443 lines
38 KiB
Markdown
443 lines
38 KiB
Markdown
---
|
||
zotero-key: 7HTDGZYY
|
||
zt-attachments:
|
||
- "629"
|
||
citekey: merakchiAtheismMoralityWe2024
|
||
aliases:
|
||
- "Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?"
|
||
---
|
||
up:: [[zotero literature notes]]
|
||
link:: [Zotero](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) [attachment](file:///Users/oscarplaisant/Zotero/storage/PYH5EDV8/atheism-and-morality-do-we-need-god-to-be-moral-7dd51d28f640.html)
|
||
#s/PKM #zotero #t/source
|
||
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ff6666; --link-external-color: #ff6666;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=NYIG7BL4)</span>
|
||
> You know, that unbearably gut-wrenching pain that pierces through our very being when we witness a streamed genocide?
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > History has showed many times that humans *can commit genocide*, without asking too much moral questions.
|
||
> ^NYIG7BL4aPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ffd400; --link-external-color: #ffd400;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=SH6BM73X)</span>
|
||
> That visceral reaction when confronted with the brutality of existence, the instinctive revulsion at the thought of torture, murder, and rape
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > this is not morality, this is empathy.
|
||
> ^SH6BM73XaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ff6666; --link-external-color: #ff6666;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=MXY2FLAW)</span>
|
||
> But where does this moral compass come from?
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > The first question should be if it exists.
|
||
> > If it doesn't, then it is quite logical that skeptical people don't believe it exists.
|
||
> >
|
||
> > For something to be regarded as "bad", there must be some people doing it, hence some people don't have the same "moral compass".
|
||
> ^MXY2FLAWaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ffd400; --link-external-color: #ffd400;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=LR9G96AG)</span>
|
||
> Is it true that our strong sense of morality is nothing but a mere vestige of our supposed evolutionary past, a primal instinct honed through millennia of struggle and survival?
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > Evolutionary past is not a "mere vestige". Evolution is a continuous process, and is still happening now. It only is *slow*, which makes us believe that it belongs to the past, but we have to remember that, for the biggest part of its history, humanity has been nomad : our "modern world" is very recent, especially in terms of evolution.
|
||
> ^LR9G96AGaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ffd400; --link-external-color: #ffd400;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=BYHNND4Q)</span>
|
||
> Can atheists truly lay claim to moral virtue without acknowledging the existence of a higher power?
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > I don't really agree on the term "*virtue*" here.
|
||
> > Atheists can certainly have moral views. But *virtue* is quite linked to the belief of a superior way to live your life, especially when imposed by a "superior being".
|
||
> ^BYHNND4QaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ff6666; --link-external-color: #ff6666;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=ZI3CU847)</span>
|
||
> In our modern, dystopian, technocratic reality, science insolently dares to vow the replacement of God. It promises to offer a substitute divine guidance for the godly morality we’ve long scrutinized.
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > Science doesn't vow the replacement of God. Science happens when you replace belief by evidence, when you replace theological speculations by experiences and method.
|
||
> ^ZI3CU847aPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ffd400; --link-external-color: #ffd400;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=TMBPFY8X)</span>
|
||
> Science arrogantly positions itself as the new deity.
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > It doesn't. It never did. Science doesn't even try to study deity, since it is by definition something you cannot do experiences about.
|
||
> > When people try to make a religion out of science, it is scientism, and scientists hate it.
|
||
> ^TMBPFY8XaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ff6666; --link-external-color: #ff6666;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=LZTGKPAZ)</span>
|
||
> It demands nothing short of complete devotion, requiring us to offer up our trust at the reliably, bloody altar of its laboratories.
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > Science demands nothing. It just says that the scientific method allows you not to make stupid mistakes, that experimentation is superior to speculation.
|
||
> > There is no "trust" involved in science. Actually, quite the opposite : science is about doubt.
|
||
> ^LZTGKPAZaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ffd400; --link-external-color: #ffd400;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=UZS5Y9WB)</span>
|
||
> It offers no salvation outside of its hallowed, cold halls, granting absolution only through the certificates of pardon issued by its white-coated priests.
