For all your talk of consensus, force is your court of last resort.
If you were to threaten me, I would respond in self-defense. If I was to use the threat of jail time imposed by society through the agency of the police and justice system, it's still self-defense. Self-defense does not impose my morals on you, but only prevents you from imposing something unwanted on me.
If you choose to think of either police enforcing just laws or a person successfully defending themselves against an attack as "might makes right" then you're simply not as smart as your other posts in this thread imply.
The smart way to follow-up my post would be to point out that if it were just the two of us, and we couldn't reconcile our differences over what was acceptable behavior, what would I do next? Would I then use force to resolve the situation?
My answer: none of my morals put any obligation upon your behavior. If the irreconcileable difference required force between us, it would have to be your aggression, not mine. I would defend myself against your aggression as needed to protect myself, but I would not use force except to prevent you from harming me.
But you have no universal meta-method to show why your model should be my model,
But that's not my goal. I have no need for you to follow the same morals, or even use the same model for determining morals that I do. All I'm doing in this discussion is explaining to the world at large some details of how I determine morality. If you or others come to understand my system of metaethics and decide that you would be better off using it rather than what you're currently using, I'm all for it. But I'm not harmed or offended if you or they don't make that decision.
If you don't agree to abide by the better laws of the society we all live in, well then, I do have some problems and by calling the police on you, I'll ask the government to enforce the consensus morality that is agreed to by being in a particular society.
What is interesting is the question of what is sufficient to decide between competing personal opinions.
Consensus. Historically, the consensus of a few forced upon the many at the point of a gun or sword. In the modern world, we hope for consensus to emerge from ongoing participatory debate, articulated through social norms, laws, etc. If you're a socioopath living in the United States, your morality is distinctly outside of the cultural norm, so much so that many things you consider perfectly reasonable will result in sanction and punishment from the people around you. The rest of us vote for lawmakers we believe will represent our morality in legislation and then, within some boundaries, agree to abide by the outcome of the process. I'm not even going to get into immoral laws here, but there is obviously more to it than this minute-long explanation.
in the absence of agreement of whose moral system to use, force is sufficient. So your moral system must include, at a minimum, "might makes right".
This is a complete non-sequitur based on the presumption that we need to completely agree on one moral system before further decisions can happen. Check your assumptions because this condition isn't even remotely necessary. Laws don't begin to describe what's right and wrong, but they're still useful by describing those moral elements important enough for the rest of us to punish them for their actions. All we need to agree upon is that some actions are bad enough that they're worth punishing and everything else can be left up to the individual. How big or small that list of "bad actions" is will be fluid and subject to constant revision. Your belief that universal morality is necessary, let alone positive, is without any substantiation whatsoever.
Why do I need consesus building if I can impose my morality on you by force?
Are you claiming you would be able to do that? Really? I know that many church leaders are attempting to do exactly that by using the government (force) to impose restrictions on behavior they don't like (gay marriages), but except for the occasional abberration, it doesn't seem to work very well any more. There are too many people on the other side for these people to realistically claim consensus. The only way you're going to impose your morality upon me by force is if you point a gun at me, and I'm only going to agree with what you say while you've got the gun pointed at me. The moment you remove the threat of lethal force, you lose your influence and other risks of this strategy will then appear.
Do you think a team of diplomats would have stopped the aliens in Independence Day?
But availability of force to impose my will upon you doesn't change your judgement of the morality of my action (or mine, for that matter). Just because something can be done doesn't mean that it should be done. That distinction of separating good choices from bad choices is the dilemma answered by ethics. If someone brings force to bear, it temporarily changes behavior by altering the inputs to decisions, but it doesn't alter the system of decision making itself.
I agree that my statement leaves unstated the assumption that in order to attach value to anything, we first need to determine what effect "valuing something" has upon behavior.
My moral axioms are similar to "I should act in such a way as to maximize the probability of achieving/maximizing the accomplishment of my long-term goals." and "I should choose long-term goals likely to maximize my satisfaction as a human being." The reference to humanity is intended to acknowledge that my mind has built-in desires which, while risky to blindly follow in the short-term, are likely to result in great satisfaction if allowed to guide long-term goal setting.
As for proving them, since I don't ask others to agree with them, I don't see the point. They are simply a meta-response to the repetetive internal question, "What should I do now?" Like the Objectivists, I derive my imperative from currently understood human nature (as they like to say, "man qua man"). Unlike the Objectivists, I have a much more complex model of my own human nature than their one-dimensional "selfish man". This leads to a much more consonant understanding of the behavior of others along with a richer set of options for my own self-determined "ought".
Hell of a good response, BTW... Hell of a good response... If you're ever in LA, dinner is on me.
Depending on how you define your terms (specifically "divine", "exist", and "perspective") I probably agree with you. I get the distinct impression that you're using atypical definitions for those words in order to build a sensible mental model of a perfectly valid thesis of existence.
Nothing wrong with redefining words on the fly per se, but many people will dismiss your statement as nonsense unless you can phrase it in a way that uses more typical semantics. Some will still be skeptics (possibly including me) but it's at least better to be understood and disagreed with than ignored.
You're arguing as if there were something external to man that says "this is how you ought to behave". You cannot say that from an atheistic viewpoint.
We haven't yet begun to explore why I think moral behavior is moral. So far, all I've done is provide some examples of what is and isn't moral in my model.
