Moral Nihilism

[Tiberius]

EvF is quite possibly the only person who could win an argument just by typing so much the other person loses interest in the entire topic. I'll try and respond to your points at a later date, but I have to study for exams! Damn you and your keyboard!

[Edwardo Piet]

Ok lol

EvF

[Charles]

Adrian wrote:

Just to make sure you understand this point, I (me, moi, atheist, etc) would not think murdering atheists would be a moral act (relative morality remember), but the majority of people who were doing the murdering would (again, relative morality). As for competing moral claims, I disagree. There are only a finite number of things that can ever be considered "wrong" by sane people, and most of them have gone through the process of majority-morality-shifting (MMS). In modern civilizations, things like murder, rape, theft, etc are all considered immoral acts, and by now we are only scrambling over the details (death penalty, abortion, etc).

And those issues which we consider immoral (murder, rape, theft, etc.) were considered acceptable in past civilizations and may again in future civilizations. Don’t let the tyranny of the Now and our own cultural hubris blind you to the possibility that a majority in a future dystopia may judge murder acceptable again, against which you have no argument to obligate them to change their ways since you can appeal to no trans-cultural moral standard. Moral for them, not moral for you. Result? Stalemate.

People cannot declare absolute morality, of that I agree with you, but people can easily declare relative morality ("I find that immoral").

Then you accede to my original statement that “Without culturally-transcendent moral laws, the atheist has no ground to condemn the butchery of a Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot.”

As for your statement 'if people in culture X find something acceptable, it is moral' this isn't what I'm arguing (honestly, do you read my posts). I'm arguing that for the majority, this is moral (relative morality!!!). You can see this happening in any country in the world. The majority often dictates the morality of the state, and in the occasions when it doesn't, it is always the majority ruling opinion (for instance governments creating laws) that states what is moral. Abortion in America is a split topic at the moment (always has been) but the government has ruled that banning it is non-constitutional, and thereby saying it is a moral act.

Yes, I read your posts thoroughly. I understand what you’re saying: if the majority of people in culture X find something acceptable then it is (relatively) moral for them. My rebuttal is that this gives license to actions like the Final Solution or Pol Pot’s killing fields, and you cannot obligate that cultural majority to change its ways since you can appeal to no trans-cultural moral standard. Moral for them, not moral for you. Result? Stalemate.

If you say "by anyone's standard" then you immediately give rise to the possibility that someone out there might object, hence my point. I'm sure some of the soldiers in Iraq felt it was morally right to kill some of the innocent people there (they had to bomb Baghdad to start the war) but what about the relatives of those who were killed? You can argue from both sides of the issue, and certainly many people thought Saddam was an innocent and glorious leader, so were we right to kill him? Right and wrong is not so easily dictated as you seem to think; it all depends on the context, and on the people doing the judging.

Only if you are a cultural relativist. For a moral realist like myself, there are trans-cultural moral standards by which we or the Iraqis or anyone else can render judgment.

Oh the counterexamples that leap to mind: the Copernican Revolution (16th century...hardly "current"),

True, but the idea was current for those defending Ptolemy. We’re not any smarter in general than our forefathers were. This is just an example of when the leading scientific lights at the time got it wrong.

Einsteinian relativism (Unless I'm missing something here, how is that wrong on a large scale???),

It was the transition from Newtonian physics, which is just another example of when the leading scientific lights at the time got it wrong.

the Chemical Revolution (The chemical revolution was the turning point from "earth, air, fire, water" to discovering elements...how is that wrong on a large scale?),

The former view of the four basic elements was wrong, which is just another example of when the leading scientific lights at the time got it wrong.

spontaneous generation (Spontaneous generation (otherwise known as abiogenesis) is a current scientific theory based on evidence, not disproven by any means. Experiments are currently being done to figure out how exactly life first emerged, but just because we haven't got all the answers doesn't make it "wrong")

The former abiogenic theory as disproved by Pasteur was yet another example of when the leading scientific lights at the time got it wrong.

The point being in this little history lesson is that the most advanced scientific understanding of the world at the time is always open to revision if not a wholesale paradigm shift, so we should maintain a portion of skepticism (an atheist buzzword if I'm not mistaken) when appealing to the authority of current scientific knowledge. Who knows what scientists a hundred years in the future will mock about our current scientific understanding?

No, the statement "If we all decided murder was ok..." was used to support the main argument of relative morality, MMS, etc. It was used as an example of how I (as an atheist) can explain morality and therefore do not count as a nihilist. It's an indirect connection, not a direct one.

And the argument of relative morality is in turn a supporting argument of yours of why atheism does not entail nihilism. You, an atheist, are assuming the purposefulness of the universe when arguing for your moral code, and any supporting argument (such as this one) which assumes the validity of the argument its supporting is question-begging. You’re using a non-nihilist supporting argument to support a non-nihilist argument, which gets you nowhere.

