The atheists best argument?

[Peter_Plato]

I would like to thank you for this clear statement of the hedonism inherent in Christian morality. “There can be no right or wrong unless there are rewards and punishments!” declares the Christian moralist. “If there is no guarantee of eternal pleasure, then how can I be compelled to do what is right? If there is no guarantee of eternal suffering, then why should I avoid what is wrong? Truly, there are no possible answers other than God’s heaven and hell system!”

What an absolutely foolish rendering of my post!

There was no “clear statement” as you interpreted it. Your “clear” restatement was a purely blatant distortion to saddle me with your ridiculous presumptions about theism.

I never argued that hedonism is inherent in Christianity and my words did not even point in that direction unless you feel some bizarre compulsion to equivocate between terms such as meaning, significance, truth, goodness, etc. and hedonistic pleasure / pain, reward / punishment, heaven / hell.

Nowhere did I argue that theistic morality depends upon avoidance of eternal suffering or has some kind of heaven vs hell dependency. That would be your ridiculous take on the subject.

What I did argue was that ultimate meaning and significance does depend upon meaning being inherent in existence itself. This has nothing to do with hedonism. What it does have to do with is having actual, bona fide, legitimate reasons for acting (not hedonistic ones.) That implies we ought to do things for real purposes not “just 'cuz” or to convince ourselves we have the moral high ground BECAUSE we act for no real purpose or purpose, but “just 'cuz.”

Acting for no reason or purpose is NOT a sound moral position, it is a demented one.

If you want to insist on the implication that having sound justification for acting morally is tantamount to fear of hell or hedonistic reward seeking, then show that necessary connection. I don’t see it because it doesn’t exist. My guess is that whatever motive that you (as an atheist) can conjure for acting morally will be susceptible to the same reduction if you want to insist that searching for ultimate meaning or purpose necessarily amounts to reward seeking. That claim is simply ridiculous on its face.

The difference between theistic and atheistic morality is that theistic morality is open to the possibility that meaning and significance are inherent in existence itself, whereas an atheist merely goes about preening his moral feathers by insisting he requires no motives or reasons whatsoever to act morally, but just does out of the sheer goodness of himself. In other words, to an atheist, moral actions are capricious and vain attempts to virtue signal on the grounds that atheists need absolutely no good reasons to act morally but still do. What good fellows are we!

That, my friend, is mere moral preening – acting for no reason except that you act without having good reasons and take pride in that fact, missing all the while that your actions are then done for no good reason whatsoever.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

What I did argue was that ultimate meaning and significance does depend upon meaning being inherent in existence itself. This has nothing to do with hedonism. What it does have to do with is having actual, bona fide, legitimate reasons for acting (not hedonistic ones.) That implies we ought to do things for real purposes not “just 'cuz” or to convince ourselves we have the moral high ground BECAUSE we act for no real purpose or purpose, but “just 'cuz.”

Acting for no reason or purpose is NOT a sound moral position, it is a demented one.

If you want to insist on the implication that having sound justification for acting morally is tantamount to fear of hell or hedonistic reward seeking, then show that necessary connection. I don’t see it because it doesn’t exist. My guess is that whatever motive that you (as an atheist) can conjure for acting morally will be susceptible to the same reduction if you want to insist that searching for ultimate meaning or purpose necessarily amounts to reward seeking. That claim is simply ridiculous on its face.

The question relates to how the completely different set of metaphysical underpinnings of reality, held by atheists as opposed to theists, impact what can be reasonably proposed as expectations or obligations upon human behaviour. What “reasons” would anyone have for behaving morally if nothing really significant hangs upon what humans do? If behaving heinously or behaving in a scrupulously upright way made absolutely no difference in the final analysis, then a person would be exhibiting “mental health issues” if they insist upon reading into reality moral obligations that simply didn’t exist there. They would be suffering from delusions about morality and reality if it really didn’t matter whether this or that agglomeration of atoms survived or didn’t for any length of time.

