Rather than dwell on far away places, let's take a recent example
from my own home town as a case study. I live in Huntington Beach,
CA. Huntington Beach is the third largest city in Orange County,
11th largest in California and the 93rd largest in the U.S. Our city
contains just over 250K people. Now, this is not the Bible belt. In
fact, only about 5% of people in my area go to church regularly.
After hurricane Katrina, my own church of 650 adults donated nearly
$20K to support the Baptist relief fund. The Baptist Relief Fund
served 13 million meals to victims of Katrina and other hurricanes
in 2005 using portable kitchens designed for this purpose. Another
church in town just slightly bigger than ours loaded two tractor
trailers full of supplies and had volunteers from their congregation
drive them to New Orleans just days after the disaster. The Catholic
church in my town outdid us all raising just shy of $100K in two
weeks for Katrina relief. Say it's a myth if you like, but three
churches amounting to a couple thousand people gave more than $160K
toward relief.

Now, I'm sure there are plenty of atheists in town including many who
gave money, but they did so as individuals. Atheists weren't loading
trucks, organizing donation drives or volunteering for cross country
convoys. Not in my town. Not in any town that I've heard about. This
lack of organized, grass roots moral response matters. It means that
atheists, despite genuinely wanting to "do good", don't actually
get nearly as much good done.

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=103


Atheism Hampers the Moral Efforts of Atheists

Posted by John under News



First of all as atheists often point out, sitting in a comfy chair
beneath a steeple does not make one moral. Morality only "counts"
when it reveals itself in some tangible moral action. This "real
morality" is the kind I want to talk about in this post.

Most atheists seek to be good people. They do so despite the fact that
atheism itself is amoral.

When challenged on this point, atheists will
sometimes refer to the utilitarian views of J.S. Mill, the categorical
imperative of Kant, Marxism, or the Secular Humanist Manifesto. All of
these represent alternative moral systems which require no reference to
God. The existence of such systems in not in question. In fact, I would
argue that there are a potentially infinite number of such systems. And
as I say, moral atheists can choose whichever one they find most valid.
What they can not do is offer a reason to follow any such system based
on atheism.

Utilitarian ethics may be logical (even Spock likes J.S.
Mill, remember) but atheism itself does not require that one have a
logical moral system, or any system at all.

It turns out that the
"universal solvent" of materialism is as corrosive of secular
humanist morality as it is of Christianity. The result of this
dissolving action is moral atomism, i.e. every man and woman decides
for himself what is moral.

I know this for two reasons. First because I used to be an atheist, and
second because the brightest atheists in history have told me this is
so. Darwin said so (at the end of his life). Huxley made a point of it.
Sartre, Nietzche, Camus - they all agree on this point: We can only
do what seems best to us as individuals. The corollary is that other
people can only do what seems best to them. If two atheists disagree
about a moral matter there is a stalemate. Atheism can not resolve it
because it views all moral schemes as, at best, useful fictions. This
has really important consequences. As Camus demonstrated in The
Stranger, even killing for the sake of killing isn't really wrong,
merely unpopular.

I am not suggesting that atheists are murderers. I am suggesting that
starting from atheism murder is as morally justifiable a position as
any other. But although atheism could justify anything it has
historically been most often associated with hedonism (from Epicurus to
Hugh Hefner).

If one is his own moral arbiter, why not enjoy oneself? A
quick look at atheist blogs will turn up many references to
Christianity as "self-denying" or some such. The alternative of
course is to be self-gratifying. That's hedonism.
But let's step away from the extremes of behavior, since I think we
all agree that most atheists are neither murderers, pornographers or
anything of the sort. In fact, I think most atheists are genuinely
moral people who seek the good for themselves and others. And here's
where atheism really hurts atheists. Moral atomism is not compatible
with corporate effort. This matters a great deal when it comes to
practical morality because corporate action is always far more
effective than individual action. This is as true in moral endeavors as
in business. To use a familiar business example, two guys in a garage
can create the first Macintosh computer, but two guys in a garage can
not be Apple.

The most conspicuous type of corporate moral behavior is charity. There
are a million and one Christian charities in the world. This is because
Christianity provides both a framework and a mandate for moral
entrepreneurs to create charity based on needs.

By contrast there are
relatively few secular humanist charities. Again, I'm not saying
atheists don't give to charity, I know they do. But if one is honest,
one has to admit that the most well known "charities" flying the
humanist banner tend to focus their efforts on the one thing that binds
atheists together, i.e. distaste for religion. Thus, groups like the
ACLU and People for the American Way are widely and almost exclusively
supported by atheists. The result of moral entrepreneurship can
sometimes be annoying and questionable even to other Christians, i.e.
the Moral Majority. But this is the nature of entrepreneurial activity:
not every start up succeeds and some that do probably don't deserve
to.