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > It is quite logical that science offers no salvation, since science never detected anything like a "life after death". Though medias usually need figures to represent "the scientific community", I don't thing that it is legitimate to call real researchers *priests*.
|
||
> ^UZS5Y9WBaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ff6666; --link-external-color: #ff6666;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=8EGTLQI4)</span>
|
||
> It demands nothing less than absolute monotheistic reverence, commanding us to bow before the holy temple of its atemporal omniscience, with unwavering faith.
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > Science demands nothing. It just says that its method is able to make less mistakes.
|
||
> > Especially :
|
||
> > - there is no "monotheistic reverence", because there isn't any god, neither any reverence : just a method you can use (and if you don't, you'll probably be wrong, but who knows ?)
|
||
> > - there is no "holy temple", since science **is not about belief**, science is just about proof
|
||
> > - there is no "atemporal omniscience", since science doesn't pretend to be able to explain everything. Some people want to explain everything, and science is the best way we have to do so.
|
||
> > - there is not "unwavering faith", since **science is not about faith**, it is about proof.
|
||
> ^8EGTLQI4aPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #5fb236; --link-external-color: #5fb236;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=4Y4CX4MN)</span>
|
||
> Atheism, in its modern incarnation, has been whitewashed, eviscerated, sanitized, polished, and packaged for mass consumption.
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > This is really extreme, but there is a part of truth.
|
||
> > It is true that atheism is the new "default position" for people in a lot of countries. A lot of people are "atheist by default" and not *for good reasons*.
|
||
> >
|
||
> > But it is important to say that education (at least the one given by a government) should not contain religious references. We know what a religious state can lead to. Even worse, we know what happens when a state indoctrinates youth into fanatism without any critical thinking.
|
||
> ^4Y4CX4MNaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ff6666; --link-external-color: #ff6666;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=5M2ZZFSP)</span>
|
||
> It is sold to us by silver-tongued, sophistical, antitheist, Hitchens-style orators, whose eloquence masks the emptiness at the heart of their philosophy. It is peddled by tantrum-throwing, pseudo-intellectual, Harris-like charlatans, who substitute arrogance for wisdom and nonsense for truth.
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > This whole part is an *ad personam* argument, attacking people instead of their arguments.
|
||
> ^5M2ZZFSPaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ff6666; --link-external-color: #ff6666;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=245ZZK6S)</span>
|
||
> In the realm of academia, atheism is championed by the overconfident, underqualified, exaggeratedly revered, media favorites, Harari-like “historians.”
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > It is very wrong to say that medias love atheists and science. Most scientists actually are against the representation of science in medias.
|
||
> >
|
||
> > Even your example, Yuval Noah Harari, is really criticized by the academic world. More that an example of a good scientist, it is a good example of a media favorite that *doesn't really respect the scientific method*.
|
||
> >
|
||
> > It is important to see that real scientists and researchers are very rarely invited in medias, one of the main reasons being that they are not really entertaining or engaging : they say complicated things, they say "I don't know" instead of giving a bullshit answer, they give precise facts instead of common trivia...
|
||
> ^245ZZK6SaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ffd400; --link-external-color: #ffd400;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=LNXCCHHL)</span>
|
||
> It is endorsed by heavily-promoted, deeply sinister, Hawking-like faux geniuses.
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > The genius of Hawking can indeed be questioned, since the whole concept of "genius" is really quite questionable.
|
||
> > But this concept mainly comes from media, not from the academic community.
|
||
> ^LNXCCHHLaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ff6666; --link-external-color: #ff6666;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=LQF9EJGY)</span>
|
||
> It is advocated by shameless, philosophically-handled, Dawkins-like, false prophets.
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > Dawkins doesn't say he is a prophet. His actions are mostly trying to show people what skepticism and science are, and what they imply on your beliefs.
|
||
> > I don't know enough about Dawkins to say more
|
||
> ^LQF9EJGYaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ff6666; --link-external-color: #ff6666;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=597PMJT2)</span>
|
||
> It is found in the soul-crushing nihilism of histrionic, needlessly rude, hubristic Krauss-style “scientists.”
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > It is really not necessarily sou-crushing to be nihilist.
|
||
> > A lot of philosophies are nihilist (in the sense that they don't believe in an absolute moral good or bad), but still emancipating.
|
||
> ^597PMJT2aPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ff6666; --link-external-color: #ff6666;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=GIYJBGHD)</span>
|
||
> Atheism has been presented to us as the packaged scientism in our school curriculums, as the dogmatic materialism in academia, as the unscientific Darwinism shoved down our throats. It has been institutionalized by the off-limit, sanctified secularism, by the brutal French laicité, by decades of Communist official atheism, and by the selectively lawful blasphemy.
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > This is all very wrong.
|
||
> >
|
||
> > "*packaged scientism in our school curriculums*" : Scientism is the belief that science can solve/answer anything.
|
||
> >
|
||
> > "*unscientific Darwinism*" : The very act of calling "Darwinism" the "theory of evolution" shows a lack of knowledge in the subject. The theory has had a lot of modifications since Darwin. Anyway, most counter-arguments to the theory of evolution show a lack of knowledge in this subject.
|
||
> >
|
||
> > "*sanctified secularism*" is a contradiction. If you sanctify it, it isn't secularism anymore : it is anti-theism. The whole point of secularism is to be respectful of everyone. Or maybe, here, "sanctified" means that it is an important thing to respect for a state and its institutions. Then it is not negative anymore : it is a necessary condition for a state to be respectfull of all its citizens.
|
||
> >
|
||
> > "*brutal French laicité*" : The whole point of Laicité is to stop state's brutality against other religions. Without laicité, France would be
|
||
> >
|
||
> >
|
||
> > "Communist official atheism*" : If you are talking about historical facts, then it show a lack of knowledge, since communism has never happened, only socialism (hence USSR = Union of Socialist Sovietic Republics). Anyway, imposing atheism is usually seen as a misreading of Marx. It is true that forcing people to renounce to their faith is cruel. This is precisely why laicité is very important.
|
||
> >
|
||
> > If you are calling some countries like France "communist", it shows a lack of political knowledge, and it still doesn't work.
|
||
> >
|
||
> >
|
||
> > "*selectively *lawful* blasphemy*" : In a laic country, blasphemy is not *lawful* : it is *lawless*. A laic state cannot consider blasphemy, since it would imply that is recognizes religions, hence it would break laicity. State and law are here to protect people (this is why there are laws against defamation etc.). God should be powerful enough to protect themselves. It is also important to understand that, if you make blasphemy illegal, then you could have someone saying that publishing cooking recipes is blasphemy, because he believes that food is sacred, or whatever...
|
||
> ^GIYJBGHDaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #5fb236; --link-external-color: #5fb236;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=FQUYKGT2)</span>
|
||
> In the absence of divine guidance, atheism offers no solace, no meaning, no hope.
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > It is true, because it is not the point of atheism.
|
||
> > How could a *lack of belief* offer anything of this kind anyway ?
|
||
> ^FQUYKGT2aPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ff6666; --link-external-color: #ff6666;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=9QSB5SLM)</span>
|
||
> It is a doctrine of despair, a creed of emptiness, a philosophy of futility.
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > Atheism is not a doctrine : it is the **absence** of doctrine about God.
|
||
> ^9QSB5SLMaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #5fb236; --link-external-color: #5fb236;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=N5L3KZZF)</span>
|
||
> In the end, atheism is not the solution to humanity’s problems
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > This is true, but atheism doesn't pretend to solve any problems, except one unjustified belief.
|
||
> ^N5L3KZZFaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ff6666; --link-external-color: #ff6666;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=MLECBREV)</span>
|
||
> It is a symptom of our arrogance, our selfishness, our existential angst. It is a reflection of our inability to confront the ultimate questions — but more often, the ultimate answers of existence.