You are quite correct that a nihilist would never use that argument, and your admission to this fact only supports my counterclaim that atheists are not nihilists. How else can you explain me having a non-nihilistic worldview?

As I previously stated, your inconsistency.

Yet when presented with the arguments that atheism is not nihilism, and when we say things that a nihilist cannot possibly say, instead of admitting that you are incorrect with your argument, you say "Well, if you were true to your atheism you would be a nihilist". That isn't an argument, and it reeks of presupposition.

For some reason you apparently want me to present my arguments in detail (if not strictly formally) while you don’t find yourself under the same obligation. I can accommodate. Here then is the argument:

1. Atheism entails nihilism (the conclusion of the previous argument).
2. A consistent atheist would admit that his atheism entails nihilism.
3. Therefore an atheist who does not admit that atheism entails nihilism is inconsistent.

Let’s move on.

Go ahead and call foul on it then. What exactly is illogical about my argument?

It’s a petitio principii. Moving along.

Human beings are part of nature, yes, but Dawkins was talking about nature in the casual sense (natural disasters, etc). A hurricane cannot be said to be "evil" because we know it is a natural force and isn't human. It doesn't have a sense of morality, we do. The same can be said of the above quote. When speaking about the universe, he means just that, the universe. Not the parts of the universe, just the universe as a single entity. The universe itself does not have evil or good in it, only what we perceive as evil and good, and ultimately what we judge as right and wrong.

Me thinks thou dost equivocate. The universe is the sum total of reality (in your view), which of necessity includes humans and their sense/perception of morality. If the universe has “no design, no purpose, no evil and no good”, that includes you. You, as a member of the class of the universe have “no design, no purpose, no evil and no good.” You are free of course to pretend you have “subjective” design, purpose, or morality, but wishing doesn’t make it so.

It isn't a moral truth though, it is the requirement for morality to work. A moral truth requires morality in the first place; this is completely the reverse of what I just said. In order for morality to even exist there must be a system in place that favours certain actions over others. We are social creatures, and we need to help each other to survive, therefore this desire to help has become the catalyst for morality.

I said: “But the statement “One ought to do that which is good and refrain from doing that which is evil” is true regardless of the culture. Sure, some cultures will define the good and the evil differently from you or me, but the statement itself is true, is it not? That is to say, it is a transcendent moral standard which is culturally neutral.”

You replied: “Indeed, I agree with you.”

So the statement “One ought to do that which is good and refrain from doing that which is evil” is a transcendent moral standard which is culturally neutral, or is it not?

No, because if you took a load of people who liked torturing babies for pleasure and dumped them on an island, the morality on that island would dictate that torturing babies would be ok. Hypothetical scenario I know, but it's perfectly true.

This is my point. In that hypothetical scenario torturing babies for pleasure would be acceptable by their own culturally-dependent moral standard. You have a different culturally-dependent moral standard.

Impasse.

The National Socialists’ culturally-dependent moral standard sanctioned gassing Jews. Your culturally-dependent moral standard prohibits gassing Jews.

Impasse.

Neither culturally-dependent moral standard outranks the other.

Impasse.

Since there is no trans-cultural moral standard which obligates all cultures, you are forced to admit that the Final Solution was perfectly moral for the National Socialists to carry out.

Feel free to point that out to the members of your local synagogue next Saturday. I’m sure they’ll understand your qualifier “well I don’t think the Endlösung was a good idea, but it was okay for the Nazis.”

But I'm arguing that there is no difference between opinion and moral standards.

But of course, you’re not a moral realist.

We each have our own moral standards, and you can predict with almost certainty that you will never find a person with the exact same standards as you. Since it would be a contradiction to label these as facts (facts cannot have multiple truth values), they must be opinions.

Only if you presuppose there are no trans-cultural moral standards. If there are, then they are the facts and anything contradictory would be not only merely opinion, but false.

When you tell John that cheating is wrong, you are stating your opinion on a specific moral, and appealing to his opinion on that specific moral. The only thing that changes opinions is an argument, so if his opinion differs from yours, he will most likely say "I disagree".

And for a cultural relativist like yourself, that ends the discussion.

Impasse.

For a moral realist like myself, I can appeal to a moral standard that supersedes his opinion.

Indeed the Maoist could reply like that, and this is where the argument starts and opinions may change. You say you are a moral realist, but there are people out there who have a different set of morals to you, so how do you explain this?

Sin. The refusal of people to obey the commandments of their Creator.

If I told you I fully support abortion under any circumstance (which is pretty much accurate) then how would you persuade me otherwise.

If you were a moral realist, then I would appeal to a trans-cultural moral standard which obligates your obedience. Since you are not, I cannot persuade you, since your “morality” is no better or worse than mine.

Impasse.

What you seem to be saying is that by telling me "But Adrian, you know abortion is wrong" you think that I will suddenly realize the "truth" of absolute morality, but it isn't a good argument at all.

You’re right, which is why I would never mount such an “argument.”

