Can theists and non-theists share moral values?

[Hilarius]

Good Morning

As a Christian I have a view that theists and non-theists in today's seemingly more dangerous world have more in common than both groups suppose

The fact that we source our moral values differently does not seem to me to be too important if we arrive at the same moral destination

Of course as a Christian I would hold that all goodness is from God, but if saying that were to distance me from a non-theist I would be sad

Especially if we shared a moral value, however derived

My own late father was a professed atheist ... I see no reason why that should have separated me from loving his good qualities or him from loving mine ... indeed we had great mutual respect and love

That I did not agree with his theological views did not prevent me from sharing many of his values

Does anyone agree or differ?

With Best Wishes

Hilarius

[Johan]

Aside from the trivial fact that no atheist can believe we have an obligation to supply Yahweh with a steady stream of burning meat or whatever other supplications he's demanding this week, there's no reason in principle or in practice why any given nontheist can't share values with any given supernaturalist creed.

Name the issue: abortion, Iraq, worker's rights, euthanasia, stem-cell research, gun control... and I can name you a Christian on either side, and an atheist on either side.

[EverLastingGodStopper]

The only difference between theists and atheists is that theists believe in the existence of a supernatural deity or creator and atheists do not possess such a belief. Outside of belief (or the lack thereof) in supernatural entities, atheists and theists can and do share moral values. As stated above, in regards to any moral, political, or other issue, both atheists and theists can and do share viewpoints.

[Violent Messiah]

As a Christian I have a view that theists and non-theists in today's seemingly more dangerous world have more in common than both groups suppose

In some scenarios, I'd agree with you.

[Hilarius]

Thanks for the responses

Johan, your teaching that Christians are required to make sacrifices was updated recently around AD 30

We are now encouraged to offer ourselves, individually, as a "living sacrifice" in service to others

I am sure many non-theists do exactly the same in altruistic service to others and in doing so discover fulfilliing experiences in common with those theists who share the idea

All three replies confirm my belief that "belief" in God is a process, not an event, in many cases, even though Southern Bible Belt fundamentalists have become expert in declaring themselves saved

Some of them may be in for a big surprise

Good actions speak louder than words

With Best Wishes

Hilarius (a Christian engaged in learning and listening)

[Castorama]

ELGS @#3 is obviously right.

As a side note, I would encourage any 'Moral' Nontheist, especially those who are in 'coincidentally' or 'purposefully' in line with the cultural mores of their land, to become more free - thinking, or even an Amoralist, as I am.

The next logical step from rejecting the supernatural is to question the seemingly natural, itself.

[Jolly_Penguin]

In a given society we all tend to share the same moral values, whether we choose to externalize them into a God or not.

[Hilarius]

(1) Axe murderers are exercising their right to think "more freely" but does that mean their thoughts are automatically more valid?

(2) Society influences the individual? Then why do some members have a value that supports going to Iraq while others do not? Surely society is more complex than one system of thought or morality?

Hilarius

[Djugashvillain]

Non-theists have what I suppose could be called 'natural morals', that is, they behave altruistically because it is beneficial to themselves and those around them. It maintains happiness and safety. There is some convincing evidence that it is an evolutionary trait.

Theists have these 'natural morals' too, but they also have a set of superimposed artificial morals, ones that are only seen as good and moral because they are told by an unquestionable and, most importantly, perfectly good and moral authority that they are. Many are arbitrary (much of the New Testament, sans most of the Sermon, and most of Leviticus, to name a couple), violent (sacrifice in the more ancient religions and calls to arms in more recent ones), oppressive (Islam and women, for example) and exclusionary (only X religion can be correct, therefore all others must be wrong. Those that believe in the wrong religion receive eternal punishment of some type, and this punishment is a moral one).

What is worst about this is that many of these arbitrary--or dictated--morals trump the natural, intrinsic ones, which oftentimes leads to pointless suffering. So while theists and non-theists in a general sense can and do share moral values, it is only specific moral values, ones that transcend scripture and are applied for their own sake: i.e. to do good and be happy. A contradistinction must be made here as well: these natural morals are associated with a divine power in the case of the theist and with natural selection in the atheist.

[Castorama]

Hilarius:(1) Axe murderers are exercising their right to think "more freely" but does that mean their thoughts are automatically more valid?

(2) Society influences the individual? Then why do some members have a value that supports going to Iraq while others do not? Surely society is more complex than one system of thought or morality?

Hilarius(1) The imagination of most axe murderers is certainly freer (if you count psychopathy as 'free'). You can come to equally valid or invalid conclusions with both free and constrained thinking. I encourage the former.

(2) Yes, society is not that simple. You have conflicting forces and cultural dogmatism on either side of subjects such as war. America has a two party system. One party preaches the dogma of conservatism, and the other preaches the dogma of centrism. This is not to say that America does not have a stronger than average national identity (which is also promoted as cultural dogma).

