The absurdity of atheism

[liquidpele]

Exactly - from the atheist’s point of view the universe is purposeless, valueless and meaningless - and human beings invent purposes, values and meaning to suit themselves. The right to life, for example, does not exist objectively. It is simply an idea we can choose to ignore or reject. It doesn’t really matter if you kill some one…

It’s not a law but an explanation. It is more intelligible to regard them as ultimate facts than as products of blind forces…

Wow… you jumped all the way from “rocks don’t have purpose” to “it’s okay to kill someone”… I mean, did you even read that before you hit submit? Without us here, things would not have human defined purpose because we would not be here to define it. Since we are here and do define things, it is not okay to kill someone. Simply put, while we are here these ideas exist AND we hold ourselves to these ideas, but without us the ideas don’t exist and we are not here to enforce or deny the ideas. It’s not okay to kill someone because we are here to say it’s not okay (the roots of the idea itself are a different topic). Stars and planets hardly worry about such things, and even other species here on Earth seem to not care (polar bears, praying mantis, etc). As for humans, there are even debates over the topic. Groups like PETA define it differently and likely think I’m a murderer for having a turkey sandwich. Wars are a great example of us putting aside this idea in favour of necessity.

 

[tonyrey]

Wow… you jumped all the way from “rocks don’t have purpose” to “it’s okay to kill someone”.

.
There’s no jump involved! They are totally different subjects.

Without us here, things would not have** human** defined purpose because we would not be here to define it.

No one would dispute that.

Since we are here and do define things, it is not okay to kill someone.

To define is not to establish a moral principle. If we defined killing as permissible it would not become permissible, would it?

Simply put, while we are here these ideas exist AND we hold ourselves to these ideas, but without us the ideas don’t exist and we are not here to enforce or deny the ideas.

To enforce or deny does not make an action right or wrong - unless you believe might is right.

It’s not okay to kill someone because we are here to say it’s not okay (the roots of the idea itself are a different topic).

You’re on much firmer ground when you delve to the roots, but what exactly are the roots of right and wrong? That is the key question.

Stronger Stars and planets hardly worry about such things, and even other species here on Earth seem to not care (polar bears, praying mantis, etc).

That is because they are not rational beings.

As for humans, there are even debates over the topic.

Disagreement does not imply that everyone is right (or mistaken).

Groups like PETA define it differently and likely think I’m a murderer for having a turkey sandwich.

They may well be justified - but that takes us off the subject of atheism.

Wars are a great example of us putting aside this idea in favour of necessity.

This brings us back to the question of the atheist’s explanation of the value of life.

 

[liquidpele]

.
There’s no jump involved! They are totally different subjects. No one would dispute that.
To define is not to establish a moral principle. If we defined killing as permissible it would not become permissible, would it? To enforce or deny does not make an action right or wrong - unless you believe might is right. You’re on much firmer ground when you delve to the roots, but what exactly are the roots of right and wrong? That is the key question. That is because they are not rational beings.
Disagreement does not imply that everyone is right (or mistaken). They may well be justified - but that takes us off the subject of atheism.This brings us back to the question of the atheist’s explanation of the value of life.

Yes, an atheist would think that if killing someone were defined as permissible by a society, it would become permissible. As I said, this has already happened. Cannibalism and wars. Note I said society and not “governing body”.

Doh… that should have been “re-enforce”, sorry.

The roots of right and wrong… I posted a long description of that in the thread titled “the science of morality”…

They are not rational beings, but with such a standard we are the ONLY rational being… and yet we are not. In fact, humans are notoriously irrational about many things. Also, most animals refrain from killing their own species, probably because doing so would be an evolutionary disadvantage. In fact, we are in the minority as a species that will-fully kills itself all the time. It’s interesting indeed we hold such ideals but our history shows different.

I can’t speak for everyone, but I feel the “value of life” is what we hold it to be. We certainly don’t value all life, and we certainly don’t have a good history of valuing the life of others in our species.

 

[fosio]

There is no one who denies consciousness. Anthony_A has been advocating for Chalmer’s analysis of consciousness and Chalmers is an atheist. There are some who say we do not have a fully accurate concept of consciousness and that’s based on split-brain cases causing our conception of the unity of consciosness to shift. And that has nothing to do with atheism.

There are atheists who deny objective morality but there are also plenty who affirm it, though their conception of the objective grounding of morality will differ from say Divine Command theory, but the conception of the objective grounding of morality varies among Christians too. There’s a nice book called The Future of Atheism which has papers, mainly from Christian philosophers and also a few atheists which touches on this. An aexample of an atheist philosopher who believes in objective morality is Daniel Dennett.

So the issue of objective morality has not much to do with atheism. There are also theists who deny morality is objective. I am one of them. Here’s what I think.