I disagree that abortion is wrong, or that I "know" it is wrong. The only way you are going to change my opinion on it, and thereby change my moral opinion on it is by presenting a good argument for your moral opinion.

Given your commitment to individual autonomy/cultural relativism, I cannot persuade you. Since morality is mere opinion, I might as well try to convince you that vanilla ice cream is tastier than chocolate ice cream.

Indeed. I never said it was a pretty process, and who knows, maybe if Hitler had won the war and conquered the world everyone would be happier and things would be going much better than they are today.

Sure, as long as you’re an Aryan . . .

This is where I agree with Dawkins when he argues that we cannot set moral absolutes on people (his famous misrepresented Hilter quote). We are thankful that the Allies won the war, because they enforced our morality, which we consider good. However, if Hitler had won, perhaps we would be thinking how great Hitler was, because he enforced our morality, which we consider good (MMS remember). The key unanswerable question is, would we have the same morality today as we do, if Hitler had won the war instead of lost?

Here’s the answer: I would have the same morality since it is trans-cultural and thus not subject to MMS; you might have a different morality since you can appeal to no trans-cultural standards and thus are subject to MMS.

The thought that my moral standards could conceivably include gassing innocent men, women, and children turns my stomach. Apparently you’re cool with that possibility.

Condemnation doesn't imply we need to do something about it, but often we do anyway. Our moral majority doesn't trump the Nazi moral majority, but it harshly contradicts it, and our condemnation of it lead us to act on it. We like seeing our morality spread around, it makes us feel better about the world. Morality doesn't trump morality, but majority often trumps majority.

Again, feel free to share that with a Jewish holocaust survivor. I’m sure he’ll appreciate your nuance.

I don't pretend the universe gives a shit, I know the universe doesn't give a shit about me. However subjective purpose isn't excluded by this, because subjective purpose doesn't require the universe to give a shit it requires an individual to give a shit.

Let me see if I follow your argument:

1. The universe is a purposeless entity which encompasses all of reality.
2. You are part of the universe.
3. Therefore you have no purpose.
4. You believe you have subjective purpose.
5. Your belief in subjective purpose is itself part of the purposeless universe.
6. Therefore your belief in subjective purpose has no purpose.
7. But your subjective purpose is somehow excluded from the universe because you give a shit.
8. Therefore you have subjective purpose.

Got Logic?

If you admit there isn't an exclusively causal relationship, then you have lost the point. Please don't bring it up again. I wouldn't say atheism was made mainstream by evolution. Evolution certainly helped atheists to explain life without God, but if any atheist says "Evolution shows there is no god" then I give them a slap, because such an argument is full of holes. Atheism should be (and is in most cases) reached by logical deduction.

My point, as I said, is “Its (the relationship between evolution and atheism) not an exclusively causal relationship, but there’s a relationship nonetheless.” I “admit” my point, yes. I don’t see how I thereby “lost the point” I was making.

Now you are simply arguing with semantics.

Of course I am! See the above syllogism.

You confuse objective purpose and subjective purpose.

There is no distinction since both are constituents of a purposeless universe and are thereby themselves purposeless.

Forget the rock since you seem to not "get" that example.

I do not “get” irrational reasoning, true. Apparently that’s necessary to be an atheist. Guess I’ll need to cancel my subscription to American Atheist Magazine.

Lets imagine a river. Now we know the river doesn't have an objective purpose other than to transport water downhill (via laws of gravity).

A river doesn’t have objective purpose, it simply exists.

However humans can place a subjective purpose on the river (giving them drinking water, swimming, etc). This is the difference between objective and subjective...

And both are still purposeless since they are constituents of a purposeless universe. Multiplying analogies doesn’t advance your case.

See way above where I showed the difference between taking a universe as a single entity and then the sum of it's parts. The universe is objectively purposeless, but is not subjectively purposeless. We are objectively purposeless, but not subjectively purposeless.

It doesn’t matter how you “take” the universe (indeed the universe conceived as a "single entity" is precisely "the sum of it's parts"); its still purposeless. Inventing ideas like “subjective purpose” and then exempting them from the universe is 1) special pleading, and 2) a failure to comprehend what is meant by “universe.”

Evolution itself has purposeless forces, but the purpose of Evolution is quite clear: to adapt species to their habitat. Again, these are the differences between objective and subjective purposes, but since you don't seem to understand the difference I recommend you read a dictionary.

Evolution does not have a purpose, its merely a description of how evolutionists think life changed over time. The theory of evolution is itself part of the universe, ipso facto it too has no purpose.

Not an argument. Why should I believe it?

Because you said “Can't believe people think the god who endorsed slavery is the god who creates our moral law.” But it is a fact that people do think that, so not believing that fact is irrational.

Fine, then I expect you to drop your obviously fallacious argument which relies on you constantly going around in circles and not knowing what certain words mean.

The circle I’m following (viz. objective/subjective purpose) is the one you drew. The sooner you hop off, the sooner you can clear your dizzy head.


