By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Homeroids on 22 February 2012
Edit Thread
Rath said:
Jumpin said:
Rath said:
Jumpin said:
 

Absiolute Monarchs ruled under the divine right of Kings. It was not through biblical authority. The rise of the Gutenberg printing press helped lead to the modern revolution; which included the Protestant revolution, and then various other uprisings, such as Oliver Cromwell's in England, and the age of enlightenment which followed.

It was actually post-modernism, and anti-Christian morality which brought back absolute authorities in the 20th century; as well as ideals such as social Darwinism. Although many will argue that Nietzsche's works were misinterpreted. In the end, Nietzsche was not able to really solve the riddle of how to gain a good moral system without religion. Even when he broke it down into the ideas of basic human wills. Ultimately, the discovery of post modernism was nihilism; in a world without God, everything is permitted - and this includes genocides.


I never get the idea that atheists can't have morals, frankly I find it incredibly offensive.

What authority would an atheist base his or her morality in?

Why is an authority needed for morals?

I have morals. I don't believe in God.


First of all in reply to your 1st statement, "I never get the idea that atheists can't have morals, frankly I find it incredibly offensive.", a Christian answer to this should be that indeed, atheists (as opposed to a theist) can and should have a moral coding. The book of Romans is clear on this subject that the laws of morality stem from a higher call on theist and atheist. Yhey are written on our hearts, metaphorically speaking.

The issue with this for an atheist is that since it is assumed God does not exist, therefore morality can not come from God in the first place. 

"Why is an authority needed for morals?" - now this statement can be applied in context to the local (ie yourself) or to a wider audience ( what the "common" person would conclude ought to be done). Take this example and tell me where the authority on moral standing comes from:

"Suppose you are sitting at home one evening, when you hear outside a terrified shriek for help. You immediately feel an instinctive urge to go to the rescue of whoever is in need. But then the contrary instinct of self-preservation surfaces and urges you to not get involve. Now, how shall you decide which of these two instincts to obey; in other words, what your "duty" is? It is clear that whatever it is that tells you what you "ought" to do, when your instincts are delivering conflicting advice, cannot itself be an instinct".

What is it, what is the moral code? What ought you do? Most might say to go to that persons help, but what is making you decide that and where does it stem from? The dilemma is that how can it possibly be an instinct and if it's not an instinct, therefore it is a moral compelling. Now, where does that moral compelling come from if it cannot possibly be an instinct? Authority may not be the perfect word to apply but it's difficult to come up with another word that suits.