Collegiate Times

It is fairly petty of you, Mr. Shutterly, to assert that one (incredibly wide) section of society has 'stronger morality' than another. It's true, some atheists act, from an objective standpoint, more morally than some theists - and it's true also that some theists act more morally than some atheists. You've fallen into the same trap, with your assertion, that has caused the controversy in the first place. You need to take caution in asserting that theists are necessarily ignorant simpletons who are wholly predisposed to individual concerns about their 'final destinations.' And for the record, correlation does not imply causality. Hitler may have claimed to have been Catholic, but his actions and writings tend to point in a direction that is starkly opposite of what Catholicism teaches. Try to avoid classifying religions by what people have done in the NAME of religion.

Reply to this Top

there is no need to match the "pious" with morality. atheism is not a moral possition it is admitting the obvious. Without evidence the claim of god God or gods is faulty. If you want morality read an ethics book.

Reply to this Top

The Eastern Orthodox don't claim Stalin either.

Reply to this Top

Given the number of appalling actions by modern televangelists and religiously motivated terrorists it remains incredible to me that anyone would still try to advance the notion that morality is in any way tied to belief in a god. Nineteen zealous god-believers made 9/11 happen and if anyone believes terrorism has never had a Christian face then why did the KKK choose a flaming crucifix as their symbol? As to Mr. Minor's assertion that "Hitler may have claimed to have been Catholic, but his actions and writings tend to point in a direction that is starkly opposite of what Catholicism teaches", perhaps you should consider that in the 1930s Catholicism taught that anti-Semitism was a virtue? Possibly the only thing we should ever thank the Nazis for is that by their sheer excess the forced almost every religious order on the planet to reconsider their teachings with respect to the Jews and others groups that had been similarly persecuted. Church teachings change, and the pendulum may yet swing back. Please note that in his recent encyclical on the evils of the 20th century, Pope Benedict excoriated atheism but made no mention whatsoever of the Nazis and the other Fascist movements.

Reply to this Top

I find it odd that the religious vehemently deny any sort of mass murderer would be part of their religion, even if the mass murderer's upbringing and self declarations suggest otherwise. Who are you to say they aren't part of the religion they claim to be? Many Catholics don't go to mass every Sunday, many Jews don't go to service on Saturdays, yet they still believe themselves to be part of the religion. Just because someone does not follow all the rituals or teachings exactly does not somehow make them not part of that religion.

Reply to this Top

Most Christians, and Jews for that matter, don't follow the letter of their own law, otherwise we'd have a lot more stonings. Everyone is aware that more people have been tortured, killed, and now blown up in the name of the torturer/killer/suicide bomber's deity than for any other reason. Kyle is a religious wack-job. Religious discussions like this should be on a clearly marked and easily-removed "religion" page in the paper so that it may be more easily ignored. The teams are picked, both sides are talking apologetically past each other, and nobody's going to read this and go "Gee willikers! I think I'll change my mind about this."

Reply to this Top

I agree with the author's initial argument, but why conclude with the claim that atheists are more moral than theists? If the argument is that morality is an inherent outcome of society and evolution, then it applies to all groups in that society. By saying that one group is more moral than another, doesn't that tend to argue against the initial claim? Is the author implying that theists act morally mostly due to the fear of God or is appeasing a creator just an added bonus on top of our hardwiring? On a side note, why do 90% of letters and columns in the CT always refer to Hitler when trying and prove a point?

Reply to this Top

A religious 'whack'-job? I'm a little confused, bxl, as to from where you draw that conclusion. Does the fact that I consider myself at least somewhat religious automatically disqualify my opinion on matters of theism AND atheism? Does it necessarily imply that I buy into the theology and structure of EVERY religion? This is a discussion forum, and I'm further curious to know why you have deemed it necessary to comment on a letter and a discussion which you yourself claim ought to be easily ignored.

Reply to this Top

Tony, please refer to Godwin's Law to answer your question about Hitler. (wiki it!)

Reply to this Top

bxl, if you read the discussion back on the original column and the "column lacked solid facts" response letter, I believe you will see that we are not simply "talking...past each other." Rather, I believe several philosophical questions have emerged from the discussion that have, in fact, led people to at least scratch their heads.

Reply to this Top

I claim that atheists have stronger morality because all that influences our decisions is our self. An atheist acts moral because an atheist IS moral (unless he's a jerk, obviously). A religionist might act a certain way ONLY to appease some God character. That detracts from the value of his moral decision. An atheist acts moral because that's how he acts normally. Religionists act moral because that's who they are, AND because of influence from their religion. It also doesn't matter that Hitler didn't act like a "true" Christian. What is a true Christian anyways? Only Jesus was. All Christians fail to live up to Jesus' name, because everyone sins, and all sins are equal. As long as Hitler accepted Jesus as his savior, he's just as "Christian" as anybody else. Also, if you ever read the Bible, you'll see that "true" followers of God commit all sorts of atrocities. And Hitler was brought up because it's a commonly-held myth that he was atheist. However, I need to elaborate on Stalin a bit, because I went to the 300-word limit in my letter, so I couldn't say more. Stalin was RAISED Eastern Orthodox, but I think was atheist later in life.