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > This affirmation is made without any proof, this is why I refute it without needing any proof.
|
||
> ^MLECBREVaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ff6666; --link-external-color: #ff6666;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=94AC67ME)</span>
|
||
> For what can good and evil possibly mean in a nihilistic, desperate world, where everything is the bastard son of entropy and chaos?
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > The important nuance here is that you are talking about *absolute* good and evil.
|
||
> > But not all moral systems try to be absolute.
|
||
> > Another mistake is to imply that good and evil need to come from a transcendental force, but a lot of moral system use social justification for their foundations.
|
||
> ^94AC67MEaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ffd400; --link-external-color: #ffd400;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=NL2YJAC8)</span>
|
||
> What beauty can be invented on a cold and lifeless celestial rock adrift in the barren cosmos?
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > Beauty is a whole philosophical subject in its own.
|
||
> > A "cold and lifeless celestial rock adrift in the barren cosmos" doesn't exclude beauty.
|
||
> ^NL2YJAC8aPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #5fb236; --link-external-color: #5fb236;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=YWMVTHBV)</span>
|
||
> What meaning can be found in a world where life is but a cruel joke played out by the blind, non-intentional forces of chance and randomness? What purpose can be possibly gleaned from the abrupt cascade of miserable, unfortunate accidents that define our hollow existence?
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > It is precisely the point of nihilism to say that there is no meaning our purpose *outside of the one you build yourself*.
|
||
> ^YWMVTHBVaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ff6666; --link-external-color: #ff6666;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=JC33GEDI)</span>
|
||
> What happiness can possibly be extracted from the suffocating grip of an absurd, void, finite, Sysiphian life, where we are unfairly condemned to be forever doomed to roll the boulder up the hill, only to watch it tumble back down into the abyss?
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > It is a very notable counter-argument that most atheists are not always sad, but instead experience happiness like everyone. I see no reason to link happiness to God without further argumentation.
|
||
> ^JC33GEDIaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ff6666; --link-external-color: #ff6666;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=BZ3NNHQ4)</span>
|
||
> What morality can be possibly negotiated by those arrogant, slightly more intelligent apes that dare to call themselves sapiens, but are nothing more than beasts driven by base instincts and animalistic desires?
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > One example of morality is to actually try to live your life like the animal you are. This especially has been defended by the Cynic, who said that, in order to be virtuous, you should follow the laws of nature, hence live your life like an animal (not in a society).
|
||
> ^BZ3NNHQ4aPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ff6666; --link-external-color: #ff6666;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=55GAKI5U)</span>
|
||
> In this stygian reality, where the belief in right and wrong is but an unintelligible abstraction, where beauty and ugliness are but fleeting illusions, where love and hate are nothing more than biochemical reactions in the brain, what hope can there be for a moral compass to guide us through this impenetrable umbra?
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > Here beliefs, emotions, feelings, and thoughts are mixed and taken one for another. It is important to be precise, and not only to have a "lofty rethoric"
|
||
> ^55GAKI5UaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ff6666; --link-external-color: #ff6666;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=4EWLSVYQ)</span>
|
||
> For atheism, humans are, as Stephen Hawking said, but “a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies.”
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > This is doing a very big mistake : mixing up atheism and materialism.
|
||
> ^4EWLSVYQaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ffd400; --link-external-color: #ffd400;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=S5TXW79G)</span>
|
||
> The belief that rape is wrong is, as Richard Dawkins famously admitted, just as arbitrary as having five fingers instead of six.
|
||
> ^S5TXW79GaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ff6666; --link-external-color: #ff6666;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=WXL84MKY)</span>
|
||
> Under a strictly atheistic, materialistic paradigm, killing a baby or cutting a tree is exactly, frighteningly, absurdly equivalent. Both are a rearrangement of cold matter. A strong man who kills an old lady is just doing what he is supposed to do: to survive in the ongoing, Darwinian race.
