Is There a Point To Living a Moral Life?

[Whateverist]

I regret having brought up Stalin and Mao. Why do you guys jump on the low hanging fruit rather than address the more substantive part of the post?

Easier to reach?

---

Whatever they believed in or followed to it wasn't God they just had their own agenda. If you look through history evil doesn't tend to flourish, at least not in the long term it has a tendency to self destruct.

So you're saying that happens naturally with no intervention from a genie? You may be spending too much time on atheist sites. Who is going to bring us to god if you lose your way?

[Esquilax]

I regret having brought up Stalin and Mao. Why do you guys jump on the low hanging fruit rather than address the more substantive part of the post?

To differentiate like this implies that there was some fruit higher up, and I'm afraid your tree barely has leaves.

[genkaus]

In order for something to have meaning it must refer to something else. It must call to mind something else. So for example, the beads of an abacus or lights on a scoreboard have no meaning until interpreted as a reference to quantities by a knowing subject. Likewise, a depictive painting is nothing more than smears of oil and dirt on a flat surface until the arrangement of colors calls to mind an image of something other than the painting itself.

In what sense are you using the term "meaning" here? Is it in a definitional sense, i.e., a word has meaning if it refers to another concept? Or is it in the sense of "importance" or "significance"? Going by your argument, it seems to be the first. But when we talk about meaningful experiences or concepts or life, we are using the word in the second sense.

To me “knowing” applies to more than processes like complex data processing or reacting to sensible patterns. Such functions, as functions, can be adequately understood in terms of physical processes. Knowledge includes seeing things beyond what is immediately apparent, i.e. understanding what they signify. In the context of this discussion, the assignment of meaning happens when a particular instance represents a fuller, broader, and more general principle. In physical terms an architect can look at a crack and see it as a particular manifestation of thermal expansion and contraction. Not all references are physical. To what broader quantifiable physical process or state does the word “liberty” point?

Aren't you missing the fact that "seeing beyond what is immediately apparent" is a form of complex data processing. The view of "knowing" that you've given does fall squarely within the parameters you profess to transcend.

Some will say that these are just abstractions derived from experience of physical reality and have no reality apart from the mind. That is partly true. Everything we know, does indeed, ultimately come from our experience with sensible objects. That does not automatically entail that transcendent principles, like liberty, are not real. A physicalist generally has no problem with calling a particular action, like a falling apple, representative of something more universal and equally real, like gravity. What prevents you from gaining knowledge of transcendent principles within physical processes and things by means of observation? When people move freely across borders, this is a sign of their liberty. On what basis do you say that gravity is real, but liberty is not? True, gravity can be quantified in a way that liberty cannot. At the same time, I think it is a mistake to not include qualitative features in your assessment of what is and is not real.

So, you are back to idealism then?

Something being universal and equally real does not make it transcendental. Here, you begin by assuming the existence of transcendental principles and then look for instances to fit - whereas the principle of gravity is an abstraction from the known instances. We say gravity is real and we say liberty is real - however, neither of them is transcendental.

Which leads me to why I think atheism is ultimately nihilist. When you say your life has meaning, you are assigning qualitative significance to what you consider a physical process. However that kind of qualitative assignment is precluded by the physical monism and ontological naturalism.

Actually, none of your arguments here show that qualitative assignment is precluded by physical monism or ontological naturalism. That's not because your arguments are invalid - they are simply irrelevant to this assertion.

[Norfolk And Chance]

there was sect of Christians that did cut their dicks off. Cant remember what they were called which is maddening.

If they cut their dicks off does that make them cunts?

[Neo-Scholastic]

In what sense are you using the term "meaning" here? Is it in a definitional sense, i.e., a word has meaning if it refers to another concept? Or is it in the sense of "importance" or "significance"?

You must have the first before you can have the second.

Aren't you missing the fact that "seeing beyond what is immediately apparent" is a form of complex data processing.

You have confused data processing with the assignment of meaning. The first is the manipulation of symbols. The second is interpreting the significance of those symbols. A machine process can start with one set of symbols and follow rules to produce a second. It can do so without any understanding of what the symbols mean. Understanding the significance of the symbols is another thing altogether. The thought problem that illustrates your mistake is Searle’s “Chinese Room”.

[genkaus]

You must have the first before you can have the second.

Not necessarily. Herein lies the idea of inherent significance you Christians love so much.

You have confused data processing with the assignment of meaning. The first is the manipulation of symbols. The second is interpreting the significance of those symbols. A machine process can start with one set of symbols and follow rules to produce a second. It can do so without any understanding of what the symbols mean. Understanding the significance of the symbols is another thing altogether. The thought problem that illustrates your mistake is Searle’s “Chinese Room”.

We've been through that room before - and the conclusion there was that the room proves nothing. What you call "interpreting the significance of those symbols" is simply another form of manipulation and data-processing and there is no reason why a machine would not be capable of this.

[Mister Agenda]

Technically, you can disbelieve in god/gods without considering yourself a nihilist. In practice most atheists have, either explicitly or tacitly, philosophies of physical monism and ontological naturalism. Here I am thinking of meaning in semiotic terms and not as a synonym for purpose.
In order for something to have meaning it must refer to something else. It must call to mind something else. So for example, the beads of an abacus or lights on a scoreboard have no meaning until interpreted as a reference to quantities by a knowing subject. Likewise, a depictive painting is nothing more than smears of oil and dirt on a flat surface until the arrangement of colors calls to mind an image of something other than the painting itself.

