Defending Against Atheism

[Nepenthe]

You won’t see us having any problems whatsoever with the Golden Rule! Kant was very aware of the close relation between that and Categorical Imperative, but it’s a more sophisticated breakdown of that, and just how that reciprocity works. The Golden Rule isn’t theistic either, even if Jesus was the most famous one to state it (there were others who taught this, in other times and other places). We tend to think of this stuff as the ‘Don’t be a jerk’ principle.

 

[tdgesq]

That’s pretty much it in a nutshell. Hm, actually, wikipedia’s article on Categorical Imperative is very clear, and well written, and short. (Well, shorter than reading Kant anyway, though there’s no substitute for the primary source, mind you .) I’d recommend that for a starting point, so that then we can discuss together rather than miscommunicating.

It’s starting to come back to me now. The categorical imperative is built upon philosophical rationalism it appears to me. That in itself isn’t what I’m concerned with. I more interested in knowing what ontological basis for rationalism exists in the atheistic scheme of things.

Are the intellect and the will solely the result of natural causes, or are they result of something else? If they are the result of natural causes, then according to everything that the empirical sciences tell us, there is no such thing as a free choice. This makes it impossible for anyone to choose to follow the categorical imperative.

Furthermore, the bases for Kant’s imperatives are the intellect and the will. He posits that those ethical formulations that result in logical contradiction should be discarded. He also concludes that those formulations that result in a contradiction with the human will are invalid. Kant’s belief as outlined in the article is that human beings occupy a special place in creation as function of their will and intellect, and those supply the foundation for the categorical imperative.

Yet the scientific materialists tell us that we ultimately evolved from basic protein structures found in the primordial soup and after countless generations of random mutations came to become animals with relatively sophisticated brains. So the human brain is more developed than a monkey’s brain. A monkey’s brain is more developed than a rat’s brain, and so on and so forth. What is it about our current stage of brain development that supplies the foundation for the categorical imperative? Why should we derive our ethical principles from what is consistent with the way our brain has currently developed?

There are other problems too, but the major one is that materialism and Kantian ethics are incompatible.

 

[not_a_theist]

1. I agree with Nepenthe that atheism started long before the enlightenment. I was arguing this point with an atheist in another thread as well. From the perspective of anthropology, I’m not sure if atheism predates religion, or vice versa, but I’d guess that the first person who said, I think there’s an all-powerful being probably met with immediate resistance from the guy next to him.

Atheism is the default stance which predates theism. Humans had to evolve to the point of asking “why?” before they could invent theism or its precursors.

 

[ricmat]

I recall seeing (sorry, can’t remember where - darn memory!!) that Kantian ethics, when applied in practice, results in a “ranking” of rights. For example, the rights of an unborn child to live versus the rights of the woman to kill the child. Or the rights of the government to sterilize or kill “useless eaters”, versus the rights of those people to keep living.

It seems to me that outside of divine fiat, there is no clear answer to this dilemma. The idea that a majority, or a king, or government is always right is flawed of course.

A key point is “Is there such a thing as human dignity?” and if so, from whence does it get its authority?

And another question. If human dignity does not arise from God, then it becomes an arbitrary property to be defined by a few, or by many for the benefit of a few, or many. Oftentimes at the expense of a few, or many.

Please, if I’m ever in a coma, on life support (with an unpredictable outcome), please put me in the charge of a bunch of Catholics. Don’t let the Kantians into the room.

 

[ricmat]

Atheism is the default stance which predates theism. Humans had to evolve to the point of asking “why?” before they could invent theism or its precursors.

Unless of course, humans always knew about God. And then forgot.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

…Same reason you do –

again this is Natural Moral Theory

because it really is in all of our best interest.

tell it to the starving people in the third world, tell them how all people act in the best interest of all, then explain how their condition synchronizes with that

We are social animals, and while some stupid, uneducated, or crazy people can’t see past the short term gain (and will use whatever convenient ‘authority’ to support, whether it’s religious or secular) doesn’t mean everyone is so foolish, oblivious and self-defeating.