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > Here you see the mix-up between materialism and atheism.
|
||
> >
|
||
> > This "equivalence" between killing a baby or cutting a tree is only true in one precise point of view : matter, not moral. Materialism can lead to many moral views.
|
||
> >
|
||
> > The last part shows mostly a lack of understanding of the theory of evolution, since evolution never talks about a single individual : it is a theory of population flux, not of individual competition.
|
||
> ^WXL84MKYaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ff6666; --link-external-color: #ff6666;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=2VS8QIZ8)</span>
|
||
> Good and evil are strictly theistic concepts. They can exist because a deity that transcends our finitude exists. As Fyodor Dostoevsky famously said: ‘If there is no God, everything is permitted.’ Morality without God does not exist, cannot exist; there is no reason for it to exist. However, our human nature rejects these counter-intuitive conclusions. Every act of kindness, every gesture of compassion, mercy, altruism, and empathy screams the opposite of this.
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > There is no proof to this affirmation.
|
||
> > It is actually very false. A lot of philosophers have worked on good and evil without using any God as their starting point.
|
||
> ^2VS8QIZ8aPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ff6666; --link-external-color: #ff6666;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=JFSKUYMQ)</span>
|
||
> Atheism merely exists as a parasite, feeding off the remnants of the morality left by religion and the scraps of humans’ predisposition to do good, which can only make sense if we believe in God.
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > This is a mix a an *ad hominem* attack, and of an affirmation without any argumentation.
|
||
> ^JFSKUYMQaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ff6666; --link-external-color: #ff6666;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=QV8E6E2T)</span>
|
||
> We cannot say that murder, rape, theft, etc. are objectively immoral unless we argue from a theistic point of view. For morality cannot be objective (i.e., inherent and independent of human beliefs, opinions, cultures, or preferences) unless we believe that a transcendental authority (i.e., God) exists and stands between us and the moral abyss.
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > This is completely wrong.
|
||
> > All humans have two legs, and you don't need God to explain this.
|
||
> > The same thing could be said of a common moral views.
|
||
> > Asserting something doesn't make it true.
|
||
> ^QV8E6E2TaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ff6666; --link-external-color: #ff6666;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=5IVV78J5)</span>
|
||
> Subjective morality however is changing, relative, baseless, subject to people’s whims and fluctuations, and as inconsequential as choosing between flavors of ice cream.
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > Though it is true that a subjective morality is changing, it is wrong to say that it is baseless and inconsequential. Your own view of what is moral or not is far from inconsequential : it has real impacts on the way you conduct your life. If it isn't the case, then you are just discussing morality *for the sake of discussion*, which is not the same.
|
||
> > Subjective morality *can be baseless*, the same way someone could follow the morality of a religion without having actual faith, just by habit. But you can certainly build a subjective morality on arguments, on philosophy.
|
||
> >
|
||
> > Most importantly, if your morality is unable to change whatever the fluctuations around you, whatever your fluctuations, if you have opinions that can *never change*, then you are not *thinking* anymore : you just have a dogma that no argument will ever change.
|
||
> ^5IVV78J5aPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ff6666; --link-external-color: #ff6666;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=25TRET9A)</span>
|
||
> Some would argue that there are — there must be other sources of objective morality like science, common sense, and the rule of the majority. Let’s examine these alternatives one by one.
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > You are literally taking the worse sources for morality.
|
||
> > Anyone that thinks of it a bit takes for granted that science is not concerned with morality, that building morality on "common sense" is probably a bad idea, and that the rule of the majority can be immoral (this is why we don't give all the power to majority).
|
||
> >
|
||
> > You could build morality on many *other things*, like empathy, ontology, or on some philosophical theory.
|
||
> ^25TRET9AaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ff6666; --link-external-color: #ff6666;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=BFY4UFQA)</span>
|
||
> Modern scientism has elevated science to a pedestal, thrusting it into arenas where it does not belong.
