This is not on the theme of this post, but I recommend others read an article in the “New York Times” of Oct. 5th by Stanley Fish. The title is “Politics and Pulpit”, and there are many well written and persuasive comments about separation of church and state, as well as the need to tax religious organizations.

I’m going to use some of those arguments in my own letter to my local newspaper. I try to keep on reminding the citizens of this church ridden city that tax excemption is subsidizing ALL kinds of organizations, and many of them are ridiculous, if not downright dangerous.

What essentially is the reason an atheist would volunteer for something?

Any number of reasons. Anywhere from the desire to help out a specific cause, the simple enjoyment of the work, or the petty desire to look good to other people. There is no single reason an atheist might volunteer for something. We are individuals after all.

Honestly, I desire to know because on the surface, it’s intriguing.

The only way that makes any sense to me is if your view of atheists is that we’re all shallow or self-centered. I know you’re not trying to offend (and it takes a lot more than that to offend me), but the fact that you find it intriguing that atheists might want to be good people is pretty scary.

On the other hand, atheist ethics is a concept that I’ve never had any trouble accepting, but I’m aware that that’s not true of many theists who were brought up to believe that their God is the source of morality. It can be very difficult to accept an alternate view when it’s one that is central to a person’s character.

I assume volunteering is a “good” thing. And if atheists are united in what is meant by “good” then there must be something (if not the “Someone” capital S) from which “goodness” comes.

Let me stop you right there. Atheists are most certainly not united in what ‘good’ means. Therefore the claim you’re making doesn’t make any sense.

I don’t mean to offend with such a question. Please, no. I am simply attempting to better understand the perspective of “godless” morals, ethics and goodness and the likes. Why be moral, really?

There’s no need to put quotes around ‘godless.’ We really, truly, do not believe in a deity. We’re not simply railing against the institute of religion (though plenty of us do that as well).

So, why be moral? There are plenty of reasons. At the most selfish end of the spectrum, it makes me feel good. I’ve noticed that being a good person leads to a more stable life with less unpleasantness. So morality has a benefit to me. At the most Naturalistic end of the spectrum, I simply can’t bring myself to do certain immoral things like violence. I don’t have the stomach for it.

I’m a moral person because I have a desire to live a good life within a good community. If you’re going to now ask me where this desire come from, I don’t know.

I thought atheism would be “better” than Christianity or any other monotheistic belief because there was no “Higher Power” to which my actions, “good” or “bad” would be accountable.

I don’t know if ‘better’ is the right word. ‘Different,’ certainly fits, but ‘better’ is far too subjective.

I could sort of do whatever I want. But that’s not what I’ve seen.

Well, you can do whatever you want, provided you’re willing to live up to the consequences of your actions. We do not live in a bubble that protects us from consequences. Anyone who thinks that they do needs mental help and a healthy dose of reality.

Every intelligent agnostic or atheist (and there are many)I’ve ever spoken with still seems to be concerned about being “good” or “right” or what have you, but yet I’ve never really heard an articulated defense of atheistic ethics, if you will.

Well, I don’t know exactly what you’re looking for. I’m going to guess that what I’ve written above doesn’t fit your criteria (it’s plenty good enough for me though).

Therefore I’ll pass along a link that I quite like, though I don’t entirely agree with the author. I think he takes too many liberties with the words ‘absolute’ and ‘objective.’ It’s a very good read nonetheless:
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/carrot&stick.html

Oh, and don’t be so worried about offending people. As long as you ask honest questions and don’t make too many assumptions you’ll be treated well enough.

Thanks for your responses and the link. It is interesting though, and again, no offense meant by any of this, that one would be good because it feels good or is a benefit to you individually.
I didn’t mean to frighten, however. I know you said my “intriguing” comment was “scary”. I apologize. To clarify, I was (and am) intrigued by what atheists thought was the nature of good. It is curious I suppose from my own perspective that you would try to be good but don’t know where that impulse originates and that you base “goodness” on feeling or individual utility. I’ve always assumed, perhaps wrongly, that trying to be good means you’ve got something to which you’re aiming, a goal. For that to be unknown is odd for me, at least the way you’ve explained it(and I do appreciate your honest, thoughtful responses, thank you). I suppose the troubling aspect of thinking that good is just a feeling or that it is simply a utilitarian impulse is whether or not you could actually determine what other people do as right or wrong, good or evil. If people are just obeying their feelings,seems like that would be sort of an amalgam of societal chaos, no? I suppose what I’m getting at is how do you know ultimately what is “good”?

