If people were 100% rational, would the world be better?

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you define objectivity as what I value?

If not, it's fair to say that you're aware of why whatever some other guy values isn't objectivity, but descriptive subjectivity. This applies to all subjects, even to a god. In my experience, this is why believers like yourself make poor apologists and advocates. We can see that you don't believe in the strength of your own statements by their immediate rejection in coequal formulations.

In mere reality, you might find that your god is said to value things that humans value or see value in. He gets his values from us. Nowhere is this more readily apparent and right on the surface than n abrahamic religions. Three cultures which each cropped up to say that the last was wrong about a god, and that god just so happened to be alot like them - not the other guiys, and value things as they do, rather than the other guys.

-but good luck working any of that out if you stumble on what objectivity means, and what it doesn't.

---

You're free of course to create your own subjective meaning. You're forced to admit, however, that under an atheistic worldview, there can't be any objective value to life.

Why?  Why do you believe that this must be true of atheism or atheists?  The only value absent in an atheists worldview or in a world with no god, is god-value.

I don't value god-value, so it's no loss of value to me. Frankly, I think that your religion is value destroying - but lets try an experiement.

You're forced to admit, under a god-value worldview, that there can be no objective value to life. If life were of value to god it would be valuable, and if it weren't, it wouldn't be. Had you ever considered your own objection, or was it something you intuitively felt applied to atheists, when, in fact, accurately describes your own view?

[LadyForCamus]

We don’t exist for any reason; that is to say not in a colloquial sense. There are causes for our existence, ofc; a “how.” But not a reason, or a “why.” At least I’ve yet to see a demonstration for that proposition. Do I have reasons for continuing forward with the life that I already have in this moment in the span of time? Sure, but those reasons are contingent upon other lives. I have two young children, a husband, and living parents. But preventing the harm that my death would cause those people is not necessarily a comment on the value of life, or let’s say conscious life, in a larger sense as a property or biological fact of the world. Rationally speaking, why should our ability to be aware of our own eventual annihilation count as a sound reason to avoid or delay it?

Are those rational cases for life, then?  The question of why we exist and whether or not we have rational reasons to want to live or to keep living, are not the same question.

I think they’re rational cases for an obligation to live, but not necessarily cases for wanting to live, though I’m sure they are for some people. 

  If intrinsic meaning were the only reason a person had for living, and they believed they didn't have that meaning, and they weren;t mistaken in that belief as expressed, they sound like they might be under significant cognitive pressure.

I don’t disagree with that, but aren’t we all under a significant amount of cognitive pressure? How would that fact alter the soundness of any reasoning toward preferring death over life?

 I would onsider it imprudent to then say "well, kill yourself and/or die that's the only rational thing to do.... or even "well, sounds like killing yourself might be rational, wishing that you were dead might be rational.""  We tend to provide people with feelings of abject worthlessness with care, not acceptance of the claim which has them so disaffected.

Sure, and I’m certainly not implying that people should start recommending suicide to others. But if a person felt the way you described above, what would be irrational about them wanting or preferring to stop living? What if the set of non-intrinsic reasons is zero? Do we just say “if you can’t think of a convincing reason to want to live, there must be something wrong with you”? What’s the justification for that?

Well, so what? Why am I obligated to participate in experience in order to be perceived as rational? Choosing between life and death isn’t choosing between eternal experience and no experience, after all. I was thrust into an experiential existence without my consent, and I don’t even get to keep it. That, coupled with my awareness that every emotion, thought and pleasure I have is rooted in nothing more than a blind, biological drive to reproduce leads me to regard conscious experience with growing dispassion, or perhaps ‘clinical detachment’ is more accurate. I suppose I just find the whole business of finite conscious experience rather silly and trying. If the inevitable is to end up right back where I started; not existing; if there’s no meaningful distinction between being born, living, and dying, and having never been born at all; then maybe I simply don’t want to be bothered marching forward with the business of it. I’m not depressed (I don’t think) or miserable, or suffering. I just can’t think of many good philosophical reasons for actively living. Camus said we should “revolt” against and in spite of the absurd; that that was the most reasonable choice; and I used to agree with him. But now I’m not so sure.

Why is it a bad thing that you don't get to keep it - that you bolded this specifically as a negative qualifier? if it has no intrinsic meaning or value, or in fact no rational basis for your preference whatsoever?

Because if I got to keep it I would want it, you see? I prefer existence over non-existence, but those aren’t my choices, are they? My choices are “not exist” or “exist for a little while and then not exist.” They’re essentially the same.

You just wake up every day feeling that way?