Djugashvillain:Non-theists have what I suppose could be called 'natural morals', that is, they behave altruistically because it is beneficial to themselves and those around them. It maintains happiness and safety. There is some convincing evidence that it is an evolutionary trait.

Theists have these 'natural morals' too, but they also have a set of superimposed artificial morals, ones that are only seen as good and moral because they are told by an unquestionable and, most importantly, perfectly good and moral authority that they are.It is not that clear cut. In the UK we have millions of culturally dogmatic nontheists or agnostics, and some culturally, even religiously nondogmatic theists. The dogma of culture can be as strong as that of religion, if given the right environment. The religious also practice pseudo - religious dogmatism, in which they interpret scripture with their own thoughts, or the mores of their culture.

I would also question your use of 'natural', for such a broad sweeping and flexible category as 'morals'.

dogmacount - X8

[Djugashvillain]

Djugashvillain:It is not that clear cut. In the UK we have millions of culturally dogmatic nontheists or agnostics, and some culturally, even religiously nondogmatic theists. The dogma of culture can be as strong as that of religion, if given the right environment. The religious also practice pseudo - religious dogmatism, in which they interpret scripture with their own thoughts, or the mores of their culture.

I would also question your use of 'natural', for such a broad sweeping and flexible category as 'morals'.

dogmacount - X8

Cultural dogmatism isn't what's under discussion. The only way that you seem to me to have made culture relevant here is in the last sentence, where you say that the 'mores' of a culture dictate interpretation of scripture. You call it 'pseudo-religious', but I can't imagine a situation where scripture isn't interpreted within a cultural context. Scripture, both its creation and intrepretation, seems inseparable from it. To call this 'pseudo-religious' is puzzling because I can't think of any examples of scripture being written and understood in a cultural vacuum.

My 'natural morals' speel was merely me making the point that one can act in a way that is conventionally moral, i.e. altruistically, without needing to reference a divine power. I proposed that as a potential reason why a non-theist and a theist can share similar moral codes--with the theist tending to have a set of arbitrary morals laid over the top, as it were.

Morality is a 'sweeping and flexible' subject, yes, but that doesn't mean distinctions, however imperfect, can't and shouldn't be made. I do believe (very provisionally, mind you) that there is a substratum of natural morals--basically altruistic in nature--that didn't abberate as a reaction to culture or religion, but that can nevertheless be altered by them.

[JamesBannon]

Atheists and theists share similar moral imperatives because we're human beings. No god involved.

[Castorama]

Djugashvillain:Cultural dogmatism isn't what's under discussion.Look at the thread title. If there were one recent discussion which was to include cultural dogmatism, it would be this one. The point is relevant in that it is the very way that nontheists have come to share the values of their theist neighbours.

The only way that you seem to me to have made culture relevant here is in the last sentence, where you say that the 'mores' of a culture dictate interpretation of scripture. You call it 'pseudo-religious', but I can't imagine a situation where scripture isn't interpreted within a cultural context.This doesn't eliminate the fact that there is an ideal of global religion, and the greater power of scriptural commandments in holding relatively firm across the continents. Therefore, there is much to compare the more flexible interpretations of scripture to.

My 'natural morals' speel was merely me making the point that one can act in a way that is conventionally moral, i.e. altruistically, without needing to reference a divine power.For a starter, there is nothing 'natural' about non - superficial, altruistic behaviours, when referring to the inbuilt human mentality. Such a thing is a temporary and unsuccessful invention of whatever individual practiced it, and is therefore only 'natural' in that it occurred within the natural world.

I proposed that as a potential reason why a non-theist and a theist can share similar moral codes--with the theist tending to have a set of arbitrary morals laid over the top, as it were.But now you say that religion is always interpreted in a cultural context! If you simply believe that religious dogmatism is usually stronger than cultural dogmatism, then I agree with you.

Morality is a 'sweeping and flexible' subject, yes, but that doesn't mean distinctions, however imperfect, can't and shouldn't be made.I am simply asking you not to use the word 'natural' for nonreligious morals, whilst rejecting the word for religious morals. The absence of religion is simply the absence of a higher level of organisation in the propagation of dogma. It is not the absence of conformity, with the presence of 'natural' (evolved?) human morals.

I do believe (very provisionally, mind you) that there is a substratum of natural morals--basically altruistic in nature--that didn't abberate as a reaction to culture or religion, but that can nevertheless be altered by them.There are ways of getting on and being efficient within groups, that run to the depths of the human genome, but these are in no way truly altruistic. I would not use the term 'moral' either, as this could confuse the matter with flexible cultural standards that are concerned with the survival of societies (or not) and ways of conforming that are not universal to humanity / would be simply odd, if observed as part of the genome.