Nevertheless, the result of all this corporate moral activity is that
Christianity accomplishes quite a bit of good overall. And again, I'm
strictly speaking about tangible good, the kind I think we can all
agree on, i.e. feeding, clothing, sheltering, teaching literacy, etc.
The Salvation Army alone spends a couple billion a year on these
activities. Christian charities that feed the hungry spend several
times this amount each year in Africa alone. This doesn't begin to
count all the hours of volunteer time at soup kitchens and hospices and
orphanages and on and on. Moral entrepreneurship works, as even some
atheists will admit.

Rather than dwell on far away places, let's take a recent example
from my own home town as a case study. I live in Huntington Beach, CA.
Huntington Beach is the third largest city in Orange County, 11th
largest in California and the 93rd largest in the U.S. Our city
contains just over 250K people. Now, this is not the Bible belt. In
fact, only about 5% of people in my area go to church regularly. After
hurricane Katrina, my own church of 650 adults donated nearly $20K to
support the Baptist relief fund. The Baptist Relief Fund served 13
million meals to victims of Katrina and other hurricanes in 2005 using
portable kitchens designed for this purpose. Another church in town
just slightly bigger than ours loaded two tractor trailers full of
supplies and had volunteers from their congregation drive them to New
Orleans just days after the disaster. The Catholic church in my town
outdid us all raising just shy of $100K in two weeks for Katrina
relief. Say it's a myth if you like, but three churches amounting to
a couple thousand people gave more than $160K toward relief.

Now, I'm sure there are plenty of atheists in town including many who
gave money, but they did so as individuals. Atheists weren't loading
trucks, organizing donation drives or volunteering for cross country
convoys. Not in my town. Not in any town that I've heard about. This
lack of organized, grass roots moral response matters. It means that
atheists, despite genuinely wanting to "do good", don't actually
get nearly as much good done.

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=103


Atheism Hampers the Moral Efforts of Atheists

Posted by John under News



First of all as atheists often point out, sitting in a comfy chair
beneath a steeple does not make one moral. Morality only "counts"
when it reveals itself in some tangible moral action. This "real
morality" is the kind I want to talk about in this post.

Most atheists seek to be good people. They do so despite the fact that
atheism itself is amoral.

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=103


Atheism Hampers the Moral Efforts of Atheists

Posted by John under News



First of all as atheists often point out, sitting in a comfy chair
beneath a steeple does not make one moral. Morality only "counts"
when it reveals itself in some tangible moral action. This "real
morality" is the kind I want to talk about in this post.

Most atheists seek to be good people. They do so despite the fact that
atheism itself is amoral. When challenged on this point, atheists will
sometimes refer to the utilitarian views of J.S. Mill, the categorical
imperative of Kant, Marxism, or the Secular Humanist Manifesto. All of
these represent alternative moral systems which require no reference to
God. The existence of such systems in not in question. In fact, I would
argue that there are a potentially infinite number of such systems. And
as I say, moral atheists can choose whichever one they find most valid.
What they can not do is offer a reason to follow any such system based
on atheism. Utilitarian ethics may be logical (even Spock likes J.S.
Mill, remember) but atheism itself does not require that one have a
logical moral system, or any system at all. It turns out that the
"universal solvent" of materialism is as corrosive of secular
humanist morality as it is of Christianity. The result of this
dissolving action is moral atomism, i.e. every man and woman decides
for himself what is moral.

I know this for two reasons. First because I used to be an atheist, and
second because the brightest atheists in history have told me this is
so. Darwin said so (at the end of his life). Huxley made a point of it.
Sartre, Nietzche, Camus - they all agree on this point: We can only
do what seems best to us as individuals. The corollary is that other
people can only do what seems best to them. If two atheists disagree
about a moral matter there is a stalemate. Atheism can not resolve it
because it views all moral schemes as, at best, useful fictions. This
has really important consequences. As Camus demonstrated in The
Stranger, even killing for the sake of killing isn't really wrong,
merely unpopular.

I am not suggesting that atheists are murderers. I am suggesting that
starting from atheism murder is as morally justifiable a position as
any other. But although atheism could justify anything it has
historically been most often associated with hedonism (from Epicurus to
Hugh Hefner). If one is his own moral arbiter, why not enjoy oneself? A
quick look at atheist blogs will turn up many references to
Christianity as "self-denying" or some such. The alternative of
course is to be self-gratifying. That's hedonism.

