Interesting post. Welcome to the forum. =)

I don't believe that Atheists think they "are god", but certainly they typically believe that they are not bound by any accountability to a god.

However, that doesn't mean that all atheists seem themselves as above any conception of morality. The argument you've presented seems to suggest that since Atheists don't feel accountable to a god, then they have no accountability whatsoever.

If that's your premise then I disagree. Many atheists feel an accountability to themselves and their own personal code of morals and ethics.

You ask: Can morality be founded on purely humanist grounds?

Morality is a neutral concept; often the implication is that morality must be "just" or "good" (whatever those mean) but that is by no means certain. Someone could have a moral code that allowed them to murder others and see it as justified in their own personal code.

To answer your question, I think the answer is 'yes' because belief in a God is not neccessary for someone to have a conception of morality.

-ITL-

thank you :bigsmile:

Dostoyevsky was certainly a full blown eastern orthodox christian and believed in the dead letter orthodoxy, and a personal god, but I dont think his argument is merely confined to a personal god. I think basically he meant that people who believe in 'nothing', ie people who believe that you're born, you live, you die and that is it, nihilists shall we say can never have any sound morality, and that any construct of morality thought up by such a person can only ever be self-casuistry, and that eventually that self casuistry must disintegrate.

So basically such a persons philosophy (we're born, we live, we die, and thats it) if really thought through to its ultimate conclusion, can only eventually come to the neo-nietszchean, and also perhaps nazi view, that compassion and kindness is actually in reality only weakness to be overcome.

Let me paraphrase dostoyevskys argument against atheism:

Imagine you could achieve all of your greatest desires. You could become as rich, famous, or idolized as you like, whatever you want. All you have to do to achieve it is this one thing: kill someone. You are 100% guaranteed that no-one will ever find out, and no-one will ever know you did it. Worried about your own guilt? No matter, lets pretend that after you've committed the act you have your memory wiped, so that even you wont know you've done it. Just a simple act of 'stepping across'.

If you are an atheist you are very likely to accept, if you are religious and you believe in a higher power before whom/which you are accountable (and someone who genuinely believes, not someone who merely pays lip service to their faith) then you likely will not. This is basically dostoyevsky's argument, and this, and how this attitude can manifest itself in all sorts of ways in the life of an atheist, largely forms the starting point of his great novels. The point is the religious person believes in 'that which is greater than himself' before whom he is accountable, and before whom he WILL BE HELD accountable, and the atheist doesnt - the atheist considers HIM/HERSELF god. Ie morality cannot be founded on purely humanist grounds, and any attempt to do so must disintegrate eventually.

Also bear in mind, in the 1860s and 70s, he predicted, stunningly prophetically, that the european intelligentsia's general abandonment of religion would lead to the rise of countless different ideologies, and never before seen cataclysmic events, and needless to say in the first half of the 20th century he was proven frighteningly correct.

So, in short: CAN morality be founded upon purely humanist grounds?

It is not so much compassion or kindness, but rather pity. If you think about what pity does to the pittier or the pittied, nothing good comes out of it. Thus, it is truly a weakness to be overcome.

If you are an atheist you are very likely to accept, if you are religious and you believe in a higher power before whom/which you are accountable (and someone who genuinely believes, not someone who merely pays lip service to their faith) then you likely will not. ..... The point is the religious person believes in 'that which is greater than himself' before whom he is accountable, and before whom he WILL BE HELD accountable, and the atheist doesnt - the atheist considers HIM/HERSELF god. Ie morality cannot be founded on purely humanist grounds, and any attempt to do so must disintegrate eventually.

So, in short: CAN morality be founded upon purely humanist grounds?

What on Earth justifies Dostoyevsky's belief that the atheist will murder the person, and that the only thing holding him back is the fear of getting caught? Just because the believer does not murder because he fears God (and what is the evidence for that?) how does it follow that the atheist will murder? Dostoyevsky's view (if it was his view) is cynicism. That people are do not do evil things out of fear. What is his evidence for that?

I think that premise is quite false.

There are many things other than god which people regard as greater than themselves "parents protecting children, soldiers protecting countries, matyrs dying for freedom, truth, civil rights, etc". The willingness to sacrifice ones own interest in puruit of a greater cause is not confined to religious notion.

Furthermore, declining to act for fear of future punishment is not really acting on "moral grounds" at all. It is a form of self service. Religious people who only behave morally on hope of future reward or fear of future punishment are actually less "ethical" than the individual who self sacrifices without those incentives.