Regarding all the chatter on freewill, I am a compatibilist, so I affirm both (soft) determinism and compatibilist (as opposed to libertarian) freewill. But I’m also a theist, not a nihilist, so I believe the issue really does matter.

---

LukeMC wrote:

It is a necessary inconsistency. To draw an analogy to your position, you seem to be stating the following:

Shit smells bad in your opinion
Your opinion is meaningless and the shit really doesn't smell "good" or "bad"
To live consistently with your beliefs, you must smell neither good nor bad in the shit, regardless of your brain and sensory organs.

There is a difference in the way we perceive the world through our senses (does it really smell bad in and of itself, or is that a learned response to an otherwise neutral stimulus, or is smell an external quality that we superimpose on the stimulus, etc.) and the purpose of a thing. But I’m not a nihilist, so I have no consistency problem with the way something smells and my response to that smell.

It's out of my control Charles. Whether or not the things have meaning, I cannot possibly abandon them on the grounds of my disbelief in their meaning. You propose that I could just choose to switch off my brain and nervous system and all of my emotions at a whim. I can't. Thanks to my hotwiring, it wouldn't be possible for me to see things as they are; I can only perceive of things in whatever way my body is wired to allow (enter subjectivity and Adrian's points).

I’m not proposing you switch off your brain and nervous system, for that clearly is impossible. I’m proposing that you live your life according to your convictions, which is within your control.

Imagine this rather extreme scenario. I decide my life is worthless and want to end it because "it doesn't matter anyway". I put my hands around my own throat and try to strangle myself. No matter how little I value my life, my body will always take control and force me to let go. This example is just to show how logical conclusions cannot override the basic functions of the body. "Digestion is meaningless. Stomach, shut down please... please? Oh come on "

You could pull the trigger of a gun pointed at your temple. Unfortunately people do it all the time. That is not beyond your control.

I am not suggesting you actually do that! Its just a counterexample.

So in the same way I cannot shut down my systems by choice, I cannot switch off my empathy, my love for happiness or my concept of "meaning". It may indeed be an inconsistency, but it isn't one which we can help. This may indeed have been your original point

Clearly you cannot command your body’s involuntary systems to do anything, and you cannot change your emotions at will. But you can lead a life in accordance to your beliefs. People who do not we usually label hypocrites, a derogatory term, implying that they could and should change their ways.

If you extend your argument, then you cannot help being an atheist because you’re hardwired that way, and I cannot help being a Christian because I’m hardwired that way. If that is true, how do we account for people changing their belief systems? And why bother debating the issue to begin with?

Beliefs are subject to change via reasoning, involuntary bodily systems are not (hence the term).

One thing is for certain though, us atheists aren't making a hypocritical incosistency, as it is beyond our control. If we could live life without being tied to our ingrained perceptions of meaning I think we'd choose nonexistance, as this life would truly be meaningless and not worth living. Consistency 101 (Y). So while I agree objective moral nihilism is the logical following of a-supernaturalism, and it does follow that we might aswell kill people, I disagree that we as humans should start introducing a bunch of new genocidal blueprints for the future. In the real meaningless universe we might aswell, but under or delusionary (subjective) view of things we wouldn't be able to do such things anymore. Living a fairy tale is the only life we can know, and for all it's worth, we like feeling happy.

Perhaps your delusionary view of things includes the delusion that living out a consistent nihilism is beyond your control.

Look! The atheists admit they are inconsistent! Their belief contains a hole which we can exploit! God wins!.

Haha, I'd hate to see a fundementalist get hold of this post and start spouting it to the masses. "Look! The atheists admit they are inconsistent! Their belief contains a hole which we can exploit! God wins!".

Dang!

Although, I don't think God would solve this problem by any stretch of the imagination.

A theistic worldview necessarily excludes nihilism. The problems you’re confronting are the result of a-theism.

It's just one of those funky things in the universe. Living a fairy tale being the price for happiness sounds so ridiculously like a criticism of religion that I hesitated to use it. But at the end of the day, religion isn't a necessary delusion for happiness, it's a delusion built upon a delusion (In my worthless opinion of course).

I see your nihilistic delusion and raise you a theistic delusion. Who cares, if everything is meaningless?

As a final note, the discussion of morality, meaning, etc, may be intrinsically worthless, but under our bubble of delusion I don't believe we should/could abandon this given only the conclusion we've drawn about nihilism. We will continue to operate under a system of value, meaning and whatnot for as long as our brains force us to see things in this way. We are not omnipotent, we must bow to our limited capacity.

If you truly believe this, why bother discussing it? I applaud your willingness to affirm that atheism entails nihilism, so few others do, but the fact that we’re having this absurd conversation makes me doubt that you do truly believe it.

[infidel666]

If free will is such an assumption, how is "not free will" any less of an assumption? As far as I see it, we have the evidence for free will, which is that we make choices (at least we think we do), and other people can observe us making choices.

