Says Dan – “Here are a few suggestions [inclining atheists towards empathy and compassion]: residue of societal customs based around a Christian heritage and the Ten Commandments, an intuitive sense of obligation placed into our conscience reflecting the moral nature of humanity’s Creator. Or is it something else completely?”

Something else completely I’d say. The basis of moral conduct for atheists is no different from yours Dan unless you’re motivated by fear of damnation. I would posit the ten commandments are based on the best of human nature and not the reverse. Or was the world an absolute orgy of total sin and corruption before Moses came along?

You frame every suggestion in terms of a divine influence. Self-determination doesn’t exist? Conscience did not evolve? Atheists are as much humanists as anyone else bar the otherworldly stuff.

Dan, bennie,
The Pope is trying to convince people around the world, including those with different or no religious beliefs, of the validity of the natural moral law theory of ethics, stating that there are immutable and universally binding moral norms, discernible by human reason, valid for all persons at all times and in all cultures (see e.g. his address to the General Assembly of the UN in April this year).

Whether you see this natural moral law (different from whatever additional "moral laws" could be prescribed by this or that authority, religious or not) as given to mankind by God, or as having naturally developed through evolution is here irrelevant, as long as the acceptance of its unversality can serve as a meeting ground for all of humanity on the background of which one can discuss the CONTENT (e.g. human rights) of this natural moral law. See also Hans Küng’s Weltethos (global ethics?).

The atheist needs to be told that all morality comes from the Christian‘s understanding of God as little as the Christian needs to be told that all rationality comes from the atheist’s understanding of reality.

Dan, I thought you might be interested in this: http://ncrcafe.org/node/2122.

david f,
I quite believe you when you say, “Supernatural belief or its lack has nothing to do with morality.” A problem may exist, however, if we are to call on the inherent dignity of all people without sufficient language to justify such a premise. There are quite simply those who aren’t at all interested in affirming the dignity of others – after all, and it logically follows, if ultimately humans are nothing more than complex bundles of atoms emerging from a blind and random process (which, incidentally, has little bearing on the basis of evolution) to face extinction on death – then on what foundation do we find “inherent dignity”?

The secular West has made the language of rights central to its social discourse and with it comes the irony of modernity which undermines the possible justification of such language. To simply exhort people to behave better is not going to persuade. Put simply, humans need reasons. Our “saving the planet” presents a compelling persuasion, but will ultimately prove insufficient as a 'body politic' used for coercive principle.

Undoubtedly, by the time of St. Augustine, around the fifth century, Christianity and politics had merged enough for him to develop a theological justification for war - the church became such a powerful institution it was bound to sanction violence in some ways. It is true that both theory and practice of non-violence was quite a marginal phenomenon in the Western church, the Roman Catholic Church certainly, from the time of Augustine, fourth, fifth century, until the Protestant Reformation.

It is also a Buddhist principle, “Be kind and question authority”, and has a valid basis. The thought of Immanuel Kant had an imperative showing us the way beyond the idolatry of self-interest, where we are given a ‘telos’ or reason to question authority. The Aristotelian sense of Eudaimonia, or human flourishing can be a source of happiness is revisited, where, in order to be worthy of becoming fully human, we obligate our life to be guided by moral law.
cont’d...

cont’d…
Kant’s ‘Categorical Imperative’ had its basis resting firmly in the biblical language of Isaiah – here rests a fundamental principle upon which Jewish moral codes are expressed, “…God shall judge between the nations and impose terms on many peoples. They will beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks. One nation shall not raise the sword against another, nor shall they train for war ever again.” (Isaiah, Chapter Two, Verse Two).

The utopia sought in Isaiah is one which is universal, various forum bloggers partially (if not imperfectly) express it (Fractelle and Priscillian for instance). The idea of a totally moral world, a corpus mysticum, appears to exist only in our imagination and thoughts. It’s reality is only ever achieved by us meeting our obligation - not only to the moral law, but to each other and to creation. This is the basic morality found as in the cited Judaic expression - it gives a freedom but it is also ‘deontological’, or duty based. It is a freedom based not on the balance of power as found in the politics of political realism, but of the overriding cosmopolitan nature of human life. As Kant correctly understood the Biblical imperative, “war conducted for the sake of peace.. [is a] paradigm of legitimate belligerence...”

The Golden Rule is a fundamental moral principle that may be used to explain why particular moral rules apply (e.g., those of the Mosaic Law). Kant’s “Perpetual Peace” (1795) argued for the creation of a global confederation of nations that would use the rule of law to replace the rule of the sword, thereby elevating the shared interests of the common good above the competing self-interests of individual nation states. I find him basically correct in the affirmation of a core Judaic principle where Christian behaviour is defined on the basis of Jesus. And Jesus rejected the sword.

Relda: The only way we know Jesus is through the New Testament. Jesus did not reject the sword.

MATTHEW 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

MATTHEW 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father,
and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her
mother in law.

MATTHEW 10:36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

Remember this when the religious right talks about family values.

MATTHEW 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

This is a jealous, possessive love. A loving spouse would not demand making a choice between the children of your union and herself or himself, and a loving saviour would not demand that people make a choice between him and one's family.

LUKE 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him
take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his
garment, and buy one.

Here Jesus advocates an arms build-up.

Both Jesus and Joshua in the Bible were intolerant. Since Jesus was not a
military leader he could not create the havoc that Joshua did.

MARK 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to
enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire
that never shall be quenched:

That is far more vicious than anything done by Joshua. To be slaughtered is
horrible but everlasting torment is horror unimaginable.

I question Jesus and the New Testament as espousing a God of love. In the above Jesus holds out the promise of eternal torture.

I think one following the above words of Jesus could quite well be a murderer and a sincere Christian.

Relda: Humans do not emerge from a blind and random process according to Darwinian theory. Natural selection which is not a random process directs evolution. Natural selection directs changes which adapt species to the environment. Moral development is one of those changes. Wolves who help sick or injured members of their pack to survive have that behaviour as a result of evolution. Packs which care for their members have a better chance of surviving. However, the act is a moral act, and we humans have some of the same conditioning.

We do not need belief in God to support the inherent dignity of all humans. The civil rights movement in the United States that worked to eliminate discrimination against black people was an example of religious people and non-religious people working together to support the inherent dignity of all.

Martin Luther King Jr. remarked that the most segregated time of the week was in the churches. Of course atheists are not organised in churches, but I would not contend atheists were less biased than Christians toward people of other races.

I know of no evidence that supports the idea that religious believers are more respectful of the inherent dignity of all humans or better behaved than those who do not accept religious belief.

I think people who behave righteously may also be modest. Rather than take individual credit for a decent act people will sat they are carrying out the dictates of their religion or their ideology. I have heard a Marxist say that Marxism has been a force leading him to behave better. Generally a person who claims to be a good person is looked on as self-righteous.

A corollary is that people will avoid responsibility for an evil act by saying that that the devil made them do it.

I don’t believe there is an objective moral law which we all can agree on. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is not always workable. Others may not want the same thing done unto them that you want done unto you.