I think that your reasoning basically holds up. And most honest morals nihilists [those who are persuaded that morality cannot be deduced from objective imperatives] do as well. Hence, although they may suggest that we behave in what have traditionally been viewed as moral or even “altruistic” (a relatively new and somewhat invented term) ways, they are reduced to strategies that rely on emotion and behavioral conditioning.

The question then, is not why can’t someone act altruistically, but rather “why should they, if they don’t feel like it”?

And of course one can act generously and supportively of those one finds congenial, and still go sailing about on long ships to foreign locales and enjoy massacring the farmers and monks one catches unawares.

The mass shootings, the estranged husband-wife and children shootings, the high school and junior high school teachers having sex with their students, and all the other eruptions of the “Crazy Years” we are witnessing are all evidence of people who are thinking “There is no right or wrong, there is no judgement, therefore I can do, and should do, whatever I want.”

The Las Vegas mass murder is a perfect example. No physical brain abnormalities, no membership in a murderous religion or cult, no sign of anti-outdoor concert or anti-country music hatred. What’s then the motive? It seems to me pretty clear — if there is no God, if there is no ultimate reward and punishment, why shouldn’t you carry out your basest desires, then shoot yourself?

I meant “Mother Nature” as a stand in for the emotionless and consciousless inexorable march of evolution. I think we are making the same point; a drone bee’s behavior is individually unselfish, but benefits the hive and ensures the birth and maturation of more bees.

I differ with you, however, in that I think anyone behaving kindly or unselfishly towards another deserves “human credit.”

“Rufus T. Firefly on February 5, 2020 at 1:21 pm said:

Regarding atheists living a moral life…

Ants and bees are great examples of living things that are not religious who do altruistic things for the good of their communities. Why couldn’t an atheist come to a similar conclusion based on the same reasons Mother Nature has bred those traits into other animals through evolution?”

I’m not sure there is a God, but if there is not then I am sure there is no Mother Nature that is anything but a meaningless process which occasionally exhibits some signs of local order to those incidentally conscious entities that the blind environmental filtration process have conditioned to seek it.

But to your question:

There is nothing stopping a social insect from behaving the way it was programmed to behave when dealing with another of its swarm.

It just doesn’t deserve any credit, for doing so.

I’m sure that atheists can be moral in exactly the same way. They just don’t deserve any human credit for it when they do.

“The argument that not believing in God leads to a depraved acts doesn’t stand up well when you consider the numerous Catholic priests through the years who have also done depraved acts [I would say worse in some cases than De Beauvoir and Sartre]. “

LOL

The Catholic church was was infiltrated by swarms of homosexual men in the 60’s and 70’s who went there to roost, and who were enabled to do so by precursors who had already gotten their nose under the tent, and then used various psychological theories popular at the time in order to justify allowing males with known dispositions to go on to receive holy orders.

“As long as they remain celibate, what’s the problem with their having that orientation?” Yeah, what bullshit. Didn’t work out that way, and it doesn’t work that way when you start off with an intrinsic disorder.

The figures for abuse compiled by commissioned Church reports reveal that 80% were same sex, male on male, in orientation.

The population of Catholic clergymen went from having approximately twice the number of homosexuals populating the priesthood as compared to the general population in the 1950’s, to about six times in the 1980’s.

The personal histories of these perpetrators showed that nothing short of expulsion or prison would stop them: Not treatment centers, not transfers, and certainly not some “fear of God”.

Since the seminary acceptance rules have been changed back to more traditional standards, the rates of abuse have been plummeting … despite the fact that the episcopate is still very “gay”, and seeking to undermine the new standards.

Only a clown who had witnessed all this, could continue to believe that there is no likely risk of serious harm occurring to the interests of a healthy heterosexual society as a result of mainstreaming homosexuals into critical institutions.

And only a clown could believe that these persons who nested in the Church any more believed in the God of the scriptures, than the Cambridge spies believed in England and patriotism.

Humans survive better with meaning in their lives. True. But that would indicate we have a meaning-shaped hole, not necessarily a God-shaped hole, unless one defines God as meaning.

I’ve put in my time as a Catholic and later as a born-again Christian, so I have some idea how Christianity works. I’m now back to being a free-thinking agnostic, which is a relief. I still have affection for Christianity but it is such a bizarre belief system. If there is a God, I can’t believe he set things up specifically as Christianity tells us.

However, there’s no doubt in my mind that Christianity fills the meaning-shaped hole well and is more constructive than the meanings the Left has offered. But that doesn’t make Christianity true nor does it prove the existence of God.

I consider Islam and Mormonism entirely bogus religions but clearly both provide meaning for their followers, who largely benefit from that meaning.

The historically recent attempts of secularists to find meaning and build lives without God have not worked well on a mass scale, but it may not always be so. Quite a lot of religions came and went before we found ones that worked reasonably well.

Ants and bees are great examples of living things that are not religious who do altruistic things for the good of their communities. Why couldn’t an atheist come to a similar conclusion based on the same reasons Mother Nature has bred those traits into other animals through evolution?

An atheist marries and has children. It doesn’t break a commandment of a god to commit adultery, or not provide for his family, or educate his children, but what will the consequences be to him? He risks destroying his relationship with his wife. He risks losing money and possessions to her in a divorce proceeding. If he does not raise his kids to be hard working and responsible and diligent he may have to continue to support them in his dotage; meaning there will be fewer funds available for his personal enjoyment… Also, society may look unfavorably upon him, jeopardizing his ability to earn a living. Which almost certainly would have happened to de Beauvoir and Sartre had their personal histories become public.

One can see how even a bachelor, atheist fireman would charge into a burning building to save others. Yes, if he dies his existence ceases, entirely, but if the sacrifice of one helps more than one live doesn’t that make sense? One could argue it is even more likely an atheist will do that, vs. one who believes in an afterlife. If there is an afterlife, the folks who perish in the building fire are fine anyway. Why bother to save their mortal lives? To an atheist, their moral lives are all they have, so maximizing the number of humans who enjoy a mortal existence is sound reasoning. If evolution tilted that way we would have an innate desire to help others survive. Evolution should have weeded out most of the selfish folk and kept them from breeding.

And, if a religious fireman is only doing his job because he is afraid of punishment from a god, is he much of a religious man?

I agree with Neo’s point that de Beauvoir and Sartre were selfish, unempathetic people who had a sick view of humanity and left a wake of human destruction as their legacy. For those defending them, it sounds a bit like, “Yeah, but Hitler was a vegan who treated his dog very well.” In the realms of science and invention it makes sense to separate the personal life of the discoverer from his or her work. Had Dr. Jonas Salk been an ax murderer I think the proper course of action would have been to still employ his vaccine to eradicate polio. However, philosophers, politicians, teachers, religious leaders… They earn their bread advising others how to live. Examination of their personal lives is not only appropriate, it is essential. Had Dr. Salk taken his own vaccine and developed polio, one would be using sound judgement to not follow his instruction to take it oneself. De Beauvoir and Sartre were teaching and preaching a philosophy that they claimed was better than the prevailing wisdom of the day. What happened to their lives and those around them when they “took their own medicine?”

I had read that slavery in France in the 1600’s or 1700’s when the Catholic church ruled, had strict laws governing it. In addition to prohibiting beatings, slave owners were not allowed to work their slaves on weekends. This time was available to slaves to work for cash employment. If they managed to save up enough cash they could buy their own freedom, at the current market price, and many did.

Other historians push back that French colonies were not very particular about enforcing those laws.

Obviously, I’m no apologist for slavery, but the topic is slightly more gray than I would have guessed.