt Romney's statement that. "we need to have a person of faith lead this country." Steve, unlike Romney, isn't an orthodox Mormon, but he's a very thoughtful person, who knows more about religion that just about anyone I know.

Furthermore, Steve takes his own religious beliefs with the utmost seriousness. So his views on this matter were of great interest to me.

Steve's view is that religious believers of every stripe all have something in common with each other that's relevant to issues such as who ought to be president. But he's careful not to overstate the matter: He emphasizes that many Christian churches don't consider Mormons to be Christians, and that such disagreements aren't trivial. (A good rule of thumb is that differences of opinion of the sort that have led large numbers of people to kill each other are probably pretty significant).

Still, Steve believes – correctly in my view – that, in general, the differences between religious believers are less important than the differences between believers and nonbelievers, and that this distinction is and ought to be relevant to political life.

That belief helps explain why, for example, Americans say they are far less likely to vote for an atheist for president than for members of various groups (women, Jews, ethnic minorities) who have been excluded historically from presidential consideration.

Now, among liberals, the knee-jerk reaction to such poll data is to condemn the intolerance it represents. Yet I think there are good reasons for refusing to vote for an atheist for president – subject to the caveat that I also believe genuine atheism, like genuinely orthodox religious belief, is actually quite rare.

Of course, there are lots of people who claim to be atheists, just as there are lots of people who claim to be orthodox religious believers. But how many people, at least among the social classes that produce presidential candidates, believe in the orthodox doctrines of Christianity with the same degree of confidence that they believe in, say, the existence of Antarctica?

Naturally it's considered quite rude to press people on such matters, but in my experience most supposedly orthodox religious belief, on closer examination, melts away into a vague sense of an ultimate moral order, supervised by an even more vaguely conceptualized divinity. Among a lot of liberal Christians, this is asserted openly, to the point where they seem to adhere to a form of Christianity that excludes all specifically Christian beliefs.

Conversely, when one presses a purported atheist, one almost always finds that the person believes in various propositions that simply don't make sense without a belief in some source of an ultimate moral order, i.e., what most people would call "God." For instance, almost everyone who claims to be an atheist still makes lots of "ought" statements, as in "we ought to preserve biological diversity," or what have you.

The latter view is that of the famed biologist Edward O. Wilson, in his new book "The Creation." Written in the form of a letter to a pastor of the Southern Baptist faith in which Wilson was brought up, Wilson argues that atheists like him and religious believers ought to agree that preserving biological diversity, and therefore in the long run, humanity, is a profound moral imperative.

Wilson is a brilliant man, but this kind of thing has always seemed to me nonsensical on its face. After all, the human race has existed for an eye-blink of cosmological time and will certainly cease to exist in another eye-blink or two.

The only response a genuine atheist would have to that fact is, so what? Which helps explain why there are almost no genuine atheists.

Syndicated columnist and law professor at the University of Colorado

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Tuesday, March 6, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 121 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #24438 by amazeen on March 6, 2007 at 5:23 pm

It is very easy to come to the same conclusion professor Campos comes to if you equate atheism with having no morals. But as anyone who has bothered to read books by professor Dawkins (and most other atheist writers) knows, this is absurd. There is no need to envoke a supreme being to justify being a moral person.

Other Comments by amazeen

2. Comment #24439 by MIND_REBEL on March 6, 2007 at 5:23 pm

OK, i'll admit that there's a fair amount of atheists that are only in it because it's fashionable right now. It looks cool, and thats why they do it. I know a couple of kids that used to tease me in High School for being atheist and wearing "god is fake" hats are now "non-believers", but i really doubt that they're real atheists. A good litmus test for "athiests" is getting them to do the Blasphemy Challenge. If they don't want to, then i doubt they're really sincere in their concivtions.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

3. Comment #24442 by Kimpatsu on March 6, 2007 at 5:26 pm

What a load of rubbish. Campos arbitrarily redefines a belief in morals as "god". Well, he might just as well redefine morals as a ginat turkey, and run clucking down the streets. This Humpty Dumpty misuse of words by mealy-mouthed watery faith-heads is obnoxious to those of us who are both real, genuine atheists and extremely moral people.

Other Comments by Kimpatsu

4. Comment #24443 by M31 on March 6, 2007 at 5:29 pm

Conversely, when one presses a purported atheist, one almost always finds that the person believes in various propositions that simply don't make sense without a belief in some source of an ultimate moral order, i.e., what most people would call "God." For instance, almost everyone who claims to be an atheist still makes lots of "ought" statements, as in "we ought to preserve biological diversity," or what have you.

Nonsense. There is no need to suppose an ultimate moral order to say something "ought" be done. I say something ought be done because my brain prefers certain outcomes and will have good or bad feelings when different things happen (they are either hardcoded in to begin with, or they may be preferences that are generated over my life by the interaction between the machine that is my brain and its inputs). The preferences and feelings are still very real (such as the desire to not see my best friend visciously murdered, and the sense of grief that would accompany such an event), and I will continue to act on them. There is no need to suppose that these preferences are dictated by an external super-being.

Other Comments by M31

5. Comment #24444 by atheist_peace on March 6, 2007 at 5:33 pm

"Conversely, when one presses a purported atheist, one almost always finds that the person believes in various propositions that simply don't make sense without a belief in some source of an ultimate moral order, i.e., what most people would call "God." For instance, almost everyone who claims to be an atheist still makes lots of "ought" statements, as in "we ought to preserve biological diversity," or what have you."

Yet another "you need God to be moral" argument.

Campos makes it seem like he's interviewed a large percentage of American atheists; but how many millions of atheists are still in the closet?

Other Comments by atheist_peace

6. Comment #24446 by mdowe on March 6, 2007 at 5:38 pm

I would expect a law professor would be a little better at fact-finding. Once again we have the absurd assertion that the religious have some kind of monopoly on ethics. It's a shame he wasn't able to find 2 minutes to do some research (or 30 seconds to actually think), but I suppose he is a very busy man.

Other Comments by mdowe

7. Comment #24447 by Martha on March 6, 2007 at 5:44 pm

"The only response a genuine atheist would have to that fact is, so what? Which helps explain why there are almost no genuine atheists."

I am a genuine atheist and I do not take the "so what?" stance to the wanton destruction of our essential natural bio-diversity and our beautiful planet!

Other Comments by Martha

8. Comment #24448 by MelM on March 6, 2007 at 5:44 pm

When one defines morality in terms of obedience to the commandments of a god, then, of course, there is no morality without the god. But, this approach to morality is internal to religion. Rejecting the god implicitly rejects this entire approach to ethics--an approach that's completely divorced from any concept of ethics as a practical science for living on earth--thus the world's misery! A practical ethics would transform human life.

Other Comments by MelM

9. Comment #24449 by HappyPrimate on March 6, 2007 at 5:45 pm

After reading this article all I can say is What? It seems he has developed his very own definition of what an atheist is or *ought* to be. He thinks atheist are self-centered egotistical nuts that could care less for anything in their environment or humanity itself. How deluded can you be to think that? Did he think this up himself? LOL!

Other Comments by HappyPrimate

10. Comment #24451 by keith on March 6, 2007 at 6:02 pm

Mind_rebel
This sounds very much like a case of 'I was a punk before you were a punk'. Your name alone suggests an obsession with your wanting to be different. What difference could it possibly make (except to yourself), whether some people are as authentic an atheist as you?

Other Comments by keith

11. Comment #24452 by MelM on March 6, 2007 at 6:04 pm

The theists have had many centuries to invent their drivel; now, they're throwing it all at us. Without articles like this though, I wouldn't have believed the incredible amount of nonsense they've accumulated. On top of everything else, they expect to be taken seriously and to be respected. Sometimes, I go a little nuts when someone earnestly tells me that 2+2=5 and doesn't even begin to comprehend that I'll never believe it. But, ominously, I don't see pro-atheist articles.

Other Comments by MelM

12. Comment #24454 by Robert Maynard on March 6, 2007 at 6:18 pm

"The only response a genuine atheist would have to that fact is, so what? Which helps explain why there are almost no genuine atheists."

Translation: Look at me folks, I'm specifying my own unjustified definition of "genuine" atheism - which is mostly characterised by my uninformed impression that it's basically some kind of detached nihilism, only subscribed to by humanities undergrads! So in fact, when an atheist isn't being a nihilist.. he's not being a genuine atheist! So there are no genuine nihilists.. I mean.. atheists. Uh..

You know what, I think I left my car keys in my nose.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

13. Comment #24455 by AtheistJunkie on March 6, 2007 at 6:24 pm

Once again the theists are proving that they're either ignorant or just plain lazy to research atheism.

Psssst, theists, there's something called Google. Just type atheism and click on the Enter button. If you need help, we are more than happy to assist.

Other Comments by AtheistJunkie

14. Comment #24457 by Sancus on March 6, 2007 at 6:33 pm

Conversely, when one presses a purported atheist, one almost always finds that the person believes in various propositions that simply don't make sense without a belief in some source of an ultimate moral order, i.e., what most people would call "God."

What?

Oh, yes, and that whole business about moral order being a person who listens to prayers, extends mercy, and develops a relationship with you -- well that's just all minutiae, isn't it.

