Video About Problems With Atheism

[Brickjectivity]

He begins by discussing works by Dostoevsky, particularly Crime and Punishment. He then calls out Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins 'Radical atheists' on their assumption that humanity can proceed on a purely rational and irreligious basis. Dostoevesky seems to make the point (according to this prof) that if there's no transcendent value (God) then you can do whatever you want (morality is destroyed and chaos ensues). The prof asks his students "What the hell is irrational about me getting whatever I want from every one of you whenever I want it...and how is that more irrational than us cooperating so that we can have a good time of it?" He complains that radical atheists believe the human psychopathic tendency is irrational and therefore are misguided in thinking that pure rationality is a viable path forward.

Well I would say he makes an argument, and I wonder if folks here think he is accurately describing radical atheism and whether his argument is sound. The video rounds up to 6 minutes in length. Please at least skim it before replying, because I have not quoted the full text.

 

[Koldo]

He begins by discussing works by Dostoevsky, particularly Crime and Punishment. He then calls out Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins 'Radical atheists' on their assumption that humanity can proceed on a purely rational and irreligious basis. Dostoevesky seems to make the point (according to this prof) that if there's no transcendent value (God) then you can do whatever you want (morality is destroyed and chaos ensues). The prof asks his students "What the hell is irrational about me getting whatever I want from every one of you whenever I want it...and how is that more irrational than us cooperating so that we can have a good time of it?" He complains that radical atheists believe the human psychopathic tendency is irrational and therefore are misguided in thinking that pure rationality is a viable path forward.

Well I would say he makes an argument, and I wonder if folks here think he is accurately describing radical atheism and whether his argument is sound. The video rounds up to 6 minutes in length. Please at least skim it before replying, because I have not quoted the full text.

I am fairly more interested in the other part of the rationale that he didn't actually elaborate.
How does the existence of a 'transcendent value' precludes one from doing whatever he wants ?
Because it seems that people are doing whatever they want regardless of whether some 'transcendent value' exists.

 

[Revoltingest]

No need to watch the video.
There are no problems with atheism.
But some atheists....they're a problem.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think a lot of people confuse "rational," with "rationalization." Whether they do it knowingly or out of ignorance, I don't know.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

To me this video isn't about the problems of atheism. He even said he's not arguing for a god or that morals arrived by a god. More that our morals arrive by cultural conditioning and a very specific history. If we removed the assumptions made by that history we'd arrive at moral nihilism. That there is a problems of assuming the value of self-sacrificial behavior is as a result of logical consideration. That the problem is moral virtue considered by Western culture transcends that Western culture.

I both agree and disagree with him. Without invoking a god, or a history which enforces objectivist ideals, I can make a utilitarian argument of why the aforementioned character shouldn't have done what he did. But but requires the other person to already have a value put in making the most successful human society model we can. I could argue that successful human societies maximize benefit and minimize suffering, and eroding that system through vigilantism ultimately hurts more people than it helps, but that's an axiomatic assgumption I couldn't hope to objectively demonstrate. So it's my subjective preference. That's why I'm not an objectivist.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

In other words he's criticizing Dawkins for thinking our society would be the same without the framework of a Christian-centric western society. And I agree that our reasoning would probably be pretty different without that. But I don't believe it's impossible to arrive at anything except pure nihilism.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Dostoevesky seems to make the point (according to this prof) that if there's no transcendent value (God) then you can do whatever you want (morality is destroyed and chaos ensues).

I don't have a sound card, so I can't enjoy the video; but this statement itself seems to discredit anything he has to say. I've yet to hear an atheist speak about anarchy, chaos and rampant immorality. If "transcendent" is defined according to dictionary terms "beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience." then this statement about atheists is completely false; as there is value to atheists for such things as kindness; and value among atheists to non-physical parts of the human experience. There is value, for instance, in kindness and compassion. While some among many paths of life say some shocking things about what they believe is right or wrong (regardless of spiritual beliefs/nonbeliefs), this allegation against the atheist community is just flat out deceptive.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I am fairly more interested in the other part of the rationale that he didn't actually elaborate.
How does the existence of a 'transcendent value' precludes one from doing whatever he wants ?