To say "there is no free will" is tantamount to saying that all information in the universe has sprung from nothing, that because our choices are not choices, everything we have ever written, invented, etc is all predetermined from the moment we are born (and retrospectively the moment life emerged). It means that William Shakespeare was "destined" to become a writer and poet, and that his choices didn't make him what he became.

The view that others here seem to be presenting is not one of "no free will", but one of "limited free will", which is one I can understand. It is a compromise between the two, saying that because we are simply "gene machines" some of our actions are based solely on instinct and internal decisions, whilst the apparent presence of consciousness and self-awareness means that some decisions are made in the conscious mind.

There is a distinction between the two, but as I've already said, I think "not free will" leads to ridiculous conclusions when you take it back in time.

Just for the record, I said that I do not believe in free will. I did not say that I believe in no free will. Similarly, I don't believe in God, but I also don't believe in no God. However, I think you know what I think is most probable.

It seems to me that you are equating free will with "consciousness." So does that mean that you don't think a learning chess computer AI has free will? By consciousness, are we talking "sentience" or are we talking "awake" or "not a vegetable" or whatever.

From what I've studied, I think it likely that the only significant difference between a learning chess computer AI and us is just a degree of sophistication and specialization. Does it matter whether the game is to "play chess" or to "survive and procreate?" At what point do you draw that line where the degree of sophistication becomes sufficient to warrant the designation, "free will?" Is it the point at which we stop understanding it or exercising control over it? Seems to me that you're taking something on faith.

[Kyuuketsuki]

If free will is such an assumption, how is "not free will" any less of an assumption? As far as I see it, we have the evidence for free will, which is that we make choices (at least we think we do), and other people can observe us making choices.

I am forced to ask how that is relevant? Obviously, at least as far as I am concerned, if human possession of free will is an assumption then lack of possession of free will is also an assumption i.e. we assume we have free will because it suits us to believe we have it (and because the general population tends to believe we have).

I suppose what both Ev and I are saying is that no one knows whether free will exist or not.

Kyu

[Tiberius]

Granted I'd agree that nobody knows if free will exists, but since it seems to, and there are various scientists who attempt to explain it (Dan Dennett is one of them) then I don't see why I should disagree with them.

I guess I thought Dennett made a good argument in "Freedom evolves".

[Kyuuketsuki]

Granted I'd agree that nobody knows if free will exists, but since it seems to, and there are various scientists who attempt to explain it (Dan Dennett is one of them) then I don't see why I should disagree with them.

I don't see why you should either ... the point however remains that free will is an assumption because it cannot be proven to exist.

Kyu

[Edwardo Piet]

As far as I know there is evidence that IF we live in a deterministic universe then that would indeed be like RIGGED dice as I say...it's gonna go one way only even if it SEEMS like there is possibilities to us...

Now if we live in an INdeterministic universe (and I don't really know much on the subject but I've heard both from Adrian and others that Quantum Mechanics supports INdeterminism so I'd say AT LEAST when it comes down to it I believe that we do indeed live in an INdeterministic one unless I know of any contradictory evidence....

..Anyway - In an INdeterministic universe it's more like normal UNrigged dice I assume. Because there is evidence that Indeterminism means more possibilites and it's really all a matter of probability but as far as I know there is only evidence that we BELIEVE that we deliberately choose or influence those possibilities not that we actually DO - and the belief in and of itself is not remotely evidence. How could it be?

And do random UNrigged dice simply with more possibilites have any more 'free will' than rigged dice that are determined to fall on one specific number, to go one specific way? No.

And as far as I know we're simply EXTREMELY complex compared to dice, we are biological and we think we are alive and we often BELIEVE we 'make choices' - but I know of no evidence that we actually do. We just believe we do.

So no, - I do NOT think there are assumptions on both sides. I (at least until I hear a counter argument) think that the argument is firmly strong in favour of NO 'free will'.

As far as I know 'free will' is no more likely with INdeterminism than determinism - other than simply the fact that INdeterminism perhaps opens the mere possibility for 'free will'.

I still know of no evidence either way or any more reason to to think 'free will' is probable. How on earth would it work anyway??

Where is the evidence that we 'make choices' other than simply we BELIEVE we do and we 'CALL it that.' As far as I know we are just very complicated biological machines. And the fact we simply BELIEVE we have 'free will', as I said, is not remotely evidence that we DO.

EvF

---

Granted I'd agree that nobody knows if free will exists, but since it seems to, and there are various scientists who attempt to explain it (Dan Dennett is one of them) then I don't see why I should disagree with them.

I guess I thought Dennett made a good argument in "Freedom evolves".

I support Dennett...I believe he backs up my argument?

BECAUSE - he isn't defining free will as most do...he defines 'free will' as evitability!

BECAUSE - basically EVERYONE believes in evitability! We do AVOID things we are EVITABLE whether we have free will or not! That's obvious! As Dennett says...if someone chucks a brick at you - you can duck! That's evitabiltiy. Avoidability. That's OBVIOUS! With or without the USUAL definition of 'free will' being true or not.