Other Comments by Sancus

15. Comment #24459 by neander on March 6, 2007 at 6:42 pm

This can't possibly have been written by an intelligent person. The arguemnet is poor, almost non-sensical, and tries to equate atheism with lack of morals.
How many atheists has Campos bothered to interview? I, like many other atheists, seek meaning in my life by my actions now, not in some fairyland later on. My response to my own end, and that of humanity, is that it is a process of life that SHOULD HAVE NO BEARING on how I lead my life now. In otherwords, "so what" if I'm going to die, I can still lead a full and fullfilling life. NO GOD REQUIRED!
I'm an Aussie and I hope Campos is not a typical example of an American Law professor. Aren't they meant to know how to construct logical arguments?

Other Comments by neander

16. Comment #24460 by Sancus on March 6, 2007 at 6:54 pm

It seems like most religious people, including this author, do not recognize the distinction between atheism and anti-theism. One is an epistemological position and the other is a value position. It's possible to have both. Although I'm an atheist, and lack a belief in any god, I would nonetheless repel from the notion of serving one anyways, even if one did exist.

My idea of hell is not being punished by an alpha-male or being rejected by one, it's being enslaved by one. Put me in a pleasant environment, with bunnies frolicking in a virgin wilderness, while losing discretionary power over my own spirit, and a fire pit looks inviting.

Notice, I did not say losing "pride." I lost that a long time ago, thank you. Give away all your possessions and then sleep (or try to sleep) in a Protestant homeless shelter for just one night, and you'll know what I mean.

So perhaps the author is talking about people like me; those of us who actually take religion seriously and, in so doing, become "genuine atheists." Under this phraseology, I don't even think Dawkins is a "genuine atheist," because he believes there is a chance that God exists and therefore a chance to believe. In other words, Dawkins believes in a contingent faith. However small.

Other Comments by Sancus

17. Comment #24463 by madreasoner on March 6, 2007 at 7:18 pm

I always love it when people say they would not vote for an atheist for president.
Instead they want to elect people of faith, you know, people who believe things without evidence, like that other people have WMD and are about to attack us on their magic carpets.

Other Comments by madreasoner

18. Comment #24464 by Liveliest Crib on March 6, 2007 at 7:20 pm

This piece had me laughing. It's written so clearly that its absurdity is immediately transparent. It's probably worthy of serious study that a person can express thoughts in a clear fashion, evidencing at least a fair modicum of reasoning capacity, and still make such silly claims.

The article also marks an interesting twist on the Goldilocks Mentality -- you know, the "Position A is too hot; retort B is too cold. So the preferable, and therefore correct, answer must be somewhere in between at Just Right!" mentality. (I see it in juries. They like to compromise. Prosecutor says he's guilty of murder. Defense says he's not guilty of murder. Let's convict of manslaughter. So what if such a verdict doesn't comport with the facts on the record? Facts aren't as important as feelings.)

Most of the Goldilocks positions I see in response to the current atheism movement conclude that Fundamentalists are too hot because they claim to know so much about god, but Atheists are too cold...largely for the same reason. The comfortable and correct position must be that there is a god, and he loves us, but we don't know everything about him, except maybe his name, though he won't get mad if you call him something else. Yeah. That's just right.

But this syndicated columnist and LAW PROFESSOR?!?! (perish the thought!) manages to take the following Goldilocks position: Fundamentalists are too hot because they think they know absolutely everything about morality, whereas Atheists are too cold because they're divorced from morality altogether. The "Just Right" position is that there is indeed morality, and that regular old people of faith -- of whatever religion or sect -- are in tune with it without going to any extreme. And he goes further to argue that the "Just Right" position is SO Just Right that very few people actually fall outside of it, fashionable protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

What sublime idiocy! Sam Harris is so tragically correct in pointing out that religious "moderates" not only don't believe in fundamentalism, they don't believe in fundamentalists. And this column, like so many writings I've read, evidences the likewise common disbelief in atheists. We can't really mean what we say, can we? No, there must be something else going on. We have morals, right?

Ahh yes, the old "atheist = amoral" canard. Gotta love Campos' simply defining atheism as amorality, rather than arguing that one leads to the other. That must make the act of thinking much less painful.

Anyway, no need for me rehash the obvious and already enunciated retorts to this tired assertion, but consider this snippet:

But how many people, at least among the social classes that produce presidential candidates, believe in the orthodox doctrines of Christianity with the same degree of confidence that they believe in, say, the existence of Antarctica?

Of course, the simple answer is a frightening and alarming number of people! Though, I'm not so sure they believe in Antarctica in the first place....I mean, it's not mentioned in the Bible, is it? Let's call it the "Theory of Antarctica" as a subset of the "Round Earth Theory" and teach the controversy, but I digress.