Would this mean to accept your position the " stupid, uneducated, or crazy people " are atheist under a false illusion? If not who could they be? To be real theist would you not need a God?

Also, Kant’s argument against lying actually dovetails with social contract theory (Hobbes) very nicely. When under specific contractual obligation (which, in fact, most of us are to each other, on a general basis), then lying is not moral. However, if someone has already violated said contract (whether explicit, legal, or implicitly) then lying is morally neutral (assuming we are talking about lies applying to the situation, to protect one’s self and potentially others from further harm), since the contract is voided.

social contract are factious, if you do not believe that pull out my copy and show me my signature

No, Kant’s ethical philosophy is not this Natural Moral Law stuff under another, or any name. Maybe read a little more closely as well as further, but this is a decent beginning.

Kant seems to say we have a innate desire to be good - um sounds like God was calling him

 

[not_a_theist]

Unless of course, humans always knew about God. And then forgot.

Of course. The well-known god-knowing and god-forgetting genes.

 

[ricmat]

Of course. The well-known god-knowing and god-forgetting genes.

Or a soul.

Something to think about. If Darwinian evolution / genes are solely responsible for making the totality of man, then we are only differentially different than e.g. gorillas. And they are only differentially different than e.g. dogs, which are only slightly different than rats, worms, bacteria, etc.

At what point do you define man as man?

I accept that some sort of evolution occurred (although perhaps with some divine pushes here and there), and that physically all life could have originated from a single source. But without something to distinguish man from gorillas, etc. there is no such concept as human dignity which separates us from bacteria.

But I also accept that we have a soul, which is immaterial, not created by evolution (since it is a single part, and spiritual, it cannot evolve), but created by God, and first given to those beings Adam and Eve. Who were just slightly different physically than the gorillas. But radically different because they received souls from God. Souls which give us free will, the ability to love, and the capability to understand transcendent thoughts.

The human soul is the ONLY thing that distinguishes us from the rest of nature.

 

[Nepenthe]

ricmat:

At what point do you define man as man?

Very roughly, having that ‘internal dialogue’ ability, and the wherewithal to communicate the results of such. It isn’t a neat or 100% exclusive definition, but it’s a serviceable basic approach.

 

[ricmat]

Very roughly, having that ‘internal dialogue’ ability, and the wherewithal to communicate the results of such. It isn’t a neat or 100% exclusive definition, but it’s a serviceable basic approach.

So, going back through evolutionary history, at what point is a man a man?

 

[porkscratchings]

Is there anything, anything at all, any piece of evidence that suggests that what happens after death is something different from what we observe? Let’s be honest here. From your view of the world there is no reason whatsoever to believe that something other than oblivion occurs after death. That is why you don’t care. If it was just that you didn’t have an idea one way or another about what happened, you’d investigate the issue.

To ur 1st q - There’s lots of evidence but not much that would stand up as scientific proof. It is not reasonable to conclude from my point of view that oblivion is the only outcome of death. Also, just because I don’t care about what happens after death ergo oblivion is the answer. That’s like saying since i don’t drink, I must do drugs. I’d investigate the issue if I cared about it - and i don’t care because I worry about other things, not because the conclusion is oblivion.

Why? You use an *ad populum * argument below to justify morality. If enough people decide that imposing their religious beliefs on others is acceptable (and that is exactly what many atheists claim has happened) then it’s moral and correct. You shouldn’t have a problem with it.

I do have a problem with it - because it is the religions that have the greatest number of believers who are imposing their laws on everyone else, and blatantly ignoring any disagreement from both within and outside their religion. That is tyranny. My argument is for consensus achieved thru discussion and negotiation of all views, not just the ones deem acceptable to one faction. A UN type charter can then be drawn up to govern the world based on common principles. Individual groups can still have their own systems within this framework of common principles.

I still have no idea what you mean by proof. It is ultimately your standards that regulate what is true and what isn’t in your view of things. You specifically state that “[t]here are things outside of the realm of scientific proof.” What would those things be, and how would you decide that they actually exist? I am confused.

