"Solon, your post suggests that atheists or secular humanists have no "dogma" other than their non-belief"
You misunderstand; everyone has a personal belief system; and certainly one can criticize a personal belief system. But one must first be on terms intimate enough so as to be privy to such knowledge.
Generally, when people press the belief structure of religious people, they are guided by information which is presumed, and often overtly stated as the guiding and relevant belief tenets of the religious sect to which the religious people subscribe. As has been said, this belief structure is often very visible and attested to, and has generally provided long-term social structure for the group in which the believer has placed his meaning, purpose, and allegiance. There is no inherent belief structure of an atheist. It needs to be divulged.
"I raise the question of whether "non-belief" does indeed create its own credo."
No. Not in and of itself.
"There is no inherent purpose or meaning to our existence, which occurred as a random or happenstance event of nature.
In the religious perspective, everyone outside of their in-group is often considered a nonbeliever...in that they usually believe either in no God(s), or in the wrong God'(s). Therefore, I cannot respond as a "nonbeliever"--generic--but only as a person. There is no response which informs any homogeneous network of principle or value for atheists.
Human purposes, meanings, and values are human purposes. Cow purposes and intentions are cow purposes and intentions. Whether Nature herself has a personal purpose...I don't know.
Of course, our individual existence occurred as a random event. Nothing is more clearly attested to than that. But whether or not existence in general holds a meaning or purpose for some other entity capable of differentiating value...I don't know.
"*There is no such thing as absolute morality; societies determine what is moral through logic, reason, and consensus, which determination is subject to change in tempo with time and circumstance.
Hobbes believed that humans were motivated strictly by two impulses: The terror of dying and the desire for power. He believed that only absolute authority of some form or another could provide for the practical concerns of safety and order. Under such a dynamic, one would view the history of human societies as an attempt to provide for these practical concerns by ceding absolute authority and power to a "King" acting under the Divine authority of God...or some other representative of Divine authority with the right of ultimate force such as a pope or the like.
Over millennia these ideas have given way, in some parts of the world, to a democratic paradigm where social contracts are made between the people and a freely chosen authority...as well as between themselves. This democratic ideal has had the direct effect of reducing the importance and the power of religion as a means to "moral" authority.
Personally, I believe that the ideals of freedom and absolutism are antithetical to one another. The alternative to democracy is some form of Religious or State Absolutism, where those who wish their morality to be absolute...will most assuredly not be disappointed.
"Humans are not born with any intuitive sense of what is moral, but can only learn it through education.
They are not born with any sense of anything--or at least not much of anything. <g> As to the intuition of infants, I think that is perhaps an unnecessary detour for us to take.
Humans act instinctively in some ways--such as when they suckle the breast. In other ways they act as they are taught to act. Over millennia people have developed complex cultures and societies so as to preserve safety and order...and so that they may be more readily successful in pursuing those purposes necessary to life (food, shelter, safety, co-operation, etc.). As intelligent and complex creatures, we have developed a high level of science to rationalize and manipulate the conditions of our life, and a high level of art, education, and culture to encounter and enjoy it.
But as to your question, specifically: No. Moral scepticism is not a necessary component of atheism. Many moral realists since Plato have anchored their thoughts (as regards objective morality), in the vapours of mysticism-with or without a concept of God.
The very common position of moral relativism was most popularly formulated by Protagoras who said: "Concerning the gods, I am unable to know either that they exist or that they do not exist, or what their appearance is like. For, there are many things that hinder knowledge, such as the obscurity of the matter and the shortness of human life", as well as the famous, "A human being is the measure of all things – of things that are, that they are, and of things that are not that they are not."
"*Marriage is purely a civil contract between two persons, which can be entered into by any two parties or subsequently dissolved by them, consistent with any applicable laws enacted by society."
I believe this is the general orientation of democratic western culture; although, of course, it has its sub-cultural exceptions. The rules of marriage are not a question of belief. They are a question of fact.
"*The permissibility of choices concerning human life such as birth control, abortion, or euthanasia should be governed by the needs of society, as reflected through decisions by legislatures and courts"
Social contract is a democratic value which many adhere to. Democracy is a belief system which governs the lives of a lot of people. As to the actual values enjoyed by individuals (independent of the overriding common value that they agree to be governed by certain Constitutional Principles)--there is the natural expectation of extreme dissimilarities of thought--such variety being anticipated where freedom of thought, speech, and value are normative and congenial.
"*All religions are based upon superstition and mythology, have caused more harm than good in human history, and humankind would benefit from their disappearance"
The first of this simply restates a position of nonbelief as evolving from a rational objection. The second is a value judgement which need not necessarily follow.
"*No expression of religion should be permitted in any public school, nor in any public place."
This is a democratic and rationalist belief which is grounded in the principles of human rights as being antithetical to Absolutism. It does not follow from atheism in any way.
"There is no such thing as "sin."
Nonbelievers do not believe in a necessary God. Although many believe a God is possible, they do not normally believe in "sin" in either the Christian, Judaic, or Islamic contexts.
"*No form or manner of individual behaviour is immoral if it does not cause harm or pain to others."
Not believing particularly in a God does not inform any necessary belief structure for the nonbeliever. They are varied and disparate. Some believe in capital punishment; some do not. Some believe in class societies where there are the rulers and the ruled, and where individual harm and pain to the ruled is of relative inconsequence to a determination of what is right or wrong.
Perhaps you are thinking of the belief structure of an Epicurus. Again, you may be considering a more complex outlook such as Hume's; or you might be referring to Utilitarians such as Bentham and Mill. In any case, such a viewpoint is represented, but it is not in any way representative of the nonbelievers' philosophy, nor is it encompassing or homogeneous. There are myriad belief structures which have nothing or little to do with pleasure or pain: Social Contract Theory being a prominent example.
"*The highest aspiration for humankind should be the achievement of the greatest happiness for all"
Again, this has nothing to do with atheism, per se.
"My point is, would it be possible for any atheist or secular humanist NOT to agree with any of these propositions?
Some atheists might believe in some of these premises, but it is not as a result of what he DOES NOT believe in--i.e. "God", but a reflection of what he DOES believe in.
This is the distinction I was making. An atheist has an individual belief system. It could be about anything, and it is certainly worthy of criticism by one who both knows it, and disagrees with it. My point, however, is that knowing someone is an atheist tells you nothing at all about his moral, social, or intellectual beliefs other than the fact that she does not believe in a Supreme Being (even though she may well believe in lesser mystical beings such as inhabitants of alien planets, or holders of public offices!); whereas, knowing what religion you believe in tells me about a comprehensive world view which you hold...and presumably practice. In short it defines your entire value structure, which may then be pressed or debated.
As well, it defines the authority for your beliefs, and this (when there is no obvious disagreement in applied values)--is a common focus of discussion.
Again, let me state, once more, that which is patently obvious and self revealing: Not believing in God does not reveal what it is that one DOES believe in. |