Anyway, forget the simple answer for the moment. Consider just how convoluted Paul Campos' understanding of truth claims is. He can't even begin to separate empirical claims from normative claims or metaphysical claims. They're all just truth claims to him.

You know why atheists can be moral? Because the claim that a deity exists and interferes with the universe is an EMPIRICAL claim. Dawkins' great contribution to the atheism movement is to point that out so clearly. The claim that god exists is not a NORMATIVE claim, nor is it a METAPHYSICAL claim (although it can be the latter if it's worded properly). It is an EMPIRICAL claim for which the person asserting it bears the burden of proof. One can be skeptical about god's existence and still make normative claims as easily as one can be skeptical about Bigfoot's existence and still make normative claims. Whether Bigfoot exists is an empirical claim, and has no affect on whether, for instance, murder is morally wrong.

I'd like to take Mr. Campos out to a dirt field somewhere and pick up the first little insect that see crawling on the ground. I'd show it to him, and say, "You see this little bug? He loves you, and he is the great moral law giver of the universe!" If he were to say anything along the lines of, "Um, that's an odd thing to believe," or "How do you know what an insect thinks," my response would be, "You mean you don't actually believe it's a fact that this little bug is a moral law giver who loves you? You can't possibly deny that fact, unless you're telling me you have no morals and are going to rob and kill people tomorrow! Is that what you're saying?"

Ah well....sorry for the stream of consciousness. Ironically, this stupid little piece was rather thought provoking.

:)

Other Comments by Liveliest Crib

19. Comment #24466 by Gordon Brown on March 6, 2007 at 7:28 pm

I wonder...are the person(s) who are authorized to approve and disapprove posts on this site sometimes bending backward just to be overly fair? This is the biggest load of confused rubbish I've read in a long time. In the first place, Prof. Campos should read David Hume and a spate of other philosophers on the nonconnectedness of divinity with morals, and even further back to Socrates, as he scourges the pious with the Euthyphro dilemma (Plato, Euthyphro).

Secondly, if Campos thinks Wilson's arguments about atheists and religious people agreeing on preserving Earth's biodiversity don't fly, then he should first present Wilson's arguments, and subject them to critical analysis. Instead, he completely disregards them, tosses off a blithe prediction about humanity's duration on this planet, then claims a genuine atheist would remark, "So what?"

Has Campos checked with the National Academy of Sciences—most of whose members are nonbelievers—and polled them as to their stance on preserving biodiversity?

If Prof. Campos is charged with inculcating lawyerly practices in his students, it would appear from this article that he's doing a fine job of it, if lawyerly practices entail a knowing sophistry, as I believe they often do.

Other Comments by Gordon Brown

20. Comment #24467 by Gordon Brown on March 6, 2007 at 7:34 pm

Don't apologize, Liveliest Crib. Your attack is right on the money!

Other Comments by Gordon Brown

21. Comment #24468 by davyB on March 6, 2007 at 7:37 pm

Click through to the original article and you'll find a text box for responses. There have been only two so far, both critical. Why don't all you folks cut and paste your comments there? Only four people have voted in the "Recommend this article?" survey. It's 4-0 against.

Other Comments by davyB

22. Comment #24469 by DavidJMH on March 6, 2007 at 7:40 pm

Dear Mr. Paul Campos,
Your article, although well written in places is based upon false logic, ignorance and bigotry. In short, it is nonsense.

Other Comments by DavidJMH

23. Comment #24470 by Stephen J. on March 6, 2007 at 7:46 pm

It is no doubt true that much of what is generally termed moral behavior is (at least) as accessible to atheists as it is to theists. As we know thanks to people such as Professor Dawkins, this sort of ostensibly altruistic behavior has its foundations in biology. Nevertheless, I think that the author makes a fair point, one which I regret to say is often neglected on forums such as this--the incompatibility of atheism with a purely rational moral philosophy.

Take utilitarianism, which I suppose is the preferred moral philosophy of atheists (similar arguments could be made against other ethical systems). It is quite clear from experiments and common sense (the innate "moral grammar") that humans consider inflicting pain to be bad (this is a case where the exceptions prove the rule); conversely, all things being equal, causing pleasure is generally viewed to be good. Utilitarianism shares these assumptions--but does it have any rational basis for accepting them? If it does not, it commits the naturalistic fallacy and is invalid. Another way of putting this is asking why utilitarianism is better than the ethical system known as "anti-utilitarianism" which claims one should seek the greatest pain for the greatest number. Or how about rhodotarianism, which seeks to maximize red colors (a conscious experience like pain) while minimizing yellow ones? It is not at all clear to me that this fundamental assumption can be defended rationally. Rather, it seems likely to be etched in our so-called moral grammar--but in an objective, purely rational sense, there is no morality.

