Atheist Ethics and Morality

[Matthew78]

Good.

Now... let's think of a random person out there somewhere: John Smith in Anytown, USA, who we'll assume also doesn't want to die. What substantive difference do you think there is that would warrant a different treatment of him versus you?

Edit: or is there a substantive difference at all?

I don't know what you mean by this. Substantive difference?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don't know what you mean by this. Substantive difference?

Maybe if I get a bit ahead of the process, you'll see what I'm going for:

You don't want to die. Because of this, you desire not to be killed.

John Smith also doesn't want to die. Therefore, unless John Smith is different from you in some relevant way, then logic dictates that you should also desire that he not be killed.

Edit: so... how is John Smith different from you? Let's assume that he's a generally good person, not a mass murderer or anything like that. Just a normal, everyday person. Is there some way in which he's different from you that could justify a different approach?

 

[Matthew78]

Maybe if I get a bit ahead of the process, you'll see what I'm going for:

You don't want to die. Because of this, you desire not to be killed.

John Smith also doesn't want to die. Therefore, unless John Smith is different from you in some relevant way, then logic dictates that you should also desire that he not be killed.

I would desire that he should not be killed if he didn't want to. This would especially be true if I believed that John Smith was to live for a specific purpose.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would desire that he should not be killed if he didn't want to. This would especially be true if I believed that John Smith was to live for a specific purpose.

You say "especially", but you do concede by your first sentence that he shouldn't be killed even if you didn't believe that he had a specific purpose.

Congratulations: you have just arrived at "I shouldn't murder" without depending on any sort of externally imposed meaning.

Hopefully you'll realize that it's a short logical leap from "I shouldn't murder" to "Stalin shouldn't murder". At this point, we can condemn Stalin's actions as wrong.

 

[Matthew78]

You say "especially", but you do concede by your first sentence that he shouldn't be killed even if you didn't believe that he had a specific purpose.

What I'm saying is that he shouldn't be killed because I think that he might exist for a purpose. If I was an atheist( philosophical naturalist), I wouldn't care if someone killed me and I wouldn't imagine caring if someone killed him.

Congratulations: you have just arrived at "I shouldn't murder" without depending on any sort of externally imposed meaning.

Don't pat me on the back just yet! I would say that he shouldn't be killed because he might in fact have a purpose by which to live his life for. I want to live to find out if I have a purpose for my life. If I don't, then, I wouldn't care if someone killed me or not.

Hopefully you'll realize that it's a short logical leap from "I shouldn't murder" to "Stalin shouldn't murder". At this point, we can condemn Stalin's actions as wrong.

I suspect that I can only realize this in a teleological context in which the human species exists for a purpose and there is meaning for our lives.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What I'm saying is that he shouldn't be killed because I think that he might exist for a purpose. If I was an atheist( philosophical naturalist), I wouldn't care if someone killed me and I wouldn't imagine caring if someone killed him.

You say that, but I don't really believe you. I that that most people (most non-sociopaths, anyhow) instinctively have empathy for others. Even if you can't come up with a good reason for caring, I suspect you'd care anyhow.

Don't pat me on the back just yet! I would say that he shouldn't be killed because he might in fact have a purpose by which to live his life for. I want to live to find out if I have a purpose for my life. If I don't, then, I wouldn't care if someone killed me or not.

If we don't have any purpose for our lives and this implies that our lives utterly lack meaning (two points that I think need quite a bit of support, BTW), what would be the point in being apathetic toward life?

But let's go back to the argument again: you say you want to live; John Smith also says he wants to live. If this means that you shouldn't be killed, why doesn't it mean the same thing for John Smith? What have you got that John hasn't got?

Remember that none of this is based on there being a good reason for wanting to live, only on the fact of wanting to live.

I suspect that I can only realize this in a teleological context in which the human species exists for a purpose and there is meaning for our lives.

So you've presumed the conclusion. Great.

 

[Matthew78]

You say that, but I don't really believe you. I that that most people (most non-sociopaths, anyhow) instinctively have empathy for others. Even if you can't come up with a good reason for caring, I suspect you'd care anyhow.

Okay, don't believe me. All I will say here is that you're welcome to your suspicions.

If we don't have any purpose for our lives and this implies that our lives utterly lack meaning (two points that I think need quite a bit of support, BTW), what would be the point in being apathetic toward life?

