The New York Times: Would It Be Better for Mankind to Go Extinct?

[NoAvailableName]

I try to get my beliefs to cohere and take them to their logical conclusion, yet I find no moral insanity as a necessary consequences of my lack of belief in deities. To not believe in any deities is to be immoral? It is surprising to me that a Jew would promote such bigotry toward unbelievers given that Jews have sadly always been targets of bigotry.

In the past, I’ve tried to get atheists to derive morality starting with string theory, or the principle of induction, or quantum mechanics, etc., but no one ever seems willing.

I think when atheists say that they derive their morality logically, they really mean, “given an original assumption (or assumptions) that my system of thought does not support, I can then derive a respectable moral system”

 

[Leela]

Christianity has nothing to do with with nihilism, and Christians are called to do good works in this world, not to deny it.

From wikipedia article on nihilism en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism

… negation of one or more meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism which argues that life[1] is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist …

I think hope for Heaven can frequently (though not at all necessarily) cash out to a “negation of one or more meaningful aspects of life.” For example, if the salvation of one’s soul through believing the right sentences and avoiding vice is thought to be of primary importance, then social justice and care for our planet can be by comparison thought to be trivial. I think it is often so for Christians, but I think it is less so for Catholics than for other Christians like Evangelicals who put a greater weight on believing facts than doing good. I don’t think that Catholics tend to be nihilistic by any means. But if we are going to talk about nihilism as as a real problem, let’s keep in mind that this is not an atheistic phenomenon. For example, who is more nihilistic in denying the value of human life than than suicide bomber? And who is more religious than such a one who’s belief is so certain and fidelity to his faith so complete as a suicide bomber?

Do you have a link to back this up? I mean one with a reputable poll.

Yes. I just found this in part of a very recent poll done by Pew:

people-press.org/report/?pageid=1740

The problem is that Christians probably have a different idea of what social justice and a habitable world are than you do.

I doubt that we see things so differently with regard to such issues as our duties to one another.

 

[Leela]

In the past, I’ve tried to get atheists to derive morality starting with string theory, or the principle of induction, or quantum mechanics, etc., but no one ever seems willing.

That is silly. Science is our collective attempt to agree on a single account of reality that best enables us to predict and control our environment, but such an account of how the world is can’t by itself tell us how we want the world to be in the future.

I think when atheists say that they derive their morality logically, they really mean, “given an original assumption (or assumptions) that my system of thought does not support, I can then derive a respectable moral system”

No set of assumptions within a system of thought can be supported by that same system of thought. That would be like pulling one’s self up by one’s bootstraps. What we can do is call any of our current beliefs into question with respect to our other beliefs as one of our ways of trying to have the best beliefs we can.

I don’t know why you would expect anyone to be able to derive anything without starting from some set of premises. If it is thought to be reasonable to derive a geometrical system from such axioms as “through every two points there exists exactly one line,” then it is also reasonable to apply such axioms as “human life ought to be treated with profound respect” to derive new moral truths.

 

[Leela]

I glanced at Peter Singer being interviewed on CNN a couple of nights ago. He was called in as an expert on something (I didn’t catch it). So, as nutty as he is, many take him very seriously and he will continue to influence people.

I just saw Singer on a documentary the other day. Very interesting. He talked about this paper (excerpted) on our moral obligations:

"To challenge my students to think about the ethics of what we owe to people in need, I ask them to imagine that their route to the university takes them past a shallow pond. One morning, I say to them, you notice a child has fallen in and appears to be drowning. To wade in and pull the child out would be easy but it will mean that you get your clothes wet and muddy, and by the time you go home and change you will have missed your first class.
I then ask the students: do you have any obligation to rescue the child? Unanimously, the students say they do. The importance of saving a child so far outweighs the cost of getting one’s clothes muddy and missing a class, that they refuse to consider it any kind of excuse for not saving the child. Does it make a difference, I ask, that there are other people walking past the pond who would equally be able to rescue the child but are not doing so? No, the students reply, the fact that others are not doing what they ought to do is no reason why I should not do what I ought to do.

