The Atheist - Agnostic - Non religious thread

stonebeard wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: stonebeard wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: stonebeard wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: So, to my next question, it seems to me that you are advocating progress as desirable because it is for the betterment of the human species.  So again, I would ask you - what about the human race makes it worthy of betterment, or of any importance at all?  If you are going to die, why should you care about the people who will come after you? It is desirable because it will better us as a species, not maybe minute by minute (no one would say Hiroshima was our shining moment) but across the centuries and millenia. But also, it is desirable because it is what we do. More than anything, we discover and explore. We didn't cower in caves after discovering fire. We took that fire outside and lit the way into the frontier. I find your question about worthiness a bit nonsensical. Humanity is not important at all, in the cosmic scheme. We ourselves are alone to decide our worthiness I guess, and if we excel we're worthy and if we crawl back into the cave then we deserve our fate. Oh and also, I believe we are not entirely far away from overcoming death, so I actually take issue with that. Not that I don't want to die. I think digital immortality would get old. But I would get biotics and upgrades if it was practical. Ambient Hurricanes wrote:  Secondly, how do you know that the morality we are progressing towards is better than the morality that preceded it?  by what standard do you judge whether the changes in the accepted morality of our species constitute progress or regress? Morality is relative to the zeitgeist. There is no other realistic way of looking at it in my opinion. Once God is thrown out we just have to deal with what we have left. But you haven't thrown out God, so the answer is easier for you, even if it is no closer to being a real reflection of the state of things. I suppose I have no moral standard to judge anything objectively against. I only have my own feelings and the thoughts of others compared to the prevailing norms. Of course I find slavery horrible and rape is disgusting, but it would be illusory to say that there is some objective, universal truth of no rape and no slavery. It just doesn't exist. I only trust we'll find our way as we progress. Because really, we must progress as humanity. As I keep saying, to deny our nature and draw limits on what we should discover and where we should go in both inner and outer space is dooming us to a far worse death as a species. So if morality is completely relative and left up to the individual, how is moral progress possible? And if morality is relative, how can we say that bold discovery and knowledge is better than cowardice and ignorance? Also, from what do derive your idea of the nature of humanity? I can affirm all these things for myself and appeal to others by argument to convince them that and action is good or not good, or that an area of discovery is good or not good. The answer is not right or wrong, but if 3 billion people agree, we have a pretty good consensus for doing one thing over another. But that doesn't mean it's the perfect decision for all times and all peoples. I assert that morality can only ever be truly relative. There is no "if" for me. All religions and peoples that purport to say God gives them a stone-bound set of rules are avoiding the nature of our godless universe in which we emerged out of chaos and blackness, crawled through the generations and emerged as we are, naturally selected and utterly alone as a conscious species in the cosmos. God is a cop-out. We have to accept this fact and realize that we can only ever do what we think is right and just. We generally think slavery is wrong and unjust now. It is an inescapable norm in our Western 21st century culture. So it is wrong for us. Was it wrong in 2000 BC? We would think so, of course, but there is no absolute law that says it is. Classically, there can be no true moral progress in moral relativism, but we intuitively think there can be moral progress. We need there to be moral progress. But, there can only be moral relativism. It's weird how the human brain works. We need to see in black and white in some cases, when in reality there is only a void and we're trying to give it attributes. In the universe, there is only a void, and we're trying to say it's a good void or a bad void. It's neither. It is what we make of it, so we can exist in it. I derive my opinion of the nature of humanity from observation, reading, and reflection. I never intend it to be serious or academic. I would love for somebody to convince me that morality truly is not relative, in a way that doesn't cop-out to God or intuition, but I don't think it is possible. This is the result, IMO, of a wholly naturalistic and atheistic view of the universe. It's no wonder that the Greeks and other ancients chose gods over atheism. It's easier and clearer. But no more realistic. So are you saying that there is no right and wrong in scientific or moral progress, that what is "good" is relative and dependent on the individual, and that you can try to convince people of your standards but have no objective basis to say what they should do? More or less, but what is good is more dependent on consensus, zeitgeist, and the culture of the time. It's not that I want that to be the case, but it seems like the only realistic option. We can side step the issue a bit and most of us can agree that we should, overall, "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law." This is Kant's categorical imperative, which I personally think is a wonderful tool to live by most of the time, but my only problem is that this maxim in itself is not objective, so there is no objective moral way to condemn someone for not following it. It appeals to intuition and self-evident goodness, which may not be self evident. In the end, there is simply no objective morality. I'm only trying to make sense of the world given that. I implore you, if you've found an objective morality that does not involve self-delusion and absent gods, please clue me in.

