Are You A Good Man....

[seer]

Over the years I have asked a number of Atheists this question - are you a good man. I never really get an confident yes, the answers are usually qualified. Yes, I'm good but not perfect, or no I'm not that good, or I'm pretty good, but I have a long way to go. So by their own lights they are falling short of their own ideal. But why? It there some kind of moral north star out there that they are moving toward? If this is just a private notion of morality why not just declare yourself morally perfect? If you are comparing yourself to your present cultural norms why would you see these relative considerations as the standard by which your behaviors should be judged? Knowing that they are relative?

[shunyadragon]

Over the years I have asked a number of Atheists this question - are you a good man. I never really get an confident yes, the answers are usually qualified. Yes, I'm good but not perfect, or no I'm not that good, or I'm pretty good, but I have a long way to go. So by their own lights they are falling short of their own ideal. But why? It there some kind of moral north star out there that they are moving toward? If this is just a private notion of morality why not just declare yourself morally perfect? If you are comparing yourself to your present cultural norms why would you see these relative considerations as the standard by which your behaviors should be judged? Knowing that they are relative?

Interesting, because these relative considerations are the most honest as to what is good.

[seer]

Interesting, because these relative considerations are the most honest as to what is good.

Why? I mean if you were a Hitler Youth in 1930s Germany you would have been considered a very upright young man.

[Meh Gerbil]

Over the years I have asked a number of Atheists this question - are you a good man. I never really get an confident yes, the answers are usually qualified. Yes, I'm good but not perfect, or no I'm not that good, or I'm pretty good, but I have a long way to go. So by their own lights they are falling short of their own ideal. But why? It there some kind of moral north star out there that they are moving toward? If this is just a private notion of morality why not just declare yourself morally perfect? If you are comparing yourself to your present cultural norms why would you see these relative considerations as the standard by which your behaviors should be judged? Knowing that they are relative?

I don't know a great deal about this particular line of reasoning; however, I feel like you're short-circuiting it.

For example, when you ask someone if they're 'good' it is considered impolite in our society to answer in the affirmative (outside of a joke). It appears proud and it would be considered off-putting to most listeners to declare 'Yeah, I'm good'. When declaring oneself to be 'good' it is essentially mandatory to acknowledge that one makes mistakes and has room for improvement regardless of one's actual feelings on the matter. In that regard the atheist's answer is crafted to meet the expectations of societal norms. The dude is being polite.

It there some kind of moral north star out there that they are moving toward? If this is just a private notion of morality why not just declare yourself morally perfect?

I'm not aware of any atheist that believes he has a private definition of 'good'. Every one I've ever pressed on the matter has expressed the concept of a social contract. In this way the atheist can have a moral compass that points to that social contract while admitting that he falls short of it.

The Bible seems to teach that each man has a built in moral compass.
Given that the atheist credits every other built in feature as evolution-breathed it is not much of a stretch to imagine them believing the same of their morality.

[shunyadragon]

Why? I mean if you were a Hitler Youth in 1930s Germany you would have been considered a very upright young man.

Of course they would, and likely in an absolute sense righteous and good. That is the unfortunate nature of human egoism. The more absolute the claim of being good is, the more the potential of abuse and worse against those that do not agree. That is why the more humble relative view you cited is more real and honest.

[Meh Gerbil]

Why? I mean if you were a Hitler Youth in 1930s Germany you would have been considered a very upright young man.

Yes, and if you were burning Huguenots with hot coals in 1600s you would have had the full blessings of God according to the Catholic Church.
You would have been told, and perhaps convinced, that you were doing the right thing.

I think it is pretty reasonable for the atheist to be unmoved by your claims of possessing a superior moral compass.

[seer]

Yes, and if you were burning Huguenots with hot coals in 1600s you would have had the full blessings of God according to the Catholic Church.
You would have been told, and perhaps convinced, that you were doing the right thing.

I think it is pretty reasonable for the atheist to be unmoved by your claims of possessing a superior moral compass.

I'm not claiming a superior moral compass, though I do believe that the teachings of Christ are superior - don't you?

[Meh Gerbil]

I'm not claiming a superior moral compass, though I do believe that the teachings of Christ are superior - don't you?

Yes.
We can have that conversation because we're working from the same set of presuppositions.

[seer]

I'm not aware of any atheist that believes he has a private definition of 'good'. Every one I've ever pressed on the matter has expressed the concept of a social contract. In this way the atheist can have a moral compass that points to that social contract while admitting that he falls short of it.

I'm not saying that the atheist only lives by his own lights, I'm asking why he wouldn't. Why would he use the culture's standard when he knows that it is relative, and not take his own standard and declare himself morally perfect? Or if he doesn't live up to his own standard - why not? Why is his personal standard so divorced from what he actually does? Why not change the standard and declare moral victory?

[Meh Gerbil]

I'm not saying that the atheist only lives by his own lights, I'm asking why he wouldn't. Why would he use the culture's standard when he knows that it is relative, and not take his own standard and declare himself morally perfect? Or if he doesn't live up to his own standard - why not? Why is his personal standard so divorced from what he actually does? Why not change the standard and declare moral victory?

An atheist uses the cultural standard because he likes to drink, eat, and sleep.
Opposing the prevailing social contract is a good way to end up dead.

It is the same reason why many Christians follows God's standards.
They view God as the prevailing culture and don't want to end up dead (1).



NOTES
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1: I think that is a twisted view of Christianity.

[seer]

An atheist uses the cultural standard because he likes to drink, eat, and sleep.
Opposing the prevailing social contract is a good way to end up dead.

That may be, but I'm trying to get at the reasoning behind their beliefs. And I'm not sure that most atheists would agree that they only do good for fear of dying.

[Meh Gerbil]

That may be, but I'm trying to get at the reasoning behind their beliefs. And I'm not sure that most atheists would agree that they only do good for fear of dying.

Okay, I was using a bit of hyperbole.
Most people follow some sort of social contract so they can drink, eat, and sleep in peace.

Think about what motivates many of your action.
The speed limit being set at 70 isn't 'God's Law' and yet your presumably follow it.
You probably aren't doing it for any greater good but rather to avoid a ticket.

An atheist who declares 'I AM MY OWN LAW' and travels down the highway at 90 is going to be making his life very, very difficult.

The fact is, Christian and Atheist alike, that most of what we do is out of these sorts of considerations.

[shunyadragon]

I'm not saying that the atheist only lives by his own lights, I'm asking why he wouldn't. Why would he use the culture's standard when he knows that it is relative, and not take his own standard and declare himself morally perfect? Or if he doesn't live up to his own standard - why not? Why is his personal standard so divorced from what he actually does? Why not change the standard and declare moral victory?

. . . because atheists are not going to do simply what you expect them to do. That is human nature.

[seer]

An atheist who declares 'I AM MY OWN LAW' and travels down the highway at 90 is going to be making his life very, very difficult.

The fact is, Christian and Atheist alike, that most of what we do is out of these sorts of considerations.

Meh, that is not the point I'm getting at. A man can follow the laws of the land for various reason but why not consider himself morally perfect even if in thought he deviates from the norm? Why let the relative mores of a culture dictate to him what is moral or not? And if he can not live up to his own standard why not just change that standard and declare himself morally perfect?

[Sparko]

Over the years I have asked a number of Atheists this question - are you a good man. I never really get an confident yes, the answers are usually qualified. Yes, I'm good but not perfect, or no I'm not that good, or I'm pretty good, but I have a long way to go. So by their own lights they are falling short of their own ideal. But why?

Romans 2:14 Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.