Skip to main content
Are atheists moral?

It is often claimed that atheists have no morality, that morality only makes sense through God, that a universal morality exists through God, or that God gave us morality.

All of this is nonsense. (Hey, it's my blog, I can be as blunt as I like!) Let us deal with the last point, that morality comes from God. This statement is meaningless, since God is "everything we don't understand", which says that we don't understand morality. This is factually false, evolutionary psychology does give us a reason for morality. Even if God for some reason wanted us to behave in certain ways (why exactly he would want that escapes me), then how would that be communicated to us? Through prayer? Through stones carted down from Mt Synae? Through the Bible?

The problem with appealing to God is that there are differing religions, each telling their flock different things. There is no reason to suppose that one religion has a connection to God, whilst other religions are simply misguided. I would argue that they are all misguided. What they have in common, apart from a perceived moral superiority over other groups, are to basically love one another and stop being so selfish.

Atheists of course have a sense of right and wrong. It is not just a utilitarian desire to not end up in jail, it is because I don't like to see other people suffer. Besides, I would gain far more by cooperating with people than by conniving against them. Generally, human relationships count far more than material possessions, even for atheists. What right do religions have to claim these values as their own?

These values do not come from God. Well, they come from God in the sense that everything comes from God, which is basically a meaningless statement. Behaviours are actually evolved. Since every human characteristic is subject to natural selection, then the same is also true of our behavioural characteristics. Community, love of our family, and a degree of selflessness are all good for our survival. Our characteristics weren't given to us by God at all!

I would even argue that religious people are less moral than atheists, since they spend their time worrying about unimportant things like in which direction to pray, which food to eat, building buildings for worship, subjugating women and despising other people to the point of violence, all of which are not of any benefit to anybody.

Comments

Calum Grant said…
This is a test comment.
11:50 pm
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Can information theory prove the existence of God?

I recently came across this website by Perry Marshall, which makes a really interesting proof of the existence of God. The argument is basically that DNA constitutes information (a code), yet all information that we know of is the product of a mind. Randomness cannot create information. Therefore, God exists. Lovely argument. Now let's pick some holes. 1) My first observation is that this argument is almost exactly the same as entropy. The argument is that DNA is a low entropy state. Yet randomness always increases entropy. Therefore DNA cannot be the product of random processes, therefore it must be the work of God (or Maxwell's Demon). However this argument is invalid because localised decreases in entropy are perfectly possible, and expected, even though the entropy of the system as a whole increases. Considering that the site claims to make use of information theory, it presumably is aware of information entropy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_entropy It fo...
3 comments
Read more

When will the UK trigger Article 50?

Article 50 (A50) represents the point of no return, where the UK formally announces that it is withdrawing from the EU. The real point of no return was of course the referendum result, but A50 represents the next milestone in the Brexit process. Those calling for an early A50 argue that there is no benefit to delaying, as this just adds uncertainty and delays the entire process and inevitable recovery. They (mainly Leavers) don't want the referendum result annulled. Those who want to delay A50 say that we need time to prepare (not least, set up a new department for Brexit), and entertain the notion of pre-negotiations, as well as buying time to set up trade deals elsewhere in the world. The EU is very clear that there can be no exit negotiations until Article 50 has been triggered, and it looks very unwilling to compromise. The markets have taken the Brexit vote relatively calmly, and so far it's been very smooth going. This is because nothing has actually happened yet, and wo...
Post a Comment
Read more

Breaking the Article 50 Impasse

Andrew Tyrie overestimates the UK's control over when the UK government can invoke Article 50. As with much of the Brexit debate, hope and aspiration trump cold hard reality. The next few months will see a lot of work by the UK government setting up new departments and policy positions relating to the triggering of Article 50 and Britain's exit from the EU. This is a sensible and necessary delay. However this article by The Independent makes the case that the UK should delay invoking Article 50 until we establish an informal agreement with the EU on our exit terms. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-theresa-may-andrew-tyrie-must-manage-unrealistic-expectations-warns-tory-mp-a7220681.html This is very desirable from the UK's perspective, but flatly contradicts statements by the EU (including direct statements by Jean-Claude Juncker, Donald Tusk and Cecilia Malmström, as well as official EU policy) that no talks can happen prior to invoking Article 50...
3 comments
Read more