I don't think there is any point in being apathetic. I suspect that would just be the natural reaction of human beings. I don't see how people would be apathetic for a purpose, people would grow apathy and some people do. A two-month old baby doesn't consume oxygen because there's a point to it; the baby consumes oxygen because that's what human beings naturally do. Babies are biologically programmed to consume oxygen. An adult could make a conscious and deliberate decision not to consume oxygen if that person wanted to die.

But let's go back to the argument again: you say you want to live; John Smith also says he wants to live. If this means that you shouldn't be killed, why doesn't it mean the same thing for John Smith? What have you got that John hasn't got?

Alrighty. I would say that I believe it's possible that Smith and I both have a purpose for our lives, a purpose we were meant to fulfill and live for. I wouldn't want to die before I have had a chance to discover that purpose, assuming there is one and it's possible to discover it. I would say that John Smith should be allowed to live and I hope that there's a purpose for Smith's life and he discovers it. If I believed that there was no objective purpose for my life and, philosophical naturalism true, then I wouldn't care if I died or not and I wouldn't imagine caring if Smith died.

Remember that none of this is based on there being a good reason for wanting to live, only on the fact of wanting to live.

Of course.

So you've presumed the conclusion. Great.

I said I suspect. Please, read it again. How does a suspicion become a presumption?

 

[idav]

This purpose word keeps getting thrown around which isn't all that significant especially with how much we don't know about the ramications. If the purpose were john doe needed to bring food home to his family for 20 years or if he needed to get hit by a car to stop some death trap 50 car pile up we would never really know. That is why knowing a purpose and creating a purpose isn't all that different. We could never know if we are a cure or a disease. Not that diseases don't have purpose, lol!!

 

[Splarnst]

If I played devil's advoate and asked that you could indeed choose promoting peace and justice as your purpose, but, asked you, why would you even bother? How would you respond? I'm just curious.

It was just an example, so this specific goal isn't important. But I would choose some goal, and I would choose it in order to give my life meaning and purpose. It could be to live a long life. It could be to become famous. It doesn't have to be a noble goal, but I think a noble goal would make me happier in the long run. So, I don't need any justification besides my own happiness to decide to have a goal. Why seek meaning and purpose? So your life doesn't suck.

When I speak of life being incidental or that the sequence of events leading up to this moment being incidental, I have in mind, more or less, the history of the cosmos and the history of evolutionary changes which have resulted in our species. Perhaps I should've stated this. Just to make myself clear, this is what I had in mind.

Right. I just don't think you should dismiss incidental purposes; they can be just as valuable in giving your life meaning as any chosen on high. Whether they are primary or incidental doesn't affect their usefulness.

I'm not suren how this follows. Would you mind clarifying?

Sure, no problem. You said—I'm paraphrasing—that if you weren't created with a purpose, then you see no point in assigning your life a purpose. But why would a creator see a point either? If you have no reason to give yourself a purpose, then the deity has no reason to give you a purpose either. I'm not totally sure what you mean by there being "no point" in assigning your life a purpose, but if it applies to you, then it applies to the deity creating you as well.

Playing devil's advocate, I'm not sure how any divine creator's purpose would be relevant. I don't see how it follows that if we have no meaning or purpose, then neither would this being.

I failed to communicate this clearly enough. I didn't mean to say that the creator's existence has no meaning because your life has no meaning. I was trying to say that the very logical conclusion that your life has no meaning would apply equally to any deity who wasn't also created, who must give their own lives meaning and purpose if they are to have any at all.

It could be that this creator is eternal, may have arisen by chance, or may evolve in a similar way that we do, and since this creator cannot self-destruct or destroy itself in some an act of suicide, this creator might have decided to give itself a purpose, perhaps out of a need to avoid insanity resulting fom eternal boredom.

But if this deity can give itself purpose, then why can't you? And for the very same reasons? (You're assuming that this deity cannot end its own existence, but this is not a necessary attribute of a deity. In any case, this factor doesn't seem relevant to whether purpose can be chosen for a limited existence like ours.)

Does "rule utilitarianism" have any major philosophers who advocate it?

Major? I don't know who qualifies as such. Richard Brandt and Brad Hooker have both written works defending it. (I haven't read either.) John Stuart Mill may have been one himself, though there is controversy over that. (I have read Mill.) But the exact branch of utilitarianism is unimportant to me.

