What Moral Right Does An Atheist Have?

[Sair]

You create fantasies because they help you to survive in a strange and meaningless world.

Um…you’re a theistic believer and you think atheists have the monopoly on creating fantasies? Just sayin…

What is objectively true - what happens whether we imagine or want or believe it or not - is that the world we inhabit operates according to principles of cause and effect (with a bit of randomness thrown in at the quantum level for good measure). We invariably observe this, which is our only avenue to apprehending objective facts.

We are beings subject to cause and effect, and morality incorporates this principle. If you harm me or mine, that will most likely cause me to consider you deserving of harm either in revenge or from the practical consideration of preventing further harm you might do. If you help me or mine, conversely, that will cause me to appreciate you, to consider you an ally, someone worth helping in turn. Cause and effect also operates on a molecular level, such that certain activities - such as eating, sex, playing, intellectual stimulation, problem solving, cooperative action to achieve a shared goal - cause us to have pleasurable experiences, whilst others - such as engaging in violence, experiencing betrayal of confidence or having our bodies damaged - cause us to have unpleasant experiences. Morality incorporates all of this causal interplay, and is far more complex than a set of objective, black and white rules.

Of course, if you subscribe to what appears to be the fantasy of contra-causal free will, it’s easy to see how you might think none of this matters. But we are what we are, and meaning can only exist for us in the context of our existence in the real world.

 

[Reivax]

If morality has evolutionary purposes it existed prior to evolution!

Or do you mean blind evolution produced morality?

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘blind evolution’? If you mean to say that evolution is not goal orientated, then you would be correct. Morality is just a description of a trait that has aided in allowing our species to survive. It is much the same as saying that the long neck of a giraffe is a trait that has aided in allowing our species to survive.

 

[tonyrey]

I’m not sure what you mean by ‘blind evolution’? If you mean to say that evolution is not goal orientated, then you would be correct. Morality is just a description of a trait that has aided in allowing our species to survive. It is much the same as saying that the long neck of a giraffe is a trait that has aided in allowing our species to survive.

In that case morality is reduced to expediency and values are fictions!

 

[Sair]

It seems to me that if anything, the understanding of ‘objective’ morality expressed by many in this thread is actually a misnomer - it is simply removing the subjectivity of human morality from humans themselves and placing it in the mind of a personal god - by definition, if a person, still a subjective being, capable of subjective preferences and whims.

It is all very well to talk of the ‘objective’ value of humans, but by whom is this value to be realised - in practical, everyday terms - except by other humans, by subjective beings who recognise kinship with other subjective beings? I don’t think a shark or a man-eating lion would pause to consider the ‘objective’ value of human life before taking its first bite, nor feel any remorse afterward. Human morality is a human province, and therefore shaped by human experience.

As I’ve said above, we are, to all appearances, intents and purposes, part of the web of cause and effect that is our universe. Our values are shaped by the experiences we have. What seems to be happening in this thread is the attempt to create a false dichotomy between concrete, hard-and-fast rules that govern what we should think and feel, and completely arbitrary, relative, whimsical notions of right and wrong that anyone could follow if they chose, without any consequences.

But consequences are key - all of our actions have consequences, because we are part of the web of cause and effect. Between dictatorial, ‘objective’ morality and total relativity there is the everyday reality of human morality - individuals and communities interacting, taking into account each other’s subjective preferences, working towards the best available outcomes for all involved.

Yes, of course, this is an ideal - but it’s an ideal that is not far from the truth, on a worldwide scale. There are individuals who get away with murder (both literally and figuratively) but about fundamental human needs and common preferences, there is a general consensus. We are social animals, after all, and none of us could survive without the aid of our fellows, no matter how remote that aid might be - even if it is just being left alone to pursue our own private goals.

I can’t help thinking that at the root of this insistence upon ‘objective’ morality, there is fear - fear that wrong-doing might not ultimately be punished, fear that we are, at the end of the day, nothing more than brutes who need the whips and chains of religion to make us behave. But there is both more and less to us, I suspect, than most theistic religions would have us believe. We might not be the ultimate authors of our own actions, but that does not mean we have no control. The universe probably doesn’t care whether we exist or not - but that does not mean we ourselves have to be (or even can be) indifferent to our experiences whilst we last.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Um…you’re a theistic believer and you think atheists have the monopoly on creating fantasies? Just sayin…

The point is, this is what you hypocritically charge Christians with doing. But the atheist is equally indulging in fantasy. The problem is, i don’t know that God is a fantasy; but you should know that in the absence of moral truth you are a fantasist. So it seems the more delusional person here is the one that actually knows that they are participating in a delusion. There is nothing delusional about hope.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Thanks for your reply MindOverMatter2,

Correct. Morals are extremely useful, so I embrace them, perhaps with a similar conviction that you embrace your own? The world is indeed strange and I create my own subjective meaning, I don’t believe one can ever come to know or realize an objective meaning.