As an aside, sorry to you guys for leading this discussion into a turn toward the personal. If I get annoying just tell me to shut up and quit whining. I won’t take offense. 😛

I'm not arguing your perception, it is what it is, just wondering what the bar for rational reasons is supposed to be if none of the things you mentioned or can even think of would qualify.  If someone handed me chocolate covered crickets and I didn't want them - and then they said I couldn't keep them - I'd say thanks, take em back asap.

 
For me, it’s more like someone handing me something precious and saying, “you can either have it for a couple of minutes but you have to give it right back, or you could just not take it at all and avoid the dread and the heartache.”

[Foxaèr]

The irony in thinking belief in a god provides security or value when the concept is a mere extension of self-delusion.

[LadyForCamus]

How many times have we come across on the forum, this question: “If our lives have no intrinsic meaning, what is the point of living at all?” Answers tend to be along the lines of: “The meaning of experience is experience for its own sake. You get to laugh, and cry, and feel love when you caress your newborn, and eat ice cream, and contribute something meaningful to society, etc. So why not live? What a silly question!” 

I agree with you, Camus, that the "one-liner" answers to this question are dissatisfying. I think you have a solid critique of the "duh.. life is valuable" position. The topic is WAY deeper than that.

Here is my argument for why I think it's reasonable to value life:

We are rational, conscious, and perceptive beings. We know how to assign value to things. We can look at a hammer and see how valuable it's handle is. We can study a great monument, or large suspension bridge, or a great work of art and recognize the value in these things.

Sure, someone can look at the Golden Gate Bridge and say, "Whatever. I'm not impressed. I see no value in it." That's their prerogative. But we can easily argue against this person's thesis, and make counter arguments saying it is a magnificent structure. It could easily be argued that the person is overlooking many incredible things about the bridge.

It's no different with life. We can evaluate life (as rational, perceptive beings) and see that it has value. Usually. There are scenarios where life doesn't have value, but as a rule, there is much to appreciate about life. You need a big UNLESS to counter the argument that life has value. (UNLESS it is endless suffering, etc.)

Not only that, life CREATES value. Life esteems things. As Nietzsche wrote: "Esteeming itself is of all esteemed things the most estimable treasure. Through esteeming first is there value: and without esteeming, the nut of existence would be hollow."


***

@The Grand Nudger

Thought you might like to know, this got reposted. It's certainly something worth listening to twice. And it (interestingly) relates to to the topic you and Camus are discussing.

I know I’m kind of going off the deep end here, and I apologize in advance if I’m starting to exasperate anyone. That’s not my intent. When we talk about objects like the Golden Gate Bridge, we’re talking about the value of a thing (whether it’s functional, aesthetic, practical value, etc), in the world for us, or to us, as the experiencers. But what is the value of a live conscious experience itself, if it’s finite and we know that? What can we point to beyond whatever evolutionary advantages consciousness may imbue us with as an instinctual means for species survival?

[LadyForCamus]

Well, so what? Why am I obligated to participate in experience in order to be perceived as rational? Choosing between life and death isn’t choosing between eternal experience and no experience, after all. I was thrust into an experiential existence without my consent, and I don’t even get to keep it. That, coupled with my awareness that every emotion, thought and pleasure I have is rooted in nothing more than a blind, biological drive to reproduce leads me to regard conscious experience with growing dispassion, or perhaps ‘clinical detachment’ is more accurate. I suppose I just find the whole business of finite conscious experience rather silly and trying. If the inevitable is to end up right back where I started; not existing; if there’s no meaningful distinction between being born, living, and dying, and having never been born at all; then maybe I simply don’t want to be bothered marching forward with the business of it. I’m not depressed (I don’t think) or miserable, or suffering. I just can’t think of many good philosophical reasons for actively living. Camus said we should “revolt” against and in spite of the absurd; that that was the most reasonable choice; and I used to agree with him. But now I’m not so sure.

All this is a direct consequence of atheism. That's what an atheistic worldview provides us with: nothing, nihilism. Absent a God, there obviously cannot be an objective reason to live for or something worthwhile to pursue. Being aware of finite existence and disbelieving in God at the same time is not a tenable position for any human being.

It appears to be a perfectly tenable position for a great many people, just not all
of us.

I don't think even atheists hold this postion rigorously, some will try and defend some rudimentary form of afterlife that doesn't require God.

How ambitious that you think you understand the private thoughts and beliefs of every atheist better than they do.

[Fireball]

Are those rational cases for life, then?  The question of why we exist and whether or not we have rational reasons to want to live or to keep living, are not the same question.

I think they’re rational cases for an obligation to live, but not necessarily cases for wanting to live, though I’m sure they are for some people. 