For me, it's simply a matter of practicality. If one has to evaluate every single act, every single moment of every single day, then it's simply too mentally exhausting and thus too prone to error (defined as choosing the option that doesn't maximize happiness). It's easier if one generalizes, e.g., stealing is wrong, rather than having to think, "Would it be better to steal or not to steal this in this particular situation?” absolutely any time the thought occurs to you. There are always many complicated factors and contingencies to take into account. That's not to say one can't create exceptions, but they should be relatively rare and preferably contemplated when one is not under pressure, that is, not on the fly. I know that any rule is bound to make some errors, but I think they are fewer and less disastrous than what one faces with pure act utilitarianism. In a sense, it's kinda applying act-utilitarianism to the very act of applying act-utilitarianism! Using rules maximizes happiness.

Reading more about the variations of utilitarianism just now on Wikipedia, the two-level kind is intriguing. In the most practical terms, I almost never think about what's the right thing to do. Following what I intuitively think is right and what's generally accepted by almost all societies, I rarely face a moral quandary. It doesn't even occur to me. My life is fairly simple, and I'm happy about that.

So, what it boils down to is that we make our own purpose, a purpose that gives us pleasure, and we do what we can, in the form of rules, to maximize our pleasure and avoid pain. So we are moral to others so that they will treat us with mutual respect, with the goal being that all of us will live in harmony, with all of us maximizing our pleasure.

Yes, I think that summarizes my outlook fairly. Replacing pleasure with happiness perhaps sounds better because it connotes "higher" pleasures (e.g., art, philosophy, doing justice) along with the "lower" pleasures (e.g., sex, food, drugs). But the idea is the same.

EDIT: Reading your responses to others, it seems you're simply faced with choice of accepting or rejecting the axiom that fulfilling one's desires is sufficient reason to act. There's your purpose. You can build more purposes and a 99%-clear morality based on this axiom plus logic. And it's only a matter of intellectual acceptance. You will act according to your own desires. There's no question about it. It's inescapable. That's simply determinism. Even if you killed yourself because you thought life was devoid of meaning, you would still be acting according to your desire to kill yourself in such a universe. It's only a question of whether you'll acknowledge it.

 

[Alceste]

I don't think there is any point in being apathetic. I suspect that would just be the natural reaction of human beings.

There's no need to 'suspect'. Let's look at some famous atheists: Kurt Vonnugut. Carl Sagan. Albert Einstein. Ayn Rand. Stephen Hawking. Richard Dawkins. PZ Meyers. Do you find them fundamentally apathetic? Do their lives appear to want for subjective meaning?

And consider some of the secular humanists you know on RF: Me, 90% Penguin, Autodidact, Sunstone, Kilgore Trout, Luis Dantas, Father Heathen, Songbird, Sententia, Copernicus. Do we seem apathetic to you? Do our lives seem lacking in subjective meaning?

It's not enough to simply speculate - sometimes you need to line up what you observe in the world to the conclusions you have drawn through your speculation and see if they match up. If not, it's back to the drawing board. In this case, they clearly don't match up. Many theists are apathetic about the value of life (see Bush and crowd). Many non-theists are quite passionate about it (see Carl Sagan).

The natural reaction I observe is that when we realize that ALL senses of meaning and purpose are subjective (including religious ones), we begin to craft our own and become all the more passionate about it because it is ours.

If your attachment to a religious externalization of your subjective sense of meaning and purpose is all that is keeping you from killing somebody or jumping off a building, by all means, hang on to it. Don't assume we're all so fragile and convoluted, though.

 

[heretic]

If this universe is all that there is and there is nothing supernatural, nothing divine, nothing "spiritual" or whatever word we may use to describe the so-called "supernatural" or "paranormal" realm, then this physical reality is all that there is. We human beings are a collection of cells. But that's all we are. So, if we are a collection of cells, then why should we be moral? Why should we attach meaning to our lives where no meaning has existed before? What does it matter whether we are moral or not? Why bother? Life has no objective meaning or purpose and our existence is merely incidental. We weren't put here for a plan, or so Secular Humanists believe, so why even bother? What is the point? Why should we care?

Hello , I'm new in this thread , and I found myself in many part of your story . First I don't believe that we are a collection of cells, this supposes that we are just like any object in the world , we can't be that even if we want to believe it . Your story is a big evidence for the epic human search for a meaning of life , the human history is all about living and finding a meaning for our lives ,you can't avoid it , it's an instinct ,just like instinct to eat , drink and having sex.