You've interpreted my statements as requiring an external arbiter to determine morality on your own. I don't agree that there is one morality for all people or that we need an external arbiter to come to agreement on common moral norms. As an aside, this norm building is why my ethical system is not moral subjectivism, though they are similar at first blush. The moral subjectivist says that he can only be judged in the context of his morality. I agree that we will be judged by each other on the common ground between our moral systems and that if you want to be judged on your own morals, it is essential that you participate in the consensus building (one expression of this is law).
Assume, for the sake of argument, that the moral statements in the Bible accurately reflect what God says is good and bad. On what basis, then, do you presume to judge God?
That the full set of statements presented to me as God's word and moral teaching represent a worldview and set of moral precepts that any human would find abhorrent and not at all likely to give me or anyone else any chance at joy or happiness.
That most Christians are happy folk is because they understand that 80% of God's moral teachings are irrelevant and don't apply to them. Which is a fine strategy, but doesn't agree with the public statement that they follow God's word slavishly. You and they are picking and choosing which rules you'll follow (don't steal) and which you'll ignore (working on sabbath punishable by death (Exodus 35:2), long hair (1 Corinthians 11:14), goatees (Leviticus 21:5), etc.).
Like any learned statement, the reader judges Biblical instruction to see if it conforms with their own worldview and depending on how they view the Bible, either openly disagree with much of it (me) or simply decide that that aspect should not apply to them (most/all modern day Christians).
You judge the statements in the Bible just as much as I do (especially when you wear t-shirts with a cotton/polyester blend), the only real difference is that I am perfectly willing to acknowlege the places where I think the Bible is foolish where you go through some mental gymnastics to simultaneously believe that you're following God's word while deciding that some parts of the word are better to follow than others.
What I particularly dislike about the definition you would like to use is the implication that atheists can only exist near to and dependent upon a theistic group for their self-definition (I can't just say "The universe is sufficient unto itself." in your semantic, I have to say, "That person is wrong!"). Without a theist to disagree with, your version of an atheist can't exist. A situation that I find more than a little ridiculous.
Despite attempts by highly influential Christian thinkers to alter the meaning of words and marginalize the semantics of "atheist", the word ultimatly relies on it's construction. Just as immoral (against morals) is different from amoral (without morals), so atheism is different from the never-coined imtheism.
Actually, many who call themselves atheists are agnostic but do not understand the word. You may be in either group; I cannot tell. You have not yet stated "I believe there is no god".
You may choose to agree with the loss of meaning from the semantic hijacking that you're arguing for. I don't, and will continue to deny that that reduction of definition is the correct one. Further, I assert that atheist and agnostic are not exclusive categories as many agnostics currently lack a belief in God and are therefore also atheists (just inconclusive ones).
I can only see your refusal to accept my definitions for myself as an attempt to boost the population of your group (agnostics). However, the agnostic claims that, "There is a chance that God exists." I dispute the agnostic's assertion as the same sort of nonsense as "God exists".
I lack a belief in a diety or dieties. I do not hold a realistic possibility that I will ever maintain a belief in a deity or deities. I am therefore a non-theist aka an atheist.
Apathists don't actively proclaim there isn't a god, they just don't care.
That's good, because there certainly is plenty of confusion around who is an agnostic and who is an atheist.
For me, the test is simple: answer the question, "Could God possibly exist?" if the answer is "yes", you're a theist or an agnostic. If you are unable to respond with "yes", you're an atheist.
My response is, "Which definition of God?" If the clarification is "Any Biblical definition you like." then my final response is, "Since 'God exists' has no meaning, the question has no meaning". (note for those in the cheap seats: this response excludes me from being a theist or an agnostic)
In this discussion it's important to be precise in order to avoid the most common argumentative trap: shifting the burden. Many of the people you would talk with want you to make testable assertions, "like everyone else". The wise atheist lets the theist shoot himself in the foot and avoids picking up the gun at all.
in modern English the term "atheist" refers to one who specifically believes in a lack of God
I disagree with your definitions.
From dictionary.com:
atheist n: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
I don't accept the assertion that "God exists." which is, in my opinion, similar enough to the above definition to put me into the atheist camp.
agnostic n: 1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
I would assert that I am much more conclusive in my disbelief than this defintion would allow and am therefore not an agnostic.
Athiesm is a statement of faith just as much as Thieism is a statement of faith.
This is a false statement and a common argumentative fallacy called "Shifting the burden.". Simply because I have not accepted a statement does not mean that I am obligated to prove the opposite of the statement. Atheism is simply the lack of any belief in a diety.
Within the group of people called "atheists", there are negative atheists and positive atheists. Those who lack any belief are "negative" while those who feel that there is substantial evidence for the non-existence of a diety are "positive".
The agnostic is simply that person who refuses to reach a conclusion on the subject (like my father, who hopes there is a God but won't make an assertion one way or the other).
Your definitions are flawed as you exclude a group which actually contains most of the set. I am an atheist, and most of the atheists I know are similar in basic beliefs to me.
In either case, a judgement has been made. To make such judgement, you must surely have evidence, no?
All right, I'll put it all out there.
My judgement is that the statement, "God exists." is without meaning and therefore unsupportable. "Greebles frob." has exactly the same strength as an assertion. I don't say that "God may or may not exist." since I believe that to be an unnecessary equivocation. Nothing that has so far been described as "God" can possibly have anything to do with the word "existence" and remain a rational statement.
And yet, I won't make a positive statement that requires substantiaion, nor will I accept the reversal of the burden of proof that is so common to these discussions. I deny that "God exists." has ever been substantiated and that without credible belief in the tiniest fragment of need or possibility for any sort of God, I am an atheist.