  If intrinsic meaning were the only reason a person had for living, and they believed they didn't have that meaning, and they weren;t mistaken in that belief as expressed, they sound like they might be under significant cognitive pressure.

I don’t disagree with that, but aren’t we all under a significant amount of cognitive pressure? How would that fact alter the soundness of any reasoning toward preferring death over life?

 I would onsider it imprudent to then say "well, kill yourself and/or die that's the only rational thing to do.... or even "well, sounds like killing yourself might be rational, wishing that you were dead might be rational.""  We tend to provide people with feelings of abject worthlessness with care, not acceptance of the claim which has them so disaffected.

Sure, and I’m certainly not implying that people should start recommending suicide to others. But if a person felt the way you described above, what would be irrational about them wanting or preferring to stop living? What if the set of non-intrinsic reasons is zero? Do we just say “if you can’t think of a convincing reason to want to live, there must be something wrong with you”? What’s the justification for that?

Well, so what? Why am I obligated to participate in experience in order to be perceived as rational? Choosing between life and death isn’t choosing between eternal experience and no experience, after all. I was thrust into an experiential existence without my consent, and I don’t even get to keep it. That, coupled with my awareness that every emotion, thought and pleasure I have is rooted in nothing more than a blind, biological drive to reproduce leads me to regard conscious experience with growing dispassion, or perhaps ‘clinical detachment’ is more accurate. I suppose I just find the whole business of finite conscious experience rather silly and trying. If the inevitable is to end up right back where I started; not existing; if there’s no meaningful distinction between being born, living, and dying, and having never been born at all; then maybe I simply don’t want to be bothered marching forward with the business of it. I’m not depressed (I don’t think) or miserable, or suffering. I just can’t think of many good philosophical reasons for actively living. Camus said we should “revolt” against and in spite of the absurd; that that was the most reasonable choice; and I used to agree with him. But now I’m not so sure.

Why is it a bad thing that you don't get to keep it - that you bolded this specifically as a negative qualifier? if it has no intrinsic meaning or value, or in fact no rational basis for your preference whatsoever?

Because if I got to keep it I would want it, you see? I prefer existence over non-existence, but those aren’t my choices, are they? My choices are “not exist” or “exist for a little while and then not exist.” They’re essentially the same.

You just wake up every day feeling that way?

As an aside, sorry to you guys for leading this discussion into a turn toward the personal. If I get annoying just tell me to shut up and quit whining. I won’t take offense. 😛

I'm not arguing your perception, it is what it is, just wondering what the bar for rational reasons is supposed to be if none of the things you mentioned or can even think of would qualify.  If someone handed me chocolate covered crickets and I didn't want them - and then they said I couldn't keep them - I'd say thanks, take em back asap.

 
For me, it’s more like someone handing me something precious and saying, “you can either have it for a couple of minutes but you have to give it right back, or you could just not take it at all and avoid the dread and the heartache.”

I for one am enjoying this discussion. It's refreshing to see a discussion that simply addresses positions without rancor. I don't see that you are whining. Keep up the discussion! At some point I may have learned enough to make an intelligent comment. I've spent so many years in deeply technical mechanical and electromagnetic topics as an engineer that I never took the time for this sort of discussion.

[The Grand Nudger]

@LadyForCamus

I know I’m kind of going off the deep end here, and I apologize in advance if I’m starting to exasperate anyone. That’s not my intent. When we talk about objects like the Golden Gate Bridge, we’re talking about the value of a thing (whether it’s functional, aesthetic, practical value, etc), in the world for us, or to us, as the experiencers. But what is the value of a live conscious experience itself, if it’s finite and we know that? What can we point to beyond whatever evolutionary advantages consciousness may imbue us with as an instinctual means for species survival?

Is conscious experience not also a thing of value?  I suspect the answers to that question will be as varied as conscious viewers are.  Perhaps that's why we tend to presume that people who fail to see any of that value, anywhere, aren't playing with a full deck..or, to be generous, having their best or most reasonable day.

Another fun thought to play with down the rabbit hole. If value is fundamentally subjective, than conscious experience is literally the value maker. All value proceeds from it, and without it nothing is of value.

I think they’re rational cases for an obligation to live, but not necessarily cases for wanting to live, though I’m sure they are for some people.

Would it be fair to say, then, that you see many rational reasons for life, or for a selective preference for life, or for why equilibrium seeking produces the compulsion?  Other than all of those reasons, or any of those rational cases, you cant see a reason or rational case for life?

This seems incongruent to me, for pretty much the same reasons as the god-value contention.  