Given what you just said, then, how can you assert that religious people are wrong to impede what you consider to be progress on account of their beliefs, seeing that you admit that you have no objective standard by which to judge their own views of what constitutes "progress" or "good" or "morality"?

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Given what you just said, then, how can you assert that religious people are wrong to impede what you consider to be progress on account of their beliefs, seeing that you admit that you have no objective standard by which to judge their own views of what constitutes "progress" or "good" or "morality"?

Edited by stonebeard - June 23 2013 at 13:22

dtguitarfan wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Christians do not believe that humans are saved by their deeds. Actually...I would not say this statement is entirely accurate.  That would be an interesting topic to get into in relation to the debate I linked to in the Christian thread.  I'd invite Gerinski to come ask the question "what are Christians saved by" in that thread, and I'd be happy to delve into the mystery of the answer.

Gerinski wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote:   There are moral principles that almost all societies have in common.  Murder and stealing, for example, are considered wrong in nearly every people group. Really?

Yes, they're at least considered wrong within the boundaries of the specific people group (many civilizations throughout the years, unfortunately, have considered it profitable to murder and steal from other civilizations).

If you wish to question my statement, please give examples.

Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Gerinski wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote:   There are moral principles that almost all societies have in common.  Murder and stealing, for example, are considered wrong in nearly every people group. Really?  Yes, they're at least considered wrong within the boundaries of the specific people group (many civilizations throughout the years, unfortunately, have considered it profitable to murder and steal from other civilizations). If you wish to question my statement, please give examples.

Edited by Gerinski - June 24 2013 at 03:30

Gerinski wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Gerinski wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote:   There are moral principles that almost all societies have in common.  Murder and stealing, for example, are considered wrong in nearly every people group. Really?  Yes, they're at least considered wrong within the boundaries of the specific people group (many civilizations throughout the years, unfortunately, have considered it profitable to murder and steal from other civilizations). If you wish to question my statement, please give examples. I would think that it's quite obvious but ok...   Since the dawn of times it has been common to fight among humans, even with the tribe or clan inhabiting a few miles away. The fact that within each tribe or clan a 'moral code' by which the members would not attack each other was developed was probably a simple matter of necessity and convenience, it would have been impossible to form a tribe or clan otherwise. I would bet that when having to approach other tribes or clans, the natural approach has more often been hostile than peaceful. Gradually the convenience of peaceful coexistence with the neighboring clans resulted in growing 'cells' of peace, as if the clan became bigger. Eventually the birth of the notion of 'countries' with kings or leaders also meant that peace would be imposed within the country by its leader, concentrating the war capability against other 'countries' instead of self-destruction. I would say that through the course of history, violence has been the predominant form of interaction except towards the members of your clan (or 'macro-clan' when including allies), rather than the other way around (violence being the exception). The gradual extension of peace is the result of convenience and in many cases of the wish of the majority of the population, and morality has evolved accordingly. Even Christians have not excelled by their peacefulness when having to interact with other human collectives.

I agree with you.  You have a good point and I acknowledge that morality has been evolving since the beginning of time - but not always for the better, in my opinion. 

I do think there's probably still more to it than tribal bonds.  If you were in tribe A and you met up with someone from tribe B on the road, and your tribes were enemies, then of course you would fight the tribe B guy; however, I don't know of any people groups in which it would have been acceptable to kill a guy from tribe C, with whom your tribe was not at enmity; a people group could justify some killing in the name of "war" but what about people who they weren't at war with?  Do you think it would have been allowed in any cultures to just kill random people (sorry for the inarticulateness, I'm thinking out loud).