We as humans have more avoidability....DUH...we have a lot of freedom - we can go to the MOON for Christs sake!

But is there any evidence that we actually have 'free will' in the NORMAL sense it is used....IOW that we can actually make choices freely?

Our choices are part of physics...yes we have freedom in the sense of EVITABILITY - but whether we can CHOOSE things or not is just an illusion IMO.

We CALL it making choices....a lot of us (myself not included) BELIEVE we have a choice - but is that remote evidence that we do other than we BELIEVE we do and we simply CALL it that? No.


Normal, random UNrigged dice have more freedom and evitability than rigged dice. But do they have any more choice in the matter of how we are thrown? No evidence for that!!

Just as with determinism and INdeterminism. Determinism implies that the future is rigged...with INdeterminism it's not...it's uncertain - but is there any evidence that IT can choose it's path or that We are any different and that WE can CHOOSE our path? When our CHOICES are part of this indetermined, uncertain physics bouncing about too?

We have thoughts....we have choices...but can we choose our thoughts or choices? I know of no evidence of this...

It's physics. Any evidence we can override it? I think not.

Belief in 'choice' is not evidence of the truth of it. We may CALL it 'making choices' but that is not remotely evidence that we actually DO make choices...we just CALL IT that.

Do we really have any choice in the matter just because we believe we do and have awareness? I think not.

We have freedom and evitability. But we are entirely bound by physics. We are part of it - this is a physical universe. Where is the evidence that we actually 'make choices'? We just say we do and/or believe we do - that is all. No evidence. No reason to believe it's anything but physics bouncing about and we're simply biological, a lot more complex and aware. We're still governed by physics bouncing about whether we like it or not, whether we believe it or not. I know of no evidence of the contrary.

EvF

[Tiberius]

And those issues which we consider immoral (murder, rape, theft, etc.) were considered acceptable in past civilizations and may again in future civilizations. Don’t let the tyranny of the Now and our own cultural hubris blind you to the possibility that a majority in a future dystopia may judge murder acceptable again, against which you have no argument to obligate them to change their ways since you can appeal to no trans-cultural moral standard. Moral for them, not moral for you. Result? Stalemate.

True, a future society may accept murder again, but I do have arguments to stop it. I do have reasons why I am against murder, same as most people on this planet. The result is hardly stalemate, the result is a majority wins situation. Change the majority, change the result.

Then you accede to my original statement that “Without culturally-transcendent moral laws, the atheist has no ground to condemn the butchery of a Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or Pol Pot.”

I do have ground to condemn the actions. I don't find them moral, hence my condemnation. Granted, the people at the time who were doing these acts thought they were moral, but the fact they are not considered moral today is reason enough to condemn them. Likewise, I can come up with many arguments why such butchery is wrong.

Yes, I read your posts thoroughly. I understand what you’re saying: if the majority of people in culture X find something acceptable then it is (relatively) moral for them. My rebuttal is that this gives license to actions like the Final Solution or Pol Pot’s killing fields, and you cannot obligate that cultural majority to change its ways since you can appeal to no trans-cultural moral standard. Moral for them, not moral for you. Result? Stalemate.

It only gives such licenses if the majority give them the license. You are trying to argue against relative morality by assuming absolute morality. The majority morality of Hitler's Germany found the gassing of the Jews to be perfectly moral. The rest of the world didn't. The rest of the world just happens to be a lot bigger than Germany, hence the majority morality (of the world) wins. Trans-cultural morality counts for nothing if one country has the larger power.

Only if you are a cultural relativist. For a moral realist like myself, there are trans-cultural moral standards by which we or the Iraqis or anyone else can render judgment.

Was it right or wrong to kill innocent people to bring down Saddam? Simple enough question, I'd like to hear your answer (and your justification).

True, but the idea was current for those defending Ptolemy. We’re not any smarter in general than our forefathers were. This is just an example of when the leading scientific lights at the time got it wrong.

We are very much smarter than our forefathers; only an ignorant man would argue against that fact. As I've said before, science is a self-correcting process. It evolves over time, but is rarely ever wrong on a big scale. Small parts might be wrong, but the general level of evidence cannot be so easily refuted. The examples you gave were simply not examples of "leading scientific lights at the time getting it wrong", they were examples of science improving a current theory. Newtonian physics is not wrong on a large scale, neither is abiogenesis. Whether you include alchemy in "modern" science is a matter of opinionl; I personally don't, since it wasn't based on any scientific principles.

And the argument of relative morality is in turn a supporting argument of yours of why atheism does not entail nihilism. You, an atheist, are assuming the purposefulness of the universe when arguing for your moral code, and any supporting argument (such as this one) which assumes the validity of the argument its supporting is question-begging. You’re using a non-nihilist supporting argument to support a non-nihilist argument, which gets you nowhere.

