Surely it's far too much of a leap to conclude that atheism causes a relativist view of morality just because more atheists hold relativist views.

It seems more likely that both positions are "caused" by the higher intelligence and greater education that also correlate with atheism.

Even though Prinz mentions in passing that the conclusions driven by the Pew Report are based on SURVEYS, and even admits to the dubious implication of this approach, he does not reject the report (as he should) but rather STILL makes his own conclusions as if the report were factual. He even takes the opportunity to dish advice for atheists that they should fear their image ["Atheists need to work at creating an infrastructure that is conducive to charity. One good thing about the Brooks book is that it may make atheists conclude that they need to do more in order to overcome the accusation of being moral monsters.]

Hmmmm....no thank you. Atheists are not responsible for the superstitions and prejudices of theists. Let the atheiophobes change THEIR attitude. Isn't understanding/tolerance a Christian virtue?

Not to mention this article has already reached an unwarranted position before the first word was penned: that 'charity' and 'unselfishness' are the highest moral qualities for humans. That presumption also requires summary rejection.

And as for the Pew study and all others that rely on what people SAY they believe or do: please remember that for 50 years researchers have proven over and over again that people lie through their teeth about religion. When actual behavior (real church attendance) was measured against surveys that show people SAY they attend church regularly, the difference (24% actual, 60% claimed) makes the case that any questionnaire about religion is useless and worse than useless.

John Donohue
Pasadena, CA

Technically, Buddhists are atheists, as they do not believe in God or a Godhead, but, rather the inherent divinity in man with which we have, in our ignorance, lost touch.

That said, the strictures and scriptures of the Buddhist canon lay out a pretty high standard for morality and codes of conduct.

With 25% of Americans claiming some affiliation with Buddhism, either as practioners or tourists, I'd say that leaves us in pretty good shape.

Blessings,
Michael

I think true morality comes from the willingness to challenge one's own impulses and prejudices. Morality doesn't have to be, and shouldn't be, pure asceticism, but it does involve a measure of adjusting one's actions so that they benefit a larger good, whether this good be absolute or utilitarian.

As an atheist, I believe that the conceptions of morality prescribed by religious traditions don't always do this. I think that right and wrong is not set in (Ten Commandment tablet) stone but must be flexible to accomodate changing circumstances and cultural developments that the writers of early religious traditions could not have considered. This might be the atheist tendency towards "relativism" that Prinz discussed in his post, but a more relativistic position on morality is exactly what I value.

But atheists need to recognize that rigidity and narrow-mindedness is by no means monopolized by religious people. Many people believe, for example, regardless of their religious tradition, that the most important goal in life is to be economically successful. As work hours drive families apart, economic wastefulness erodes the environment, and international corporate practices perpetuate social inequality, this may need to be reconsidered. I'm not arguing that economic ambition is necessarily immoral. But I think that every individual, especially one who is freed from the potentially tyrannical infrastructure of religious institutions, needs to consider what alternative infrastructures enslave them. In order to be moral, an individual must be willing to at least question, if not challenge, their own tendency toward ambition.

Accordingly, an atheist must question his tendency to reject insights from religious sources. In response to Mr. Donahue's post above, religious people's greater involvement in charity and their esteem of "unselfishness," is something to be valued and emulated by the nonreligious, especially in a society that tends toward the personal ambition I mentioned above. Too often I see atheists who completely dismiss religion because they believe it is senseless and blind. In doing this, atheists are displaying a rigidity which, as atheists, it is their responsibility to reject.

People keep posting surveys which are patently absurd (25% of Americans Buddhists) but reacting to them as if they mean something!

Well okay I guess that Buddhist daydream might mean something: Christians may have fallen out of first place in the race to be most self delusional.

Also, rather than respond to Gillian's entire post I'll just counter the last idea: "Too often I see atheists who completely dismiss religion because they believe it is senseless and blind. In doing this, atheists are displaying a rigidity which, as atheists, it is their responsibility to reject."

Hmm... does it make any difference one way or the other if religion IS senseless and blind? What if it IS senseless and blind? Would you still characterize someone as rigid for dismissing it and continue to say that they should dutifully reject their impulse to dismiss?

John Donohue

anonymous initiated discussion of elements of my websites, not me. I will respond briefly although continued debate on my content is not appropriate here. I will also not hit back in kind against his personal remarks about me.

