# Fellow atheists: help me explain to believers that our morality is NOT faith based. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 7, 2014, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684 "2014-10-07T20:35:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/41 "2014-10-07T22:16:08Z")
> [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > That’s very true. I meant to write “atheists’ moralities,” but I see that I made an error. I blame Satan. I think the kind of people you were talking about in the OP are those who think there is an atheist morality. Usually of the law of the jungle type. Recognizing the reality of atheist moralities is a lot more nuanced than these people get. ---
**Author:** ![Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skald_the_Rhymer)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/42 "2014-10-07T22:21:40Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I think the kind of people you were talking about in the OP are those who think there is an atheist morality. Usually of the law of the jungle type. Recognizing the reality of atheist moralities is a lot more nuanced than these people get. Which is why I opened this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/43 "2014-10-07T22:22:02Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > I’m tired, didn’t get much sleep last night… my question is then, for most people who are “part of the herd”, how much of a real conscience do they have or are they mainly bound by environment? I would say that certain things indicate good concience _no matter what the “herd” customs are_ - and that fact alone makes me think there is, indeed, some sort of objective morality after all. The basis of these things is some effort or form of the ethic of reciprocity - boiled down, the notion that others besides oneself have moral meaning. At base, the slaveowners (to use your example) were picking and choosing elements of their own cultural beliefs that, in effect, supported their own self-interest - that is, were contrary to the notion that their slaves had moral meaning; in contrast, abolitionists picked up the elements of their culture that supported the ethic of reciprocity - that invested slaves as having moral meaning. As in, “am I not a man and a brother?”. Conscience tends to guide the choice of what aspects of already-existing culture to emphasize - do others have moral meaning or are you just justifying self-interest without regard to others? That’s where the choice of conscience comes in. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/44 "2014-10-07T22:26:54Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That gets into a flavor of religion. I was talking about a philosophical position that simply acknowledged a higher power, a Creator. I want to point you back to post 3 in the thread, in which a smart, thoughtful, and devilishly handsome poster already addressed this point. How do you respond to that bad boy’s post? ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/45 "2014-10-07T22:37:59Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > I would say that certain things indicate good concience _no matter what the “herd” customs are_ - and that fact alone makes me think there is, indeed, some sort of objective morality after all. > > The basis of these things is some effort or form of the ethic of reciprocity - boiled down, the notion that others besides oneself have moral meaning. > > At base, the slaveowners (to use your example) were picking and choosing elements of their own cultural beliefs that, in effect, supported their own self-interest - that is, were contrary to the notion that their slaves had moral meaning; in contrast, abolitionists picked up the elements of their culture that supported the ethic of reciprocity - that invested slaves as having moral meaning. As in, “am I not a man and a brother?”. > > Conscience tends to guide the choice of what aspects of already-existing culture to emphasize - do others have moral meaning or are you just justifying self-interest without regard to others? That’s where the choice of conscience comes in. OK… but I get the sense that “good people” are inherently good. They just seem to have the inner constitution to want to do right, to want to think of others. Good people come from all kinds of backgrounds. Conversely, “bad people”, selfish people, abusive people, authoritarian people, they seem to just be that way as well. It is easy to think people who had bad circumstances can end up being bad people but people from good circumstances also wind up being bad. So… for lack of a better example, do you think part of morality is genetic? ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 10:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/46 "2014-10-07T22:53:33Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Personally, I don’t think one can have a a morality that he can expect others to agree with and live under without the threat of force if it is not based on something higher. It becomes the rule of Kings, which can simply change do to the whims of future kings. I think a foundation for morality needs to come from a higher order. I think the Declaration of Independence and its invoking of Natural Law lays out a very good basic framework. Mind you, I am not arguing for a nod to religion. I don’t see how Natural Law/the acknowledgment of a higher power changes this in any way. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/47 "2014-10-07T22:58:49Z")
I don’t think that people have typically a well thought of moral system. Most atheists IMO don’t refer to some philosophy of life, and most believers don’t pay close attention to the real moral teachings of their religion. Both derive their morals from what they have been taught, from society’s values, from their feelings of empathy, etc…and there’s no guarantee of consistency. People rely on their feelings more than on their intellect for deciding what’s acceptable and what isn’t. I’m not sure what you mean by “faith based”, exactly. There’s no “faith” involved for an atheist, obviously, but even the most thought of moral system is going to be based on some pretty arbitrary “axioms”. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/48 "2014-10-07T22:59:16Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > I don’t see how Natural Law/the acknowledgment of a higher power changes this in any way. I think language is the problem here. The basic idea, seems to me, that we need something to unify us in accordance to that people have so many of their own goals and agendas that SOME type of unification is necessary and helpful. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/49 "2014-10-07T23:02:26Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > I think language is the problem here. The basic idea, seems to me, that we need something to unify us in accordance to that people have so many of their own goals and agendas that SOME type of unification is necessary and helpful. If so, I still don’t see how a Creator helps. The same could be achieved with an atheist system. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/50 "2014-10-07T23:05:21Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > If so, I still don’t see how a Creator helps. The same could be achieved with an atheist system. Oh, yes, we are quite in agreement about that as well as, I think, the person up thread that put across this idea we are now discussing… ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/51 "2014-10-07T23:37:10Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > OK… but I get the sense that “good people” are inherently good. They just seem to have the inner constitution to want to do right, to want to think of others. Good people come from all kinds of backgrounds. Conversely, “bad people”, selfish people, abusive people, authoritarian people, they seem to just be that way as well. It is easy to think people who had bad circumstances can end up being bad people but people from good circumstances also wind up being bad. So… for lack of a better example, do you think part of morality is genetic? We know there are sociopaths who are born that way and don’t get standard morals, so there can also be goodiopaths. ™. Some moral principles had survival value long enough ago for us to have them as part of our genome. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2014, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/52 "2014-10-07T23:45:35Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > We know there are sociopaths who are born that way and don’t get standard morals, so there can also be goodiopaths. ™. Some moral principles had survival value long enough ago for us to have them as part of our genome. LOL 😃 But I guess I am referring more to day to day interactions or to people in general. I think a lot of it is genetic. Sensitivity & Empathy are largely innate/genetic, are they not? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/53 "2014-10-08T00:22:36Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > I want to point you back to post 3 in the thread, in which a smart, thoughtful, and devilishly handsome poster already addressed this point. How do you respond to that bad boy’s post? That that boy went too far into religion. I agree that if you go that far you have problems and will end up with competing Gods and competing sets of beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![CarnalK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnalk/32/486_2.png) [@CarnalK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CarnalK)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/54 "2014-10-08T01:08:56Z")
Ok, i admit I didn’t read the whole thread but a text search on animals didn’t show anything so here goes: Animals clearly have “moral systems”. It varies wildly from species to species but the more social the animal the more it tends towards kindness to your herd mates. So unless you posit that Bonobos are religious, clearly a morality is a nonreligious aspect of creatures. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/55 "2014-10-08T01:09:33Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That that boy went too far into religion. I agree that if you go that far you have problems and will end up with competing Gods and competing sets of beliefs. 😕 I’m not sure I follow you. The objection is not predicated on any particular religion; it really discusses nothing more than the idea of a higher power. You said, > [@](#): > > Personally, I don’t think one can have a a morality that he can expect others to agree with and live under without the threat of force if it is not based on something higher. It becomes the rule of Kings, which can simply change do to the whims of future kings. I think a foundation for morality needs to come from a higher order. My point is that a “higher order” does nothing to tell us what’s right or what’s wrong. If you just equate “matches the higher order” with good, you’ve lost the relevant definition of “good,” replacing it with “natural” or “godly” or whatever your higher order is. If you suggest that the higher order is apparently good, we just push back the question: on what basis are you declaring that the higher order is good? If we don’t have an objective morality without introducing a higher power/order, the introduction of one doesn’t help. ---
