Modern Atheism and Intrinsic Values

[Madaglan]

I recently graduated from college/university, and I’ve been thinking about my experiences there. In retrospect, I notice there was a divide: between the complete subjectivity of values professed by students and professors alike, and the inviolable values which, although not considered objective, were shown to be viewed as essentially so if challenged or discussed. To illustrate: sexual and family mores. The traditional Christian understanding is denigrated, considered bad, oppressive, old-fashion, wrong-headed, etc. Whereas the new cultural trend is considered good, to the betterment of mankind, etc.

While these discussions were not attended solely by atheists, it seems to me that many modern-day atheists are found in the same situation. There is no God, no natural law, no objective right or wrong–and yet, there are things which are widely considered intrinsically baneful. For example,

Inequality. Despotism. Slavery. Segregation. Rape. Sexual Abuse. Genocide. Torture.

As history shows, however, each of these, at one time or another, was culturally acceptable within certain contexts. The ancient Greeks, for example, would rape and enslave women of conquered cities, as well as executing the survivors of a siege. The Huns did many the same, and more. Are these therefore only wrong because our society, at least right now, says they are always wrong? Can the modern atheist find room for intrinsic values/disvalues? .

I can write more… but I’ll let others comment first.

 

[nebula]

THat’s an interesting question. I always wonder what atheists mean when they (at least some do) get all excited about promoting ‘progress’. I don’t think one has managed to prove to me why I should care about the progress of humanity.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

I’ve never been anything close to a fan of Jean-Paul Sartre, but I must acknowledge his intellectual honesty.

He was an atheist, and acknowledged that as such, he had no basis whatsoever to argue for the existence of such things as intrinsic values. It was a consequence, he held, of an atheistic position that these things simply did not exist.

He even went to the point of admitting that, according to this position, he could not argue that there was a basis for the trials of the Nazi monsters at Nuremberg at the end of the Second World War. The fact that he could not see the lesson in that honest observation means he was a twit, but an honest and consistent one, unlike many “intellectuals” who effectively accept as “intrinsic” those values with which, at a given moment, they agree.

Blessings,

Gerry