The proof I mean is scientific standards - these are not ‘my’ standards. My personal standards can include both scientific standards, my own personal experience and even hearsay. My own personal experience is only true for me and may not be true for other people - this would be outside scientific proof. Say if i saw a ghost, I can say ghosts really exist because i have seen it with my own eyes. My observation of ghosts would be outside the realm of scientific proof because it is based on personal experience, but ghosts would exist for me, as far as I know. So the things outside the realm of scientific proof - this is what i mean.

In the beginning you state that when we start talking about consciousness and awareness after death, then science doesn’t have the answers. Then at the end you state that we are in the realm of fantasy. Perhaps you are saying that there is nothing that can be known one way or the other unless science explains it.

No I did not say that we are in the realm of fantasy, but that we are in the realm of fantasy when we move the discussion beyond the things that can be proven by science. Like consciousness, the soul and what happens after death. I don’t think science is the only way to explain things – but it is the only to prove something is true.

 

[porkscratchings]

That’s what I’ve been asking you. What are the standards in your opinion for what can be known?

Science - the only standard that is objective.

To be able to judge my book, you have to first set forth a standard for judgment that makes sense within your own world view.

That’s like saying b4 I can disagree with the govt’s policy, I have to come up with a better policy first!

The first question that comes to mind is: why does it matter how many people decide what is right and wrong? Is there some kind of magic that occurs if a lot of people decide something is right, like black slavery in the United States and South Africa? Or maybe there weren’t enough people and cultures involved there (although even African tribes enslaved other tribes) to count. Then of course there is the question of who gets to decide how large the population must be before certain conduct is “right.” You’ll have to explain how this makes any sense.

Muslims and catholics constitute the greatest number of people in the world - around 2 billion. Neither of these groups would be inclined to include the views of non-believers, women and gay groups. Numerical superiority alone does not create a just society. The issue is not the number of people who decide one way - but the discussion of many groups of people to find common ground as a basis for law.

of course, what you would like to see happen doesn’t give us a standard for what people ought to be able to do or ought not to be able to do. Or maybe it does. I guess I would find it refreshing if atheists just came out with it and stated that they think they should be able to decide what standards for good character and right action are acceptable.

Atheists should not be the sole decision makers on right and wrong and neither should theists. I would not accept a system that discriminates against my theist friends, even if that system works in my favour. That is not just. But how many theists would like ‘God’s law’ to be imposed on the world - no matter what it would mean for people like me? It would be refreshing on my part to see theists admit that what they want is a society ruled by priests and mullahs, chopping off the hands and feet of dissenters before burning them at the stake.

Then again, that is exactly what many totalitarian regimes have decided. Somehow most of you atheists in the western world disagree with what they believe constitutes good character.

Tyranny is not created by groups of those who don’t and can’t agree, but a large enough group who agree and have the will to impose what they believe to be right on the rest of the world.

 

[porkscratchings]

Oh, and I feel I should address the notion that nontheism/atheism ‘began’ during the Western Enlightenment. Not so. Ancient Rome had some very prominent and influential thinkers who weren’t at all far from what we’d call ‘atheists’ today. Democritus and Lucretius, and especially Epicurus, just to name a few.

Ancient Chinese philosophy too was often nontheistic too, with a wide range of schools of thought, including Taoism and Confucianism. And Classical Indian philosophy had among the most long-standing, overt and outspoken various atheist traditions of all.

These traditions are secular, not atheist. These thinkers are concerned with the practicalities of society and government, rather than religion. But this does not mean they are automatically atheist. That’s like saying just because i write a book about painting, that makes me an atheist because i am concerned with practical matters, not religious matters.

U won’t find anyone of them categorically reject the notion of God. Taoism is not atheism but a form of agnosticism. Confucius repeatedly stressed the need to peform the correct rituals and sacrifices. If he was an atheist - what would be the point of this?

 

[not_a_theist]

Or a soul.