Given that, do you still harbor a suspicion that I might be an agnostic?
So far the reasons you've listed are the law and genetic wiring. Neither of those seem like very strong deterrents.
You need to read more of the thread...
I've never argued for use of the law as a moral guide (at best the law is an input to moral decision making) and I've avoided mentioning genetics/evolution as much as possible because it's not likely that someone arguing morality from a Christian perspective will agree with the predicates of an evolutionary (natural) argument.
To directly answer your question:
The thing that prevents me from taking advantage of people at every opportunity is the same thing that prevents you from doing so (and it isn't God): taking advantage of people doesn't obtain the desired result.
You're rarely if ever happier or better off in your relationships after taking advantage of someone else. You may momentarily feel a little happier because you shoplifted a book instead of paying $6 for it and got away with it this time, but was it really worth the risk?
What makes a particular action right or wrong? Where it gets us in the long run. I had my days as a little shit with a selfish, mercenary attitude, but I drove away most of my potential friends, and hurt many of the people who loved me. Thankfully, I learned from my failed, early interactions with others and had a chance to 1) figure out what I really wanted in life and 2) change my behavior so that I am more likely to get what I want from life.
All as a purely biological being, with no consideration for what might happen after death, no consideration of salvation. This is consequentialism. Not the worthless, highly theoretical Utilitarianism of the philosophy professor; this is a highly pragmatic consequentialism of real life. Why should I do X and not Y? Because X is more likely to sustain joy in me, to give my children a chance at joy, to help me have the best qualities I admire in others.
And that's all that's needed. All the rest of the bellyaching about "but you could...". Yeah, I could. But I wouldn't be as happy.
I was trying to make the argument without really using evolution and "man in the nature of man", but you're absolutely correct about why people tend to be nice, no matter which religion they choose, no matter whether today or three thousand years ago...
People who are nicer (up to a point) tend to have more offspring in the next generation.
If you really mean that, then you would have to say that if the majority got together and decided to kill all the atheists, that they would be morally justified in doing so,
If they passed a law making atheism punishable by death, they would be legally entitled to do so, but those who would kill someone for being an atheist, even in those circumstances, are no more moral for having the majority or the law on their side.
You've confused atheistic ethics with moral subjectivism. They're not the same, but the reasons why would take a substantial discussion, and there are numerous sources that Google can provide to explain the distinction. Just because a lot of people believe something is moral doesn't make it moral.
You've drawn a number of very suprising conclusions from the observation that atheists lack an external source to tell them absolutely what is moral and what is immoral. It follows then, that you see no need to be moral without someone nearby ready to punish you unless you do the right thing. That's a very sad reason to be a nice person (because the man in the sky will punish you if you don't).
My observation is that many moral statements in the Bible are reprehensible if taken at face value (the demand of the modern fundamentalist). Also, I observe that Christians tend to agree a great deal more with my personal morality than strict Biblical morality. But that shouldn't suprise anyone very much after reading this thread:)
Welcome! And though I'll disagree with you here and there, I'm very happy to discuss at length!
The point of wrf3, I believe, is that the weak point in your philosophy is that of other people not sharing it, and choosing to blow you up.
Well, I agree that it is almost always better not to be blown up, but I don't see that that decision is a matter of metaethics. Ethics, perhaps (should I jump on that grenade or not), but not metaethics, which is where wrf3 is claiming to have me cornered.
Trivial example: three meals a day is better than starving to death, but that didn't stop Gandhi.
Interesting example, but ultimately, it also confuses the boundary between ethical decisions and the ethical framework in which those decisions are made. One of Ghandi's goals was for his people to have political self-determination. In support of that goal, he put aside another goal of a comfortable life. His decision to voluntarily endure personal hardship makes sense to another rational person when his larger goals are brought into the picture.
Goal selection is the starting point of ethics. The discussion surrounding goal selection is a big one because there are common goals as well as very uncommon goals that are all rational and can result in great satisfaction to the individual person determining where their life is heading. But you won't understand a person's decisions (like Ghandi's fasts) until you understand a person's larger goals.
Your explanation of how you agree with my "value of people" lemma is interesting, and I find that it strengthens my observation that richness of belief is more valuable than consistency of belief. Even in ultimately agreeing with each other, we still have something to learn from each other.
But if we do put morals (or more properly ethics) derived from the metaphysical equality you noted aside, there are also substantial positive consequences to valuing yourself above others.
I agree, and in almost all cases, I do value myself above others. The few reversed cases are in the closest "ring" of community: immediate family. I suspect that when I have children, I may value their well-being above my own, consistent with my goals.
In general, however, I value myself above members of my family, who I value above my close neighbors and co-workers, who I value above others in the same city, who I value above others in the same country, who I value above others on the planet. All of whom I value as people, but in a really abstract way for the people in Siberia (and most places).
Everything is not black and white. We have degrees of just about everything. Including value to each other.
I prefer deep, restful sleep to "stunned into unconciousness by electric shock" but whatever floats your boat...:)
And if you're interested in the results of my experiments along those lines: the universe is still here and the stories about what happened while I was out are consistent enough thus far.
In the parable of the vinegar tasters I tend to agree with Lao-Tse and disagree with Bhudda and Confucious about the nature of our current existence.
As such, when people ask for a simple answer regardind what I believe about the world and my place in it, I say that I'm pretty darned close to a Taoist.