As for the morality , it's clearly evident that a person with a certain degree of morals is much self satisfied , and much socially accepted , so it's not a choice it's a need and requirement . Here atheism had some problems , cuz it started as a deny to the existence of God or any divine presence , this means the refusal of all religions , and most religions in the world have built a frame of morality and connected it to the daily life of the person. Yes there was tries to make atheism a system for life includes a set of morals but I don't think it is effective like a religious practice.

Take a deep breath , it's not possible to live without a meaning for your life .

 

[Magic Man]

"Why" is a human creation. Why do I abide by a morality? Because it's the best way to go through life as a human. When you boil morality down, all it is is a set of guidelines to live in society with others. The common-sense reason to abide by the golden rule is that it offers the best possibility of a fulfilling and happy life for you. If you treat others with respect, they're more likely to do the same for you. If you kill others, you're more likely to be killed or harmed.

As far as a purpose in life without God, it's whatever you want it to be. My purpose is to be happy. Things that make me happy are spending time with my wife, dogs, friends and family, watching sports, reading, etc. I don't need any higher purpose. I bother to do these things because they enrich my life and make me happy. I bother to help others because it makes me happy, and because I need help sometimes, and I can't expect others to help me if I don't help others.

 

[work in progress]

But there is a process for reaching the correct answer but he does admit that there are limitations since we are still in a learning process. I doubt most people would jump ship just cause they don't agree that health is worth striving for. It reminds me of medical doctors taking the hippocratic oath which I would hardly think anyone takes lightly. We KNOW the difference between a healthy and unhealthy mind and body and is worth striving for a fix.

I don't know if the Hippocratic Oath would be the best analogy to what Harris is talking about since his scientific process to determining the best ethical solutions looks likes it would have to be based on some version of Utilitarianism.

This will always be an issue as long as knowledge is limited. It is a competing value because someone is wrong/misinformed especially if they have similar agendas which is health and prosperity. So intentions are usually for the best even when we disagree on how to proceed.

Maybe because I have no formal education in philosophy, I don't feel committed to one particular school of thought.....although I can't accept any deontological system I've seen, as a basis for a perfect moral code. There are situations where some utilitarians like Peter Singer, seem to work their way into absurd solutions to problems. So whether we follow rule-based, act-based, or some new variation like Desire Utilitarianism is likely going to work its way into a few dead ends. Are there some situations where establishing some virtues, or desirable characteristics, would save a lot of the trouble of just evaluating actions to determine ethical solutions?

 

[idav]

I don't know if the Hippocratic Oath would be the best analogy to what Harris is talking about since his scientific process to determining the best ethical solutions looks likes it would have to be based on some version of Utilitarianism.

The utilitarian thing sounds like the Hippocratic oath. Doing something for the greater good. Being ethical in your scientific/medical endeavors.

Maybe because I have no formal education in philosophy, I don't feel committed to one particular school of thought.....although I can't accept any deontological system I've seen, as a basis for a perfect moral code. There are situations where some utilitarians like Peter Singer, seem to work their way into absurd solutions to problems. So whether we follow rule-based, act-based, or some new variation like Desire Utilitarianism is likely going to work its way into a few dead ends.

I'm not really committed to anything but the buddhist thought of avoiding suffering seems pretty logical and is hard to simply dismiss.

Are there some situations where establishing some virtues, or desirable characteristics, would save a lot of the trouble of just evaluating actions to determine ethical solutions?

That is where I think sociology is a science. When we observe society to determine the right and wrong actions. Stuff that we wouldn't normally test in a lab for...lol....ethical reasons.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Donations are correlated to morality. Morality deals with the code of conduct in which we treat one another. It is moral to help those around you who need it.

Charitable donation issues are the tip of the iceberg, and point to much graver issues such as the mass murders by atheist communists of the past, and present.

philosophy aside, the most good in the world - the homeless shelters, and soup kitchens - the majority of it seems to come from religious organizations.

A recent BHA (British Humanist Association) survey indicated that 60 per cent of the members polled regularly gave their time and skills to charities, while 36 per cent gave facilities such as office space and 94 per cent gave money. The causes supported by humanists were revealing. Lower down the list than in national surveys came appeals that already enjoy strong national support: charities for deaf people and blind people, appeals to protect tigers, national heritage charities. High on the list were less popular causes: human rights campaigns and direct overseas aid for sanitation and water, for example. Environmental projects supported were often those with less emotional appeal than tigers and rainforests: preservation of wetlands, wildflowers, ocean life. There is a historical tradition of brave non-religious people campaigning against mainstream views or practices that would now be considered inhumane or discriminatory – such as the display of people from remote nations like creatures in zoos, or the endorsement of slavery or the death penalty, or the disregard for other animals thought to have no soul.



Charitable giving without religion | .




Does this show Atheists or the non-religious are more moral because of the issues they support? No.
Conversely, Idea's post does nothing to show that the religious are more moral than Atheists.


Nor does the absurd claim of mass murdering "atheist communists" as representative of Atheists being less moral hold any water.


During the religious conflicts between various Protestant denominations and Catholics, many innocents were slaughtered in the most horrific ways. Drawn and quartered, impaled on stakes, burned alive, etc...
This does not make the religious less moral, just as the communist mass murders do not reflect the morality of Atheists, it only highlights the cruelty of humans when dogmatically enforcing their own philosophy or belief.

 

[crocusj]

Hello , I'm new in this thread , and I found myself in many part of your story . First I don't believe that we are a collection of cells, this supposes that we are just like any object in the world , we can't be that even if we want to believe it .

Well, we are a collection of cells. That much is obvious. And "can't" is a big word to be prefixed by belief.

Your story is a big evidence for the epic human search for a meaning of life , the human history is all about living and finding a meaning for our lives ,you can't avoid it , it's an instinct ,just like instinct to eat , drink and having sex.

Searching for the meaning of life is not the same a searching for meaning in our own lives. My life has an enormous amount of meaning to me but I do not belief that life itself has meaning, go figure.

As for the morality , it's clearly evident that a person with a certain degree of morals is much self satisfied , and much socially accepted , so it's not a choice it's a need and requirement . Here atheism had some problems , cuz it started as a deny to the existence of God or any divine presence , this means the refusal of all religions , and most religions in the world have built a frame of morality and connected it to the daily life of the person. Yes there was tries to make atheism a system for life includes a set of morals but I don't think it is effective like a religious practice.

Actually, atheism does not refuse all religions. An atheist would be free to choose any religion on a whim. There will be many atheist on here who follow certain religions. And, of course, atheism is not a "system of life" and has no moral codes attached to it.

Take a deep breath , it's not possible to live without a meaning for your life .

But of course it is, why would you say that it is not? Though I will agree that we should try as best we can to walk a path that makes ourselves and our fellows happy. Not because we are told to but because it seems the obvious thing to do.

 

[Evandr]

I'm starting this thread to discuss a topic that arose in the thread "Is atheism absurd?" I mentioned that I had abandoned atheism and Secular Humanism. I want to explain why. This was a sad decision for me but it was something I felt that I must do. Here's why:

As a Secular Humanist, I believed that this universe was probably the only reality that existed. There were no divine beings, no "souls", no "spirits", no "afterlife", no ultimate meaning or purpose to life. Purpose and meaning were subjective and depended on the individual. When I first became a Secular Humanist, I was actually overwhelmed with joy. It was the first time I felt confident in my life. I felt I was deserving of respect, deserving of rights, and deserving of dignity. I could live an honest life with no phantoms of divine wrath or the threat of hellfire for something like "thought-crimes". I must admit with some blush as I type this; I was also looking forward to sex. Being a Secular Humanist meant that I could have all the sex I wanted to and there was no divine being who was punishing for having lustful thoughts, imagining undressing a woman, or enjoying seeing a woman in a bikini or just plain nude. No divine being was going to judge for me having sex, either. I could have purely casual, no-strings-attached sex with a lady, just because she was beautiful, and there would be no divine retribution for it!

I credit Richard Carrier with helping me. I had been having a private correspondence with him through e-mail and the more I read his writings and, eventually, his book Sense and Goodness Without God, the more I liked Secular Humanism. I read other books such as Paul Kurtz' book In Defense of Secular Humanism. I was pleased to find a worldview that cherished science, reason, democracy, and inalienable human rights. No god was needed.

The more and more I read about Secular Humanism, though, the more troubled I became. I was an atheist and a philosophical naturalist. I believed that it was likely that this phyiscal world was all that existed, all that ever existed, and that that was ever likely to exist. Everything had a natural explanation from the Big Bang, to the origin of life, to the origin of human consciousness. I felt satisfied that no god existed, no "celestial dictatorship" as Christopher Hitchens is sometimes fond of putting it.

