When it comes to morality, Freethought / Humanism require one to act within certain parameters, at least in theory. This is granted as the very concept of morality presupposes, by definition, certain parameters, at least in theory.
But why reference “Freethought / Humanism” and why state “at least in theory”?
“Freethought / Humanism” because, in essence, these terms mean “atheism” by any other name. Yet, I wrote it that way due to my dealing, in this essay, with the Barkerian sect of Freethought. That is, from the sect of Freethinkers for whom Dan Barker is the cenobite.
With regards to various actions, he wrote,
Individuals are free to choose, within the limits of humanistic morality. [emphasis added]
But what are “the limits”?
As you may rightly guess, these are as arbitrary as the atheist concept of morality in general, in the first place.
Before getting to the rub, the nut, the bottom of it; let us consider some examples of what are “the limits” of Barkerian Freethought / Humanistic morality.
For one, he restricts thought so that it is no longer “free” but restricted:
No one can be a freethinker who demands conformity to a bible, creed, or messiah. To the freethinker, revelation and faith are invalid, and orthodoxy is no guarantee of truth.
This issue was further elucidate in the essay Freethought Without Forethought?.
Here are further examples from Dan Barker:
Darwin has bequeathed what is good…
abortion is a blessing…
a fetus that’s the size of a thumb that has, what, what would you put it in a little locket and hang it around your neck?…
There is no moral interpreter in the cosmos, nothing cares and nobody cares…what happens to me or a piece of broccoli, it won’t [matter] the Sun is going to explode, we’re all gonna be gone. No one’s gonna care…
[Jesus was] a moral monster.
Well, the picture is gotten, is it not? (for more quotations and the citations see here).
Yet, the bottom line is yet to be reached as we get to the “at least in theory” part.
So, besides the cenobite himself not offering very encouraging moral advice, the bottom line of the entire Barkerian Freethought / Humanistic moral assertion is as follows:
there are no action in and of themselves are always absolutely right or wrong. It depends on the context. You cannot name an action that is always, absolutely right or wrong, I can think of an exception in any case.
Therefore, go ahead and do it…as long as you can think of an exception, aka make up a reason, aka find an excuse.
To Dan Barker’s mind there are even exceptions when it comes to rape which is why he does not consider rape to be absolutely immoral. For information on this see Was Timothy McVeigh a God Believing Catholic and a “Christian Terrorists”? – Part 1 of Dan Barker and the Alien Rape Voyeurs
Also, see Atheism, the Bible, Rape and EvilBible.com, part 6 of 6
The ultimate conclusion seems to be that for Dan Barker, while morality is surely very important, it is a term and a concept that is employed (or, borrowed the Judeo-Christian worldview/theology) in order to place a psychological Band-Aid upon one’s psyche. It is something whereby you can say to yourself, “I’m moral,” or “I’m a good person,” or some such generic and bankrupt statement (see “A Good Person” ).
Not so? Going too far?
Allow Dan Barker to elucidate his reasons as to why one should be moral:
1. “if you wish to be…a healthy person” (meaning mentally healthy). 2. “if you wish to be labeled ‘ethical’ by other people.” 3. “if you wish to be viewed by your society as ‘a good person.’”
4. “if that’s something you wish.”
Notice that all of the reasons are not focused on concern for others but are selfish. This is actually, quite in keeping with the selfish motivating factor expressed by many atheists (see Do Any Atheists Have Pure Motives?).
So, in essence, out of the erudite elucidations of atheism’s supposed champions of reason we are but back to “every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (all over the Biblical book of Judges). Or, to more modern times, as it was expressed by the most infamous black magician of the 20th century, as Alister Crowley stated, “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law”—as long as you can think of an exception, make up a reason, find an excuse.