Please excuse me for the link, which refers to an excerpt from "The Tao of Pooh", but that's where I originally read about the parable of the vinegar tasters. There's also a certain humor to that framing of the story that I find appealing.
I lack a belief in God, therefore I am a-theistic. If I was uncertain about my belief in God or otherwise unable to come to a conclusion about God, then I would be agnostic and would exit myself from conversations about God without assertion.
Some goals are objectively better than other goals. Really? I challenge you to provide an example that stands up under scrutiny. Atheist ethicists have been trying for years and have never succeeded.
Far too easy. You need to provide more boundaries to your challenge. My example:
A goal of having joy and loving relationships with other people is objectively better than a goal of living out a short existence in a small box filled with your own excrement.
The all-important caveat: But only to rational human beings within a broad definition of "normal". The caveat is needed because this kind of exercise can only result in communication if we agree on our foundational lemmas. You don't agree with my choice of lemmas, no matter how often your conclusions disagree with reality, so I won't be able to "prove" myself within your worldview.
And at this point, I appeal back to my original post. We're outside of the realm of proof and into what's most useful in predicting outcomes. "Prove" means little when "really, really likely" is already achieved and I'm quite happy with my morality and it's utility to me and my family.
1) All morality is nothing more than personal opinion (since there is nothing outside of man (or God) which says 'ought' instead of 'is'.
Your problem is faulty in this statement. It does not agree with reality. Some goals are objectively better than other goals. Some behaviors are objectively better than other behaviors. Not to fall into the simplistic analysis of Ayn Rand and the objectivists, but morality follows from this reality of motivated action.
Correct the problematic statement and see if your proof still makes sense. I submit that it does not.
Trust/friendship amongst thieves, eh?
Not necessarily. Instead of 'thieves', think of an elite group.
I disproved your assertion that people with common morality can have the same beneficial outcome, no matter what the chosen morality. I used a counterexample taken from the real world. Thieves tend to discount the value of long-term goals, which makes them less likely to be trusted/liked/loved by people they are honest with, thus a thief's morality is inferior to a morality that allows/supports/develops long-term positive relationships.
Morality is not just a matter of opinion (just shown). You are correct that in a world where there was no significant advantage to a particular set of behaviors (morality), might would make right. Luckily for all of us, that world is not reality.
But what neither Aquinas nor Descarte could extract was to prove whether or not the rest of existence was separate from the ego or whether it's all just part and parcel of "me".
The existentialists (individually) proclaim that you and I and all of existence are just figments of their highly consistent imaginations. None of Aquinas, Descarte, and I can disprove them, but I (along with most people, including both Christians and atheists) do disagree with them. Which is exactly the kind of statement requested by the topic.
What do you think of quantum experiments which show that matter only exists as a probability waveform (the superposition of many possible states), until it is observed?
That we have more to learn about the universe. The universe acts consistently between observations, but who knows in how many more ways the universe is going to suprise us with really cool ways of being?
To answer a little differently: I'm not suprised that I have some effect back on the universe. I am, after all, a part of the universe (and so are my agency and nature as an observer).
Right -- your personal opinons. But there is no a priori reason, other than personal opinion, why your opinions should matter to anyone else.
Hm. I believe that we are discussing at cross purposes here. If you happen to choose the same goals I do, then certain kinds of behaviors become moral to you and we can get into the details of that. If you don't choose the same goals I do, or if you choose goals that are antithetical to the goals I've chosen for myself, then we will have little to no common ground and almost nothing to talk about.
Too, those in your group who agree with your personal opinions would be free to love you, regardless of what the masses think
Trust/friendship amongst thieves, eh? That's an interesting assertion, but I find that assholes don't like assholes any more than nice people do. If you've got a reputation for manipulative behavior, even people who agree that manipulative behavior is ok won't trust you. You have to have a reputation for trustworthy behavior, which doesn't fit with being a manipulative person.
In any case, the principle of "might makes right" is foundational to atheism.
This assertion is highly astonishing and would need a lot more substantiation before it could be accepted. It seems to presuppose that atheists lack the ability to determine morality (which is an unsupportable assertion).
My first response is that your statement seems true for a sociopath (who is also likely an atheist), but I don't see why any other athiests would agree with you.
Fortunately, atheists either don't realize this, don't want to accept this (after all, it intuitively seems wrong), or act inconsistently with their beliefs.
If it intuitively seems wrong, you might want to check some of your "facts". I believe that your conclusion is insupportable because it depends on an unsupported presumption.
Did you ever consider that saying you stopped accepting that the core of everything they believe in and the basis of everything they do had any value might be inherently hostile?
I didn't consider that, and now that you mention it, I don't think so. Christian believers (and nihilists and psychopaths for other parts of my post) are free to take offense at anything I may say, but no hostility was intended, nor would a thoughtful Christian take offence at my "uneducated position" on the matter.
A Christian believer labels the subject that we disagree upon as central to their view of existence and meaning. They continue to exert their own agency when they choose to become offended by disagreement with their own unproven (and unevidenced) assertions. Some will, most won't.
The wise person would look behind their own injured sensibilities before becoming truly upset. But not all people are wise.
(BTW, if you want to label me with a belief system, the Taoists and I agree on lots and lots of things).
Slashdot Mirror
For all your talk of consensus, force is your court of last resort.
If you were to threaten me, I would respond in self-defense. If I was to use the threat of jail time imposed by society through the agency of the police and justice system, it's still self-defense. Self-defense does not impose my morals on you, but only prevents you from imposing something unwanted on me.