Most atheists seek to be good people. They do so despite the fact that
atheism itself is amoral. When challenged on this point, atheists will
sometimes refer to the utilitarian views of J.S. Mill, the categorical
imperative of Kant, Marxism, or the Secular Humanist Manifesto. All of
these represent alternative moral systems which require no reference to
God. The existence of such systems in not in question. In fact, I would
argue that there are a potentially infinite number of such systems. And
as I say, moral atheists can choose whichever one they find most valid.
What they can not do is offer a reason to follow any such system based
on atheism. Utilitarian ethics may be logical (even Spock likes J.S.
Mill, remember) but atheism itself does not require that one have a
logical moral system, or any system at all. It turns out that the
"universal solvent" of materialism is as corrosive of secular
humanist morality as it is of Christianity. The result of this
dissolving action is moral atomism, i.e. every man and woman decides
for himself what is moral.

I know this for two reasons. First because I used to be an atheist, and
second because the brightest atheists in history have told me this is
so. Darwin said so (at the end of his life). Huxley made a point of it.
Sartre, Nietzche, Camus - they all agree on this point: We can only
do what seems best to us as individuals. The corollary is that other
people can only do what seems best to them. If two atheists disagree
about a moral matter there is a stalemate. Atheism can not resolve it
because it views all moral schemes as, at best, useful fictions. This
has really important consequences. As Camus demonstrated in The
Stranger, even killing for the sake of killing isn't really wrong,
merely unpopular.

I am not suggesting that atheists are murderers. I am suggesting that
starting from atheism murder is as morally justifiable a position as
any other. But although atheism could justify anything it has
historically been most often associated with hedonism (from Epicurus to
Hugh Hefner). If one is his own moral arbiter, why not enjoy oneself? A
quick look at atheist blogs will turn up many references to
Christianity as "self-denying" or some such. The alternative of
course is to be self-gratifying. That's hedonism.

But let's step away from the extremes of behavior, since I think we
all agree that most atheists are neither murderers, pornographers or
anything of the sort. In fact, I think most atheists are genuinely
moral people who seek the good for themselves and others. And here's
where atheism really hurts atheists. Moral atomism is not compatible
with corporate effort. This matters a great deal when it comes to
practical morality because corporate action is always far more
effective than individual action. This is as true in moral endeavors as
in business. To use a familiar business example, two guys in a garage
can create the first Macintosh computer, but two guys in a garage can
not be Apple.

The most conspicuous type of corporate moral behavior is charity. There
are a million and one Christian charities in the world. This is because
Christianity provides both a framework and a mandate for moral
entrepreneurs to create charity based on needs. By contrast there are
relatively few secular humanist charities. Again, I'm not saying
atheists don't give to charity, I know they do. But if one is honest,
one has to admit that the most well known "charities" flying the
humanist banner tend to focus their efforts on the one thing that binds
atheists together, i.e. distaste for religion. Thus, groups like the
ACLU and People for the American Way are widely and almost exclusively
supported by atheists. The result of moral entrepreneurship can
sometimes be annoying and questionable even to other Christians, i.e.
the Moral Majority. But this is the nature of entrepreneurial activity:
not every start up succeeds and some that do probably don't deserve
to.

Nevertheless, the result of all this corporate moral activity is that
Christianity accomplishes quite a bit of good overall. And again, I'm
strictly speaking about tangible good, the kind I think we can all
agree on, i.e. feeding, clothing, sheltering, teaching literacy, etc.
The Salvation Army alone spends a couple billion a year on these
activities. Christian charities that feed the hungry spend several
times this amount each year in Africa alone. This doesn't begin to
count all the hours of volunteer time at soup kitchens and hospices and
orphanages and on and on. Moral entrepreneurship works, as even some
atheists will admit.

Rather than dwell on far away places, let's take a recent example
from my own home town as a case study. I live in Huntington Beach, CA.
Huntington Beach is the third largest city in Orange County, 11th
largest in California and the 93rd largest in the U.S. Our city
contains just over 250K people. Now, this is not the Bible belt. In
fact, only about 5% of people in my area go to church regularly. After
hurricane Katrina, my own church of 650 adults donated nearly $20K to
support the Baptist relief fund. The Baptist Relief Fund served 13
million meals to victims of Katrina and other hurricanes in 2005 using
portable kitchens designed for this purpose. Another church in town
just slightly bigger than ours loaded two tractor trailers full of
supplies and had volunteers from their congregation drive them to New
Orleans just days after the disaster. The Catholic church in my town
outdid us all raising just shy of $100K in two weeks for Katrina
relief. Say it's a myth if you like, but three churches amounting to
a couple thousand people gave more than $160K toward relief.