Atheism does not entail nihilism since atheism does not have anything to do with morality. That has been my point from the beginning. Now, we know we have a sense of morality, a sense of right and wrong, so I attempt to explain that. In explaining why we have morality, I reject nihilism. I could just as easily say you are assuming the universe has a purpose when you argue your moral code. Unless you can prove God exists, your insistence that the universe has a purpose is nothing but assumption. I do not assume, I simply do not see an objective purpose to the universe.

As I previously stated, your inconsistency.

That doesn't answer the question. You are assuming I have an inconsistency, yet you have offered no proof or argument that stands in support of your view. You assume the universe has a purpose, I do not. I see morality as an attribute all humans have in order to function as a species, you see it as a god-given gift. You could just as easily substitute morality for "legs" in your argument, and claim that I should not use my legs, since I do not believe in God, and therefore there is no objective purpose to the universe or my legs. Your argument boils down to "If you don't believe in God, you don't believe in anything" which is fallacious. I say my legs have a subjective purpose, and my morality has a subjective purpose. We can observe both legs and morality, hence my reasons for believing in both of them.

1. Atheism entails nihilism (the conclusion of the previous argument).
2. A consistent atheist would admit that his atheism entails nihilism.
3. Therefore an atheist who does not admit that atheism entails nihilism is inconsistent.

1 is an assumption not based on any argument at all (all of your attempts have been refuted)
2 is based on the assumption that 1 is correct.
3 is based on the assumption that 2 is correct.
Since 1 is an assumption, your argument falls to pieces.

It’s a petitio principii. Moving along.

So is your argument above. You assume atheism entails nihilism without offering any proof.

Me thinks thou dost equivocate. The universe is the sum total of reality (in your view), which of necessity includes humans and their sense/perception of morality. If the universe has “no design, no purpose, no evil and no good”, that includes you. You, as a member of the class of the universe have “no design, no purpose, no evil and no good.” You are free of course to pretend you have “subjective” design, purpose, or morality, but wishing doesn’t make it so.

Again, Dawkins is talking objectively. There is no objective design, purpose, evil, good. There exists a subjective version of each of these however, because we feel they exist. We feel some things are good and some things are evil, yet different people find different things good and evil. This is a contradiction if good and evil are objective, hence the subjectivism. Wishing doesn't make it so, but the evidence suggests it is so.

So the statement “One ought to do that which is good and refrain from doing that which is evil” is a transcendent moral standard which is culturally neutral, or is it not?

It's not a standard, it's an function of morality itself. We only work as a society if we do good and not evil, hence why morality has us doing these things. Saying "One ought to move legs forward to move" is not a standard of walking, it is a function of our legs. You see morality as something that exists separate to us, but we see morality as something that exists in our species. Morality is as much a part of homo sapiens as our legs are.

Since there is no trans-cultural moral standard which obligates all cultures, you are forced to admit that the Final Solution was perfectly moral for the National Socialists to carry out.

Feel free to point that out to the members of your local synagogue next Saturday. I’m sure they’ll understand your qualifier “well I don’t think the Endlösung was a good idea, but it was okay for the Nazis.”

I never said it was ok for the Nazis to do it. I said the Nazis themselves thought it was ok. There is a difference which you can't seem to wrap your head around. Of course the Nazis thought it was ok, that is a fact of history. The fact that the Nazis thought it was ok does not mean I think it is ok for Nazis to kill people but others not to. I don't think anyone should kill anyone else. Hence why we impose our morality on others; why we stop genecide.

Only if you presuppose there are no trans-cultural moral standards. If there are, then they are the facts and anything contradictory would be not only merely opinion, but false.

Yet you have shown me no examples of any moral standards (i.e. an example of something that someone can feel moral about) that are trans-cultural. Show me one and I will change my mind. Since the concepts of "good" and "evil" are part of morality itself, you cannot simply say "One must be good and not evil" is a cultural moral standard. It isn't a standard at all. A standard is something which people can either class as "good" or "evil".

And for a cultural relativist like yourself, that ends the discussion.

Impasse.

For a moral realist like myself, I can appeal to a moral standard that supersedes his opinion.

It hardly ends the discussion, I can reason with him and get him to change his moral attitudes. This is how we rehabilitate people in prison. I doubt very much that a prisoner would be rehabilitated if you just told them over and over again that "You know this was wrong". You have to actually show someone how it is wrong in order to rehabilitate people. You have to reason with them.

Sin. The refusal of people to obey the commandments of their Creator.

And how do you know that your creator is the right one to be obeyed? There are an infinite number of possible creators, so how do you know you are following the correct one? I hold that you cannot know for sure, and thus you cannot impose any "commandment" since it may be completely incorrect.

If you were a moral realist, then I would appeal to a trans-cultural moral standard which obligates your obedience. Since you are not, I cannot persuade you, since your “morality” is no better or worse than mine.

Wow. So you can't think of any arguments that could change my mind, or change my morality? I honestly feel pity for you.