If you choose to think of either police enforcing just laws or a person successfully defending themselves against an attack as "might makes right" then you're simply not as smart as your other posts in this thread imply.
The smart way to follow-up my post would be to point out that if it were just the two of us, and we couldn't reconcile our differences over what was acceptable behavior, what would I do next? Would I then use force to resolve the situation?
My answer: none of my morals put any obligation upon your behavior. If the irreconcileable difference required force between us, it would have to be your aggression, not mine. I would defend myself against your aggression as needed to protect myself, but I would not use force except to prevent you from harming me.
Regards,
Ross
But you have no universal meta-method to show why your model should be my model,
But that's not my goal. I have no need for you to follow the same morals, or even use the same model for determining morals that I do. All I'm doing in this discussion is explaining to the world at large some details of how I determine morality. If you or others come to understand my system of metaethics and decide that you would be better off using it rather than what you're currently using, I'm all for it. But I'm not harmed or offended if you or they don't make that decision.
If you don't agree to abide by the better laws of the society we all live in, well then, I do have some problems and by calling the police on you, I'll ask the government to enforce the consensus morality that is agreed to by being in a particular society.
What is interesting is the question of what is sufficient to decide between competing personal opinions.
Consensus. Historically, the consensus of a few forced upon the many at the point of a gun or sword. In the modern world, we hope for consensus to emerge from ongoing participatory debate, articulated through social norms, laws, etc. If you're a socioopath living in the United States, your morality is distinctly outside of the cultural norm, so much so that many things you consider perfectly reasonable will result in sanction and punishment from the people around you. The rest of us vote for lawmakers we believe will represent our morality in legislation and then, within some boundaries, agree to abide by the outcome of the process. I'm not even going to get into immoral laws here, but there is obviously more to it than this minute-long explanation.
in the absence of agreement of whose moral system to use, force is sufficient. So your moral system must include, at a minimum, "might makes right".
This is a complete non-sequitur based on the presumption that we need to completely agree on one moral system before further decisions can happen. Check your assumptions because this condition isn't even remotely necessary. Laws don't begin to describe what's right and wrong, but they're still useful by describing those moral elements important enough for the rest of us to punish them for their actions. All we need to agree upon is that some actions are bad enough that they're worth punishing and everything else can be left up to the individual. How big or small that list of "bad actions" is will be fluid and subject to constant revision. Your belief that universal morality is necessary, let alone positive, is without any substantiation whatsoever.
Why do I need consesus building if I can impose my morality on you by force?
Are you claiming you would be able to do that? Really? I know that many church leaders are attempting to do exactly that by using the government (force) to impose restrictions on behavior they don't like (gay marriages), but except for the occasional abberration, it doesn't seem to work very well any more. There are too many people on the other side for these people to realistically claim consensus. The only way you're going to impose your morality upon me by force is if you point a gun at me, and I'm only going to agree with what you say while you've got the gun pointed at me. The moment you remove the threat of lethal force, you lose your influence and other risks of this strategy will then appear.
Do you think a team of diplomats would have stopped the aliens in Independence Day?
But availability of force to impose my will upon you doesn't change your judgement of the morality of my action (or mine, for that matter). Just because something can be done doesn't mean that it should be done. That distinction of separating good choices from bad choices is the dilemma answered by ethics. If someone brings force to bear, it temporarily changes behavior by altering the inputs to decisions, but it doesn't alter the system of decision making itself.
I agree that my statement leaves unstated the assumption that in order to attach value to anything, we first need to determine what effect "valuing something" has upon behavior.
My moral axioms are similar to "I should act in such a way as to maximize the probability of achieving/maximizing the accomplishment of my long-term goals." and "I should choose long-term goals likely to maximize my satisfaction as a human being." The reference to humanity is intended to acknowledge that my mind has built-in desires which, while risky to blindly follow in the short-term, are likely to result in great satisfaction if allowed to guide long-term goal setting.
As for proving them, since I don't ask others to agree with them, I don't see the point. They are simply a meta-response to the repetetive internal question, "What should I do now?" Like the Objectivists, I derive my imperative from currently understood human nature (as they like to say, "man qua man"). Unlike the Objectivists, I have a much more complex model of my own human nature than their one-dimensional "selfish man". This leads to a much more consonant understanding of the behavior of others along with a richer set of options for my own self-determined "ought".
Hell of a good response, BTW... Hell of a good response... If you're ever in LA, dinner is on me.
Regards,
Ross
Depending on how you define your terms (specifically "divine", "exist", and "perspective") I probably agree with you. I get the distinct impression that you're using atypical definitions for those words in order to build a sensible mental model of a perfectly valid thesis of existence.
Nothing wrong with redefining words on the fly per se, but many people will dismiss your statement as nonsense unless you can phrase it in a way that uses more typical semantics. Some will still be skeptics (possibly including me) but it's at least better to be understood and disagreed with than ignored.
Regards,
Ross
You're arguing as if there were something external to man that says "this is how you ought to behave". You cannot say that from an atheistic viewpoint.
We haven't yet begun to explore why I think moral behavior is moral. So far, all I've done is provide some examples of what is and isn't moral in my model.
You've interpreted my statements as requiring an external arbiter to determine morality on your own. I don't agree that there is one morality for all people or that we need an external arbiter to come to agreement on common moral norms. As an aside, this norm building is why my ethical system is not moral subjectivism, though they are similar at first blush. The moral subjectivist says that he can only be judged in the context of his morality. I agree that we will be judged by each other on the common ground between our moral systems and that if you want to be judged on your own morals, it is essential that you participate in the consensus building (one expression of this is law).