Where’s the science to show this is more than wishful thinking?

Something to think about. If Darwinian evolution / genes are solely responsible for making the totality of man, then we are only differentially different than e.g. gorillas. And they are only differentially different than e.g. dogs, which are only slightly different than rats, worms, bacteria, etc.

You make it sound like something bad. Humans have some emergent properties that other animals lack, but what use they put it to isn’t always cause for celebration. Or hubris.

The human soul is the ONLY thing that distinguishes us from the rest of nature.

The only thing that distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom is that we’re capable of making up stuff like souls.

 

[ricmat]

The only thing that distinguishes us from the rest of the animal kingdom is that we’re capable of making up stuff like souls.

Read the Science Before Science. You just proved my point.

 

[tdgesq]

Science - the only standard that is objective.

If science is the only method through which things can be known, then nothing can be known. Why? Because the preconditions to be able to do science are not based upon the scientific method. When I go to the lab and pick up a test tube, I know that I’m in a lab and that there is a test tube in my hand. I didn’t do a scientific experiment to figure out that there really is a lab and there really is a test tube. But according to you that is what would be required

to really know and be able to prove I was in a lab holding a test tube.

Similarly, I can mix two elements together in the test tube and it yields a certain chemical reaction. I can do it repeatedly over and over again and get the same reaction. I expect that if I mix the elements together again under the same conditions, I will get the same reaction. Why? There is no scientific experiment that will let me know whether nature will continue to be uniform and that the same results will obtain in the future as they did in the past. Yet somehow I’m still able to claim that I know what will happen if I mix those two elements together.

Science has as its foundation all kinds of unscientific things. If you are correct that only science allows us to know things, then you have destroyed all knowledge. That’s why I tell atheists that if they were true to their beliefs they would be skeptics.

That’s like saying b4 I can disagree with the govt’s policy, I have to come up with a better policy first!

No, it means that the standard you are using to judge the character of my book is itself inconsistent. If it is, I think you’d agree that nobody should use it. Let’s see if it is.

Muslims and catholics constitute the greatest number of people in the world - around 2 billion. Neither of these groups would be inclined to include the views of non-believers, women and gay groups. Numerical superiority alone does not create a just society. The issue is not the number of people who decide one way - but the discussion of many groups of people to find common ground as a basis for law.

So the standard for good character is whatever enough different groups agree upon. You have just unknowingly refuted your own standard. You see, Catholics, and I would guess Muslims too, do not believe that the standard for good character is whatever enough different groups agree upon. In other words, your standard - that good character is determined by the consensus of different groups - is itself not agreed upon by the 2 billion people you just mentioned. You’ve contradicted yourself.

Tyranny is not created by groups of those who don’t and can’t agree, but a large enough group who agree and have the will to impose what they believe to be right on the rest of the world.

Why should anyone believe this? You want to tell us we should believe your standard that good character is whatever enough diverse groups agree upon, but that very standard isn’t agreed upon by these groups. By your own reasoning if I were to believe your standard I wouldn’t be of good character. Diverse groups don’t agree upon it. Who is being tyrannical now?

 

[porkscratchings]

If science is the only method through which things can be known, then nothing can be known. Why? Because the preconditions to be able to do science are not based upon the scientific method. When I go to the lab and pick up a test tube, I know that I’m in a lab and that there is a test tube in my hand. I didn’t do a scientific experiment to figure out that there really is a lab and there really is a test tube. But according to you that is what would be required to really know and be able to prove I was in a lab holding a test tube.

That’s not according to me - that’s according to u. I said science is the only objective standard - not the only standard of knowing. In any case, no one is in any doubt about a test tube’s existence - this is observable no matter who u are or what u believe. U can’t say the same for God or religion.

Similarly, I can mix two elements together in the test tube and it yields a certain chemical reaction. I can do it repeatedly over and over again and get the same reaction. I expect that if I mix the elements together again under the same conditions, I will get the same reaction. Why? There is no scientific experiment that will let me know whether nature will continue to be uniform and that the same results will obtain in the future as they did in the past. Yet somehow I’m still able to claim that I know what will happen if I mix those two elements together.