The foregoing atheistic philosophies assert that human experience reduces to a physical reaction. And physical things and processes have no meaning except those assigned to them by a knowing subject. This raises two questions. First, does the materialistic understanding of human nature satisfy the requirements of a ‘knowing subject’?

Humans satisfy the requirements of a 'knowing subject'.

Second, given a knowing subject, to what can the physical process of an individual’s live refer other than itself?

Everything that exists or can be imagined.

I will leave aside the firs question and focus on the second.

That's probably wise.

To me “knowing” applies to more than processes like complex data processing or reacting to sensible patterns. Such functions, as functions, can be adequately understood in terms of physical processes. Knowledge includes seeing things beyond what is immediately apparent, i.e. understanding what they signify. In the context of this discussion, the assignment of meaning happens when a particular instance represents a fuller, broader, and more general principle. In physical terms an architect can look at a crack and see it as a particular manifestation of thermal expansion and contraction. Not all references are physical. To what broader quantifiable physical process or state does the word “liberty” point? Some will say that these are just abstractions derived from experience of physical reality and have no reality apart from the mind. That is partly true.

When you can prove it's only partly true, you'll have won the argument.

Everything we know, does indeed, ultimately come from our experience with sensible objects. That does not automatically entail that transcendent principles, like liberty, are not real. A physicalist generally has no problem with calling a particular action, like a falling apple, representative of something more universal and equally real, like gravity. What prevents you from gaining knowledge of transcendent principles within physical processes and things by means of observation? When people move freely across borders, this is a sign of their liberty. On what basis do you say that gravity is real, but liberty is not? True, gravity can be quantified in a way that liberty cannot. At the same time, I think it is a mistake to not include qualitative features in your assessment of what is and is not real.

Do you have a particular person who claims not to believe in liberty, justice, or the like in mind? I already believed in liberty, but if it makes you feel better, I think if I hadn't, you'd have convinced me.

Which leads me to why I think atheism is ultimately nihilist. When you say your life has meaning, you are assigning qualitative significance to what you consider a physical process. However that kind of qualitative assignment is precluded by the physical monism and ontological naturalism.

It's you that say it is precluded. I don't believe you.

---

Hitler was NOT an atheist.

Just Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot.

Pol Pot never announced or wrote that he was an atheist. He was a Theravada Buddhist who studied at a Buddhist monastery and then at a Catholic school for 8 years. He tried to erase individuality as he thought differences were the source of conflicts. Cambodia was and is a very religious country, and Pol Pot's communism was influenced by Buddhist teachings of renunciation of the physical world. Even the quote by Prince Norodom Sihanouk that says Pol Pot did not believe in God, the only source for this myth, says that Pol Pot thinks heaven wants him to guide Cambodia in the same breath. Perhaps Sihanouk shouldn't be relied upon as a source of information about someone's atheism.

On the other hand, if you want to claim Theravadan Buddhists are atheists, I won't argue, I'll just add 150 million more people to the atheist ranks.

Mao seemed conflicted over whether to be a theist or atheist. His background was Buddhist, he seemed interested in Tibetan Buddhism and influenced by Taoism. It's clear he thought that as a good communist he should be an atheist, yet:

The following quotes are from: “Behind the bamboo curtain: China, Vietnam, and the world beyond Asia” By Priscilla Mary Roberts. Mao Zedong and Pham Van Dong, Beijing, November 17, 1968

Pham Van Dong: "How are you, Chairman Mao?"

Mao Zedong: "Not very well. I have had a cough for some days. It is time to go to Heaven. It seems that I am summoned to meet the Good God. How is President Ho?"

Mao included references to gods and God in his Little Red Book.

So out of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot, the only solid atheist is Stalin. All but Mao went to Catholic school if you want to make something of that.

---

I regret having brought up Stalin and Mao. Why do you guys jump on the low hanging fruit rather than address the more substantive part of the post?

Ah, but do you regret it enough not to do it again?

[FallentoReason]

In order for something to have meaning it must refer to something else. It must call to mind something else. So for example, the beads of an abacus or lights on a scoreboard have no meaning until interpreted as a reference to quantities by a knowing subject. Likewise, a depictive painting is nothing more than smears of oil and dirt on a flat surface until the arrangement of colors calls to mind an image of something other than the painting itself.

The foregoing atheistic philosophies assert that human experience reduces to a physical reaction. And physical things and processes have no meaning except those assigned to them by a knowing subject. This raises two questions. First, does the materialistic understanding of human nature satisfy the requirements of a ‘knowing subject’?

This is why I'm not a naturalist. Just sayin'

[Faith No More]

This is why I'm not a naturalist. Just sayin'

Why? I don't see the problem.

[FallentoReason]

This is why I'm not a naturalist. Just sayin'

Why? I don't see the problem.

How can atoms be *about* something? More to the point; how can brain states - a thing reducible to physical processes - be *about* something?

Consciousness is a prerequisite for meaning to "appear" out of physical things. Isn't it our conscience that assings meaning to those atoms? To a brain scan indicating the person is feeling joy?