Ask about Atheism

[Chuck]

[extropalopakettle]

I'm not sure it doesn't matter, or has no consequences. I don't know. If one accepts the universe has sentience, then perhaps free will also (if one accepts anything has free will). I don't know. It has no consequences to how we build bridges and things like that.

[Chuck]

To have consequences, wouldn't there have to be some measurable effect?

[extropalopakettle]

I don't necessarily mean physical consequences, but consequences on how one sees the world.

Regarding free will, that could have consequences, but not measurable or with verifiable evidence. Quoting part of a reply to BraveHat:

[Chuck]

It sounds more like the belief that sentience is everywhere matters but not whether or not it actually is everywhere.

I'm not clear on what free will is.

No one is forcing my fingers to type this post and no one is holding a gun to my head. I don't seem to have been tortured nor sleep deprived. I don't feel like I'm sick and I haven't been locked up as too insane to run loose. I could be brainwashed, hypnotized, or drugged without knowing it but I find it hard to believe that anyone would bother. The decision that I should type this post seems to have come from me alone.

Is that free will?

Although no one else has decided specifically that I should type this post, a great many external influences went in to making me who I am. My decision to type it certainly isn't free of them.

If there's some other component that's not caused by anything else then it seems like my decisions are things that happen to me, not things for which I'm responsible. I had no say in those events happening. Assigning them to be mine seems purely arbitrary, even if they did happen within my brain.

[BraveHat]

A question for atheists that come here.

Though I'm not a raving fan of Christian Apologist William Lane Craig (most likely because my initial impression of some of his concerns seem unduly restrictive), he does bring up some awfully thought-provoking points in his debates with atheists, and one of them concerns the objectivity of moral values and duties. As he defines it specifically:

An objectively moral value or duty is a moral value or duty which is valid and binding to a person regardless of whether or not the person believes it to be so. In other words, a person ought to do this and ought not to do that can be said objectively.

I'm curious as what GL atheists believe in an objective moral values and duties, and what atheists believe moral values and duties are basically relative.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax

[Deception]

I'm more not really an atheist so much as I am someone who has absence of belief in god, though I do not believe that there is no god.

I believe in relative morality, but let me address Craigs' definition of Objecitve Morality.

If some action X is objectively good or bad (as in, it is assigned a value of good or bad and that is static) in the sense that Craig states, then morality in that sense is meaningless. I say this because morals only are meaningful if people are compelled to follow them. If morality is static regardless of personal viewpoints (so, the feeling of doing something right or wrong is a nonfactor) then how do we initially determine if something is moral? I would expect the Apologist to have a hallowed list of morals which can be applied to every action if he is making this claim.

[BraveHat]

[Deception]

BraveHat: I see, I'm prepared to counter that theory of objective morality, but first...

The objective grounds which we possess to say that the Jew-tosser (if I may call him that) is morally wrong is the law. This is to say, that the law is an ethical code which is manufactured through majority rule. If the majority of peoples subscribe that action X is morally good, then the law makes X good. As a citizen of a certain nation, you inherently subscribe to that ethical code.

Now, I believe that there are some things which are intrinsic values of human beings and all creatures.

Firstly, the necessity to protect the young. This is easily provable because if the young die (and the young are weak) then the species can not go on.

Secondly, the necessity to live healthily. This is also apparently true as healthy creatures reproduce and live on.

Thirdly, the necessity for others (not the young) to live (also fairly obvious).

Fourthly,the necessity to understand. To understand oneself and ones' surroundings is a property of the mind which must exist for one to do anything but reproduce and eat.

From this we derive the "original morals", set P if you will, which were at the beginning of mankind and exist in every person the moment that they are born. As you grow up, you have experiences with your surroundings and grow knowledge of them. "Thorns are spiky, they hurt and make me bleed", "Joe bled a lot and is now dead", "poking someone with thorns could kill them", "it is wrong to poke someone with thorns".

Progressions like this (though far more sophisticated in reality) developed many humans with many different subjective morals. As society grew, people had experiences which eliminated some of set P for some reason and thus we have people who find it ethical to break the law.

[BraveHat]

[Deception]

I'm talking only about democratic nations, yes. Dictatorships and other forms of government which are not democratic are by nature of their structure not objectively moral. Note that objective morality as defined by the law is only restrictive within the governed state. There are in fact global laws, or international policies, which govern the world and were enacted through a democratic process. And yes, I am saying that if something is legal in area X, then granted it is legal through democratic process, it is objectively moral within the state. However the state is a part of the world, so should the world declare action Z immoral and the state declare Z moral, the world overrides the state. The reason? By being part of the world, the state subscribes to the world law; if the state asserts a contradictory statement, then the state is being immoral.