Assume, for the sake of argument, that the moral statements in the Bible accurately reflect what God says is good and bad. On what basis, then, do you presume to judge God?
That the full set of statements presented to me as God's word and moral teaching represent a worldview and set of moral precepts that any human would find abhorrent and not at all likely to give me or anyone else any chance at joy or happiness.
That most Christians are happy folk is because they understand that 80% of God's moral teachings are irrelevant and don't apply to them. Which is a fine strategy, but doesn't agree with the public statement that they follow God's word slavishly. You and they are picking and choosing which rules you'll follow (don't steal) and which you'll ignore (working on sabbath punishable by death (Exodus 35:2), long hair (1 Corinthians 11:14), goatees (Leviticus 21:5), etc.).
Like any learned statement, the reader judges Biblical instruction to see if it conforms with their own worldview and depending on how they view the Bible, either openly disagree with much of it (me) or simply decide that that aspect should not apply to them (most/all modern day Christians).
You judge the statements in the Bible just as much as I do (especially when you wear t-shirts with a cotton/polyester blend), the only real difference is that I am perfectly willing to acknowlege the places where I think the Bible is foolish where you go through some mental gymnastics to simultaneously believe that you're following God's word while deciding that some parts of the word are better to follow than others.
Regards,
Ross
I refer you to an excellent discussion on the semantics of the term "atheist".
What I particularly dislike about the definition you would like to use is the implication that atheists can only exist near to and dependent upon a theistic group for their self-definition (I can't just say "The universe is sufficient unto itself." in your semantic, I have to say, "That person is wrong!"). Without a theist to disagree with, your version of an atheist can't exist. A situation that I find more than a little ridiculous.
Despite attempts by highly influential Christian thinkers to alter the meaning of words and marginalize the semantics of "atheist", the word ultimatly relies on it's construction. Just as immoral (against morals) is different from amoral (without morals), so atheism is different from the never-coined imtheism.
Actually, many who call themselves atheists are agnostic but do not understand the word. You may be in either group; I cannot tell. You have not yet stated "I believe there is no god".
You may choose to agree with the loss of meaning from the semantic hijacking that you're arguing for. I don't, and will continue to deny that that reduction of definition is the correct one. Further, I assert that atheist and agnostic are not exclusive categories as many agnostics currently lack a belief in God and are therefore also atheists (just inconclusive ones).
Regards,
Ross
note "refuse to accept" in your definition.
I can only see your refusal to accept my definitions for myself as an attempt to boost the population of your group (agnostics). However, the agnostic claims that, "There is a chance that God exists." I dispute the agnostic's assertion as the same sort of nonsense as "God exists".
I lack a belief in a diety or dieties. I do not hold a realistic possibility that I will ever maintain a belief in a deity or deities. I am therefore a non-theist aka an atheist.
Regards,
Ross
Apathists don't actively proclaim there isn't a god, they just don't care.
That's good, because there certainly is plenty of confusion around who is an agnostic and who is an atheist.
For me, the test is simple: answer the question, "Could God possibly exist?" if the answer is "yes", you're a theist or an agnostic. If you are unable to respond with "yes", you're an atheist.
My response is, "Which definition of God?" If the clarification is "Any Biblical definition you like." then my final response is, "Since 'God exists' has no meaning, the question has no meaning". (note for those in the cheap seats: this response excludes me from being a theist or an agnostic)
In this discussion it's important to be precise in order to avoid the most common argumentative trap: shifting the burden. Many of the people you would talk with want you to make testable assertions, "like everyone else". The wise atheist lets the theist shoot himself in the foot and avoids picking up the gun at all.
Regards,
Ross
in modern English the term "atheist" refers to one who specifically believes in a lack of God
I disagree with your definitions.
From dictionary.com:
atheist n: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
I don't accept the assertion that "God exists." which is, in my opinion, similar enough to the above definition to put me into the atheist camp.
agnostic n: 1. a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
I would assert that I am much more conclusive in my disbelief than this defintion would allow and am therefore not an agnostic.
Regards,
Ross
Athiesm is a statement of faith just as much as Thieism is a statement of faith.
This is a false statement and a common argumentative fallacy called "Shifting the burden.". Simply because I have not accepted a statement does not mean that I am obligated to prove the opposite of the statement. Atheism is simply the lack of any belief in a diety.
Within the group of people called "atheists", there are negative atheists and positive atheists. Those who lack any belief are "negative" while those who feel that there is substantial evidence for the non-existence of a diety are "positive".
The agnostic is simply that person who refuses to reach a conclusion on the subject (like my father, who hopes there is a God but won't make an assertion one way or the other).
Your definitions are flawed as you exclude a group which actually contains most of the set. I am an atheist, and most of the atheists I know are similar in basic beliefs to me.
Regards,
Ross
In either case, a judgement has been made. To make such judgement, you must surely have evidence, no?
All right, I'll put it all out there.
My judgement is that the statement, "God exists." is without meaning and therefore unsupportable. "Greebles frob." has exactly the same strength as an assertion. I don't say that "God may or may not exist." since I believe that to be an unnecessary equivocation. Nothing that has so far been described as "God" can possibly have anything to do with the word "existence" and remain a rational statement.
And yet, I won't make a positive statement that requires substantiaion, nor will I accept the reversal of the burden of proof that is so common to these discussions. I deny that "God exists." has ever been substantiated and that without credible belief in the tiniest fragment of need or possibility for any sort of God, I am an atheist.