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > While it is actually true that some scientists talk about subject they don't know, but feel confident because medias give them importance, it would be really dishonest to say that all the academic world does this, or that most science consists in scientism.
|
||
> ^BFY4UFQAaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #5fb236; --link-external-color: #5fb236;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=IE6BUTII)</span>
|
||
> Objective morality, or even morality for that matter, can not be inferred from scientific research. For science is the study of what is and not what it ought to be.
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > That is perfectly true, and is why science doesn't talk about morality.
|
||
> ^IE6BUTIIaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ffd400; --link-external-color: #ffd400;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=HIXQ8329)</span>
|
||
> However, what science cannot do is determine the moral or ethical justification for our actions.
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > This very sentence is true, but you have to be careful not to mix up science and rational thinking.
|
||
> > It is possible to determine moral or ethical justifications using reason.
|
||
> ^HIXQ8329aPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ffd400; --link-external-color: #ffd400;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=HLMBMZVN)</span>
|
||
> These are questions that fall outside the realm of scientific inquiry and instead delve into the domain of religion, philosophy, and ethics.
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > As said previously, this is true for Science, but not for reason, which can be used for philosophic and ethical questions.
|
||
> >
|
||
> > Additionally, we can use science to make conclusions *about people's morality*. For example, the claim (used in this article) that there is an innate "moral compass" that is universal and independent of culture, is an assertion that can and should be checked by science.
|
||
> ^HLMBMZVNaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #5fb236; --link-external-color: #5fb236;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=42IHQBSC)</span>
|
||
> Another example is the use of technology to develop weapons. Science can provide complex equations and mathematical formulas that birth the devastating power of missiles and atomic bombs. It can calculate the velocity, trajectory, and impact of these weapons with precision. However, it cannot answer the question of whether it is morally justifiable to use these weapons in warfare.
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > This is true : science is a tool that can be used for good or evil purposes.
|
||
> > But religion and God have been used to justify war, murder, torture...
|
||
> > At least science doesn't pretend to be good, and gives you the tools to analyze how it could go wrong.
|
||
> ^42IHQBSCaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ff6666; --link-external-color: #ff6666;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=JKST3VNW)</span>
|
||
> Science may provide us with the cold, necessary studies of calculations and tools to perform these interventions. Yet, it remains indifferent to the consequences of its Frankensteinian creations.
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > This is wrong. Science is also about studying consequences. The scientific community knows very well that genetic manipulations could have very bad consequences. Actually, it is only fanatism that can lead you to be indifferent to the consequences of your creations : in science you are encouraged to think critically.
|
||
> ^JKST3VNWaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ffd400; --link-external-color: #ffd400;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=AS32RGHK)</span>
|
||
> Good is not always aligned with survival.
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > So now, instead of talking about common sense and majority, the article talks about survival ?
|
||
> ^AS32RGHKaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ff6666; --link-external-color: #ff6666;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=UZRB4SYN)</span>
|
||
> We do not do moral things because they help us ‘survive.’ Quite the opposite sometimes, our sense of morality pushes us to help the weak and to take care of the ‘least fit.’
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > This is a very wrong view of what the theory of evolution says. The theory of evolution is not about *individuals* : it is about population flux.
|
||
> > Helping the weak, taking care of the "*least fit*", definitely helps *the community as a whole* to survive, even if it could be *locally bad for one individual*. Here, the article mixes up scales.
|
||
> ^UZRB4SYNaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ff6666; --link-external-color: #ff6666;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=ZXA9Z9LK)</span>
|
||
> To say that morality is a matter of common sense presupposes that morality is inherent, which goes against the explanation of randomness and meaninglessness that atheism gives.
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > This is wrong. Something can be inherent even in a materialist world, like having two legs for humans.
|
||
> > Here, the article mixes up materialism, nihilism and atheism.
|
||
> > Again : atheism is only about not believing in god. Atheism says nothing about your belief of a meaning to existence (nihilism says that there is none), or of your belief in the existence of an other essence than matter (materialism says that it doesn't exist).
|
||
> ^ZXA9Z9LKaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ffd400; --link-external-color: #ffd400;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=XNZA9JRS)</span>
|
||
> We can not even trust this shared ‘sense of morality’ because it is but the result of aimless and blind processes.