The problem came with the question of why. If we live in a physical world with no divine beings, no souls, no spirits, no afterlife, no cosmic purpose, and this physical world is likely eternal, then we, as human beings were ultimatey just a collection of cells. We are the sum of our cells and whatever emerges from our cells. Whatever our cells do individually and collectively makes up who we are. It was that simple. I read about different theories of morality and meaning. Richard Carrier proposed "Goal Theory" as a theory of morality. Michael Martin proposed his "Observor Theory". The late ecoanarchist thinker, Murray Bookchin, proposed "Social Ecology".

It was reading Bookchin's book The Philosophy of Social Ecology that I began to find Secular Humanism to be unsatisfying. Bookchin proposed an ecological theory of ethics and while I liked his "Social Ecology", I couldn't convert. Bookchin didn't answer the questions I kept hoping he'd answer. He didn't answer questions like, "Why bother to be moral?", "What does it matter if we are moral or not?", "Why bother to even live?", and "What is the point of living?" I read other books and I grew increasingly dissatisified. Carrier's theory didn't satisify me. I read from Kai Nielsen's books Ethics Without God and Why Be Moral? I was so haunted by these questions that I even contacted the author David Eller and told him of my concerns.

I ordered a copy of his book Natural Atheism. He personally autographed it and sent it to me. So I contacted him and explained what was bothering me and I invited his input. He graciously gave me a copy chapter of his next book (this book has since been published). I skimmed to the point where he was to answer my questions. His chapter disappointed me greatly. I didn't e-mail him to argue the point or complain about how disappointed I was. But I continued reading. I read Michael Martin's book on atheism and morality. Finally, almost halfway through a course in the philosophy of religion at SFSU, I came to conclude that I couldn't continue to call myself an atheist anymore.

I believed that if a god of love and goodness existed, then that god is guilty of criminal negligence. But to judge this divine being, there would have to be an objective morality. There would have to be objective moral values as well as a theory explaining where these values come from, why they are important, and why they matter to begin with. I came to conclude that the problem of evil was actually a paradox. This philosophy class was about the problem of evil. To condemn or judge requires a moral standard. I realized that in order to judge a divine being and condemn that divine being for criminal negligence, an objective morality must exist. But if it really does exist, then it must come from outside of human beings.

It must come from a source that transcends human beings and subjective human experience. If not, then why do we care about morality? Why do we care about meaning? Why do we even bother to care what is right or wrong? Yet we do treat morality objectively. If we didn't, we couldn't condemn evil people like Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, or Pol Pot for crimes against humanity. It is only because we treat morality as if it is objective, can we have a legal system that punishes murderers and sexual predators.

I didn't know how to resolve this paradox. In fact, for our last paper in this philosophy class, our instructor asked us to tell if our thoughts had changed or remained the same after this class. I wrote that my thoughts had, indeed, changed and I explained the paradox as I thought of it. My instructor liked my paper and I got an A in this class. I wrote in my paper that I could no longer call myself an atheist until I knew where objective morality came from, why it mattered, and what made it objective. Otherwise, the argument from evil, whether logical or evidential, lost all of its force. The paradox had to be resolved some how.

I quit going to SFSU after a very nasty bout of depression which almost cost me my life. That was over a year ago (from the time that this post is being typed). I haven't been back to SFSU and I don't plan on returning. But the questions that tormented me haven't been resolved. After abandoning Secular Humanism, I renewed my quest for answers. It was at the time that I abandoned Secular Humanism, I became interested in religious Humanism. I started reading into Unitarian Universalism. I really liked what I read and every time I read into this liberal religion, I grew a greater liking for it.

I went back and read some of the atheist literature that I found disappointing. I read, again, from Richard Carrier's book. I read some online essays from a website calling "Ebon Musings". I started to research the problem of evil for a book that I wanted to write on the subject. I read a paper by Raymond D Bradley, titled "The Free-Will Defense Refuted and the Existence of God Disproved". It was a fascinating paper. I read Bradley's other writings. I read a paper about a proof of atheism by him. I then came to a new conclusion. I came to conclude that for an atheist or Secular Humanist, there probably wasn't any objective morality. The way for an atheist to resolve the paradox proposed by the problem of evil was to adopt a position of moral nihilism.