If you are an atheist you are very likely to accept,

if you are religious and you believe in a higher power before whom/which you are accountable (and someone who genuinely believes, not someone who merely pays lip service to their faith) then you likely will not. This is basically dostoyevsky's argument, and this, and how this attitude can manifest itself in all sorts of ways in the life of an atheist, largely forms the starting point of his great novels. The point is the religious person believes in 'that which is greater than himself' before whom he is accountable, and before whom he WILL BE HELD accountable, and the atheist doesnt - the atheist considers HIM/HERSELF god. Ie morality cannot be founded on purely humanist grounds, and any attempt to do so must disintegrate eventually.

Also bear in mind, in the 1860s and 70s, he predicted, stunningly prophetically, that the european intelligentsia's general abandonment of religion would lead to the rise of countless different ideologies, and never before seen cataclysmic events, and needless to say in the first half of the 20th century he was proven frighteningly correct.

Assuming athiests would rather be rich and famous than innocent of murder - which I doubt many actually are.

Besides, it's a false dichotmy due to the "You are 100% guaranteed that no-one will ever find out, and no-one will ever know you did it" clause. Many theists think this an impossibility, as "no-one" exlcudes many concepts of divinity, and most deities are defined as such, at least in part, through omniscience.

An athiest is more likely, statistically speaking, to refrain from crime and build a stable marriage than a theist. There is no corrolation in reality with godlessness, even nihilism, and actual poor behaviour.

For every atheist who has seemed to behave abominably under the belief of there being no God, therefore he or she can be a god - there is a theist who behaves abominably under the belief that there is a god who prescribes the behaviour.

I think I'm being generous with the equivalency, really.

Even if the was simply the case (and I don't think it is) since 1940 western and northern europe have grown even more secular - and have enjoyed internal peace, and peace with one another, for a length of time almost unprecedented in european history. In the part of europe I live in a spate of murders directly exacerbated by religious friction has more or less stopped - in part because the religious differences have become increasingly irrelevent.

Russia and it's former ambit remain an area of rather arbirtary morality and governance, insofar as I see, and remains so despite the reassertion of the orthodox church (which supported Stalin's regime - though perhaps that was understandable given the fate of those who didn't).

Yes well this is nothing to do with dostoyevskys argument really... although I'm not sure where you pluck your 'stable marriage' fact from, I'm sure that's certainly not true.

Once again this doesnt have anything to do with dostoyevskys argument...

It was Stavrogin in The Possessed who put that general notion into Kirollov's mind, but Stavrogin influenced another friend, Shatov, in the opposite direction. The title of the novel hints that such ideas (for the novel offers many) are the demons in question. Stavrogin hangs himself at the end of the novel, after publishing a confession of his sins and his spiritual bankruptcy.

But the idea involved is this (by my light): the absence of God leaves man at the top of the food chain, and the individual man that can free himself from moral prejudice is at the top of the intellectual food chain. He's still a mortal man, but he at least has the pleasure of looking down on everything.

Nietzsche has moments like this. It connects with the Satanic-Byronic hero of Romanticism. Nietzsche and probably Dostoevsky read Byron. Probably all of them read Milton, whose Satan is a classic (and I mean classic) example of this. Of course the character Satan believes in God but he questions his eternity and omnipotence.

The Possessed is an amazing book.

Browse at your leisure:

atheists divorce - Google Search

Technically you're right, but it was you who originally extrapolated something significant about 20th Century european history from his character's words.

So I think it's very relevent to point out that for most of the 20th century - most of (old) europe underwent an unprecedented period of internal peace - despite growing abandonment of religion.

...A case of lies, damn lies, and statistics I'm afraid.

But at this time he also has a dream, which has been quoted in any quarters as being a stunning prophecy of the 20th century:

I openly admitted it was a case of statistics.

Whilst there are various hypotheses about why the stats might point to lower divorce rates among the non-religious, it doesn't mean that stats are lies.

They might be misleading, or might not. But they're the figures.

If you think "there will be more war and suffering and contention between humans" is a stunning prophecy - then yes, this is a stunning prophecy.

But it's a prophecy that could have applied to Russia almost any century of its existence.

And I imagine such a prophecy, applied to Western Europe and Russia this next century, could produce some eerie parallels.

But I don't think it's in strong support of a hypothesis of "the abandonment of objective morality necessarily leads to war and suffering".

Nor does it show that the nihilistic character of late 19th Century Russian revolutionaries was anything more to do with atheism than despair at the arbitrary manner in which russian authorities, both secular and religious, have treated the average Russian since time immemorial.

Your making assumptions about the nihilist, even if he believes there is no purpose in life, he may still see the reasoning for personal ethics. Empathy does not die with the death of optimism.

If you choose to make unethical choices or kill for gain, the choice is yours. If you need an excuse, then as they say, your only kidding yourself. I think your intent on proving the atheist void of any real moral fibre and lacking any empathy for his fellow man. Good try, but a bit too obvious.