Also, I apologize for asking you to provide examples in questioning my point when I did not provide any proof for my own statement.  Just from a quick google search (don't have loads of time right now) I can't find any cultures that don't have any prohibitions on killing people.  However, there are cultures that allow honor killings, gladiator games, infanticide, etc; I think we could probably agree that pretty much every culture throughout history has had laws (written or simply understood) against murder, but that they defined murder differently?  Some cultures have allowed killing to an extent but none have allowed someone to go killing people at whim.

stonebeard wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: stonebeard wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Given what you just said, then, how can you assert that religious people are wrong to impede what you consider to be progress on account of their beliefs, seeing that you admit that you have no objective standard by which to judge their own views of what constitutes "progress" or "good" or "morality"? I guess I'm going to keep typing the same thing over and over. I personally believe that our brains are not comfortable accepting and living with the reality that there can be no objective moral standard, so we refuse to operate under that principle and instead must chose something to believe in. Life would be chaos for us otherwise, and we need structure. Each society is shaped by the the beliefs of the past and the culture of the time, which in the prevailing views of the time make certain actions good or bad, and the moral clarity of those actions either back, white or grey in the eyes of the society. I act as if there is an objective moral standard because we are all compelled to by our wiring and socialization. It just seems that most people don't realize that there simply cannot be an objective morality. It. Is. Not. Possible. If you want be to admit that when you get right down to it I have no grounds to judge or condemn others and that moral progress is technically not possible, then sure I admit it. But it applies to all of us, not just me. And since that is uncomfortable and unworkable for us, we choose to live a lie and pretend there are moral certainties. We're social creatures and we had to make sacrifices in order not to kill and rape each other all the time. These are the problems that come along with consciousness. You don't see roundworms and bacteria wrestling with these issues. Then, according you your worldview, I and other Christians have chosen to believe in Jesus.  You have chosen to believe in yourself. What makes your choice superior to ours? I wouldn't voluntarily use the word superior, but I do believe it is more reflective of the way the universe really is, as far as we can tell at this time.

That makes sense to me, even though I disagree. 

So would you consider it equally reflective of truth to put your entire faith in the opinions of another person - being a blind disciple of somebody?  It would be consistent with your atheistic (or agnostic? sorry I'm not sure) views on the existence of God, and in the end it would be no different from making up your own moral code.