You’re right, which is why I would never mount such an “argument.”

Yet you cannot think of any other arguments that would convince me? Shame.

Given your commitment to individual autonomy/cultural relativism, I cannot persuade you. Since morality is mere opinion, I might as well try to convince you that vanilla ice cream is tastier than chocolate ice cream.

You do realise that opinions can change? That chocolate ice-cream is tastier than vanilla is a fact to me (by my senses) and so not an opinion. However my opinion on abortion is only set in my mind, and is not based on my senses, so I don't see how you could not change my mind.

Sure, as long as you’re an Aryan . . .

Irrelavent. I was talking about the state of the world in general, nothing to do with race. If we had exterminated all the Jews and black people, how do you know the world wouldn't be a better place to live? You don't. Hitler evidently thought so, and maybe if he'd won we would be talking about him as a hero rather than a villain. This is the point of relative morality. Nobody is correct, nobody is incorrect, but the majority morality always holds.

Here’s the answer: I would have the same morality since it is trans-cultural and thus not subject to MMS; you might have a different morality since you can appeal to no trans-cultural standards and thus are subject to MMS.

The thought that my moral standards could conceivably include gassing innocent men, women, and children turns my stomach. Apparently you’re cool with that possibility.

Assumption, and bad logic. If trans-cultural morality or absolute morality existed, we would all know it, and we would all have the same morality. Your only answer to this is "rejection of a creator" which is a baseless assertion.

I'm not cool with that possibility at all. But if it had happened, I wouldn't know any different would I? Try and think about these things 4th dimensionally (or 5th, whatever) for a while.

Again, feel free to share that with a Jewish holocaust survivor. I’m sure he’ll appreciate your nuance.

I'm pretty sure he'd be glad that the majority morality was against Hitler, and acted against him. Don't you?

Let me see if I follow your argument

You didn't.

1. The universe is objectively purposeless.
2. We are part of the universe, therefore we have no objective purpose.
3. Other individuals place a subjective purpose on me.
4. Therefore I have a subjective purpose.

Subjective purpose exists soley in the mind (beauty is in the eye of the beholder). To have a subjective purpose doesn't require the universe to have an objective purpose, but for an entity within that universe to place a subjective purpose on something.

My point, as I said, is “Its (the relationship between evolution and atheism) not an exclusively causal relationship, but there’s a relationship nonetheless.” I “admit” my point, yes. I don’t see how I thereby “lost the point” I was making.

Your point was that there was some kind of link between atheism and evolution. I agree there is a relationship, but since it is not causal I fail to see the relavance of any such link. One could link theism with Hitler in the same way, or X with Y (where X is anything and Y is anything). A link doesn't prove anything.

Of course I am! See the above syllogism.

Arguing with sematics gets you nowhere, so you shouldn't be proud of it.

There is no distinction since both are constituents of a purposeless universe and are thereby themselves purposeless.

If there is no distinction there wouldn't be separate definitions. A subjective purpose is created, an objective purpose already exists. A subjective purpose is in itself objectively purposeless, but that doesn't stop it from being a purpose that someone has created for something.

I do not “get” irrational reasoning, true. Apparently that’s necessary to be an atheist. Guess I’ll need to cancel my subscription to American Atheist Magazine.

The reasoning is only irrational if you don't understand the different between objective and subjective purposes.

And both are still purposeless since they are constituents of a purposeless universe. Multiplying analogies doesn’t advance your case.

Objectively purposeless purposes are still purposes if they are subjective.

Because you said “Can't believe people think the god who endorsed slavery is the god who creates our moral law.” But it is a fact that people do think that, so not believing that fact is irrational.

Oh come on now, my asking why I should believe was directed at the belief itself (that god endorses slavery and created our moral law), not the fact that people believe it. You are just messing around now.

The circle I’m following (viz. objective/subjective purpose) is the one you drew. The sooner you hop off, the sooner you can clear your dizzy head.

Well since it's clear that you will never understand the words, I see no point in continuing it. I'll clear my dizzy head of all the circular arguments you made!

Anyway, I'm going to wrap up now. It takes me a good hour to write these responses since the conversation has gone completely off track to cover everything under the sun. It's been good talking to you though.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

An alternative view.

I began thinkin about the question and came up with perhaps a different answer.

The claim and supporting argument that atheists are moral nihilists contains a moral judgment and some unfounded assumptions.. In context the claim is made as an accusation which "as atheists", we need to refute.We are under no such obligation.

My position: The belief,feelings and motivations of others is none of my business nor are mine any of theirs.We judge others and are judged by behaviour.

The claim is irrelevant, a crude attempt of a believer to gain a moral high ground to which believers as group have no claim... I feel foolish,for not having realised this sooner,and wasted my time on a bloody minded fool.

DISCLAIMER : Admin: "Bloody minded fool" was not mean as an insult,merely an accurate description. Please feel free to edit it out if you feel I've crossed the line.