**Author:** ![RitterSport](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rittersport/32/6326_2.png) [@RitterSport](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RitterSport)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/56 "2014-10-08T01:18:11Z")
> [@Learjeff](#): > > … > > You didn’t specifically conflate the two, but be very careful to distinguish between the “moral sense”, which is a consequence of biological evolution, and “ethics”, which is what we **decide** is right and wrong. There are a number of things we might “feel” is ethical, but on careful analysis, find is wrong and antithetical to the core values we choose to honor. For example, we might feel emotionally justified to kill our lover’s lover, but on reflection realize that isn’t what civilized people should do. > … I think it’s very difficult to separate the moral sense, which seems built in to me, and ethics. In this thread, people talk about axioms which form the basis of our ethical systems. Those axioms may come from the moral sense. I was struck by those thought experiments where people had to save or not save an out of control train. They were mostly OK with pushing a button that would make the train go on a different track where it would kill someone, but save everyone on the train, and mostly not OK with pushing someone onto the track to save everyone on the train. Where did that decision come from? ---
**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/57 "2014-10-08T01:24:26Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Ayn Rand was an atheist also - how do you think she and Castro would have gotten along? Rand had an intense dislike for any man with facial hair. > [@clairobscur](#): > > There’s no “faith” involved for an atheist, obviously . . . “Faith” is simply belief not based on reason. There’s nothing in atheism that rules out faith, only faith in a god. ---
**Author:** ![njtt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ecd19e/32.png) [@njtt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/njtt)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/58 "2014-10-08T01:28:28Z")
Sophisticated ethical systems that do not depend on religious faith or deference to any authority have been around since long before Christianity. The earliest surviving worked-out systems are to be found in the works of Plato and Aristotle. Since that time, many other philosophers have developed ethical systems that are not based upon religion, and indeed, it has generally been recognized, even by philosophers who were themselves religious believers (such as, notably Immanuel Kant) that it is a serious moral and theological mistake to make one’s morality fundamentally dependent on one’s religion. Unfortunately, however, the fundamentals of ethics are a conceptually difficult and complex matter. I do not think that there is any short answer to the OP’s question except to encourage the people in question to study, and perhaps take an introductory course in, moral philosophy. If they want to take their course from a Christian (or otherwise religious) teacher (which might help them with trust issues), that will not matter, because Christians with a grounding in moral philosophy are, in fact, usually quite well aware that morality does not, and should not (indeed, for religious reasons, amongst others, should not), _depend_ on religious faith. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 3:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/59 "2014-10-08T03:03:22Z")
To the extent moral claims lack objective truth value and are resistant to empirical inquiry one could say all morality is faith based. That’s a wee bit flippant though. I never understood why the existence of God would create objective morality. That would just make him another guy with an opinion. He has lots of strange views I don’t particularly care for. His monopoly on celestial violence may compel people to act as he wishes but that doesn’t inject truth value. You could give an objective description of how it works, like if you cheat on your wife you go to hell, but you could also do the same by looking at community standards and break down everyone’s moral views, or cite a law and say that the police will punish you for X and Y. > [@Skald\_the\_Rhymer](#): > > For instance, my first axiom is that the survival of the human species is the highest good, while my second is that that the minimization of human suffering is the second highest good. These two axioms are in direct conflict. Thus, antinatalism. Or, in your case, the maximum positive morality state is keeping a single person in stasis. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2014, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684/60 "2014-10-08T03:22:11Z")
> [@CarnalK](#): > > Ok, i admit I didn’t read the whole thread but a text search on animals didn’t show anything so here goes: > Animals clearly have “moral systems”. It varies wildly from species to species but the more social the animal the more it tends towards kindness to your herd mates. So unless you posit that Bonobos are religious, clearly a morality is a nonreligious aspect of creatures. **Der Trihs** , and, I believe, others, noted that some of our (human) concept of “good” is instinctively based. But…it’s worth your pointing out again. Dogs most definitely know “right and wrong.” Most of the “social animals” have instinctive rules of ethical behavior. (Respect the family. Share food when it’s short. Play-fight if you want, but don’t really fight within the family. Keep up your end of the chase; do your duty.) Way over in the other direction, it’s important to remember that there have been religions that had moral codes that we would not hold in much regard today. Human sacrifice to Moloch or Kali is frowned on in our society. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/fellow-atheists-help-me-explain-to-believers-that-our-morality-is-not-faith-based/700684.md?page=4)