It was when I came to conclude this that I had joined this forum and I decided to discuss this problem as a thread. I mentioned abandoning Secular Humanism/atheism in another thread and so I decided to start this one. Now people should know my reasoning. So here is the problem as I see it:

If this universe is all that there is and there is nothing supernatural, nothing divine, nothing "spiritual" or whatever word we may use to describe the so-called "supernatural" or "paranormal" realm, then this physical reality is all that there is. We human beings are a collection of cells. But that's all we are. So, if we are a collection of cells, then why should we be moral? Why should we attach meaning to our lives where no meaning has existed before? What does it matter whether we are moral or not? Why bother? Life has no objective meaning or purpose and our existence is merely incidental. We weren't put here for a plan, or so Secular Humanists believe, so why even bother? What is the point? Why should we care?

Who we are and what we gain by experience is important because it is the foundations of who we are becoming. The here and now is a prelude to endless tomorrows and that must have purpose or all creation is mute. As man is God once was and as God is man may become and that takes rigourous training, trial, and experience, even the excperience of the reality that all things must have their opposites so that wisdom may develope and growth can occure. Do not judge the eternities by the now because to do so is to severly disenfranchise who we are from who we have the potential to become. We are more than the sum of our parts, we are sons and daughters of a living God with the divinly appointed goal of becoming worthy to inherit all that He posses, a goal that, sadly, not all will be found worthy to acheive.

 

[waitasec]

Who we are and what we gain by experience is important because it is the foundations of who we are becoming.

yet the result of a mistake is to gain from the experience. other wise what is the point of being void of experience void of mistakes or, in your case, void of sin

The here and now is a prelude to endless tomorrows and that must have purpose or all creation is mute.

life goes on with or without us...and?

As man is God once was and as God is man may become and that takes rigourous training, trial, and experience, even the excperience of the reality that all things must have their opposites so that wisdom may develope and growth can occure.

must we all be gods?

Do not judge the eternities by the now because to do so is to severly disenfranchise who we are from who we have the potential to become.

why? can i judge those who adhere to this notion? seems they have done all the judging.

We are more than the sum of our parts, we are sons and daughters of a living God with the divinly appointed goal of becoming worthy to inherit all that He posses, a goal that, sadly, not all will be found worthy to acheive.

why must we all be gods?
seems the reason for your disclaimer is that yes we all die...
believers and non believers...

 

[work in progress]

The utilitarian thing sounds like the Hippocratic oath. Doing something for the greater good. Being ethical in your scientific/medical endeavors.

It could be. But the reason why all philosophers aren't utilitarians is because of the possible weaknesses of just examining consequences of actions rather than trying to discern intentions.

I'm not really committed to anything but the buddhist thought of avoiding suffering seems pretty logical and is hard to simply dismiss.

Sometimes there is a confusion between what some religious observers call "California Buddhism" - the Westernized form that emphasizes meditation, personal growth and loosely liberal and pacifistic goals; but makes no demands on adherents vs. the traditional forms of Buddhism practiced in Zen, Theraveda, Mahayana, and Tibetan Buddhism - which promote fatalism, social apathy and unquestioned compliance to authorities.

I find the lack of concern for suffering expressed in both Buddhist and Hindu philosophies to be a turnoff. I know this will raise all sorts of outrage and denials from Eastern practitioners, but taken to the extreme: "transcending" suffering = resigning yourself to fate and accepting your lot in life, and hoping for better in the next life!

Westernized versions of these religions have blended in western attitudes of social justice and enlightenment attitudes of improving the human condition. And it's probably that the humanist attitudes of expecting better things in this life, have permeated the East as well, and caused people to question more and accept less on authority. The final analysis is that I don't see modern, enlightened ethical principles at the core foundation of these religious traditions any more than I see them at the core of JudeoChristian religions.

That is where I think sociology is a science. When we observe society to determine the right and wrong actions. Stuff that we wouldn't normally test in a lab for...lol....ethical reasons.

I think you're reaching for something along the lines of - we don't need to know what the optimal moral rules are to determine that murder is bad, stealing is wrong, adultery and incest are wrong, or on the other side - that generosity is good, because we observe from the study of societies all around the world and throughout history that these are values that are universally agreed upon. There may be no one single perfect system for finding the right answer to every ethical problem...even if we do add scientific principles to analyzing it. Instead, we may have to settle with some sort of ethics by consensus, and see which works best.

 

[andys]

Andys, I await your response.

Sorry for the delay. I was busy replying on our other thread and didn't realize this one existed.

Let me be very clear. Are you arguing for a utilitarian theory of morality here?

I avoid labels. But morality is clearly utilitarian in that it is extremely efficacious, in that it greatly reduces injustice. And that's a tall order to fill.