U are confusing two different things - something that is proven to be true, provided the conditions remain the same - giving the same result time after time. That is knowledge based on past experience and rigorous testing. Whether nature will remain uniform or the results will continue to be true belongs to the realm of probability. Yet probability can be predicted with a reasonable degree of confidence.

Science has as its foundation all kinds of unscientific things. If you are correct that only science allows us to know things, then you have destroyed all knowledge. That’s why I tell atheists that if they were true to their beliefs they would be skeptics.

I do not agree. If science has as it foundation unscientific things, then science as capable of revising human knowledge and correcting errors made by previous generations. Hence science is the only objective standard - knowledge tested and proven, not knowledge decided by bias and prejudice. It is the latter, perpetrated by religion that destroys knowledge and stifles progress. I argue that all theists true to their beliefs must reject knowledge in favour of ignorance defined by their faith. .

So the standard for good character is whatever enough different groups agree upon. You have just unknowingly refuted your own standard. You see, Catholics, and I would guess Muslims too, do not believe that the standard for good character is whatever enough different groups agree upon. In other words, your standard - that good character is determined by the consensus of different groups - is itself not agreed upon by the 2 billion people you just mentioned. You’ve contradicted yourself.

No I have not. I said: The issue is not the number of people who decide one way - but the discussion of many groups of people to find common ground as a basis for law. This is rejected by theists who insist on the imposing of some so-called moral law as defined by their religious text - no discussion allowed. The vatican has worked with muslim groups to attempt to force the UN to stop abortion and use of contraceptives. These folks reject discussion with anyone else - they are just going to force the whole world to accept their way. I am advocating **discussion and concensus ** - I have not contradicted myself, despite ur attempts to twist my comments.

.

 

[porkscratchings]

Why should anyone believe this? You want to tell us we should believe your standard that good character is whatever enough diverse groups agree upon, but that very standard isn’t agreed upon by these groups. By your own reasoning if I were to believe your standard I wouldn’t be of good character. Diverse groups don’t agree upon it. Who is being tyrannical now?

You are. U disguise the fact u are not interested in discussion and inclusion of groups u object to (gay groups, feminists, and atheists, too). And that an imposition of a so-called God’s law would deny rights to whole groups of people - but that just wouldn’t bother u at all, would it?

That ‘By your own reasoning if I were to believe your standard I wouldn’t be of good character’ is nonsense. u would not be of good character because u do not accept the rights of anyone beyond ur own group, nothing to do with whether u agree with me.

At least I would be open to other people’s views and look to ways where we can, as a collective, work out how to get along with each other. There is enough in common in all humans, despite disagreements, to derive a decent enough legal system and a government that would deliver the same legal rights to everyone without exception. I fail to see how ‘God’s law’ would protect the rights of anyone except those who would have the most to gain from it. At the expense of everyone else.

U are welcome to think I am flawed in my reasoning. But I would like to see how your preference for your God’s law serve anything other than self-interest in favour of u and ur religion

 

[not_a_theist]

Read the Science Before Science. You just proved my point.

Good grief. What have I done?

I’ll pass on the book, because it’s a given that I agree with the reviewer on Amazon who said:

In the end, I cannot recommend this strange book except as a case study of the extent to which religious obsession can drive a scientist to undervalue and misjudge his own profession.

 

[ricmat]

Good grief. What have I done?

I’ll pass on the book, because it’s a given that I agree with the reviewer on Amazon who said “In the end, I cannot recommend this strange book except as a case study of the extent to which religious obsession can drive a scientist to undervalue and misjudge his own profession.”

Hey, you really want to see some good reviews, look at the reviews of almost any bible on amazon. You get things like “I read the bible cover to cover last night, and it’s just a bunch of superstitious hogwash…”

So if you haven’t read the book, how can you agree with the reviewer? Open minded now, aren’t we?