I avoid certain actions not simply because it would not be advantages, but because i know they are “wrong”, just like i know that the objective universe exists. I experience right and wrong, and i have made a choice that i want to be a “good person”. You to experience meaningful expressions of right and wrong. Any time you have ever felt guilty or had to question your conscience, or witnessed somebody virtuously given their life to save another, you have become aware of the reality of objective moral truth; that personal actions really do have meaning and value. You know this, but you don’t want God to have any plausibility and so you know that you must reject any notion of objective moral reality in public debate. You say that you don’t believe that murdering people and using people and raping people is wrong; but you know it is wrong, otherwise you wouldn’t have made up any excuses for the sensitivities of others. Being committed to the truth and shunning dishonesty, you would simply say i don’t believe its wrong for people to rape other people because all actions have equal value in a world with no value. All things are permissible; thus all people are expendable. Might makes right.

 

[Sair]

The point is, this is what you hypocritically charge Christians with doing. But the atheist is equally indulging in fantasy. The problem is, i don’t know that God is a fantasy; but you should know that in the absence of moral truth you are a fantasist. So it seems the more delusional person here is the one that actually knows that they are participating in a delusion. There is nothing delusional about hope.

You just don’t recognise the existence of subjective truth - such truth as is contingent upon the experience of the subject.

The point about morality is that when enough subjects have experiences that point to the same truth, they can collectively act upon that truth. That’s where we get morality from.

If you were right, and there were an ‘objective’ value to human life, for example, then we would not observe such things as natural disasters, without the universe offering some recompense for the ‘objective’ harm done to human existence.

And yes, hope in the absence of evidence is a delusion…

 

[Reivax]

In that case morality is reduced to expediency and values are fictions!

Exactly

Material things can have a factuality. For example, a triangle will always have 3 sides - it is an eternal object. The term object denotes something that can be seen and touched. While morals are not objects, they are instead abstractions.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

If you were right, and there were an ‘objective’ value to human life, for example, then we would not observe such things as natural disasters, without the universe offering some recompense for the ‘objective’ harm done to human existence.

Why would that be true?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Exactly

Material things can have a factuality. For example, a triangle will always have 3 sides - it is an eternal object. The term object denotes something that can be seen and touched. While morals are not objects, they are instead abstractions.

They are not just abstractions; they are experiences.

You have no proof that the universe has an objective extension beyond your mind; but you accept it, because you experience it.

 

[tonyrey]

It seems to me that if anything, the understanding of ‘objective’ morality expressed by many in this thread is actually a misnomer - it is simply removing the subjectivity of human morality from humans themselves and placing it in the mind of a personal god - by definition, if a person, still a subjective being, capable of subjective

 

[tonyrey]

In that case morality is reduced to expediency and values are fictions!

So all references to evil, justice, freedom and responsibility are nonsense?

Material things can have a factuality. For example, a triangle will always have 3 sides - it is an eternal object. The term object denotes something that can be seen and touched. While morals are not objects, they are instead abstractions. Exactly

Neither factuality nor an abstraction is a material thing.

How do you explain truth in material terms?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Sair;8490499:

1. If morality is only a set of physical

preferences morality doesn’t exist.

1. It doesn’t make sense to refer to “subjective” if** all **human activity consists solely of physical events.
2. The logical consequence of reducing persons to things is that the distinction between subjects and objects ceases to be valid.
3. You remove not only God from the scene but yourself - and everyone else!

. Exactly

Careful there tony, the T.C.O.A.F.M.I.A.U (the confederation of atheists for meaning in a meaningless universe) might lock you up for crazy talk. You are imposing on their way of life.

 

[Sair]

Sair;8490499:

1. If morality is only a set of physical

preferences morality doesn’t exist.

Well, of course that’s true if you think morality is a nonphysical entity with an existence independent of its physical realisation in the interaction of physical beings.

1. It doesn’t make sense to refer to “subjective” if** all **

human activity consists solely of physical events.

Why? Do you think every event affects every physical being in the same way? Just how narrowly do you define ‘physical’?

1. The logical consequence of reducing persons to things

is that the distinction between subjects and objects ceases to be valid.

Not at all - subjective perception is a physical process; as are the biochemical interactions that cause subjective experiences.