Per conversation with ADigitalArtist (below), what he calls transcendent is apparently talking about something built from culture, so that by transcendent he is talking about morality that transcends individual morality.

Because it seems that people are doing whatever they want regardless of whether some 'transcendent value' exists.

I think you should qualify that or leave it as an opinion rather than an argument.

To me this video isn't about the problems of atheism. He even said he's not arguing for a god or that morals arrived by a god. More that our morals arrive by cultural conditioning and a very specific history. If we removed the assumptions made by that history we'd arrive at moral nihilism. That there is a problems of assuming the value of self-sacrificial behavior is as a result of logical consideration.

Good points.

That the problem is moral virtue considered by Western culture transcends that Western culture.

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, so I will restate it as I understand it: You are saying that the danger is assuming moral virtue arises outside of culture and independently of it.

I both agree and disagree with him. Without invoking a god, or a history which enforces objectivist ideals, I can make a utilitarian argument of why the aforementioned character shouldn't have done what he did. But but requires the other person to already have a value put in making the most successful human society model we can. I could argue that successful human societies maximize benefit and minimize suffering, and eroding that system through vigilantism ultimately hurts more people than it helps, but that's an axiomatic assgumption I couldn't hope to objectively demonstrate. So it's my subjective preference. That's why I'm not an objectivist.

Well as you say he appears to believe values are negotiated not that they are objective, but he seems to think that radical atheists are against the established negotiated morality.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I don't have a sound card, so I can't enjoy the video; but this statement itself seems to discredit anything he has to say. I've yet to hear an atheist speak about anarchy, chaos and rampant immorality. If "transcendent" is defined according to dictionary terms "beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experience." then this statement about atheists is completely false; as there is value to atheists for such things as kindness; and value among atheists to non-physical parts of the human experience. There is value, for instance, in kindness and compassion. While some among many paths of life say some shocking things about what they believe is right or wrong (regardless of spiritual beliefs/nonbeliefs), this allegation against the atheist community is just flat out deceptive.

Sorry about your sound card. I cannot say whether he's making an allegation against the atheist community without watching the whole lecture, and this is six minutes extracted from an entire lecture. I think to really establish it as a slander would require a lot more elbow grease.

 

[Pudding]

He begins by discussing works by Dostoevsky, particularly Crime and Punishment. He then calls out Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins 'Radical atheists' on their assumption that humanity can proceed on a purely rational and irreligious basis. Dostoevesky seems to make the point (according to this prof) that if there's no transcendent value (God) then you can do whatever you want (morality is destroyed and chaos ensues). The prof asks his students "What the hell is irrational about me getting whatever I want from every one of you whenever I want it...and how is that more irrational than us cooperating so that we can have a good time of it?"

He complains that radical atheists believe the human psychopathic tendency is irrational and therefore are misguided in thinking that pure rationality is a viable path forward.

What does "human psychopathic tendency is irrational" mean?

The radical atheists believe the human psychopathic tendency is irrational, how does their belief misguide them in thinking that pure rationality is a viable path forward?

Well I would say he makes an argument, and I wonder if folks here think he is accurately describing radical atheism and whether his argument is sound. The video rounds up to 6 minutes in length. Please at least skim it before replying, because I have not quoted the full text.

What is "radical atheism"?

 

[Brickjectivity]

What does "human psychopathic tendency is irrational" mean?

The radical atheists believe the human psychopathic tendency is irrational, how does their belief misguide them in thinking that pure rationality is a viable path forward?


What is "radical atheism"?

I am not prepared to type up the text from the video, however I noticed that it is subtitled in Spanish. Perhaps if you know Spanish?