Once we are all clear about our obligations to rescue the drowning child in front of us, I ask: would it make any difference if the child were far away, in another country perhaps, but similarly in danger of death, and equally within your means to save, at no great cost – and absolutely no danger – to yourself? Virtually all agree that distance and nationality make no moral difference to the situation. I then point out that we are all in that situation of the person passing the shallow pond: we can all save lives of people, both children and adults, who would otherwise die, and we can do so at a very small cost to us: the cost of a new CD, a shirt or a night out at a restaurant or concert, can mean the difference between life and death to more than one person somewhere in the world – and overseas aid agencies like Oxfam overcome the problem of acting at a distance."
utilitarian.net/singer/by/199704–.htm

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I just saw Singer on a documentary the other day. Very interesting. He talked about this paper (excerpted) on our moral obligations:

I then ask the students: do you have any obligation to rescue the child? Unanimously, the students say they do. The importance of saving a child so far outweighs the cost of getting one’s clothes muddy and missing a class, that they refuse to consider it any kind of excuse for not saving the child. Does it make a difference, I ask, that there are other people walking past the pond who would equally be able to rescue the child but are not doing so? No, the students reply, the fact that others are not doing what they ought to do is no reason why I should not do what I ought to do.

utilitarian.net/singer/by/199704–.htm

Its quite odd to me that so many are aware of the existence of objective moral values and yet they deny the existence of God, and sometimes inconsistently deny the existence of the objective moral values of which they are aware.

If there is no God, then there is no moral reason to save the child. It is merely an opportunity to imagine that one is doing something good, and one fantasizes that by saving a child they are somehow mysteriously good and have some kind of moral advantage over those that choose not to save the child. They imagine that the person who does not save the child ought to feel ashamed of themselves. But with out the nature of God this kind of thinking amounts to nothing more than self glorification and fantasy. It has no real relevance to the real world. In the real world, the child is just a bag of chemicals. You have been deceived into thinking that this “bag of chemicals” is something more. In reality this “thing” we speak of as rightfully being the object of our moral conscience, is not really the intrinsically valuable nature that we call a child. It is merely a thing, which so happened to come out of another thing.

 

[reggieM]

If there is no God, then there is no moral reason to save the child. It is merely an opportunity to imagine that one is doing something good, and one fantasizes that by saving a child they are somehow mysteriously good and have some kind of moral advantage over those that choose not to save the child. They imagine that the person who does not save the child ought to feel ashamed of themselves. But with out the nature of God this kind of thinking amounts to nothing more than self glorification and fantasy. It has no real relevance to the real world. In the real world, the child is just a bag of chemicals. You have been deceived into thinking that this “bag of chemicals” is something more. In reality this “thing” we speak of as rightfully being the object of our moral conscience, is not really the intrinsically valuable nature that we call a child. It is merely a thing, which so happened to come out of another thing

Exactly right. In the atheistic worldview, in fact, it may be “wrong” to save a child. Since there is no ultimate purpose, the only meaning is what people create for themselves. So, beings with no ultimate purpose or value create “meanings” which are as trivial and mindless as the processes that created the bags of chemicals themselves.

So, there is no way to assess whether saving or killing the child is better or worse. In the naturalist view, a certain child might be a “threat” to the evolution of the species, or a possible threat in some other way. No human being has intrinsic value in that system.

The biggest problem with arguments like this is that atheists do not want to admit the obvious facts. Mr. Singer comes very close to admitting the truth, but then he backs away by claiming that he’s just making a “proposal”. This is cowardly and absurd. His proposal is 100% consistent with the atheistic worldview and is logically defensable in that view.

 

[NoAvailableName]

For example, if the salvation of one’s soul through believing the right sentences and avoiding vice is thought to be of primary importance, then social justice and care for our planet can be by comparison thought to be trivial

Do you have any concrete evidence to support this view? All around me, I see hospitals and universities founded by various religious institutions. I go to two different churches. One of them is relatively small, but just last week sent out a team of missionaries to Sneedville, TN, another to Sierra Leone, and another to Costa Rica. And my other church is much larger and is constantly sending out missionary groups. Not to mention all the various food drives and other charity work my churches are constantly doing.

who is more nihilistic in denying the value of human life than than suicide bomber? And who is more religious than such a one who’s belief is so certain and fidelity to his faith so complete as a suicide bomber?

I don’t think those guys were very religious at all, but I don’t know for certain what was going through their heads. No one here is advocating sending out suicide bombers in Jesus’ name. You can’t jump from some nutjob’s messed up interpretation of Islam to suggesting that Christianity leads to nihilism. But really I’m just giving you the benefit of the doubt here – calling a bunch of boozing, strip show watching, homicidal maniacs the most religious is just trolling imo.