Such a conclusion no doubt strikes many falsely, as if they had been told that they have no reason to expect the sun to rise tomorrow. This is only to be expected, for animals are selected for survival and reproduction and not for philosophical analysis. Perhaps someone can provide a justification for the belief that our intutions are rationally valid, but I rather doubt it.

It seems, then, that many atheists are too quick to scoff at Dostoevsky's remark that without God all is permitted. I think we can safely abridge this statement to "All is permitted."

Other Comments by Stephen J.

24. Comment #24471 by Rtambree on March 6, 2007 at 7:49 pm

Neander wrote:

>This can't possibly have been written by an intelligent person. The arguemnet is poor, almost non-sensical, and tries to equate atheism with lack of morals.

I agree. Another variation on the "religion as free pass" criticism - Professors can concoct all sorts of Medieval rubbish and still not be laughed off campus, despite it being the 21st century.

Other Comments by Rtambree

25. Comment #24475 by Jack Rawlinson on March 6, 2007 at 8:16 pm

"one almost always finds that the person believes in various propositions that simply don't make sense without a belief in some source of an ultimate moral order, i.e., what most people would call "God." For instance, almost everyone who claims to be an atheist still makes lots of "ought" statements, as in "we ought to preserve biological diversity," or what have you."

The unsupported declaration that "ought" statements don't make sense without belief in God shows that the writer is stupid.

When are the primitives going to throw someone intelligent against us?

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

26. Comment #24476 by Stephen J. on March 6, 2007 at 8:39 pm

"The unsupported declaration that "ought" statements don't make sense without belief in God shows that the writer is stupid.

When are the primitives going to throw someone intelligent against us?"

Ought statements don't make sense with or without God, for the reasons noted above.

Other Comments by Stephen J.

27. Comment #24479 by nine9s on March 6, 2007 at 9:07 pm

Stephen J, have you read any Ayn Rand? She makes a very persuasive case that life itself is the standard for morality, and that we can rationally justify moral imperatives ("oughts") by looking at what promotes one's own life and the lives of others. "So, why 'ought' I try to promote my life or the lives of others?" Short answer: We just can't help wanting to do it, so we might as well learn to do it well.

The comment about "avoiding yellow" being akin to "avoiding pain" seems more than a tad reductionistic. "It's just pain." Or try "It's just nuclear annihilation." This line of reasoning seems to be more of an assertion than an argument, something like, "There is no point to avoiding or gaining anything." I just don't think a person can be alive and be indifferent to pain, or happiness, or the lives of others. There's nothing irrational about that.

Other Comments by nine9s

28. Comment #24480 by Liveliest Crib on March 6, 2007 at 9:12 pm

Stephen J. on March 6, 2007 at 7:46 pm,

. . . in an objective, purely rational sense, there is no morality.

I do think you are driving at what many people of faith think, but are unable to articulate clearly. (I don't think that this notion marks the thrust of Campos' piece, but that's beside the point.) And I think there is some merit to the claim that atheists often overlook it.

To some extent, people are searching for an "objective" source of morality. The problem, of course, is that normative claims are based neither on analytic tautologies nor empirical data. We cannot say that normative claims are objectively true. Indeed, normative claims are based on sentiment. Heh, at the risk of sounding as though I'm too quickly scoffing at the profundity of your words, I must ask, so what? Allow me to explain why I ask what at first glance might appear to be a flippant dismissal of your post. I assure you, it is not.

I am not at all bothered by the notion that normative claims come from sentiment rather than an objective source. Indeed, I think that the search for an objective source is misguided, especially when one believes she has discovered it. When a supposedly objective moral code clearly conflicts with the normative sentiments evolution has hardwired into our heads, what is a human to do?

Consider that question carefully, for I think it helps illuminate the attraction of religious "moderation," which Sam Harris so eloquently decries. That is exactly what is happening! The objective moral code says to kill anyone who works on the Sabbath, but our brain recognizes such a rule as unduly cruel and frankly insane. The dissonance becomes dysfunctional, and leads to claims like, "The Bible is the perfect and inerrant word of the one, true, omniscient, loving god, but we can't take that word literally because it's not really perfect, and even though god's moral code is what should guide us, we no longer kill for a minor indiscretion like working on the Sabbath."

That normative claims are sentimental rather than objective is not problematic. It is enlightening! It does not follow that without an objective source of morality, "all is permitted," for the term "permitted" itself smacks of normative sentiment. Nothing could be deemed moral or immoral, permitted or not permitted, if indeed the lack of an objective source of morality meant that there were no morality at all.

Because our brain has evolved into an entity with a moral sense, rather than search for an objective source of morality, we should instead seek to deconstruct what our sentiments actually are, master the art of articulating and communicating the broad and abstract moral premises that all (or as close to all as we can get) humans share, and deduce from those premises the answers to more specific and local moral conundrums.

As Sam Harris says, all we have is conversation. The belief that one has found an objective source of morality will stop that conversation:

Sex before marriage is wrong. / Why? / God says so! That's it. End of conversation. No need to articulate the moral premise from which that normative sentiment was derived. Recognize, however, that such a claim is sentimental, and that reasoned normative discourse can help illuminate whether it really comports with our moral sense, and we're off to the philosophical races!

Analytic claims are objectively true. Logic is objectively true. Empirical claims are objectively true. Normative claims are not. But I ask, so what?

I think that the author makes a fair point, one which I regret to say is often neglected on forums such as this--the incompatibility of atheism with a purely rational moral philosophy.

Not only do I not think that that is what the author was saying, but I don't think that's true at all. As I wrote in my previous post, atheism and moral philosophy are not even related, much less mutually exclusive. Again, the conflation of empirical claims and normative claims marks dysfunctional dissonance.

Even if there were such a thing as an objective source of morality, why would that source have to be god? It could be the space aliens who evolved into beings who could prove something that we as humans can not. But who cares, really?

Personally, I find it so peculiar that people equate having faith and having morals. Indeed, all that the supposedly objective source of morality affords people is an excuse to stop thinking! With god, there is no need to wrestle with moral sentiments or to deconstruct and articulate reasoned arguments for how we should or should not behave. Whatever god says goes. You disagree with god? Too bad! Even if you have a great argument! Doesn't matter. You obey god like a slave and divorce yourself from your own moral sense.

To me, this is positively and profoundly unhuman! For it is the essence of the human experience that we are able to deconstruct our thoughts and sentiments and reason about them! Indeed, it is the rational atheist who will grapple with right and wrong and wrestle with the conundrums she confronts throughout her life. (Well, to be fair, the religious moderates do it too, but they pretend that that's not what they're doing. They pretend that they're still following god's orders.) It is the rational atheist who can say with honesty, "I don't care that the Bible condones slavery! I find it wrong, and I'll argue for you why!"

Take utilitarianism, which I suppose is the preferred moral philosophy of atheists . . .

Why would you assume this? Atheists can have many different moral philosophies. Merely because atheists do not believe in god does not make them monolithic in their moral sentiments.

But what we can do, better than those blinded and deluded by the notion that they are in tune with an objective source of morality like god, is engage in honest normative discourse, and be the best moral people we can be!

Other Comments by Liveliest Crib

29. Comment #24483 by themoonsays on March 6, 2007 at 9:18 pm

Pick a word you don't like, or that you've been taught not to like without really thinking about it, then associate every possible negative thing with that word, however unrelated, and you'll seem to have fallen upon how so many sorry, sorry people have defined the word 'atheist.'

Soon the word comes to mean the monster in the closet, the bully who took your lunch money, the girlfriend who cheated on you and broke your heart, the hidden charges on your phone bill, the time they got your order wrong at the diner, a complete breakdown of morality, the time you went out of the house with mismatched socks, utter chaos, in general, all manner of unpleasantness.

One cannot expect a rational reaction to this word or the ideas it represents from such people.

On the other hand, and this has been said so many times before, those who associate morality with religion have been able to find justification for too many evils to count.

Luckily for us all, our sense of morality has evolved over time, and it has done so in spite of, not because of, religious beliefs.

Other Comments by themoonsays

30. Comment #24484 by Spinoza on March 6, 2007 at 9:26 pm

Gordon Brown, I too recognized IMMEDIATELY the lack of understanding of the Euthyphro problem, and I thought that EXTREMELY ODD for a law professor (since Philosophy is often the undergraduate degree for many lawyers).

I said as much in my comment to him.

I told him that I as an atheist think he OUGHT to have known better. ;)

Other Comments by Spinoza

31. Comment #24485 by RickM on March 6, 2007 at 9:28 pm

"Syndicated columnist and law professor at the University of Colorado"

Obviously not a rocket scientist. LOL

Other Comments by RickM

32. Comment #24487 by M31 on March 6, 2007 at 9:47 pm

29. Comment #24480 by Liveliest Crib:

Brilliant post!

Other Comments by M31

33. Comment #24488 by MelM on March 6, 2007 at 9:53 pm

Re: #24468 by davyB

I did what he suggested. It was easy to add a comment and I didn't have to provide an e-mail address. I also voted NO and the vote is now 7-0 against. (felt GOOOOD!)