Look, its fine to argue that significance requires God. However, once you claim that significance actually does exist, people are going to ask what that significance is. And according to your earlier post, that significance was “making a difference in the final analysis.” In other words, if God existed but DIDN’T perform some kind of final analysis, people would be delusional to think they have moral imperatives.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Unfortunately, we have atheists today that argue for the reverse. they claim that humanistic secularism provides a solid basis for ethical behavior and that religion has been responsible for terrible injustice done to innocent people such as the Inquisition and torture chambers, the Crusades, slaves bought and sold by clergy, burning at the stake of heretics, beheadings of infidels, terrorism in places such as northern Ireland, etc.

Atheists can make all the claims they want about having “solid ethical reasons,” but it appears to me that their ethical claims – just like their metaphysical claims – are negative and empty.

Their claim is that because they don’t have a system of rewards and punishments, therefore, their system is not tainted.

The problem is that they cannot provide a proper motivation for acting morally based upon sound reason. They assume an atheistic system must be untainted because there are no rewards sought or punishments avoided.

What is never addressed is the question, “Why be moral?” It is never addressed because their false assumption is that to ask the question AT ALL is a matter of self-interest and immoral at base.

But that is simply a logical error.

“Why be moral?” can be asked and answered completely aside from the question of “What do I get out of being moral?” precisely because there need be no presumption about self-interest or benefit to oneself, at all in asking and answering the question.

More properly, the question should be phrased as “What are the legitimately moral grounds for any rational, thoughtful moral agent to be moral?” Or “What reasons are to be found in the nature of existence itself that ground moral behaviour?”

The atheist has no answer to that form of the question precisely because there is no answer to be found under atheistic metaphysics. For atheists, morality begins and ends in the self because there can be no deriving of morality in reality, morally must, of necessity, be a personal and therefore egoistic enterprise.

This is why the atheist projects ONLY self-interest on the theist as if the ONLY motives a theist can have for acting morally are going to be reward and punishment. Atheists cannot even imagine anyone thinking that purpose, meaning, value and significance might be matters derivable from existence or being itself and not based upon ego or self-interest.

This is why JapaneseKappa jumped on the assumption that I meant purpose or motives for acting morally HAD TO BE, at ground, self-interested ones.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Look, its fine to argue that significance requires God. However, once you claim that significance actually does exist, people are going to ask what that significance is. And according to your earlier post, that significance was “making a difference in the final analysis.” In other words, if God existed but DIDN’T perform some kind of final analysis, people would be delusional to think the have moral imperatives.

Note the difference between “making a difference in the final analysis” and “making a difference TO ME in the final analysis.”

In the former, the difference is objective and independent of any particular person’s perceived self-interest. What is the significance or importance or value of X as an objective fact, whether or not it is viewed rightly or wrongly as such by any particular moral agent.

The difference is where the value or significance is grounded – in existence itself or in the individual bestowing value or significance.

Atheists would deny the former and by default be compelled to insist on the latter. A purposeless, material universe does not bestow significance or value, which means only individual subjects can do so,

The theistic notion is that Being or Existence Itself is intentional, purposeful and inherently moral. Human subjects don’t endow existence with morality, Being is inherently moral, meaningful and significant. It is up to us as moral agents to align ourselves to that inherently moral state of things. Not to benefit personally, not to gain reward or avoid punishment but because that is the ultimate nature of reality – the way of Being Itself.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

Note the difference between “making a difference in the final analysis” and “making a difference TO ME in the final analysis.”

In the former, the difference is objective and independent of any particular person’s perceived self-interest. What is the significance or importance or value of X as an objective fact, whether or not it is viewed rightly or wrongly as such by any particular moral agent.

The difference is where the value or significance is grounded – in existence itself or in the individual bestowing value or significance.

Atheists would deny the former and by default be compelled to insist on the latter. A purposeless, material universe does not bestow significance or value, which means only individual subjects can do so,

The theistic notion is that Being or Existence Itself is intentional, purposeful and inherently moral. Human subjects don’t endow existence with morality, Being is inherently moral, meaningful and significant. It is up to us as moral agents to align ourselves to that inherently moral state of things. Not to benefit personally, not to gain reward or avoid punishment but because that is the ultimate nature of reality – the way of Being Itself.

Ah, so if God were to send the morally upright people to hell, and reward the sinners with heaven, you would still advocate that people behave morally.