1. You remove not only God from the scene but yourself

• and everyone else!

Do you imagine you exist independently of the web of cause and effect? What evidence, other than subjective intuition, do you have for such a supposition? It may well be that the only reason we feel that ‘we’ are floating, independent entities who make random decisions independently of circumstances is that consciousness does not encompass all the circumstances leading to our choices.

But at the end of the day, who or what else are you going to hold responsible?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Not at all - subjective perception is a physical process; as are the biochemical interactions that cause subjective experiences.

Thats an assertion. How about proving your assertion. That would be fun.

 

[Sair]

Thats an assertion. How about proving your assertion. That would be fun.

Proving my assertion? How about you prove that subjective experience has nonphysical causes? There are numerous neurological studies that connect subjective experience with neurochemical activity. What choices do you make that are completely random and independent of any influence of circumstance?

 

[tonyrey]

1. If morality is only a set of physical

Morality is as **intangible **as rationality, neither of which exist in the physicalist’s scheme of things…

2. It doesn’t make sense to refer to “subjective” if** all **

human activity consists solely of physical events. Why? Do you think every event affects every physical being in the same way?

According to you every event affects every physical being in various physical ways, not one of which is intangible.

Just how narrowly do you define ‘physical’?

The standard definition is that which is perceptible through the senses and subject to the laws of nature.

3. The logical consequence of reducing persons to things

is that the distinction between subjects and objects ceases to be valid. Not at all - subjective perception is a physical process; as are the biochemical interactions that cause subjective experiences.

You are merely confirming my statement. You don’t recognise an ontological duality between the cause and the effect. As far as you are concerned they are in precisely the same category. The effect is biochemical like the cause - unless you believe in a magical transition…

4. You remove not only God from the scene but yourself

• and everyone else! Do you imagine you exist independently of the web of cause and effect?

If you are not independent in any sense whatsoever you are just a cog in a machine. “You” don’t even exist! There is just a material object which has no choice whatsoever as to what to think or how to act.

What evidence, other than subjective intuition, do you have for such a supposition?

You will find it in any court of law and in your presumption that you are responsible for your beliefs and conclusions.

It may well be that the only reason we feel that ‘we’ are floating, independent entities who make random decisions independently of circumstances is that consciousness does not encompass all the circumstances leading to our choices.

In other words you believe there are unknown **physical **causes which complete the physical jigsaw puzzle and **explain every single thought and action of the robot **described as “you”…

But at the end of the day, who or what else are you going to hold responsible?

Unlike you I regard** persons **as responsible because they are not things entirely controlled by physical forces.

Well, of course that’s true if you think morality is a nonphysical entity with an existence independent of its physical realisation in the interaction of physical beings.

“if” is the key word. There is **interaction **between the mind and brain.

But at the end of the day, who or what else are you going to hold responsible?

Persons - whose independent existence you fail to recognise in favour of things completely helpless in the iron grip of determinism. Fatalism reigns supreme!

 

[Reivax]

Proving my assertion? How about you prove that subjective experience has nonphysical causes? There are numerous neurological studies that connect subjective experience with neurochemical activity. What choices do you make that are completely random and independent of any influence of circumstance?

What Sair is saying here is at the CORE of my objection. The simple truth that there is no evidence for objective reality. You’ve admitted that your own experience and hope is the foundation for your belief.

Note:

Science attempts to apply some of the following criteria:

1. Skepticism of unsupported claims

1. Combination of an open mind with critical thinking

1. Attempts to repeat experimental results.

1. Requires testability

1. Seeks out falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis

1. Uses descriptive language

1. Performs controlled experiments

1. Self-correcting

1. Relies on evidence and reason

1. Makes no claim for absolute or certain knowledge

1. Produces useful knowledge

Pseudoscience and religion relies on some of the following criteria:

1. Has a negative attitude to skepticism

1. Does not require critical thinking

1. Does not require experimental repeatability

1. Does not require tests

1. Does not accept falsifying data that would disprove a hypothesis

1. Uses vague language

1. Relies on anecdotal evidence

1. No self-correction

1. Relies on belief and faith

1. Makes absolute claims

1. Produces no useful knowledge

Points; 9), 10) and 11) are especially relevant to your claims.

nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

 

[tonyrey]

1. If morality is only a set of physical

We’re going to have a lot of fun today! How to extricate oneself from the iron grip of determinism.

Somehow I don’t think randomness will do the job for them…

 

[tonyrey]

The simple truth that there is no evidence for objective reality. %between%

In that case the sole evidence is for subjective reality! Unless of course you are a total nihilist… but then the rest is silence…