Now, I'm sure there are plenty of atheists in town including many who
gave money, but they did so as individuals. Atheists weren't loading
trucks, organizing donation drives or volunteering for cross country
convoys. Not in my town. Not in any town that I've heard about. This
lack of organized, grass roots moral response matters. It means that
atheists, despite genuinely wanting to "do good", don't actually
get nearly as much good done.

To sum up, if Darwin, Huxley and their modern day equivalents are
correct about the source of our morality then Nietzsche and Camus are
right about the consequences. Atheists can pledge their troth to J.S.
Mill, Marx, or the Council on Secular Humanism if they so choose. What
they can not do is offer a reason founded in materialism why they or
anyone else should do so. The resulting moral atomism leads to a
distinct lack of grass roots corporate effort in "real" moral
matters. While most atheists genuinely seek to do good they do so
primarily as individuals. Thus atheism, because it is incompatible with
corporate moral effort, significantly limits the good atheists
accomplish.

atheism itself is amoral.

Atheism Hampers the Moral Efforts of Atheists

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=103


Atheism Hampers the Moral Efforts of Atheists

Posted by John under News



First of all as atheists often point out, sitting in a comfy chair
beneath a steeple does not make one moral. Morality only "counts"
when it reveals itself in some tangible moral action. This "real
morality" is the kind I want to talk about in this post.

Most atheists seek to be good people. They do so despite the fact that
atheism itself is amoral. When challenged on this point, atheists will
sometimes refer to the utilitarian views of J.S. Mill, the categorical
imperative of Kant, Marxism, or the Secular Humanist Manifesto. All of
these represent alternative moral systems which require no reference to
God. The existence of such systems in not in question. In fact, I would
argue that there are a potentially infinite number of such systems. And
as I say, moral atheists can choose whichever one they find most valid.
What they can not do is offer a reason to follow any such system based
on atheism. Utilitarian ethics may be logical (even Spock likes J.S.
Mill, remember) but atheism itself does not require that one have a
logical moral system, or any system at all. It turns out that the
"universal solvent" of materialism is as corrosive of secular
humanist morality as it is of Christianity. The result of this
dissolving action is moral atomism, i.e. every man and woman decides
for himself what is moral.

I know this for two reasons. First because I used to be an atheist, and
second because the brightest atheists in history have told me this is
so. Darwin said so (at the end of his life). Huxley made a point of it.
Sartre, Nietzche, Camus - they all agree on this point: We can only
do what seems best to us as individuals. The corollary is that other
people can only do what seems best to them. If two atheists disagree
about a moral matter there is a stalemate. Atheism can not resolve it
because it views all moral schemes as, at best, useful fictions. This
has really important consequences. As Camus demonstrated in The
Stranger, even killing for the sake of killing isn't really wrong,
merely unpopular.

I am not suggesting that atheists are murderers.

I am suggesting that starting from atheism murder is as morally justifiable a position as
any other.

But although atheism could justify anything it has
historically been most often associated with hedonism (from Epicurus to
Hugh Hefner). If one is his own moral arbiter, why not enjoy oneself?

A quick look at atheist blogs will turn up many references to
Christianity as "self-denying" or some such. The alternative of
course is to be self-gratifying. That's hedonism.

But let's step away from the extremes of behavior, since I think we
all agree that most atheists are neither murderers, pornographers or
anything of the sort. In fact, I think most atheists are genuinely
moral people who seek the good for themselves and others. And here's
where atheism really hurts atheists. Moral atomism is not compatible
with corporate effort.

This matters a great deal when it comes to practical morality because corporate action is >always far more effective than individual action.

This is as true in moral endeavors as in business. To use a familiar business example, two guys in a garage can create the first Macintosh computer, but two guys in a garage can not be Apple.

The most conspicuous type of corporate moral behavior is charity.

There are a million and one Christian charities in the world. This is because
Christianity provides both a framework and a mandate for moral
entrepreneurs to create charity based on needs.

By contrast there are relatively few secular humanist charities. Again, I'm not saying
atheists don't give to charity, I know they do. But if one is honest,
one has to admit that the most well known "charities" flying the
humanist banner tend to focus their efforts on the one thing that binds
atheists together, i.e. distaste for religion. Thus, groups like the
ACLU and People for the American Way are widely and almost exclusively
supported by atheists. The result of moral entrepreneurship can
sometimes be annoying and questionable even to other Christians, i.e.
the Moral Majority. But this is the nature of entrepreneurial activity:
not every start up succeeds and some that do probably don't deserve
to.