Reply to this Top

Mr. Shutterly, you fall into the same trap of which you accuse Ms. Aldrich. The issue she raised was not whether or not atheists are moral, or have morals, but rather, from where do morals come? Why do they exist, and how did they come to exist? The morality of a particular person is exemplified by his own actions in the context of a more generaly conception of morality - to this end, there are theists who are moral and amoral, and there are atheists who are also moral and amoral. The bottom line is, you cannot classify atheists as 'more moral' than theists based on presumptions regarding why a theist does what he does (and a similar presumption as to why an atheist does what he does).

Reply to this Top

Yes, you can, because many religionists do things according to what they think their God would approve or disapprove of. "I felt a calling by God to go on a mission trip," or "God disapproves of homos3xuality ("s3x" is banned in comments for some reason... )." An atheist would go on a humanitarian mission because he feels that it's the right thing to do. Many religious people might do the same, but some also would do it to make God happy. No atheist would do something to appease a god. They do it for themselves and others. I'm not saying that atheists are waaaay more moral than theists. I'm just saying that, with theists, you throw an extra (large) reason into the equation for why they do the things that they do.

Reply to this Top

That's still pretty presumptive, though. Are theists compelled not to act altruistically? I'd say not - although individual actions may ultimately please God, not every action is necessarily weighed as to its probative value with God. Sometimes an action is just an action - the fact that some theists do things specifically to please God does not mean that ALL theists do things specifically to please God, and consequently your comparison is invalid. An interesting point to explore here is whether or not the morality of an action is affected by its intention - ie, if I rescue a drowning child because I innately feel that it is the right thing to do, am I 'more moral' than someone who saves the child because he feels it will please God? I would submit that the answer is no - ultimately the consequence of the action is that a child was saved, and that the personal motivation of the passer-by who saves him is inconsequential.

Reply to this Top

I said that atheists, as a whole, are more moral. If even one of your members does something for the sole reason of pleasing God, then your group's "net morality" is lower than mine. That is all that I was saying. I did not say that all atheists are more moral, or that atheists are vastly more moral. Just that it can be argued that atheists are more moral on the basis that they have fewer reasons to do something good, but still do just as much good as theists do. And as for your example, if the theist saved the drowning child because he feared God's wrath, then I would say that you are more moral than him, yes.

Reply to this Top

Ok, but what makes me more moral than the man acting with the fear of God? Is the desired end state a saved child, or is it a saved child ALONG WITH the right intentions behind it? I'd say that at the end of the day, the reason WHY a person has acted isn't particularly relevant - and many theists agree with this. God demands good works - and so theists do good works. Atheists do good works because they objectively believe them to be the right thing to do. But when all the chips are on the table, the real argument here is about judgment - atheists don't believe that they will ultimately be judged for their actions, and theists believe that such a judgment will occur. Whether or not the judgment occurs or not isn't really relevant - the fact of the matter is, good works are performed. So why exactly is motivation relevant in an aggregate sense, as opposed to the personal sense?

Reply to this Top

Because if the fear of God wasn't omnipresent in a theist's life, we don't know if he would still be as "good" as he is. I have heard many theists say, "Without God, why should I refrain from raping and killing people? There's nothing to worry about, and no objective morality! I can do whatever I want then!" That's the assumption I was operating on. With an atheist, we know his intentions. With a theist, we don't know if his intentions are his or his god's.

Reply to this Top

Which leads, necessarily, to a presumption of guilt - the theist must always act under fear of supernatural government, and if such a fear weren't present he would be wholly immoral. There isn't a whole lot of proof to support this (I don't really know of any such proof, in fact) - but it troubles me that you don't give theists the same 'benefit of the doubt' that you extend to atheists when it comes to motivation.

Reply to this Top

I give atheists benefit of the doubt because an atheist, by definition, neither believes in nor fears a supreme judge. A theist, by definition, does do both of these, and it will thus play a part in their actions.

Reply to this Top

Just because someone is born into a household that practices a particular faith, or claims a particular faith, does not mean that person practices that particular faith. In the United States where the practice of faith means sitting in a pew on Sunday, most people do not comprehend what it means to 'practice' a way of life. To call Stalin Orthodox, or Hitler Catholic is stretching the concept of being a practicing member of either faith. At least in an Orthodox Church, Stalin would have been refused to participate by the priest, at the peril of his life in the flesh. Fear of God is not the motivation that legitimizes any Christian's action; love of God and all others is. This is what separates Eastern Christianity from Western.

Reply to this Top