 

[Pudding]

I am not prepared to type up the text from the video,

No problem.

however I noticed that it is subtitled in Spanish. Perhaps if you know Spanish?

I don't know spanish.

 

[Nakosis]

He begins by discussing works by Dostoevsky, particularly Crime and Punishment. He then calls out Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins 'Radical atheists' on their assumption that humanity can proceed on a purely rational and irreligious basis. Dostoevesky seems to make the point (according to this prof) that if there's no transcendent value (God) then you can do whatever you want (morality is destroyed and chaos ensues). The prof asks his students "What the hell is irrational about me getting whatever I want from every one of you whenever I want it...and how is that more irrational than us cooperating so that we can have a good time of it?" He complains that radical atheists believe the human psychopathic tendency is irrational and therefore are misguided in thinking that pure rationality is a viable path forward.

Well I would say he makes an argument, and I wonder if folks here think he is accurately describing radical atheism and whether his argument is sound. The video rounds up to 6 minutes in length. Please at least skim it before replying, because I have not quoted the full text.

I think the rationale is pretty easy. Group survival supports self survival. The individual is more likely to thrive as their group thrives.

Nationalized religions developed because of this rationale. Not the other way around. Proselytizing is a way for the group to increase its size, thereby increasing it's chance for survival.

Moral codes are about group survival, supporting the group. Even supporting the group over the individual. The urge to support the group is a survival instinct. Groups were able to survive and thrive and win out resources over smaller groups.

This instinct for group survival led to belief/acceptance of a transcendent value which allows a group to encompass a larger, more diverse group of people. It was a necessary evolution of culture to overcome tribalism.

Even today, our moral issues revolve around which laws will better support group survival. Nationalism vs globalism.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying, so I will restate it as I understand it: You are saying that the danger is assuming moral virtue arises outside of culture and independently of it.

More that the danger is assuming the moral virtue of western society is independent from the history of western society. Which includes development around Christian values. So that if Western society didn't have that history, it wouldn't just look like western society minus Christianity. But something far different. (Though I disagree with him that true nihilism is the logical default.)

Well as you say he appears to believe values are negotiated not that they are objective, but he seems to think that radical atheists are against the established negotiated morality.

I wonder if this might have to do with the criticism that popular atheistic moral systems like humanism and secular humanism is as a direct result of and owes its value set to Christianity. It wasn't explicitly said in this video but maybe in other parts of the lecture? @Augustus can give more insight into that perspective than I can, not being as familiar with the history of humanist philosophy.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

To my mind "transcendent" morality is based on cultural consensus. Actually, not even necessarily "cultural" - more "societal". And does anyone truly believe that if you removed "God" from the equation, that you would suddenly find people not coming to consensus on what is "moral?" Seriously?

For all their talk bashing atheists about having "no reasons" to remain moral because we don't believe in God, I feel that most believers would still find themselves "toeing the moral line" regardless whether they believed in God or not. They don't need it. They want to pretend we all need it, so they can feel more comfortable with their choice to make fiction a huge part of their lives, but they don't need it. Not truly.

My stance is that it almost doesn't even matter upon what your cultural basis for morality has been "built." People coming to consensus on right versus wrong is a concept older than any religion can lay claim to, and is something that has, and will continue to, outlive any organization of "religion".

 

[Brickjectivity]

Nationalized religions developed because of this rationale. Not the other way around. Proselytizing is a way for the group to increase its size, thereby increasing it's chance for survival.

It seems that the priestly classes are the ones who benefit from nationalized religions, so I cannot agree with your statement. I do not see them as group survival strategies but rather hedonistic territorial tendencies given lots of power and no responsibility.

Moral codes are about group survival, supporting the group. Even supporting the group over the individual. The urge to support the group is a survival instinct. Groups were able to survive and thrive and win out resources over smaller groups.