 

[JapaneseKappa]

The difference is where the value or significance is grounded – in existence itself or in the individual bestowing value or significance.

So then why isn’t the “existence itself” position available to atheists? Does God not count as an individual bestowing value/significance?

 

[Nixbits]

Well it’s quite obvious that if you are an atheist you will have to work them out for yourself, forever inventing the moral wheel that Christ got rolling 2,000 years ago.

You think that there were no moral people or moral systems before the life of Christ? Really?

 

[Nixbits]

In other words morality is replaced by expediency, a charter for criminals! It’s not wrong if you can get away with it…

Ohh, are we allowed to do that? We can repeatedly misrepresent the other person’s viewpoint under the guise of sensible debate? Really? Oh good. I’m going to enjoy this.

 

[Nixbits]

But doesn’t that mean that there is really no difference between moral frameworks? If that is the case, morality is just a construct of human beings and the only thing that makes it authoritative is the majority of people who uphold it.

No, there are clearly differences between moral frameworks. Some are better at promoting well-being and minimising harm than others. I think that morality is just a construct of human beings. What makes it authoritative is the degree to which it is enforced by the society. But I don’t think that the degree of authority is particularly important. What matters is its effectiveness at promoting well-being.

 

[edwest2]

“Show me god. If you can show me god I might believe in him.”

I got that in the 1970s.

Ed

 

[o_mlly]

So then why isn’t the “existence itself” position available to atheists? …

Atheism and theism are dispositions of mind. Neither disposition renders one more or less human. Existence Itself is in all human beings. It makes itself known to true atheists, one who absolutely and irrevocably denies God’s existence, only through their conscience. Theists have other avenues of communication with Existence Itself.

We Catholic theists call conscience the sacred place where God and man communicate. Atheists may know conscience as only that external and unimpeachable voice of authority that says to them, “No” or “Yes” when making a moral choice. In this respect, atheists have a moral compass for the natural law is written on all men’s heart.

Atheists may think that their moral compass is grounded in their own intellects or emotions or evolution or our animal instincts. And we all hear and hopefully respond to the voice of conscience. But we disagree on from where that Voice emanates.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So then why isn’t the “existence itself” position available to atheists?

How does STEM, and “prior” to that nothing (even in the weird Kraussian sense,) endow meaning, significance or value?

Explain why or how the “existence itself” position might be available to atheists in the sense of underwriting a moral world. You provide the rationale and I will be happy to listen.

It is not sufficient to ask, “Why isn’t…?”

The burden is upon you to explain why it might be – i.e., why we have any compelling reason at all to think that the “existence itself” (as atheists understand it) position IS available to atheists. Show that it is by formulating a strong, compelling argument.


As it stands, what atheists mean by “existence itself” is a far cry from what theists mean by it. So how does the atheist’s conception of “existence itself” generate a moral universe?

Does God not count as an individual bestowing value/significance?

Because God is not “an individual” being in any sense of the word. God is Being or Existence Itself from which all “things” (AKA individual beings) that exist get their substantial existence. Classic Theism 101.

Or, put another way, the theistic view assumes you cannot get more in the effect than exists in the cause. Ergo, whatever exists in the universe (including morality) has to exist in source form in Existence Itself.

The atheist denies that basic principle by claiming that the cause can be essentially nothing and anything can come from nothing. The only defense offered for this contrary view is, “Why not?” as if that question itself provides the necessary and sufficient reason for thinking everything from nothing is a reasonable proposition.

That comes from the “If I can imagine it, it is true,” school of metaphysics.

 

[Nixbits]

What “reasons” would anyone have for behaving morally if nothing really significant hangs upon what humans do? If behaving heinously or behaving in a scrupulously upright way made absolutely no difference in the final analysis, then a person would be exhibiting “mental health issues” if they insist upon reading into reality moral obligations that simply didn’t exist there. They would be suffering from delusions about morality and reality if it really didn’t matter whether this or that agglomeration of atoms survived or didn’t for any length of time.

Peter, do you really believe that the moral issues that people deal with every day will have no significant consequences? Just because our physical bodies will ultimately die and all memory of our lives may eventually disappear, that does not mean that there is not significance in the present and for some period into the future.

