updated post from last one.
Hello Giants,
to get back to you on my perception that atheism leads to the denial of beauty, morals and truth and is bad for society. Of course it takes time for an atheist philosophy to work itself out in culture and with people. This can take many years.
From a materialistic perspective the mind, choice and consciousness is illusory and really an evolutionary outcome of atoms following necessary laws. Because things such as beauty, morals and truth are further creations from the mind, downstream from consciousness, they are also illusory and only temporary human creations.
So what is beauty? It belongs only as a creation of the mind according to materialism. I might think something is beautiful, you might disagree. Everyone in the world might agree something is beautiful but then potentially an alien might visit us and disagree. Beauty exists only as a construction of the mind which itself is nothing more than the illusion of consciousness.
Whatever the status of truth, moral truth, and beauty, one thing is quite certain - Consciousness is the only thing in the universe that can’t be an illusion. Even if we’re nothing but brains in a vat, living in the Matrix and experiencing some sort of programmed reality, it wouldn’t overthrow the basic truth that we have consciousness, and that we have stake in the sorts of experiences we experience.
As far as beauty goes, I’m happy to concede that it’s probably subjective, if only because frankly, I don’t see any particular downside to that reality. You think a painting A is beautiful, but I disagree. So what? And an alien drops in to offer a third opinion that doesn’t mesh with either of ours - again, so what?
For that matter, I don’t necessarily see what religion, or a belief in God offers to give us a universal standard for beauty. If we all agreed that God existed, or that Catholicism was The Truth, how would this force any sort of Universal agreement on what beauty was?
Morals can be seen exactly the same way. The idea that it is true that something is beautiful or good likewise is a nonsensical illusion from the materialistic view. The idea that there is truth in illusion does not make sense. We could argue things like mathematics or scientific axioms are in a different category but I will leave that alone for now.
The idea that it is true that someone or something is good (welfare, charity, Bob Marely, Jesus Christ, alternate fuels etc) does not make sense. Some might think Jesus Christ good, some bad. Some might think alternate fuels good, some bad. There will be different reasons and experiences people use in making their judgement. But in these instances truth exists nowhere except for in the mind. It is a construction of the mind downstream from evolution.
Morals and truth we can deal with together. 2 plus 2 equals 4, regardless of whether God exists or not. The Earth revolves around the Sun, and Moon around the Earth, regardless of whether or not God exists. And again, regarding your examples - I don’t know what you imagine a belief in God would do to forge consensus. Did God ever cast his vote on alternative fuels or Bob Marley? It’s telling that, even among God’s most devout believers, you’d be at serious pains to find any sort of consensus on these questions.
Morality has an axiomatic basis - that is the promoting of well-being among conscious creatures. On a certain level, we all know what this means. And religion agrees with this, by the way. As a reward for a lifetime of moral behavior, a believer is promised an eternity in God’s presence - a blissful experience. Meanwhile, the punishment for an immoral life lived is precisely the opposite. There’s no such thing as “acting morally for its own sake” - God promotes a certain morality with an aim towards a certain experiential outcome. So the promotion of well-being sits at the center of “Christian morality,” as it does with “secular morality.”
It should be noted that, while morality has an objective, axiomatic basis, this does not guarantee (nor need it guarantee) that we will come to an agreement on all moral questions right away. Whether we promote alternative energy sources or not is a question with an obvious moral component. How we decide which is the more moral choice depends on how each avenue will promote (or fail to promote) well-being. This, in turn, depends on the facts of alternative energy, not all of which might be presently known with certainty. And without all the relevant facts, it’s possible for intelligent, rational people to disagree on what is the most moral choice. This is to be expected, and does nothing to overthrow the axiomatic basis for morality. And to return to my earlier point - God-belief and religion often do nothing to force clear answers to these questions.
Other questions admit to easy answers. We know that polluting drinking water supplies is immoral. We know because we know that certain chemicals, introduced to the human body are detrimental to well-being. These are the facts. Some people can claim to know different facts, or claim to hold an understanding of well-being that has nothing to do with having clean drinking water. These are not serious claims, and require no more attention than claims that the Earth is actually flat, or that a “flat” Earth has nothing to do with having an edge to fall off of.
One problem though, among others is that if you can construct an idea in peoples minds, you create truth. But it rationally follows that if truth (of the nature we are speaking about) exists nowhere else except it being a construction of the mind, then inducing a construction of the mind creates truth.
We’ve established that truth is more than merely a construction of mind. Again, the Earth would still revolve around the Sun, even if no minds were present on Earth to observe this fact.