One can describe the principles of acts which we would categorize as moral (inclusive of both the morally permissible and obligatory) and then run the complement of this to comprise the immoral. Now in describing the principles of these acts we have in fact become acquainted with their morally relevant features. We do not add to our understanding of these morally relevant features by then labelling them as moral. Labelling them as moral enables us to do mathematics on our moral theory, but that is a formal construct, not the ontology of morality itself.

What then would motivate me to be do these acts which have those features? Not that they have been labelled moral, but rather that the features of the acts themselves draw my heart to do them. So for example, thanksgiving to God has the morally relevant feature of giving thanks to someone who is responsible for my good. I thank God not because such is “morally obligatory” or “morally permissible” but rather because the very idea of giving thanks to someone who is responsible for my good is appealing to me. Why is it appealing to me? I would say that the ultimate design of the world is such that it is built into me to find such things appealing and that it was designed so in accordance with God’s nature.

So I have if you will a deflationary view of morality. I regard it as being connected to objective features of the world and also connected to my subjective desires and that no meaning is introduced by using the schema of “morally obligatory, forbidden, permissible” So it would be akin to being deflationary wrt to truth – i.e. the position that “It is true that the sun shines” is just to say “The sun shines”

In my view this deflationary perspective frames the debates properly and separates various aspects of moral reality into components that can each be separately debated (i.e. 1) what morally relevant features does this act have? 2) Do these features appeal to me? 3) Do these features appeal to everyone? 4) Why do these features appeal to me? 5) Why do these features appeal to everyone? 6) What salutory effect does leading the moral life have on me?

 

[bobzills]

Steven Weinberg has stated that “*The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it seems pointless.” *If the universe is pointless all activity must be **ultimately **purposeless, valueless and meaningless and lack consciousness. I haven’t come across an atheist who believes purposeful, valuable, meaningful and conscious activity is a fundamental aspect of reality, have you?

But where did an atheist say: “All purposeful, valuable, meaningful and conscious activity is ultimately activity that is
purposeless, valueless, meaningless and lacks consciousness.”

 

[bobzills]

Is the physical universe purposeful, valuable, meaningful or conscious in **any sense **of these terms?
I stated that the physical universe lacks consciousness, i.e. **the **physical universe not a being in the universe.
The dogmatism of many atheists gives the impression they **know **God does not exist.
If you reject #7 you need to explain the origin of purposeful, valuable, meaningful and conscious activity.

What you say might not make sense to an atheist becasue he would not deny consciousness, and he might very well say that living beings are part of the physical universe.

 

[bobzills]

Yes, an atheist would think that if killing someone were defined as permissible by a society, it would become permissible. .

In WWII, it was argued that it was OK to kill women and children in Japan with the A-Bomb.

 

[tonyrey]

What you say might not make sense to an atheist because he would not deny consciousness, and he might very well say that living beings are part of the physical universe.

He still would not have explained the origin of consciousness…

 

[tonyrey]

But where did an atheist say: “All purposeful, valuable, meaningful and conscious activity is ultimately activity that is purposeless, valueless, meaningless and lacks consciousness.”

Perhaps no atheist has made that precise statement but the typical atheist believes all such activity is the result of molecular activity and nothing else.

 

[bobzills]

Perhaps no atheist has made that precise statement but the typical atheist believes all such activity is the result of molecular activity and nothing else.

How would you probe that molecular activity does not cause consciousness. Animals have consciousness and intelligence, don’t they?

 

[tonyrey]

How would you prove that molecular activity does not cause consciousness. Animals have consciousness and intelligence, don’t they?

Animals have consciousness and intelligence but it is less developed than human consciousness and intelligence. Otherwise they would be held responsible for their behaviour. There is no evidence whatsoever that inanimate molecular activity is conscious and intelligent. I have yet to come across an atheist who believes it is but it would solve the problem for those who deny that God exists!

 

[bobzills]

Animals have consciousness and intelligence but it is less developed than human consciousness and intelligence. Otherwise they would be held responsible for their behaviour. There is no evidence whatsoever that inanimate molecular activity is conscious and intelligent. I have yet to come across an atheist who believes it is but it would solve the problem for those who deny that God exists!

If molecular activity cannot cause consciousness and intelligence, how would you explain that cats have consciousness and intelligence? Do you say that they have an immortal spiritual soul?

 

[JDaniel]

The Irrational Atheist

buffalo:

Thank you for this link. It is fascinating reading. Vox Day can be very funny at times, as well as being very scrupulous with his documentation. Thanks a lot.

jd

 

[buffalo]

buffalo:

Thank you for this link. It is fascinating reading. Vox Day can be very funny at times, as well as being very scrupulous with his documentation. Thanks a lot.

jd

 

[liquidpele]

If molecular activity cannot cause consciousness and intelligence, how would you explain that cats have consciousness and intelligence? Do you say that they have an immortal spiritual soul?