You talk about the final analysis. I don’t think that most people consider the ultimate consequences of their actions in the grand scheme of the universe. If I think about buying a car, I don’t dismiss the idea because eventually it will break down, corrode and become useless. I value it for its utility during its useful life. So it is with moral decisions.

I want the most well-being and the least harm for myself, my family, my friends and colleagues and for the wider community in which I live. Other people have the same view and collectively we find ways of trying to achieve this. Taking moral decisions in this way has real benefits for me and other people that are significant to us in our lives as we live them.

So, should we just ignore child abuse because both the abuser and the victim will eventually die and our sun will eventually destroy the earth anyway? No. Both theist and atheist places significance and value on the lives we have here and now. But for the atheist the ‘final analysis’ does not enter into the equation.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You think that there were no moral people or moral systems before the life of Christ? Really?

I never said there were no moral systems before Christ. Christ did not invent the moral wheel, but whereas it was stuck in the mud in ancient times, Christ got it rolling along fairly well. Do you think there were any other ancient moral teachers better than Christ?

If so, name them; tell me why they were better and why their works are still alive in the minds and hearts of people around the world.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So, should we just ignore child abuse because both the abuser and the victim will eventually die and our sun will eventually destroy the earth anyway? No. Both theist and atheist places significance and value on the lives we have here and now. But for the atheist the ‘final analysis’ does not enter into the equation.

The final analysis means nothing to you even if you are wrong, if there is a God, and if you along with the rest of us will be judged for an eternal consequence.

This is a dangerous wager indeed. And you can’t know for certain there is no final analysis.

 

[Tomdstone]

I never said there were no moral systems before Christ. Christ did not invent the moral wheel, but whereas it was stuck in the mud in ancient times, Christ got it rolling along fairly well. Do you think there were any other ancient moral teachers better than Christ?

If so, name them; tell me why they were better and why their works are still alive in the minds and hearts of people around the world.

Moses
Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha
Confucius
Sage Vyasa
Maharishi Valmiki
Bharadwaja rishi
Shri Brahmarshi Vishwamitra
Sukadeva Gosvami
Rishi Agasthya
Thirumoolar
Cleobulus of Lindos:
Solon of Athens
Hippias
Alcidamas
Callicles
Socrates
Maximus of Tyre

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Moses
Siddhārtha Gautama Buddha
Confucius
Sage Vyasa
Maharishi Valmiki
Bharadwaja rishi
Shri Brahmarshi Vishwamitra
Sukadeva Gosvami
Rishi Agasthya
Thirumoolar
Cleobulus of Lindos:
Solon of Athens
Hippias
Alcidamas
Callicles
Socrates
Maximus of Tyre

Well, this goes nowhere, does it?

How were they better than Jesus?

You see, it’s very easy to slap together a list of the ancients, but the list you provide means nothing to me. Moses only prepared the ground for Jesus, whose mission was very greater. Socrates was a clever debater, but tended to reduce all things to analysis rather than action. Similar arguments could be offered as to the others on your list, but since you didn’t bother to expand at all, I will stop here.

 

[Tomdstone]

How were they better than Jesus?.

Buddhists, Hindus and followers of Confucius have the details. I have heard Hindus say that the bhagavad gita contains much more wisdom than the Bible. For example, we see a whole lot of violence in the Bible, even Jesus mentions it: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not
come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against
his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law
against her mother-in-law; and one’s foes will be members of one’s own
household. Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy
of me; and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy
of me.”
Luke 14:26 is even more emphatic in saying that: “Whoever comes to me
and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters,
yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple.”
In (Revelation 9:4-5), there is described an out-group (“those who do not have the seal of God upon their foreheads”). The in group “were allowed to torture them for five
months, but not to kill them, and their torture was like the torture of a scorpion when it stings someone.” Christ returns to exact vengeance upon all of the enemies of Christianity (Revelation 19-20).
But in the BG 1:37 Krishna says: “What happiness could we ever enjoy, if we killed our
own kinsmen in battle?” Ghandhi relied on the BG and the BG became very popular in India during the time of peaceful passive resistance against the British occupation.
Krishna, under the name of ‘Vasudeva Govinda Krishna Shauri’, lived in india between 3200 and 3100 BC

 

[Tomdstone]

Moses only prepared the ground for Jesus, whose mission was very greater.