Given that, do you still harbor a suspicion that I might be an agnostic?
Regards,
Ross
So far the reasons you've listed are the law and genetic wiring. Neither of those seem like very strong deterrents.
You need to read more of the thread...
I've never argued for use of the law as a moral guide (at best the law is an input to moral decision making) and I've avoided mentioning genetics/evolution as much as possible because it's not likely that someone arguing morality from a Christian perspective will agree with the predicates of an evolutionary (natural) argument.
To directly answer your question:
The thing that prevents me from taking advantage of people at every opportunity is the same thing that prevents you from doing so (and it isn't God): taking advantage of people doesn't obtain the desired result.
You're rarely if ever happier or better off in your relationships after taking advantage of someone else. You may momentarily feel a little happier because you shoplifted a book instead of paying $6 for it and got away with it this time, but was it really worth the risk?
What makes a particular action right or wrong? Where it gets us in the long run. I had my days as a little shit with a selfish, mercenary attitude, but I drove away most of my potential friends, and hurt many of the people who loved me. Thankfully, I learned from my failed, early interactions with others and had a chance to 1) figure out what I really wanted in life and 2) change my behavior so that I am more likely to get what I want from life.
All as a purely biological being, with no consideration for what might happen after death, no consideration of salvation. This is consequentialism. Not the worthless, highly theoretical Utilitarianism of the philosophy professor; this is a highly pragmatic consequentialism of real life. Why should I do X and not Y? Because X is more likely to sustain joy in me, to give my children a chance at joy, to help me have the best qualities I admire in others.
And that's all that's needed. All the rest of the bellyaching about "but you could...". Yeah, I could. But I wouldn't be as happy.
Regards,
Ross
I was trying to make the argument without really using evolution and "man in the nature of man", but you're absolutely correct about why people tend to be nice, no matter which religion they choose, no matter whether today or three thousand years ago...
:)
People who are nicer (up to a point) tend to have more offspring in the next generation.
I just LOVE a good discussion
Regards,
Ross
If you really mean that, then you would have to say that if the majority got together and decided to kill all the atheists, that they would be morally justified in doing so,
:)
If they passed a law making atheism punishable by death, they would be legally entitled to do so, but those who would kill someone for being an atheist, even in those circumstances, are no more moral for having the majority or the law on their side.
You've confused atheistic ethics with moral subjectivism. They're not the same, but the reasons why would take a substantial discussion, and there are numerous sources that Google can provide to explain the distinction. Just because a lot of people believe something is moral doesn't make it moral.
You've drawn a number of very suprising conclusions from the observation that atheists lack an external source to tell them absolutely what is moral and what is immoral. It follows then, that you see no need to be moral without someone nearby ready to punish you unless you do the right thing. That's a very sad reason to be a nice person (because the man in the sky will punish you if you don't).
My observation is that many moral statements in the Bible are reprehensible if taken at face value (the demand of the modern fundamentalist). Also, I observe that Christians tend to agree a great deal more with my personal morality than strict Biblical morality. But that shouldn't suprise anyone very much after reading this thread
Regards,
Ross
Welcome! And though I'll disagree with you here and there, I'm very happy to discuss at length!
The point of wrf3, I believe, is that the weak point in your philosophy is that of other people not sharing it, and choosing to blow you up.
Well, I agree that it is almost always better not to be blown up, but I don't see that that decision is a matter of metaethics. Ethics, perhaps (should I jump on that grenade or not), but not metaethics, which is where wrf3 is claiming to have me cornered.
Trivial example: three meals a day is better than starving to death, but that didn't stop Gandhi.
Interesting example, but ultimately, it also confuses the boundary between ethical decisions and the ethical framework in which those decisions are made. One of Ghandi's goals was for his people to have political self-determination. In support of that goal, he put aside another goal of a comfortable life. His decision to voluntarily endure personal hardship makes sense to another rational person when his larger goals are brought into the picture.
Goal selection is the starting point of ethics. The discussion surrounding goal selection is a big one because there are common goals as well as very uncommon goals that are all rational and can result in great satisfaction to the individual person determining where their life is heading. But you won't understand a person's decisions (like Ghandi's fasts) until you understand a person's larger goals.
Your explanation of how you agree with my "value of people" lemma is interesting, and I find that it strengthens my observation that richness of belief is more valuable than consistency of belief. Even in ultimately agreeing with each other, we still have something to learn from each other.
Regards,
Ross
But if we do put morals (or more properly ethics) derived from the metaphysical equality you noted aside, there are also substantial positive consequences to valuing yourself above others.
I agree, and in almost all cases, I do value myself above others. The few reversed cases are in the closest "ring" of community: immediate family. I suspect that when I have children, I may value their well-being above my own, consistent with my goals.
In general, however, I value myself above members of my family, who I value above my close neighbors and co-workers, who I value above others in the same city, who I value above others in the same country, who I value above others on the planet. All of whom I value as people, but in a really abstract way for the people in Siberia (and most places).
Everything is not black and white. We have degrees of just about everything. Including value to each other.
Regards,
Ross
I prefer deep, restful sleep to "stunned into unconciousness by electric shock" but whatever floats your boat... :)
And if you're interested in the results of my experiments along those lines: the universe is still here and the stories about what happened while I was out are consistent enough thus far.
Regards,
Ross
In the parable of the vinegar tasters I tend to agree with Lao-Tse and disagree with Bhudda and Confucious about the nature of our current existence.