Kloro thinks there's no reason/value/purpose to life because it isn't god value.  You have a value category that you're inquiring about too..but it's not the set of rational cases for life.  You're aware of some and can imagine that there are more, but those cases don't satisfy that set you have in mind.

The honest position, at the end of a chain of disagreement or objection from that route, may simply be that the value being questioned about or asked for doesn't exist, even if intrinsic purpose or rational value does. Do you think that it would be rational to seek death if you found out that your god, and thus your god-value..were non existent? Ditto with a secular value other-than-value.

---

and another tidbit for rabbit hole times.

Because if I got to keep it I would want it, you see? I prefer existence over non-existence, but those aren’t my choices, are they?

This statement strongly suggests that you do want it, and don't want it to end. Now, here's where religious nutters aren't being irrational at all, imo. Seeking the continuation of their existence is a rational behavior to be expected of a creature who, for all it's protestations to the contrary, very much does want to live and is in no hurry to leave, as evidenced by their every waking or sleeping moment, with the exception of just one day..when, for whatever reason..they fail to keep doing it (or take action against it, against themselves).

A religious nut thinks that they do have that choice, or that there's a chance they do, and they do what's contended to be necessary to get at it. You might also notice that no one is a janitor or a burger flipper in heaven. All kings and queens on golden thrones.

[Neo-Scholastic]

All this is a direct consequence of atheism. That's what an atheistic worldview provides us with: nothing, nihilism. Absent a God, there obviously cannot be an objective reason to live for or something worthwhile to pursue. Being aware of finite existence and disbelieving in God at the same time is not a tenable position for any human being.

It appears to be a perfectly tenable position for a great many people, just not all
of us.

I don't think even atheists hold this postion rigorously, some will try and defend some rudimentary form of afterlife that doesn't require God.

How ambitious that you think you understand the private thoughts and beliefs of every atheist better than they do.

Broken clocks and blind squirrels aside, Special K raises a long-standing and well documented aspect of modern athiesm: its attempt to avoid the seeming inescapable conclusion that life is meaningless. The most notable example I can think of is Nietzsche who attempted to redeem his nihilism with the jui-jitzo move of by embracing nihilism. You can see the same instinctive recoil from nihilism in Schopenhauer too but I havent read him in a long time.

It is not uncommon for some adamant atheist to assert that belief in god is delusional and personally I find that assertion both untrue and uncharitable. At the same time, I realize that my position, that atheism is ultimately nihilistic, to be offensive to atheists who maintain that they can still have a world filled with meaning and value sans god, so I leave open the possiblity that meaning and value are still possible in a godless world even though no thinker seems to have figured it out yet.

[The Grand Nudger]

Still seems to me that theism has the life-as-worthless issue. Positing their gods as a valuemaker - not life (or anything else, in fact). Perhaps that's why deconverts struggle with it? Perhaps that's why a culture steeped in judeochristian value claims perceives things as-such?

You're here telling us that no one has worked out any secular value to it, for example, as you notice. There are people who see no great mystery to the value of life, on account of life being meaningful all around them. A basic fact of their apprehension. You, also, are likely seeking a category of meaning that excludes meaning - as there's no shortage of literature, art, artifacts or living opinions on the meaningfulness of life outside of any divine context and it's impossible to believe that you've never seen any of it or aren't aware of it's existence, but...for whatever reason, you still insist that all of this must be empty, or not whatever your preferred meaning set is. That no thinker, has figured it out.

Perhaps you're projecting, as Kloro does when he imagines what he would think if he were an atheist which ironically turns out to be what he already thinks as a believer. That life has no value if there is no divine valuemaker...because the only acceptable valuemaker is divine.

Meanwhile, I'm over here wondering why either of you, whether you see value in life or not, would think that gods could be valuemakers. Why either of you believe not just that theres no other route to whatever meaning category you're seeking - that a god is capable of it. Perhaps explaining that might be required before you can launch into an objection to others value perceptions?

What value question about any thing can be validly answered by the exclusive utterance of the phrase "because a god exists".....? I don't know what kind of values those are, and I would have to have some idea of that before I could honestly tell a person whether that valuemaker exists in my own value perceptions.

[Neo-Scholastic]

@vulcanlogic said something that intrugued me. Talking about @Belaqua. It was suggested that atheism and mysticism were two-sides of the same coin rather than opposite sides of a spectrum. Perhaps.

I am not dismissing the worlds of meaning we've created, just that any modern atheistism that is both reductive and physicalist has a very big problem reaching those world of meaning. That is not a defeater. I cannot prove warrant for meaning is impossible within an atheistic framework but all the proposals I see do not work.