There is a line here.

molecules likely don’t have intelligence or conciousness, else rocks and corpses would likely be more interesting.

molecules can combine into complex things beyond what we currently understand even with our modern day equipment and intelligence, thus allowing for the intelligence and conciousness. More complicated and better structure allows for more intelligence - we are more intelligent than a cat, and a cat is more than a worm, and a cricket, and a cricket more than a virus.

The conciousness and intelligence is in the structure, not the molecules themselves
… at least to be very best of my understanding and knowledge (just to be true to my agnosticism).

 

[tonyrey]

If molecular activity cannot cause consciousness and intelligence, how would you explain that cats have consciousness and intelligence? Do you say that they have an immortal spiritual soul?

I would go further back than cats to the “simple” cell. There is a distinct difference between an inanimate molecular compound and a living organism, not of degree but of kind. To attribute the emergence of life to an increase in complexity requires an act of faith because no explanation has been given of the mechanism involved. What transforms aimless molecules into goal-seeking entities? A type of directive energy unknown to science. The exact term we use to describe this non-physical energy is unimportant because it demarcates the limits of science and takes us into another dimension of reality beyond the closed system of the atheist.

 

[tonyrey]

The consciousness and intelligence is in the structure, not the molecules themselves … at least to the very best of my understanding and knowledge (just to be true to my agnosticism).

You’re wise to make that reservation because the structure by itself is not an explanation of consciousness and intelligence. It’s simply an assertion equivalent to an act of faith!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Can you give a reference to where an atheist has stated that: “All purposeful, valuable, meaningful and conscious activity is ultimately activity that is
purposeless, valueless, meaningless and lacks consciousness.”
|Or where an atheist has said that: “The physical universe lacks consciousness.”

Is the “physical universe” conscious ? The OP’s position would be familiar to a pre-Christian Stoic: it even has an outing in “Cicero’s Nature of the Gods”. As one of the characters says “At this rate you’re going to be saying the universe is a philosopher” [slightly paraphrased].​

Book Three Chapter IX:

• There is, you say, nothing in all nature more excellent than the universe. Nor is there anything on earth more excellent than our own city, but do you therefore suppose that it possesses reason, and reflection, and intelligence? On the other hand, do you think that a city of this beauty is to be considered, because it does not possess these qualities, inferior to the ant, since a city is not sentient, whereas the ant is not only sentient, but has also intelligence and, reason, and memory? You ought to ascertain, Balbus, how much is conceded to you, and not assume yourself what you wish. The whole point in question, which has been expanded by later writers, was summarised long ago in the brief and, as you thought, pointed syllogism of Zeno, which he states thus: That which exercises reason is more excellent than that which does not exercise reason; there is nothing more excellent than the universe; therefore the universe exercises reason. If you accept this, you will presently make it appear that the universe is the best reader of a book, for you will be able, following in Zeno’s steps, to draw up an argument in this style: That which is learned is more excellent than that which is not learned; there is nothing more excellent than the universe, therefore the universe is learned. According to that process the universe will also be eloquent, and in fact mathematical and musical, in short it will be instructed in every branch of learning, and finally it will be a philosopher. You said several times that nothing was produced except from the universe, and that nature had not the power to fashion things unlike itself; am I to allow, then, that the universe is not only animate and wise, but also a player of the lute and trumpet, since followers of those arts too are created from it? Such a conclusion shows that there is nothing in what the father of the Stoics brings forward which should make us think that the universe exercises reason, or even that it is animate. The universe, therefore, is not divine, and yet there is nothing more excellent than it, for there is nothing more beautiful, more serviceable to ourselves, more splendid in aspect, and uniform in movement. But if the universe as a whole is not divine, neither are the stars, which you were reckoning in countless hosts among the number of the gods, and with whose regular and never-ending courses you were delighted,—and quite rightly, for they are marked by a wonderful and incredible constancy. But it is not everything that has a fixed and uniform movement, Balbus, that is to be referred to a divine instead of to a natural principle.
• [http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=539&search="philosopher"&chapter=82130&layout=html#a_1940093 (http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=539&search="philosopher"&chapter=82130&layout=html#a_1940093)

 

[tonyrey]

There is no one who denies consciousness. Anthony_A has been advocating for Chalmer’s analysis of consciousness and Chalmers is an atheist. There are some who say we do not have a fully accurate concept of consciousness and that’s based on split-brain cases causing our conception of the unity of consciousness to shift. And that has nothing to do with atheism.

The issue is the origin of consciousness.