As such, when people ask for a simple answer regardind what I believe about the world and my place in it, I say that I'm pretty darned close to a Taoist.
Please excuse me for the link, which refers to an excerpt from "The Tao of Pooh", but that's where I originally read about the parable of the vinegar tasters. There's also a certain humor to that framing of the story that I find appealing.
Regards,
Ross
I lack a belief in God, therefore I am a-theistic. If I was uncertain about my belief in God or otherwise unable to come to a conclusion about God, then I would be agnostic and would exit myself from conversations about God without assertion.
Regards,
Ross
Some goals are objectively better than other goals.
Really? I challenge you to provide an example that stands up under scrutiny. Atheist ethicists have been trying for years and have never succeeded.
Far too easy. You need to provide more boundaries to your challenge. My example:
A goal of having joy and loving relationships with other people is objectively better than a goal of living out a short existence in a small box filled with your own excrement.
The all-important caveat: But only to rational human beings within a broad definition of "normal". The caveat is needed because this kind of exercise can only result in communication if we agree on our foundational lemmas. You don't agree with my choice of lemmas, no matter how often your conclusions disagree with reality, so I won't be able to "prove" myself within your worldview.
And at this point, I appeal back to my original post. We're outside of the realm of proof and into what's most useful in predicting outcomes. "Prove" means little when "really, really likely" is already achieved and I'm quite happy with my morality and it's utility to me and my family.
Regards,
Ross
1) All morality is nothing more than personal opinion (since there is nothing outside of man (or God) which says 'ought' instead of 'is'.
Your problem is faulty in this statement. It does not agree with reality. Some goals are objectively better than other goals. Some behaviors are objectively better than other behaviors. Not to fall into the simplistic analysis of Ayn Rand and the objectivists, but morality follows from this reality of motivated action.
Correct the problematic statement and see if your proof still makes sense. I submit that it does not.
Trust/friendship amongst thieves, eh?
Not necessarily. Instead of 'thieves', think of an elite group.
I disproved your assertion that people with common morality can have the same beneficial outcome, no matter what the chosen morality. I used a counterexample taken from the real world. Thieves tend to discount the value of long-term goals, which makes them less likely to be trusted/liked/loved by people they are honest with, thus a thief's morality is inferior to a morality that allows/supports/develops long-term positive relationships.
Morality is not just a matter of opinion (just shown). You are correct that in a world where there was no significant advantage to a particular set of behaviors (morality), might would make right. Luckily for all of us, that world is not reality.
Regards,
Ross
But what neither Aquinas nor Descarte could extract was to prove whether or not the rest of existence was separate from the ego or whether it's all just part and parcel of "me".
The existentialists (individually) proclaim that you and I and all of existence are just figments of their highly consistent imaginations. None of Aquinas, Descarte, and I can disprove them, but I (along with most people, including both Christians and atheists) do disagree with them. Which is exactly the kind of statement requested by the topic.
Regards,
Ross
What do you think of quantum experiments which show that matter only exists as a probability waveform (the superposition of many possible states), until it is observed?
That we have more to learn about the universe. The universe acts consistently between observations, but who knows in how many more ways the universe is going to suprise us with really cool ways of being?
To answer a little differently: I'm not suprised that I have some effect back on the universe. I am, after all, a part of the universe (and so are my agency and nature as an observer).
Regards,
Ross
Right -- your personal opinons. But there is no a priori reason, other than personal opinion, why your opinions should matter to anyone else.
Hm. I believe that we are discussing at cross purposes here. If you happen to choose the same goals I do, then certain kinds of behaviors become moral to you and we can get into the details of that. If you don't choose the same goals I do, or if you choose goals that are antithetical to the goals I've chosen for myself, then we will have little to no common ground and almost nothing to talk about.
Too, those in your group who agree with your personal opinions would be free to love you, regardless of what the masses think
Trust/friendship amongst thieves, eh? That's an interesting assertion, but I find that assholes don't like assholes any more than nice people do. If you've got a reputation for manipulative behavior, even people who agree that manipulative behavior is ok won't trust you. You have to have a reputation for trustworthy behavior, which doesn't fit with being a manipulative person.
In any case, the principle of "might makes right" is foundational to atheism.
This assertion is highly astonishing and would need a lot more substantiation before it could be accepted. It seems to presuppose that atheists lack the ability to determine morality (which is an unsupportable assertion).
My first response is that your statement seems true for a sociopath (who is also likely an atheist), but I don't see why any other athiests would agree with you.
Fortunately, atheists either don't realize this, don't want to accept this (after all, it intuitively seems wrong), or act inconsistently with their beliefs.
If it intuitively seems wrong, you might want to check some of your "facts". I believe that your conclusion is insupportable because it depends on an unsupported presumption.
Regards,
Ross
Did you ever consider that saying you stopped accepting that the core of everything they believe in and the basis of everything they do had any value might be inherently hostile?
I didn't consider that, and now that you mention it, I don't think so. Christian believers (and nihilists and psychopaths for other parts of my post) are free to take offense at anything I may say, but no hostility was intended, nor would a thoughtful Christian take offence at my "uneducated position" on the matter.
A Christian believer labels the subject that we disagree upon as central to their view of existence and meaning. They continue to exert their own agency when they choose to become offended by disagreement with their own unproven (and unevidenced) assertions. Some will, most won't.
The wise person would look behind their own injured sensibilities before becoming truly upset. But not all people are wise.
(BTW, if you want to label me with a belief system, the Taoists and I agree on lots and lots of things).
Regards,
Ross