I'm glad davyB brought up the subject. I've been thinking that I ought to use the comment sharing facility under the input box. If one has a to-the-point well done comment, it makes sense to send it to the source. Has anyone used the comment sharing facility? Does it work?

Go forth and fight the devine drivel!!

Other Comments by MelM

34. Comment #24489 by Feuerbach on March 6, 2007 at 9:56 pm

"Which helps explain why there are almost no genuine atheists."

Are their many "genuine" theists? Just how many of you so-called religious people actually follow your scripture to the letter? I would suggest fewer than those who don't believe at all.

Other Comments by Feuerbach

35. Comment #24490 by Zappi on March 6, 2007 at 10:00 pm

I specially liked this passage:

...isn't an orthodox Mormon, but he's a very thoughtful person,...

This explains a lot about the author, doesn't it?

Other Comments by Zappi

36. Comment #24493 by ButteryAtheist on March 6, 2007 at 10:47 pm

There are "genuine atheists" born every day.
Every minute even.

Then their parents come in and muck things up.

Other Comments by ButteryAtheist

37. Comment #24495 by neander on March 6, 2007 at 11:11 pm

Stephen J makes a lot of assumptions about atheists. We use many different ethical models in our many different lives. What we try not to do is make generalizations based on lack of evidence. Here is an example you may enjoy?:
Religious peopl have no ethical values because they only do the right thing as they are scared of being punished.

Other Comments by neander

38. Comment #24498 by drachasor on March 6, 2007 at 11:41 pm

Take utilitarianism, which I suppose is the preferred moral philosophy of atheists (similar arguments could be made against other ethical systems). It is quite clear from experiments and common sense (the innate "moral grammar") that humans consider inflicting pain to be bad (this is a case where the exceptions prove the rule); conversely, all things being equal, causing pleasure is generally viewed to be good. Utilitarianism shares these assumptions--but does it have any rational basis for accepting them? If it does not, it commits the naturalistic fallacy and is invalid. Another way of putting this is asking why utilitarianism is better than the ethical system known as "anti-utilitarianism" which claims one should seek the greatest pain for the greatest number. Or how about rhodotarianism, which seeks to maximize red colors (a conscious experience like pain) while minimizing yellow ones? It is not at all clear to me that this fundamental assumption can be defended rationally. Rather, it seems likely to be etched in our so-called moral grammar--but in an objective, purely rational sense, there is no morality.

As a Utilitarian who has thought a great deal about ethics, I think you need to adjust your definition of happiness. In the Utilitarian sense, happiness is a technical term. I think the most useful definition of this term is "overall satisfaction with life." This is not just how satisfied someone is with their life now, but how satisfied they are in the future.

With this definition, I think it is a tautology that everyone wants to be happy. To say that someone would be 'happier', e.g. more satisfied with their life, by being less satisfied with their life makes no sense. This also easily encompasses the idea of delayed gratification, such as an artist that wants to experience depression in order to make better art. Now, it is probably the case that people misjudge what will give them satisfaction, but the fact that people want to be satisfied with their life is, imho, a foregone conclusion.

Once you consider this, then utilitarianism follows pretty naturally. The only assumption, really, is that everyone's happiness is just as important (all other things being equal). So, in my opinion, utilitarianism is a moral system that is pretty rational.

Of course, that doesn't mean applying utilitarianism is always easy. Each person has different needs and wants involve in their own satisfaction. Some people in a society might have a psychology such that their happiness requires others to be unhappy (in a utilitarian sense). Of course, with the latter sort of people, one hopes to find a long term solution to avoid having people with that kind of psychology altogether.

-Drachasor

Other Comments by drachasor

39. Comment #24499 by Munger on March 7, 2007 at 12:04 am

It's strange, but indisputable, the ethics of personal responsibility are simply beyond many religious folks' understanding. Most people are very child-like apparently, and assume that the only reason to do anything is fear of punishment or love of reward.

Why should I care about the environment? Well, I guess if it was all about me, then I suppose I shouldn't. I'll be dead long before the Earth is a lifeless husk. But don't I have a responsibility to the future generations, who have every right to a life as myself?

Definitely agree with everyone who said that Atheism and Nihlism are not the same thing. Not by a longshot. And it's frustrating to hear this argument thrown at us over and over again.

Other Comments by Munger

40. Comment #24501 by Roedy on March 7, 2007 at 12:05 am

"Still, Steve believes – correctly in my view – that, in general, the differences between religious believers are less important than the differences between believers and nonbelievers, and that this distinction is and ought to be relevant to political life."

As as atheist, I am not about to kill you because of your delusions. I can't guarantee people with religious delusions will treat you that kindly.

Bush is considering nuclear war because of his religious delusions. After a mistake that big, I'd think everyone would say "Never Again! No more of these faith based decision makers!".