Yes. I just found this in part of a very recent poll done by Pew:
people-press.org/report/?pageid=1740

I assume you are talking about the poll about Jesus’ return and not the war part? I don’t think the poll was for all Americans – it divides into groups of Protestant, Catholic, and Unaffiliated. Where are the Jews? Muslims? Why do 20% of the unaffiliated think Jesus will return within the next 40 years anway? But maybe you were referring to a different poll on that link?

 

[NoAvailableName]

Science is our collective attempt to agree on a single account of reality that best enables us to predict and control our environment, but such an account of how the world is can’t by itself tell us how we want the world to be in the future.

I basically agree, although that is not a standard definition of science, and I think most other Christians would as well.

[/quote]

This is what I’m suggesting – that the assumptions atheists make when coming up with their systems of morality are inconsistent with their atheism.

I don’t know why you would expect anyone to be able to derive anything without starting from some set of premises.

I specifically suggested a list of starting premises you could choose from.

If it is thought to be reasonable to derive a geometrical system from such axioms as “through every two points there exists exactly one line,” then it is also reasonable to apply such axioms as “human life ought to be treated with profound respect” to derive new moral truths.

Let us suppose another atheist wanted to start with the exact opposite of your moral starting point. How would you argue that their starting point is wrong and yours is right? If you can’t, why should we care about any of your moral truths?
[/quote]
[/QUOTE]

 

[Leela]

Do you have any concrete evidence to support this view? All around me, I see hospitals and universities founded by various religious institutions. I go to two different churches. One of them is relatively small, but just last week sent out a team of missionaries to Sneedville, TN, another to Sierra Leone, and another to Costa Rica. And my other church is much larger and is constantly sending out missionary groups. Not to mention all the various food drives and other charity work my churches are constantly doing.

Most people are not nihilistic. My point is that nihilism is not a problem for atheists any more than it is among theists.

I don’t think those guys were very religious at all, but I don’t know for certain what was going through their heads. No one here is advocating sending out suicide bombers in Jesus’ name. You can’t jump from some nutjob’s messed up interpretation of Islam to suggesting that Christianity leads to nihilism.

I am in no way suggesting that Christianity leads to nihilism. I am just saying that nihilism is possible within religions where Christianity is no exception (I see American apathy toward the environment and social justice as evidence of this) and the Islamic suicide bombers an extreme case in point.

But really I’m just giving you the benefit of the doubt here – calling a bunch of boozing, strip show watching, homicidal maniacs the most religious is just trolling imo.

Where did you get the idea that suicide bombers are not religious? This is a strange point of view that needs defending. How do you explain their actions if not by complete faith in in an after life? How do you explain the fact that the neighbors of the parents of the so-called “martyrs” congratulate the parents because their ticket to Heaven will be assured by their son’s act?

I don’t think that all forms of religion are intrinsically bad. Can’t we agree that all forms of religion are not necessarily good?

I assume you are talking about the poll about Jesus’ return and not the war part? I don’t think the poll was for all Americans – it divides into groups of Protestant, Catholic, and Unaffiliated. Where are the Jews? Muslims? Why do 20% of the unaffiliated think Jesus will return within the next 40 years anway? But maybe you were referring to a different poll on that link?

Yes the poll is for opinions of Americans. Why do you doubt the results? Isn’t the return of Jesus a central tenet of your faith? Do you personally not expect Jesus to return in the next 40 years? Apparently about 30% of Catholics do. What do you given it? 50 years? 100 years? 1000 years?

Whether or not your expect the return of Jesus so soon, it is clear that vast numbers of people expect Jesus to return within their life times. My point is that such a belief could lead to various forms of nihilism (denying various aspects of meaning in life).

 

[Leela]

Leela;6804204:

No set of assumptions within a system of thought can be supported by that same system of thought.
I’m not talking about Godel. I’m talking about what is meant by “assumptions.” You say that atheism can’t support it’s assumptions. Well if assumptions can be supported they are not assumptions anymore, so I don’t know what you could mean by this critique.

This is what I’m suggesting – that the assumptions atheists make when coming up with their systems of morality are inconsistent with their atheism.

Why do you think so? I suspect you have some misconceptions about atheists. We love our children too.

Let us suppose another atheist wanted to start with the exact opposite of your moral starting point. How would you argue that their starting point is wrong and yours is right? If you can’t, why should we care about any of your moral truths?

