How a Huguenot Philosopher Realized That Atheists Could Be Virtuous

[DGUtley]

How a Huguenot Philosopher Realized That Atheists Could Be Virtuous -- Christians long held a monopoly on virtue—until Pierre Bayle made the case for moral atheists, using comets and aliens.

For centuries in the West, the idea of a morally good atheist struck people as contradictory. Moral goodness was understood primarily in terms of possessing a good conscience, and good conscience was
understood in terms of Christian theology. Being a good person meant hearing and intentionally following God’s voice (conscience). Since an atheist cannot knowingly recognise the voice of God, he is deaf to God’s moral commands, fundamentally and essentially lawless and immoral. But today, it is widely – if not completely – understood that an atheist can indeed be morally good. How did this assumption change? And who helped to change it?

https://getpocket.com/explore/item/h...=pocket-newtab


5e8dda368d55d.jpg



Full disclosure: this subject has no interest to me; but I have seen it pop up here from time to time so I am posting it to generate discussion.

[FindersKeepers]

All it really takes to be a good person is to understand what makes you feel good or bad, and then treat others as you would like to be treated.

The Golden Rule is found in all societies in one form or another.

[Lummy]

All it really takes to be a good person is to understand what makes you feel good or bad, and then treat others as you would like to be treated.

The Golden Rule is found in all societies in one form or another.

Morality can break down very fast in tough times, especially in chaos. Scripture provides an important anchor during those times. Not to say that a moral or ethical person would necessarily flip-flop when the going got tough, but there is nothing in the way to prevent it either.

[Mister D]

At bottom, these Christian views do not differ from what atheists believe about the foundation of morality. They believe that the natures of justice, kindness, generosity, courage, prudence and so on are grounded in the nature of the Universe. They are brute objective facts that everyone recognises by means of conscience. The only difference between Christians and atheists is the kind of ‘nature’ in which moral truths inhere: Christians say it is a divine nature, while atheists say it is a physical nature. Bayle imagines critics objecting: how can moral truths arise from a merely physical nature? This is indeed a great mystery – but Christians are the first to declare that God’s nature is infinitely more mysterious than any physical nature, so they are in no better position to clarify the mysterious origins of morality!

It's not a great mystery. It's a logical impossibility. The contemporary purveyors of this idea are those who claim morality is simply an evolutionary adaptation. I'm not here to argue they're wrong. I believe they are in fact wrong but I can't say that with any certainty. What I can say with certainty, however, is that if they're right then morality simply isn't real. Concepts of good and evil, right and wrong would then ultimately be derived from the biological imperative to reproduce. Serious atheists, such as Sarte and Nietzsche, understood that their worldviews were ultimately nihilistic. Contemporary atheists seem reluctant to grapple with the logical conclusions of their own arguments.