Other Comments by Roedy

41. Comment #24502 by Roedy on March 7, 2007 at 12:09 am

"For instance, almost everyone who claims to be an atheist still makes lots of "ought" statements"

The author makes this sound like a terrible thing.
These atheist ought statements are based on:

1. what will ensure human survival.

2. what will make our lives pleasant.

They are *not* based on irrelevancies such as what bronze age shamans imagined might appease their gods or con their flocks.

Other Comments by Roedy

42. Comment #24503 by hopeful on March 7, 2007 at 12:39 am

I am an atheist, and I freely admit to being subject to what I see as cultural and social "habits" of thinking and speech in casual situations.

For example I might also say "we need to preserve biological diversity" in a casual situation but if the situation warranted I would give the issue proper consideration and perhaps my true position would be different.

I also celebrate Christmas (as a cultural and family tradition) and say "Oh my god" from time to time, none of which compromises my (almost certain) atheist views.

Other Comments by hopeful

43. Comment #24510 by Donald on March 7, 2007 at 1:59 am

I submitted the following comment to the ocregister. I've started advertising this site in comments to newspapers, etc. It seems a good idea. Perhaps others here might like to do the same, even if some newspapers will edit out the URL.
-------------------------------------------
Atheists aren't really atheists if they have morals?
What utter rubbish.
Atheists occupy far fewer prison cells (proportionately) than the religious.
Atheists say "ought" because they recognise the things that are in the interest of humanity as a whole, and the interests of their community, as well as any personal interests they have. Just like all people, in fact.

Paul Campos needs to meet and get to know more people. He should visit
http://richarddawkins.net for a start.

And, regarding the fact that humans don't exist for ever, so what?
-------------------------------------------

Other Comments by Donald

44. Comment #24511 by Robert Maynard on March 7, 2007 at 2:04 am

"Utilitarianism shares these assumptions--but does it have any rational basis for accepting them? ... Another way of putting this is asking why utilitarianism is better than the ethical system known as "anti-utilitarianism" which claims one should seek the greatest pain for the greatest number."

Stephen J, I'm trying to understand just how you're trying to define rationality..
You make it perfectly clear that you understand there are strong, biological foundations for the motivation to be altruistic, but then you turn around and claim that ethical philosophies cannot be rationally justified by atheists - as though rationality is some kind of ethereal paradigm of 'rational truth' that we lowly apes have to work to tap into, and not an explicit consequence of our cognition (which is what it is, especially if you have already accepted the former proposition).

What exactly is irrational about a human (or indeed chimp), acting on the (mostly semi-conscious) premise that "deep down in my genes, I carry an imperative to reproduce. If I were a simpler animal, I'd have to assert my right to survive in an uncongenial and hostile environment, but I and my genetic peers have means at our disposal to make our respective existences less difficult. Equipped with my advanced capacity for communicating, and my complex, empathetic concept of self, I think it's pretty safe to assume my fellow animals feel the same way - so I think it'd probably be best if we worked together to further our individual benefit"

The fact that chimpanzees demonstrate ethical understandings roughly along these lines (disapproving of murder, theft, etc.) should demonstrate that reciprocal altruism is one of THE most primal rational thought processes around!

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

45. Comment #24512 by aleprechaunist on March 7, 2007 at 2:14 am

The author seems to think that the concept of a divine creator brings more meaning to existence.

This is ultimately bogus for the same reason that the insistence on a first cause leads to 'turtles all the way down'... it is no less nihilistic than the atheist position. If anything, it is more so.

Other Comments by aleprechaunist

46. Comment #24513 by the great teapot on March 7, 2007 at 2:29 am

I think his freind is confusing atheism with nihilism.

Other Comments by the great teapot

47. Comment #24516 by Jef on March 7, 2007 at 3:03 am

Thankfully none of the law professors who have ever lectured me were this poor at critical thinking.

Other Comments by Jef

48. Comment #24517 by RascoHeldall on March 7, 2007 at 3:08 am

Another fool who has inadvertently exposed his deep lack of genuine morality. His point seems to be, in a nutshell, that if there's no God, there's no need to care about anything other than oneself. If cowardly belief in a fairytale is the best reason he can come up with for being a good person, he really does have a lot to answer for.

Other Comments by RascoHeldall

49. Comment #24525 by Pantore on March 7, 2007 at 4:51 am

Campos writes humans will certainly cease to exist in another eye-blink or two, if he means a few thousand or a few million years from now on he is probably too optimistic about humans unless they become the intelligent race they claim to be.

Other Comments by Pantore

50. Comment #24526 by dirtpiggy on March 7, 2007 at 4:55 am