But where do we get these "rights" from? It seems that a "right" in this context is merely a social construct that exists by virtue of verbal or written fiat. It's not some Platonic ideal that assumes concrete form in the form of a social contract between two or more people or between the governing power and the consenting governed.

My goodness. You seem preoccupied with the need for absolutes, else the nasty "S" word enters the picture...Subjectivity! I suppose if you were a medical doctor, you'd never take your patients' pain seriously, since pain is so triflingly subjective! Anyway, what about formal logic and mathematics? Don't they exist by virtue of verbal or written fiat? Well, morality is no less "objective" and clearly deducible. It is not, as so many believe, relativistic or based upon the social conditions at a given time period.

...why should we care about...rights or corresponding duties?...What does it matter whether we have rights, respect these rights, and respect the duties corresponding to any rights?

Why something matters, and why you should care about it are two different things. What does it matter whether we have rights (and corresponding duties)? Because without them, morality would cease to exist. POOF. Without morality, you forfeit all your rights. That means nobody else on the planet is obliged to respect the precious rights you have foolishly relinquished! You are now in the arena with the lions. Do you honestly not care?

...why should we care about what is deemed morally wrong? If my right to cross the street entails your duty not to intefere, what does it matter if you do, in fact, infringe on my right?

To answer your rather silly question: You don't get to cross the street! So you don't get to do what you wanted to do. Assuming that being forcefully and unjustly prevented from doing what you want to do (in accordance with your right to do it) does matter to you, then it follows that your rights do matter to you. So morality does and should matter to you. Clear?

The only way that one can opt out of morality would be voluntary death. It seems that even if people do not like morality, they are duty-bound to observe it, unless they don't care if their freedoms are suspended, their privileges revoked, and they don't care if they are incarcerated or not.

You're getting the picture! Abiding by the rules of morality ensures that your inherent right to live (which I explained in the other post)—and all other rights derived from this right—will be protected and respected by all the others. And that is definitely worth caring about.

I agree. In this case, the only way to not bother living would, indeed, be voluntary, self-inflicted death.

But it is not in your best interest not to bother living. Suicide or euthanasia are two exceptions because they prevent a forthcoming, inevitable, painful death.

I do need to justify meaning in my life. Especially, if I'm an atheist. If I am a philosophical naturalist, I really cannot see any point to living or life. Not even our most strong innate desire to survive and reproduce would really override that kind of nihilism.

What? Why does being an atheist, or adopting some naturalist philosophy entail a (greater) need to justify your life? Who is it that requires this justification, and what would constitute adequate justification?

Further, it's one thing to say you need meaning in your life, (many people feel they do), but to assert that you need justification for meaning in your life is bazaar. I honestly don't understand what that even means. As several other astute contributors to this thread have observed, it seems that if one reads between your lines, you are on the rebound for a religion (having discarded one earlier). This is a tragic step backwards, in my sincere opinion. Theists revel in the sense of fulfilment and meaning that their religion offers them. But this sense of security is not unlike the euphoria that cocaine provides its entrapped victims. The self-delusion that religion requires is far too high a price to pay. It will rob you of your powers of reason, your inquisitive mind, your finitude, your humanity, your appreciation of this incredible universe, your values, and ironically, your morality—your soul. You will no longer be you: you will be the property of the church, its subhuman doctrine, and its irrational focus on the "next" world instead of not the real one, right under your feet.

If you make that your choice, you will, unfortunately, get what you asked for.

The fact of that I'm on this forum is evidence that I'm on a quest. I personally find Secular Humanism to be unfulfilling. So I'm doing something about it. I have been growing more and more apathetic to life. I don't like apathy or depression so I'm doing something about it. I completely admit it; I am deeply dissatisfied with philosophical naturalism. Not even what I thought was, originally, the best perk of being a Secular Humanist, limitless sex with consenting adult atheist women, can change that. When I was an atheist, I really loved the thought of limitless sex with atheist women but it totally lost its appeal.

Well, a lack of sexual desire will serve you well if you take the leap back to religion! But it sounds almost like you are shopping for a belief system that will magically satisfy your need to have your life somehow endorsed and stamped "JUSTIFIED".

I know it's a cliche, but it's absolutely true that "meaning" isn't hiding out in the objective world of Platonic forms waiting to be unearthed or deduced. It's hiding right under your nose, inside of you.

I know this for a fact. I found this inner meaning, this "nirvana" in 1983 and so can you. Just keep looking; but don't surrender to religion's stranglehold.