I would be in no worse a position in arguing with a person that denies the value of human life than you would be. It would be unlikely that either of us could convince such a person. On the other hand, this person is either a straw man or a psychopath that will probably need to be locked up rather than debated.

 

[Leela]

Its quite odd to me that so many are aware of the existence of objective moral values and yet they deny the existence of God, and sometimes inconsistently deny the existence of the objective moral values of which they are aware.

If there is no God, then there is no moral reason to save the child.

People like me who feel no obligation to gods still generally believe that they have obligations to other human beings. It’s because we love them. The question, “yeah, but should you love them” is just silly. It’s like asking, “what’s so good about goodness?” or some other such nonsense.

 

[NoAvailableName]

Leela,

The bottom line is that nihilism is in direct conflict with Jesus’ teachings. Christians sin (being nihilistic would be a sin), but that sin does not become part of Jesus’ teachings.

However, as you have basically admitted, once one accepts atheism, there is no rational defense for statements like “human life ought to be treated with profound respect”. Instead, there are only assertions that questions about the validity of your statement are “just silly” and “nonsense”.

You are correct that human life ought to be treated with profound respect. But that is because we are children of God, rather than because of a cosmic accident leading to a peculiar arrangement of self-replicating chemicals.

 

[Leela]

The bottom line is that nihilism is in direct conflict with Jesus’ teachings. Christians sin (being nihilistic would be a sin), but that sin does not become part of Jesus’ teachings.

This is your interpretation (and the Catholic one) of what Jesus taught and not the same as every Christian’s interpretation as I suspect you know being aware of various cults expecting the immanent return of Jesus and periodic murders of abortion doctors.

However, as you have basically admitted, once one accepts atheism, there is no rational defense for statements like “human life ought to be treated with profound respect”.

No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that whether or not one is an atheist, it is impossible to argue with certain people.

Instead, there are only assertions that questions about the validity of your statement are “just silly” and “nonsense”.

You are correct that human life ought to be treated with profound respect. But that is because we are children of God, rather than because of a cosmic accident leading to a peculiar arrangement of self-replicating chemicals.

I think anyone who needs some philosophical foundation to support their belief that we ought to love one another has some serious problems that philosophy won’t solve. I hope someone has the good sense to lock me up if I ever start to seriously wonder whether or not I ought to love my children. People who already love never need to ask “why should I love?” It is only those without love that think that is a compelling question. To me it is like asking what it so good about goodness.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I hope someone has the good sense.

What do you mean by good sense?Your talking gobldygoop.

 

[Leela]

What do you mean by good sense?Your talking gobldygoop.

You really don’t get understand the term “good sense”? How about sound judgment? Prudence? Wisdom? The ability to discern what ought to be done is a given situation?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

You really don’t get understand the term “good sense”? How about sound judgment? Prudence? Wisdom? The ability to discern what ought to be done is a given situation?

I don’t know what you mean by sound judgement, prudence, wisdom or what ought to be done, given your particular world view. If I had not chosen to be a Christian, I would have instead adopted nihilism as my world view. As a nihilist, what you are saying to me seems to be nothing more than fantastic nonsense, no different to believing in fairy tales and fantasy making; that is if you intend to expect me to recognise what you are saying as representing a universal objective truth, rather than some kind of relativistic ideal. In fact what you are saying is worse than being a Christian, because at least the Christian has the dignity of not knowing that the object of their hope and faith is non-existent. Thus they have at the very least the justification of hope. But the intellectual Atheist ought to know that given Gods failure to exist, any talk of what ought to be is absolute nonsense.

Unless of course you are talking about the ideal of survival, in which case, if I desire to live, it would be foolish of me to do anything that does not prolong my existence and pleasure for as long as possible, in so far as I am an individual. But, let me be clear, my life and pleasure is more important than anyone’s life, and I will only conform to some ideal if I feel it to be beneficial to my self. If not saving the child in that particular instance is more beneficial to me than saving the child, then I will leave the child to die.

The child is nothing more then a bag of chemicals and its value to me is proportional to my needs as an individual. What does it mean to save a child’s life? It means nothing. The value that might be achieved from my saving this particular organism is the material rewards and the social praise. But if I do not need these things and I can avoid social prejudices then I will ignore the child, since it has no potential to further my own ends. Life is merely an opportunity to exploit the senses. The meaning of words like good and ought become relative and subjective to my needs as an individual and I have no obligation or cause for shame in not helping anyone if I do not see it as aiding my own individual survival. I would be bloody stupid to save somebody if it meant my probable death. Human life is expendable in light of my desire for pleasure.