There are atheists who deny objective morality but there are also plenty who affirm it, though their conception of the objective grounding of morality will differ from say Divine Command theory, but the conception of the objective grounding of morality varies among Christians too. There’s a nice book called The Future of Atheism which has papers, mainly from Christian philosophers and also a few atheists which touches on this. An an example of an atheist philosopher who believes in objective morality is Daniel Dennett. So the issue of objective morality has not much to do with atheism.

Whether morality can have a rational basis in an irrational universe is questionable to say the least! Camus presented a very strong argument for the absurdity of a life which has emerged by chance for no reason whatsoever…

One can describe the principles of acts which we would categorize as moral (inclusive of both the morally permissible and obligatory) and then run the complement of this to comprise the immoral. Now in describing the principles of these acts we have in fact become acquainted with their morally relevant features. We do not add to our understanding of these morally relevant features by then labelling them as moral. Labelling them as moral enables us to do mathematics on our moral theory, but that is a formal construct, not the ontology of morality itself.

What then would motivate me to be do these acts which have those features? Not that they have been labelled moral, but rather that the features of the acts themselves draw my heart to do them. So for example, thanksgiving to God has the morally relevant feature of giving thanks to someone who is responsible for my good. I thank God not because such is “morally obligatory” or “morally permissible” but rather because the very idea of giving thanks to someone who is responsible for my good is appealing to me. Why is it appealing to me? I would say that the ultimate design of the world is such that it is built into me to find such things appealing and that it was designed so in accordance with God’s nature.

So I have if you will a deflationary view of morality. I regard it as being connected to objective features of the world and also connected to my subjective desires and that no meaning is introduced by using the schema of “morally obligatory, forbidden, permissible” So it would be akin to being deflationary wrt to truth – i.e. the position that “It is true that the sun shines” is just to say “The sun shines”

In my view this deflationary perspective frames the debates properly and separates various aspects of moral reality into components that can each be separately debated (i.e. 1) what morally relevant features does this act have? 2) Do these features appeal to me? 3) Do these features appeal to everyone? 4) Why do these features appeal to me? 5) Why do these features appeal to everyone? 6) What salutary effect does leading the moral life have on me?

This is a fascinating subject and it deserves a thread to itself but I think on this forum it needs to be linked with Catholicism in some way.

 

[tonyrey]

Is the “physical universe” conscious ? The OP’s position would be familiar to a pre-Christian Stoic: it even has an outing in “Cicero’s Nature of the Gods”. As one of the characters says “At this rate you’re going to be saying the universe is a philosopher” [slightly paraphrased].​

Book Three Chapter IX:

• There is, you say, nothing in all nature more excellent than the universe. Nor is there anything on earth more excellent than our own city, but do you therefore suppose that it possesses reason, and reflection, and intelligence? On the other hand, do you think that a city of this beauty is to be considered, because it does not possess these qualities, inferior to the ant, since a city is not sentient, whereas the ant is not only sentient, but has also intelligence and, reason, and memory? You ought to ascertain, Balbus, how much is conceded to you, and not assume yourself what you wish. The whole point in question, which has been expanded by later writers, was summarised long ago in the brief and, as you thought, pointed syllogism of Zeno, which he states thus: That which exercises reason is more excellent than that which does not exercise reason; there is nothing more excellent than the universe; therefore the universe exercises reason. If you accept this, you will presently make it appear that the universe is the best reader of a book, for you will be able, following in Zeno’s steps, to draw up an argument in this style: That which is learned is more excellent than that which is not learned; there is nothing more excellent than the universe, therefore the universe is learned. According to that process the universe will also be eloquent, and in fact mathematical and musical, in short it will be instructed in every branch of learning, and finally it will be a philosopher. You said several times that nothing was produced except from the universe, and that nature had not the power to fashion things unlike itself; am I to allow, then, that the universe is not only animate and wise, but also a player of the lute and trumpet, since followers of those arts too are created from it? Such a conclusion shows that there is nothing in what the father of the Stoics brings forward which should make us think that the universe exercises reason, or even that it is animate. The universe, therefore, is not divine, and yet there is nothing more excellent than it, for there is nothing more beautiful, more serviceable to ourselves, more splendid in aspect, and uniform in movement. But if the universe as a whole is not divine, neither are the stars, which you were reckoning in countless hosts among the number of the gods, and with whose regular and never-ending courses you were delighted,—and quite rightly, for they are marked by a wonderful and incredible constancy. But it is not everything that has a fixed and uniform movement, Balbus, that is to be referred to a divine instead of to a natural principle.
• [http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=539&search="philosopher"&chapter=82130&layout=html#a_1940093 (http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php&title=539&search="philosopher"&chapter=82130&layout=html#a_1940093)

Many thanks for a splendid reference!