Sometimes moral codes are fashioned in reaction to horrors and abuses, and horrors and abuses sometimes are justified as beneficial to the group. I think transcending this is a virtuous goal, and the question becomes how to have moral codes which are not merely about the survival of the group and how we got the ones we have.

This instinct for group survival led to belief/acceptance of a transcendent value which allows a group to encompass a larger, more diverse group of people. It was a necessary evolution of culture to overcome tribalism.

There are various thought-models we can have to try and explain History, but we still need to take actual historical events into account to verify or deny those thought-models so we can know what is going on.

Even today, our moral issues revolve around which laws will better support group survival. Nationalism vs globalism.

Group survival is a good concept and a useful one to consider. It doesn't always appeal to individuals, to legislators and to governors.

 

[sayak83]

He begins by discussing works by Dostoevsky, particularly Crime and Punishment. He then calls out Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins 'Radical atheists' on their assumption that humanity can proceed on a purely rational and irreligious basis. Dostoevesky seems to make the point (according to this prof) that if there's no transcendent value (God) then you can do whatever you want (morality is destroyed and chaos ensues). The prof asks his students "What the hell is irrational about me getting whatever I want from every one of you whenever I want it...and how is that more irrational than us cooperating so that we can have a good time of it?" He complains that radical atheists believe the human psychopathic tendency is irrational and therefore are misguided in thinking that pure rationality is a viable path forward.

Well I would say he makes an argument, and I wonder if folks here think he is accurately describing radical atheism and whether his argument is sound. The video rounds up to 6 minutes in length. Please at least skim it before replying, because I have not quoted the full text.

It's difficult to have a functional society or a tribe where anybody who does not like me can simply kill me without consequences imposed by other society members. That is a sufficient refutation of the ridiculous arguments of Dosteovsky. The Christian argument is dangerous, for it seems to suggest that ethics does not have real world utility to the people who choose to be moral. Nothing can be further from the truth. Such arguments have created a space for those ideologies that have jettisoned ethics, like Nazism, Stalinism by simply convincing enough people that without God there is no use for ethics... and even Capitalism to some extent which considers economics to be an amoral realm. All human concerns and activities are intrinsically ethical (positive or negative), any attempt to ignore it or separate it out will have (and did have) disastrous consequences.

 

[HonestJoe]

What is "radical atheism"?

Not believing in God while on a skateboard.

 

[Nakosis]

This is also a good, but long interview which discusses the break down of our current society.

 

[viole]

He begins by discussing works by Dostoevsky, particularly Crime and Punishment. He then calls out Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins 'Radical atheists' on their assumption that humanity can proceed on a purely rational and irreligious basis. Dostoevesky seems to make the point (according to this prof) that if there's no transcendent value (God) then you can do whatever you want (morality is destroyed and chaos ensues). The prof asks his students "What the hell is irrational about me getting whatever I want from every one of you whenever I want it...and how is that more irrational than us cooperating so that we can have a good time of it?" He complains that radical atheists believe the human psychopathic tendency is irrational and therefore are misguided in thinking that pure rationality is a viable path forward.

Well I would say he makes an argument, and I wonder if folks here think he is accurately describing radical atheism and whether his argument is sound. The video rounds up to 6 minutes in length. Please at least skim it before replying, because I have not quoted the full text.

Well, we have learned something. And we should ponder on this. As humanists and rationalists, we have a certain responsability.

Apparently, it is very dangerous to challenge believers. By their own admission.

I mean, who wants to experience several billions of individuals morally equivalent to Hannibal the Cannibal or Al Capone, the day the lose their faith?

Dear theist, keep believing, by all means. Do not listen to us. We are all wrong; the earth is really 6000 years old. We are not apes despite the similarities. Noah and Adam really existed. And Jesus really died and raised to save us from sins. And whatever you believe, no matter if it is Jesus or Allah, Apollo, or the great Juju at the bottom of the sea, is really true!

Please.

Ciao

- viole