Saying I claim "Global Warming is a Myth" is a sloppy characterization of my site on that subject, a typical bait and switch error. Sorry he/she fell into that trap. I invite any others to challenge my "Myths of Global Warming" however. But not on this page, that is not appropriate.

http://earthintime.com

As for Joseph Ellis, my characterization is mild for what he did. I'm thinking of amp-ing it up, especially since he has gotten away clean as a whistle.

Anonymous offers zero rebuttal to any of my claims on my site, yet simply declares "Your truth does not even begin to stand up to the rigor of the very standards that you set." This is anonymous begging an audience to 'go by faith' that he/she can factually refute anything I wrote. That approach holds no water.

My excoriation of Al Gore on the Kenya situation at the bottom of the movie review is my angriest statement. I stand by it. Once one knows the facts of Mr. Gore's perfidy, how could anyone justify being anything less than outrageously furious?

John Donohue
jrdonohue.com

Michael, I did not misread you, but I did re-interpret you. However, you misread YOURSELF since you

1) now claim you said "and/or, what would likely be construed as Buddhist practices, such as meditation." which is not in your original post; and
2) left out that you concluded "I'd say that leaves us in pretty good shape."

Let me try again:

If a survey reports that "25% of Americans claiming some affiliation with Buddhism, either as practioners or tourists" [i don't understand that 'tourist' thing, by the way] then that only proves one thing: That 25% of Americans claim to have some affiliation with Buddhism, either as practioners or tourists. It proves nothing about their inner life, religious practices, living by the principles of Buddhism, being moral, etc. Nothing.

But then you add "I'd say that leaves us in pretty good shape". Who is the "us"? Buddhists? The American people? I would make the case that if it were determined that 25% of the population were indeed Buddhists or highly like Buddhists, that that would 'leave us in sad shape' since I have a negative opinion about religious practice and thinking. You could then argue that with me.

But first, my question to you is: are you saying "...that leaves us in pretty good shape" is because a) you consider the survey claim DOES substantiate behavior and you are happy 25% of us are Buddhists/Buddha-like; or b) something on the order of "well, it is enough that 25% SAY they are Buddhists/Buddhist-like. That is a good thing in itself and it does not matter if they actually ARE."

John Donohue

People can give so as to be interpreted as givers or good people. People can do good things and be bad people.People can do bad things for a greater good.People can be good and turn bad via depression.People can be bad and turn good after being treated for their depression. Sincerely, David Petropoulos

In response to the article, the author forgot to do some research. Aside from Buddhism, there are other groups that encompass moral and social values (including charity) without worshipping the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There’s the Ethical Humanist Society that is just down the street from my work. According to their website “The Ethical Humanist Society of Chicago is a democratic fellowship and spiritual home for those who seek a rational, compassionate philosophy of life without regard to belief or nonbelief in a supreme being.” From what I read, they welcome all people from all different religions. I haven’t been there myself, but I’m not opposed to broadening my horizons despite being atheist. ;)

This is bull! god is the light in our rechargeable flashlight. We should be happy that there are people in our world belive in him. i think that anyone who doesn't belive in Jesus isn't worthy of his scripture. If we qall band together we can create a spiritual army that can rule the heavens and the earth. god bless you all with all trhe love and freedom of my beating heart.

Go Panthers!

Is it not very surprising that only 78% of Catholics (and about that for most theists) believe there is an objective morality out there? What could the other 22% be thinking? I must be misunderstanding traditional religion, but surely if they believe in some version of a deity they should also think that the deity would know what one ought to do.

If one is worried about the 42% of atheists being wrong about their meta-ethics, I think they should be more worried about those 22% (which as a number in the population is far greater).

Moral relativism is incoherent, but relatively benign. Moral fanatics have done thousands of times more damage than moral relativists throughout human history. The idea that people who believe that there are “absolute standards of right and wrong” act more ethically than people who don't - without evaluating those standards - is in itself a relativist position. ("As long as you have some absolute standard, whatever it is, you're good.") But many religious "ethical" beliefs are morally hideous.

Would i be right in saying the atheistic morality is the baseline for morality as they have the least amount of outside influences (such as societal and familial morality) to their morality/decisions. This will be true human morality within a given culture.

If this is the case then a deists assumption that there morality is right and everyone elses is a perversion is just plain arrogance.

I could start a list of truly horrible examples of deistic morality but that's a tired argument.