Societal chaos?? What are you talking about?

What other basis is there for good or evil, but people’s feelings? If it doesn’t help anybody, what good is it? If it doesn’t hurt anybody, what’s bad about it?

What essentially is the reason an atheist would volunteer for something? Honestly, I desire to know because on the surface, it’s intriguing.

My answer to this is that I support what is important, relevant, or interesting to me or my community. I don’t see how that is any different from the motivation of a theist.

I assume volunteering is a “good” thing.

I’m not sure that this is a true statement. One can certainly volunteer to contribute in “bad” causes (suicide bombers would be an extreme example). But the actual act of voulunteering, I suppose, could be argued as a “good” act regardless of the consequences.

And if atheists are united in what is meant by “good” then there must be something (if not the “Someone” capital S) from which “goodness” comes.

Atheists are seldom, if ever, united about anything. This would certainly include a definition of what is, and what is not, good.

I don’t mean to offend with such a question. Please, no. I am simply attempting to better understand the perspective of “godless” morals, ethics and goodness and the likes.

I assume here that you are referring to moral absolutism vs moral relitivism. I find neither of these concepts reflect reality. There are certainly innumerable moral codes used throught different cultures and different times. However there is certainly, to some extent, a shared moral code within and community you care to define. I personally think that (Dawkins’?) explaination of a changing moral zeitgeist makes far more sense. It explain the realities mentioned above. Of course theists have issues with this because it challenges the concept of a single unchanging moral authority.

Why be moral, really? I thought atheism would be “better” than Christianity or any other monotheistic belief because there was no “Higher Power” to which my actions, “good” or “bad” would be accountable.

The “higher power” is the various communities within which you live. The only was I can see of avoiding any moral accountability is to live completely without social interaction – not something desirable to most humans.

I could sort of do whatever I want. But that’s not what I’ve seen. Every intelligent agnostic or atheist (and there are many)I’ve ever spoken with still seems to be concerned about being “good” or “right” or what have you, but yet I’ve never really heard an articulated defense of atheistic ethics, if you will.

I don’t think there is such a thing as atheistic ethics. Atheism simply means not believing in the reality of supernatural gods. Individuals can, and do, adopt a wide ranging set of ethics that are consistent with non-belief.

Is there a good resource that would better explain what an atheist should believe about goodness, evil, ethics, etc.? Please, again, I’m not trying to start anything, I’m just asking a question. I hope I didn’t offend anyone. I didn’t mean to. No offense taken here. Your questions are interesting, but I think you are trying to load too much on atheism. I cannot stress enough that it is simply “non-belief in gods”, ideas of goodness, evil, ethics will be based on other asects of peoples’ lives.

Ok, Dawkins. For him to suggest a changing zeitgeist is, however, an absolute.

On the contrary, it’s merely aconcept that accurately decribes the observed phenomena. I’m not even sure that I have attributed the concept to the right person

To say, “morals always change” is in fact something that must never change.

This is a silly word game, regardless of the fact that I never made the claim that you quote. Moral codes are undeniably different in different areass of the world and at different times in history. This argues strongly against any absolute moral creed.

At least that’s the way I see it. There has to be an unmoved, uncaused something that remains stable and never-changing I guess, no?

I see no reason or evidence to support your assertion. Please supply the aforementioned if you can.

Dawkins isn’t it for me. He’s fallible like the rest of us.

I don’t think anyone, least of all Dawkins, would suggest he is infallible. I think perhaps you are bringing some religious baggage along here. I would advise you, however, to treat an idea on it’s merits, not any predudices you may have regarding the origin of that idea.