If only all atheists were this honest and consistent!
After the comment below was posted, I went back and listened again to the Nietzsche quote. I even looked around the net to find Nietzsche in his own words. I provide the quote in full, from his book, Twilight of Idols. The first part is a quote; then N. elaborates. In all, it sounds like N. still affirms that Christian morality is part and parcel with the Christian God.
G. Eliot. -- They are rid of the Christian God and now believe all the more firmly that they must cling to Christian morality. That is an English consistency; we do not wish to hold it against little moralistic females à la Eliot. In England one must rehabilitate oneself after every little emancipation from theology by showing in a veritably awe-inspiring manner what a moral fanatic one is. That is the penance they pay there.
We others hold otherwise. When one gives up the Christian faith, one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one's feet. This morality is by no means self-evident: this point has to be exhibited again and again, despite the English flatheads. Christianity is a system, a whole view of things thought out together. By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one's hands. Christianity presupposes that man does not know, cannot know, what is good for him, what evil: he believes in God, who alone knows it. Christian morality is a command; its origin is transcendent; it is beyond all criticism, all right to criticism; it has truth only if God is the truth--it stands and falls with faith in God.
When the English actually believe that they know "intuitively" what is good and evil, when they therefore suppose that they no longer require Christianity as the guarantee of morality, we merely witness the effects of the dominion of the Christian value judgment and an expression of the strength and depth of this dominion: such that the origin of English morality has been forgotten, such that the very conditional character of its right to existence is no longer felt. For the English, morality is not yet a problem.
7 comments:
Of course Nietzsche views Christian morality as "slave morality", reactive, and a highly negative thing.
So it's not as if he's admitting that there is no "morality" without the existence of a god. In contrast, he's showing how a bad morality arises from a figment of cultural imagination.
You might try reading his "Genealogy of Morals" or just start with the Stanford Encyclopedia's discussion here
(And, of course, Nietzsche's views are not representative of all atheists, so his conclusions cannot be generalized.)
Matt, I didn't say that Nietszche doesn't "affirm that Christian morality is part and parcel with the Christian God."
However, you conflate Christian morality with morality/ethics sui generis when you say "It is only by borrowing from the Christian worldview that they can have a basis for *their* morality."
An argument needs to be made for the claim that there is no basis for ethics [in general] without the existence of the Christian god. Further, while Nietzsche certainly rejects many kinds of morality, he is a proponent of a different kind of morality (see the SEP article I cited). That's the first point I made.
The second point is your conflation of atheists with Nietzsche. Atheists are people who do not believe in the existence of a god. They do not all share the same reasons for that disbelief, nor do they all agree on morality. So to move from a claim about Nietzsche's views about Christian morality to a claim about morality in general to a conclusion about atheists in general is disingenuous.
I would have thought Grove City would have taught you more intellectual honesty than this. It's disappointing, frankly.
Uber,
First, I recognize that there are differences among atheists as to how things work out exactly. What I'm saying is exactly waht you said: no matter how you slice it, an atheist does not have a basis for morality. He must borrow from the Christian worldview to distinguish right and wrong.
If I might say it in another way: Without the Christian God, determining morality of any kind is impossible. God is the essence of good and morality flows from His very being, the 10 commandments serving a reflection of His character.
Therefore the only way to determine good and evil is on the basis of His nature. Take away Him, and you are left with personal preferences when it comes to morality.
Also, without the Christian God and His creation of man, man loses his dignity. Man becomes nothing more than cosmic dust--or, a freak accident of nature at best. In the end, if the atheist (of whatever stripe) is consistent, man is of no more value than a cockroach or pile of dirt. You may do to him whatever you wish.
To put it another way, whay be ahgast when many are swept away by a flood? According to the atheist, it is no different than a bug zapper in the back yard.
If I might use JP Sarte here, acknowledging that he is an atheist of a different brand, but yet a consistent one. Sarte has said, "It doesn't matter if you help the lady cross the road or run her over." His existentialism was radical, but it was a logical deduction.
I have had an atheist state quite bluntly this very thing. When confronted with the dilemna of his worldview he said, "I don't really think that there is a difference between good and evil."
Of course he really didn't beleive that. He was just cornered and had to acknowledge the logical outworking of his system of belief.
In the end, without the Triune God's person and character, there can be no distinction between right and wrong. Ethics would be obliterated.
I acknowledge that atheists have morals. But again, they have no legitamate basis for them.
(BTW, I'll definately try to get to the Geneology, sounds quite interesting.)
You've just stating conclusions rather than making an argument. I see I'm wasting my time here. Shame about that. Based on your bio, I would have thought you would have the capacity to do more.
Sorry I got your hopes up. I thought I made some semblence of an argument: God's character determines moral absolutes. Man, without the dignity God gives him, is a meaningless blob.
Did you want to counter with someting more? Where does man get worth? How are ethical decisions not more than cultural imaginations?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM
"God's character determines moral absolutes" is a conclusion. You need some premises first. Then some inferences which yield the conclusion.
Sorry, not going to "counter" what is not an argument.
This is Logic 101 stuff.
It would seem then that you are just out to argue for arguing's sake, rather than have a healthy exchange of ideas. If that's the case, I'd rather opt out too. If there is anything you can glean from my bio, it is that I'm no superhuman either. I am nothing more than a woefully fallen man.
I would like to inform you though: not offering an answer makes it look like you do not have a answer to offer. That's the immediate thought that came to my mind when I read what you said anyway.
Post a Comment