But I know deep down that moral nihilism does not follow from my experience of human nature and reality.

The fact is, the only reason we have any kind of civilisation worth valuing is because most people, whether they want to admit it or not, do good because they truly think that they are doing good and ought to do it. They experience the existential ought, and thus some choose to actualise the potential good, in recognising the objective good. I do good not because I am good or because I love people. I do good because I recognise that I ought to do good and value people. I see the objective good and the intrinsic value of people in my experience reality. Self glorification is of no use to me, and it does me no good to be at the mercy of somebodies emotional whim.

 

[Leela]

I don’t know what you mean by sound judgement, prudence, wisdom or what ought to be done, given your particular world view. If I had not chosen to be a Christian, I would have instead adopted nihilism as my world view.

In that case, the world ought to be glad that you are a Christian.
MindOverMatter2;6820888:

As a nihilist, what you are saying to me seems to be nothing more than fantastic nonsense, no different to believing in fairy tales and fantasy making; that is if you intend to expect me to recognise what you are saying as representing a universal objective truth, rather than some kind of relativistic ideal.{.quote}

I am not a nihilist. I reserve that term for those who believe so strongly in the afterlife as to reject the value of this life such as the Islamic suicide bomber.
MindOverMatter2;6820888:

In fact what you are saying is worse than being a Christian, because at least the Christian has the dignity of not knowing that the object of their hope and faith is non-existent. Thus they have at the very least the justification of hope. But the intellectual Atheist ought to know that given Gods failure to exist, any talk of what ought to be

is absolute nonsense.

The above sounds like nonsense to me.

Unless of course you are talking about the ideal of survival, in which case, if I desire to live, it would be foolish of me to do anything that does not prolong my existence and pleasure for as long as possible, in so far as I am an individual. But, let me be clear, my life and pleasure is more important than anyone’s life, and I will only conform to some ideal if I feel it to be beneficial to my self. If not saving the child in that particular instance is more beneficial to me than saving the child, then I will leave the child to die.

The above sounds like bigoty to me.

The child is nothing more then a bag of chemicals and its

value to me is proportional to my needs as an individual. What does it mean to save a child’s life? It means nothing. The value that might be achieved from my saving this particular organism is the material rewards and the social praise…

Okay, now I am embarrassed that I bothered to start to reply to you.

 

[reggieM]

I’ll just offer this comment to Leela on the previous.
When we extend the argument out to the logical conclusions, we end up with a situation where human life has no ultimate meaning or value.
When we ask why we should save a child’s life, or point out that a child’s life means nothing – you’re rightly appalled by that conclusion.
But that is precisely the problem with this philosophical position. In the materialistic view, the child’s life is meaningless. In fact, as Mr. Singer points out, it may be “better” if the child died or even was killed. Why? Because in the materialist view, “better” may mean that humanity should go extinct, or that some people should be killed. This provides “benefits” for other material things - like the earth, or other species, or the solar system or any combination of molecules.

But you react strongly against this view, and that is good. But honestly, it’s not a logical or consistent response. In a philosophical view which destroys the ultimate purpose and value of human life, we have to face these very ugly consequences.

We can’t just say “I’ll embrace the Christian notion of the sacredness of human life, while at the same time being an atheistic-materialist”.

 

[AntiTheist]

We can’t just say “I’ll embrace the Christian notion of the sacredness of human life, while at the same time being an atheistic-materialist”.

So I saw this thread was still going on, and I decided to click on it out of curiosity. I wasn’t disappointed: same exact false claims, same exact disingenuous arguments, same exact unwillingness to consider what anyone else says.

Bravo, sir. I’m glad that some things don’t change.

 

[Contarini]

One thing you cannot derive from atheism or materialism is utilitarianism, which is what Singer bases his ideas on. Do you agree with that last sentence or no?

No, I don’t. I think that utilitarianism is the ethic that most naturally follows from materialistic atheism, though I recognize that one can hold other kinds of ethics.

You call yourself a nihilist–perhaps nihilism fits with atheism just as well. Most atheists go to great pains to argue that they are not nihilists.

One can hold to a non-utilitarian ethic and be an atheist, but your axiology will be in fundamental conflict with your ontology.

Edwin