stonebeard wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: stonebeard wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: stonebeard wrote: Ambient Hurricanes wrote: Given what you just said, then, how can you assert that religious people are wrong to impede what you consider to be progress on account of their beliefs, seeing that you admit that you have no objective standard by which to judge their own views of what constitutes "progress" or "good" or "morality"? I guess I'm going to keep typing the same thing over and over. I personally believe that our brains are not comfortable accepting and living with the reality that there can be no objective moral standard, so we refuse to operate under that principle and instead must chose something to believe in. Life would be chaos for us otherwise, and we need structure. Each society is shaped by the the beliefs of the past and the culture of the time, which in the prevailing views of the time make certain actions good or bad, and the moral clarity of those actions either back, white or grey in the eyes of the society. I act as if there is an objective moral standard because we are all compelled to by our wiring and socialization. It just seems that most people don't realize that there simply cannot be an objective morality. It. Is. Not. Possible. If you want be to admit that when you get right down to it I have no grounds to judge or condemn others and that moral progress is technically not possible, then sure I admit it. But it applies to all of us, not just me. And since that is uncomfortable and unworkable for us, we choose to live a lie and pretend there are moral certainties. We're social creatures and we had to make sacrifices in order not to kill and rape each other all the time. These are the problems that come along with consciousness. You don't see roundworms and bacteria wrestling with these issues. Then, according you your worldview, I and other Christians have chosen to believe in Jesus.  You have chosen to believe in yourself. What makes your choice superior to ours? I wouldn't voluntarily use the word superior, but I do believe it is more reflective of the way the universe really is, as far as we can tell at this time. That makes sense to me, even though I disagree.  So would you consider it equally reflective of truth to put your entire faith in the opinions of another person - being a blind disciple of somebody?  It would be consistent with your atheistic (or agnostic? sorry I'm not sure) views on the existence of God, and in the end it would be no different from making up your own moral code. I am growing a bit wearing of the minutiae of the argument we are having, so for my own sake and yours I'm going to summarize my moral beliefs. Perhaps we can carry on the discussion in broad strokes after this. I'm not a philosophy student anymore and some details I can't be bothered to get bogged down in. (Also, I'm drunk now...what better time for this sort of thing....): I use my own reasoning to decide what is a good or not good action, based loosely on the belief that we should try to maximize happiness, ease suffering, and promote equality through empathy as a species. I not not believe in any God that can be found in any religion I know of, and I certainly do not believe in revelation, sin, or prophesy. As such, I have come to the conclusion that as far as we know in the universe, we are a species that has come a long way in our evolution, and our brains form unusual connections that give us both unprecedented levels of consciousness, reasoning, and an inclination toward the spiritual. Some may see this as evidence of a divine inspiration. I disagree, and merely see it as a twist in evolution. In the end, this has given us the ability to socialize and form bonds that eventually lead to societies and cultures. We chose to do this instead of go our own individual way for whatever reason, but a good hypothesis is that it would benefit our survival to be in groups working together rather than be alone in our primal struggle against nature. So, given that we evolved as any species does, out of the primal origins of the universe and the stardust that eventually formed the earth and everything on it, we find ourselves in a weird position as a conscious species. The reality seems to be that there is nothing in this universebut the natural.  Everything is made of the same elements in different compositions--carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, etc--and there is no reason to believe a supernatural godlike force intervened in the evolution of the universe or indeed our own evolution. Therefore, there is no "moral code" of the universe. There is just the universe, and we happened to come out of it some 13 or so billion years into its existence. We aren't that important in the grand scheme. But we feel this drive to do "right" things instead of "wrong" things. Why is that? What is "right" and "wrong" to a 13 billion year old universe? It's a non sequiter. Right and wrong as we understand it, in my view are guidelines for humans to cooperate with each other and coexist peacefully. But additionally, they are urges inside us that we are compelled to resolve because of our consciousness. We would have no morality without consciousness. So, to get to the heart of the matter, how do I reconcile the apparent fact that there simply cannot be a universal moral standard to judge actions by with my personal feeling that some things are right and wrong? I can't. I just can't, and it is frustrating. But understand that just because my simply human mind can't solve an existential question does not mean that therefore there must be a universal moral standard to judge actions by. The two are not related at all. I am simply compelled to make moral judgments because I am human and I am not a sociopath. An action seems wrong so me, say, because it causes harm to somebody, or I imagine myself experiencing that action and I imagine that I would be hurt. And I don't want to be hurt. So I think that action is wrong. What standard do I have to to check that judgement against? Is there some universal standard that simply cannot be overturned, that is always right no matter what? No. There is nothing of the sort, and there cannot be anything of the sort. But the action seems so obviously wrong....It doesn't matter. All we have are the collective judgments of many people through many centuries and it just so happens that there are several things most people through most centuries agree are pretty good moral guidelines. Don't murder. Don't commit adultery. Don't lie. With varying degrees of punishment. The point of these was to ensure social cohesion, overall, and the easiest way to do this was through binding orders. And what are more binding orders than religious ones? And so you get the Ten Commandments and Four Noble Truths and so on. None of these are any more universal than any others, but they carry common themes.  So, in the end, I can really understand why religion took hold. We had to do something to make members of our tribe follow guidelines to ensure social cohesion. So we make them tenets of our faiths. They serve a valuable purpose, being the most incontrovertible truths we can muster, and ensure steadfast social cohesion to prevent a regression into animal instincts. But still, they are borne of humans, which are ultimately just highly reasonable apes. Amazing how evolution works. And all apes and all things are ultimately of an uncaring, unconscious, swirling mass of gases in what is otherwise an unfathomably vast and empty universe. All of this which I choose to ignore when it comes to moral judgments, because my brain compels me to. Because it needs black and white decisions now, for things unrelated to the cosmic scheme. So if you're looking for a "gotcha" moment to tell me how my moral judgments topple down into cognitive dissonance, then here it is, and believe me I already am aware. But I still think I am a good person, and capable of being a better person and more reflective than most. And in the end, that's all that really matters. (Now you'll have to tell me exactly how well I represent the atheistic viewpoint while I'm about to pass out from drinking a bit too much....)

stonebeard wrote:   I am growing a bit wearing of the minutiae of the argument we are having, so for my own sake and yours I'm going to summarize my moral beliefs. Perhaps we can carry on the discussion in broad strokes after this. I'm not a philosophy student anymore and some details I can't be bothered to get bogged down in. (Also, I'm drunk now...what better time for this sort of thing....): I use my own reasoning to decide what is a good or not good action (...)