Nevertheless, the result of all this corporate moral activity is that
Christianity accomplishes quite a bit of good overall.

And again, I'm
strictly speaking about tangible good, the kind I think we can all
agree on, i.e. feeding, clothing, sheltering, teaching literacy, etc.
The Salvation Army alone spends a couple billion a year on these
activities. Christian charities that feed the hungry spend several
times this amount each year in Africa alone. This doesn't begin to
count all the hours of volunteer time at soup kitchens and hospices and
orphanages and on and on. Moral entrepreneurship works, as even some
atheists will admit.

Rather than dwell on far away places, let's take a recent example
from my own home town as a case study. I live in Huntington Beach, CA.
Huntington Beach is the third largest city in Orange County, 11th
largest in California and the 93rd largest in the U.S. Our city
contains just over 250K people. Now, this is not the Bible belt. In
fact, only about 5% of people in my area go to church regularly. After
hurricane Katrina, my own church of 650 adults donated nearly $20K to
support the Baptist relief fund. The Baptist Relief Fund served 13
million meals to victims of Katrina and other hurricanes in 2005 using
portable kitchens designed for this purpose. Another church in town
just slightly bigger than ours loaded two tractor trailers full of
supplies and had volunteers from their congregation drive them to New
Orleans just days after the disaster. The Catholic church in my town
outdid us all raising just shy of $100K in two weeks for Katrina
relief. Say it's a myth if you like, but three churches amounting to
a couple thousand people gave more than $160K toward relief.

Now, I'm sure there are plenty of atheists in town including many who
gave money, but they did so as individuals. Atheists weren't loading
trucks, organizing donation drives or volunteering for cross country
convoys. Not in my town. Not in any town that I've heard about. This
lack of organized, grass roots moral response matters. It means that
atheists, despite genuinely wanting to "do good", don't actually
get nearly as much good done.

To sum up, if Darwin, Huxley and their modern day equivalents are
correct about the source of our morality then Nietzsche and Camus are
right about the consequences. Atheists can pledge their troth to J.S.
Mill, Marx, or the Council on Secular Humanism if they so choose. What
they can not do is offer a reason founded in materialism why they or
anyone else should do so. The resulting moral atomism leads to a
distinct lack of grass roots corporate effort in "real" moral
matters. While most atheists genuinely seek to do good they do so
primarily as individuals. Thus atheism, because it is incompatible with
corporate moral effort, significantly limits the good atheists
accomplish.
Addendum: Sociologist William Bainbridge has just published a study
which I think strongly supports my argument about moral atomism among
atheists. Here is a portion of the abstract:
The data show that Atheism is indeed more common among people whose
social obligations are weak.

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=103


Atheism Hampers the Moral Efforts of Atheists

hurricane Katrina, my own church of 650 adults donated nearly $20K to
support the Baptist relief fund.

Now, I'm sure there are plenty of atheists in town including many who
gave money, but they did so as individuals. Atheists weren't loading
trucks, organizing donation drives or volunteering for cross country
convoys. Not in my town. Not in any town that I've heard about.

This lack of organized, grass roots moral response matters. It means that
atheists, despite genuinely wanting to "do good", don't actually get
nearly as much good done.

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=103


Atheism Hampers the Moral Efforts of Atheists

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=103


Atheism Hampers the Moral Efforts of Atheists

Posted by John under News



First of all as atheists often point out, sitting in a comfy chair
beneath a steeple does not make one moral. Morality only "counts"
when it reveals itself in some tangible moral action. This "real
morality" is the kind I want to talk about in this post.

Most atheists seek to be good people. They do so despite the fact that
atheism itself is amoral. When challenged on this point, atheists will
sometimes refer to the utilitarian views of J.S. Mill, the categorical
imperative of Kant, Marxism, or the Secular Humanist Manifesto. All of
these represent alternative moral systems which require no reference to
God. The existence of such systems in not in question. In fact, I would
argue that there are a potentially infinite number of such systems. And
as I say, moral atheists can choose whichever one they find most valid.
What they can not do is offer a reason to follow any such system based
on atheism. Utilitarian ethics may be logical (even Spock likes J.S.
Mill, remember) but atheism itself does not require that one have a
logical moral system, or any system at all. It turns out that the
"universal solvent" of materialism is as corrosive of secular
humanist morality as it is of Christianity. The result of this
dissolving action is moral atomism, i.e. every man and woman decides
for himself what is moral.

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=103
Most atheists seek to be good people. They do so despite the fact that
atheism itself is amoral.