fbpx
33.9 F
Spokane
Friday, March 29, 2024
HomeCommentaryAskAsk An Atheist: On what grounds can an atheist judge something as...

Ask An Atheist: On what grounds can an atheist judge something as good or evil?

Date:

Related stories

My Journey through Homelessness Part Five: Learning to Live Outside the Box

The value of my homeless experience lies not so much in having learned how to live outside — at least not in the geographical sense. The value of my homeless experience lies in having learned how to live outside the box.

Lost in Translation: Isn’t It Time We Moved Beyond a Fear-Based Repentance?

When I hear the kingdom is at hand, followed immediately by the command to repent, the good news is overshadowed by the fear that I’m not good enough to be part of the kingdom of God.

Inspiring Others: How Our Marriage Turned 50

As we prepare to celebrate 50 years there are so many thoughts and memories going through my head. I have joked about how I don't know how you've put up with me for this long, which is really true in a sense with my Irish enthusiasm and temper.

Taking the Road ‘Less Traveled by’ Has Made ‘All the Difference’

Pete Haug remembers hearing Robert Frost read his poem "The Road not Taken" 65 years ago. It reminded him of his spiritual journey out of the Christianity of his youth into choosing the Baha'i faith as an adult.

Ask an EOC: Can You Confess in Private to God but not in Church Confession and be Forgiven?

Concerning the sacrament of Confession, Christ directly gave the authority to his Church to remit or retain the sins of the penitent. 

Our Sponsors

spot_img
spot_img

What do you want to Ask an Atheist? Submit your questions online or fill out the form below. 

On what purely naturalistic grounds can an atheist judge something as either morally good or evil?

SPO_House-ad_Ask-an-atheist_0425133The question carries several hidden assumptions. First, that atheistic morality is grounded on some sort of  “naturalistic” inference. This is the naturalistic fallacy, that “is” cannot tell you about “ought.” And second, that “non-naturalistic grounds” leaves you any better off.

As I stressed in the NOMA posting, all moral, ethical and esthetics judgments fall in the “undecidable” realm of philosophy, and while naturalistic observations about the practical consequences of a particular moral belief may be of relevance to note, that cannot settle the initial belief.

Reciprocity plays a role as foundation here: do or do not do unto others as you would want to be done unto. Do no harm, and be kind, would be further elements to consider. But even if it were the case that cultures that behave that way fail more than ones that do not (and is North Korea a “successful” culture here or not?) that naturalistic aspect would still have no bearing on the morality of doing or not going that act.

Turn the argument around: by what non-naturalistic grounds can a religious believer judge something as either morally good or evil? Because the rule book says so, no further thought required? In the case of the Old Testament, apart from things like worshipping graven images, for every absolute there seems to be an exceptional loophole. So thou shalt not kill … except in the case of witches (when you are commanded to kill them) … or the Amalekites in the case of King Saul.

One could argue that witch killing was absurd because there were no real witches capable of supernatural malevolence (a naturalistic observation) but even with witches certain of their magical powers the rule would still be wrong if you hold that killing is inherently wrong (a moral judgement having nothing to do with naturalistic or non-naturalistic presumptions).
The reason why moral reasoning is fraught with peril is because any “absolute” rule will inevitably collide with exceptions, but the collision is not taking place in the realm of naturalistic inference.

Jim Downard
Jim Downard
Jim Downard is a Spokane native (with a sojourn in Southern California back in the early 1960s) who was raised in a secular family, so says had no personal faith to lose. He's always been a history and science buff (getting a bachelor's in the former area at what was then Eastern Washington University in the early 1970s).

Our Sponsors

spot_img
spot_img
spot_img
Previous article
Next article
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
spot_img
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x