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > I can very much call "aimless" and "blind" a process where God is involved, since, by definition, you cannot know the aims and ways of God. Belief that you should base your morality on God is a belief that leads to the blind following of a dogma (maybe written by God, but that is another question), which can be qualified as "aimless and blind".
|
||
> >
|
||
> > In the opposite, if you build your morality on rational thinking, you can definitely say it has a precise aim (the one you gave it) and I don't see how it can be qualified as a "blind process".
|
||
> ^XNZA9JRSaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ffd400; --link-external-color: #ffd400;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=VPGDN9M6)</span>
|
||
> If atheists assume that morality can be derived from what the majority thinks however, then they should not be selective and should also consider trusting the majority’s historical belief in the existence of God.
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > The philosophical position stating that morality should be derived from what the majority thinks is called "moral majoritarianism", and it isn't really linked with atheism (you could be morally majoritarian whether you believe in a God or not).
|
||
> >
|
||
> >
|
||
> > It is very well known as a mathematical fact, as a sociological fact, as a political fact and as an historical fact, that the majority isn't always doing good things.
|
||
> ^VPGDN9M6aPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ffd400; --link-external-color: #ffd400;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=MFBTQNLU)</span>
|
||
> Throughout history, there have been instances where widespread acceptance of certain practices, such as racial and inter-generational slavery or the Holocaust, were deemed moral by the majority.
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > The same thing can be said about basing your morality on God : it *also* caused genocides, it *also* has been used to justify slavery...
|
||
> ^MFBTQNLUaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #5fb236; --link-external-color: #5fb236;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=43G3QWL5)</span>
|
||
> It nurtures totalitarianism, suppresses minority voices, and turns individuals into sheep susceptible to propaganda, fueled by ignorance, fear, and stereotypes.
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > This is precisely why we should let everyone free to build their own opinions freely (no propaganda), but still have regulatory bodies that prevent majority to do things that go against constitution.
|
||
> >
|
||
> >
|
||
> > Religions have *also* been used to build totalitarianism, to suppress minority voices.
|
||
> >
|
||
> > Actually, religion is one of the best tools to turn individuals into sheep, through ignorance (of facts, of science, of rational truth), through fear (of divine punition), and stereotypes.
|
||
> > This is precisely why communists are usually against religions.
|
||
> ^43G3QWL5aPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ff6666; --link-external-color: #ff6666;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=4U3GTS5Z)</span>
|
||
> Naom Chomskey
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > I think it is Noam Chomsky.
|
||
> ^4U3GTS5ZaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ff6666; --link-external-color: #ff6666;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=WHIZ5ZQG)</span>
|
||
> Humans can not live without morality. Our existence as communitites depends on the deep belief and universal trust in other fellow human beings’ ability to recognize what is wrong and what is right.
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > I consider this a globally wrong.
|
||
> > I regard empathy, sympathy and compassion as the pillars of building communities. I believe that morality is and should be based on them.
|
||
> > Anyway, either you are saying that atheists cannot live in a community (which is experimentally wrong), or you are saying that *every human has morality*, but then "humans can not live without morality" is like saying "humans can not live without lungs" : it is true but useless.
|
||
> ^WHIZ5ZQGaPYH5EDV8
|
||
|
||
> [!zotero]+ <span style="color: #ff6666; --link-external-color: #ff6666;">[Atheism and morality: do we need God to be moral?](zotero://select/library/items/7HTDGZYY) - [Page ](zotero://open-pdf/library/items/PYH5EDV8?annotation=RQ8YFQRB)</span>
|
||
> They can be moral, but they cannot explain or justify morality without appealing to God.
|
||
>
|
||
> > [!note] Notes
|
||
> > This basically ignores hundreds of years of history of philosophy.
|
||
> ^RQ8YFQRBaPYH5EDV8
|