I don’t doubt that that is your opinion and the opinion of millions of Christians. However, there are millions of people (Jews) who believe that Moses was greater than Jesus. And there are millions of people (Hindus) who believe that Krishna was greater than Moses and greater than Jesus.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Peter, do you really believe that the moral issues that people deal with every day will have no significant consequences?

I don’t think you understood my position. It isn’t that everyday issues have no significance, but that the actual significance of those everyday issues is only determinable in light of the fundamental purpose for all things inherent in why things exist in the first place.

Just because our physical bodies will ultimately die and all memory of our lives may eventually disappear, that does not mean that there is not significance in the present and for some period into the future.

No one claimed that just because our bodies ultimately die there is no significance to them. Again, the significance of physical, bodily, life and death can only be truly ascertained from the perspective of why we have that bodily existence in the first place and why we die.

Clearly, since our eternal destiny is forged in this life, then everything we do in this life has eternal significance. It matters.

Unlike a reductive materialist who insists this life is all there is and life/death only has whatever value is assigned by the one living the life, then a terminal or difficult life might be considered “not worth living” and readily assigned no significance.

A life which has its eternal value set by the ground of Being Itself is not one which can be easily or off-handedly reduced to one of no significance.

You talk about the final analysis. I don’t think that most people consider the ultimate consequences of their actions in the grand scheme of the universe. If I think about buying a car, I don’t dismiss the idea because eventually it will break down, corrode and become useless. I value it for its utility during its useful life. So it is with moral decisions.

I am not clear why the “grand scheme of the universe” is necessarily at odds with the utility of things. Cars are useful and valuable to the extent that they don’t break down and do fulfill their purpose. It isn’t clear why cars ought to take on some esoteric worth or eternal value merely because the universe has a grand scheme. Perhaps within the grand scheme is the transient utility of some things. That does not imply human beings only have limited value, unless you assume death is absolutely the terminal point of every human existence. But Christianity does not teach that, does it?

You need to do a more thorough job sorting out your presumptions from the teachings of Christ and his Church.

If you think “moral decisions” are only made for the sake of practical utility, I would suggest that you are also gravely mistaken about that. Moral decisions are those which concern the well-being of others who are not ever valued merely for their temporal utility or usefulness to us.

So, NO it is not so “with moral decisions.”

I want the most well-being and the least harm for myself, my family, my friends and colleagues and for the wider community in which I live. Other people have the same view and collectively we find ways of trying to achieve this. Taking moral decisions in this way has real benefits for me and other people that are significant to us in our lives as we live them.

Tha value of “myself, my family, my friends and colleagues” and “the wider community” of humanity is grounded not in their “utility during… [their] useful life.” The actual value of human beings is determined and endowed at the very ground of existence itself – not by us, nor by our needs nor by any considerations of usefulness.

So, should we just ignore child abuse because both the abuser and the victim will eventually die and our sun will eventually destroy the earth anyway? No.

It isn’t clear to me why the wrong of child abuse is nullified because both the abuser and victim will die eventually. Just the opposite, actually.

If the value of both the victim and abuser are grounded in and have their source in the eternality and Being of God, then actions committed and endured in temporal existence have eternal significance. I think you have the idea backwards.

If significance is grounded and limited to temporality, then value is transient and fleeting, at best. This is all that the atheist can muster in terms of actual value. However, if value and significance are determined eternally with eternal repercussions which simply cannot be “ignored” because they are permanent and not limited by death or shelf life, then valuation isn’t up for grabs, it is eternal.

Both theist and atheist places significance and value on the lives we have here and now. But for the atheist the ‘final analysis’ does not enter into the equation.

Merely because the atheist chooses to ignore or discount the “final analysis,” does not mean significance and value have limitations which can be determined by the will and caprice of the atheist (nor the theist, for that matter.) The real significance and value of lives is determined by the authority, power and purpose of the One who brings all into existence and Who is the Ground of all which exists.