I am saying that set P values are intrinsic and always will be intrinsic to all people at birth. These values aren't "overridden' necessarily, rather they are mutated and built upon through subjective experiences.

[extropalopakettle]

[BraveHat]

[extropalopakettle]

When it comes to making a law, or voting on the passage of a law in a referendum, is there any (objectively?) moral course of action?

[Chuck]

Morality is what we call our personal opinions when we want to inflict them on others.

[BraveHat]

So if I say that tossing children off of tall buildings is immoral, I'm just inflicting my personal opinion onto someone?
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax

[Chuck]

Yes, even though most people would agree with you.

[BraveHat]

But why would most people agree with me? Why isn't it an even distribution of 50% for 50% against or 40 for 40 against 20 undecided or some such? What turns the odds in favor of my opinion?
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax

[Chuck]

Why should we expect opinions on some moral question to be split 50-50? It doesn't seem to work that way with a great many other things. The world's population doesn't appear to be evenly divided on every yes or no opinion.

[BraveHat]

Sorry Chuck I added more examples of outcomes in the editing. The gist of my question is the final question. What makes the majority agree with my opinion?
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax

[Chuck]

Whatever makes people who they are. Genetics and environment come to mind. Different people have different genes that grow different brains that are then exposed to different information. Maybe there are other things that contribute. I can't think of any.

[BraveHat]

I will grant all that, but there's nothing in that general description of causes that suggests the majority of those people with different backgrounds, genes, etc., are likely to have the same opinion as me (against child-tossing).
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax

[Chuck]

We all have similar genes and grew up on the same planet.

[BraveHat]

What common trait about our genes makes us prone to not kill children? How does sharing the same planet factor into that opinion? I don't see the connection there.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax

[Zag]

I was just watching on Animal Planet that when a male lion takes over a pride (by defeating the former alpha male), the first thing he does is kill all the cubs. The evolutionary pressure to do this is obvious.

[Chuck]

Our brains received information while we grew up on earth so we received similar information.

I don't know how brains work. We observe that most people agree on some things and differ in opinion on others. People stop expressing opinions when their brains are destroyed or sufficiently damaged. I don't need to know how brains work to see this. I don't even need to know that brains are large contributor.

I can see and hear how people behave without the need of any explanation. I see and hear them expressing opinions. When they express the opinion that an action is immoral they usually claim that the action should not be performed and often suggest the use of force if necessary to stop it. I've come to associate opinions about morality with recommendation of forced compliance. Not always, of course, but enough that I've noticed.

[BraveHat]

So, there really isn't anything objectively wrong with recommending forced compliance, or indeed with actually forcing compliance. It would just be a personal opinion that there is something wrong with it.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax

[Chuck]

Right. There can't be anything that's objectively wrong since there's no objective standard, just like there's no objectively best tasting pizza topping.. All we have are our own likes and dislikes.

[BraveHat]

Well, then technically, you agree with the second of Dr. Craig's two contentions when debating atheists on morality, namely:

If God does not exist, there is no foundation for objective moral values and duties.

I say technically, because the antecedent doesn't really matter. The contention could be "If there is no Loch Ness Monster, there is no foundation for objective moral values and duties" or "If there's rain tomorrow, there is no foundation for objective moral values and duties." All you are doing is affirming the consequent, that there is no foundation for objective moral values and duties, regardless of what else is true. The existence of God only begins to matter when thinking about his first contention, which is:

If God exists, then a foundation for objective moral values and duties exists.

Now you say there is no foundation for objective moral values and duties, and that it all comes down to personal opinion. But hypothetically, if there did exist an Ultimate Being, from which we all came, and from who's nature our moral sense came, would that not be a foundation from which to set objective standards and derive objective moral values and duties?
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax

[extropalopakettle]

I think Craig uses too many implicit assumptions. Why can't there be a God who laughs at the human notion of a "moral value" as something silly and senseless? It certainly wouldn't be the God of any religion I know, but nonetheless, why not?

[Chuck]

It seems like a god would give us one more subjective opinion.

Can't anyone call anyone else's opinion a foundation for morality? How about this: If something seems wrong then I don't do it. Now I have a foundation too. Something could be objectively wrong in the morality using one foundation but not objectively wrong in the morality using another foundation. Then if you want to claim something is immoral you'd have to state which moral code you're using to avoid confusion.

[Chuck]

[extropalopakettle]

[BraveHat]

[BraveHat]

[Deception]

[Chuck]

[BraveHat]

[Deception]

Bravehat: Is it possible to believe that one should do morally wrong things as a principle?

[BraveHat]

I don't know, but that sounds kind of oxymoronic. Doesn't the word "should" imply " rightness" to begin with?
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax