Atheism, A Grim Position?

[*steve*]

Hmmm. So your argument against genocide is that morality needs conscious agents which it would eliminate. So something is morally wrong if it would eliminate morality. Sounds somewhat circular to me. Why not just do away with morality and everyone just does what they want, even if it eliminates all moral agents?

Look, don't ask me questions about how moral systems work, and then leap to asking me why we should have a moral system at all once you've been given an answer, those are two completely different questions. As it stands, there's nothing circular about the maintenance of moral system contributing to the reasoning behind that same system; eliminating morality necessarily opens the door to behavior that the now non-existent moral system would hold to be immoral. In short, it is immoral to eliminate morality, because that leads to the propagation of acts that morality has, for a variety of reasons, defined to be immoral. It's not circular, it's definitional; if something allows for immoral things to happen, it is an immoral thing.

As to why you shouldn't get rid of morality altogether, the answer is simple and rational, so it's obvious why you, with your ridiculous ideas about how morality is grounded- which I'll get to in just a minute- didn't get it immediately: It's beneficial. A society that lives according to moral strictures that are grounded in what I've listed is demonstrably healthier than one that does not. See, the problem with this interrogation you keep conducting isn't with my answers, it's with you for refusing to modulate your position in the slightest; you aren't actually thinking through the consequences of the things you're asking, you're just thinking about how they would affect you, even after we've established that morality considers all people, not just the individual. Why keep morality? Do you understand how much of your comfortable life is bound up in the social contract every member of your culture has made? If everyone acted like the amoral monster you keep asking me why it's not okay for you to act like, your access to food, medical care, technology, everything that your society produces, diminishes immediately, because those things are made on the basis of trust that wouldn't exist in a world where everything is permissible. What would prompt the farmer, after all, to put his wares out for sale when it's totally okay for you to just murder him and take it all?

You like the life you lead? You like not having to be your own farmer, and doctor, and dentist, and scientist, and everything else, because your society allows people to specialize and depend on each other for individual expertise? Then that is why you should keep morality in place, even if your own evolved sense of empathy somehow isn't preventing you from acting like a monster anyway. I'm sorry if the rational answer isn't sufficient to you, and you were looking for an irrational one for some reason, but there you go.

Now, as for your own ideas of morality, which I did promise I'd get to, why is god's opinion on what's right and wrong the "ultimate grounding" for morals? Aside from the simple fiat assertion that it is, what reason do you have? Without referring to his power (might makes right isn't ultimate morality, it's a dictatorship) or to his creating everything (that's just an act, it doesn't imbue him with control over morality) what do you actually have to justify this absurd claim? Or hell, the further claim you make that morality requires an ultimate grounding at all? You've made two completely unjustified claims and so far have been happy to just sit there and make us all dance to your burden of proof shifting bullshit, but how about you start justifying your assumptions before we continue, eh? Because from where I'm standing, all you're doing is claiming that because some guy created the universe and was there before everyone else, his unjustified opinions on what's right and wrong are somehow objectively true, and I'm sorry, but that doesn't follow at all.

If that's not enough for you, I'll end on the Euthyphro Dilemma, which is still something that you theists have never been able to answer properly: Is something moral because god commands it, or does god command it because it is moral? If it's the former, then morality to you is just fiat command and is useless. If it's the latter, then morality is external to god and does not require him to be discovered and used.

Have fun with that.

But what if I ( as a rational human being ) don't care about society? I just want what I want and I want to kill redheads, and will try to get away with it. Is that somehow fundamentally wrong irrespective of what society thinks? If so, how?

You've missed the point of the veil of ignorance, but that's hardly surprising. You seem intent on missing every point that isn't just "because maaaagic!"

The veil of ignorance forces the participants in it to consider moral choices from purely moral standpoints, without self interest or bias interfering, because there is no self to be interested or biased until the moral choices are made. Simply put, you cannot make moral decisions from behind the veil in such a way that they benefit you, because you don't know what you'll be until the veil is lifted. It has nothing to do with society, really; as a rational human being behind the veil you cannot make the decision to make killing redheads moral, because once the veil is lifted you yourself could be a redhead.

Besides, I literally explained this in the post you're responding to: if you, as a "rational" human being, don't care about society and just want to do whatever you want, then you aren't making a rationally tenable decision because you're using special pleading to make your moral decision. In sort, you aren't a rational human being if you make that decision, especially when you factor in that the chances of getting caught and punished are higher that way. Stop asking me to consider scenarios that I've already explained to you are malformed and pointless, it just makes it seem like you've already decided to disagree with me before you started reading, and so aren't paying much attention.

I don't think it was by accident that Thomas Jefferson invoked the creator in the Declaration of Independence, "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Full stop. All other opinions are subordinate to that ultimate endowment. No more "why that" questions.

Except there is another why question, you just don't want anyone else to be thinking about it, which is why you're stressing that there aren't any so hard: why does "creator says so," endow one with anything, let alone unalienable rights? Why does creator's opinion matter at all?

Can you answer that question, without resorting to a tautology like every other theist I've asked it to?

I personally think moral systems are essential and good things. What I'm saying, however, is that without some ultimate basis for them, any reasonable person could argue against them or even their elimination. A thoroughgoing anarchist could offer a well reasoned, logically consistent argument that they are perfectly right to do whatever they want and all restrictions on individuals should be eliminated. It's "every man for themselves" is logically defensible without some ultimate basis for morality saying it's not right.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's "every man for themselves" is logically defensible without some ultimate basis for morality saying it's not right.

Except that this is a factually incorrect statement. Try "It's me for myself". Which is fine, morality is subjective and if someone builds their "morality" around that...that's their own business.

-again...this is why law and not morality addresses the issue more competently.

[JuliaL]

I personally think moral systems are essential and good things. What I'm saying, however, is that without some ultimate basis for them, any reasonable person could argue against them or even their elimination. A thoroughgoing anarchist could offer a well reasoned, logically consistent argument that they are perfectly right to do whatever they want and all restrictions on individuals should be eliminated. It's "every man for themselves" is logically defensible without some ultimate basis for morality saying it's not right.

And enlightened self interest would keep them from doing so or they would likely be sieved out in the next iteration of the social cycle. (our system for selecting sociopathic leaders not withstanding.)

Every man for themselves works fine if there is only one man. You only find conflict if there is more than one and they choose to live in contact.

But now, I have to go run errands. It's been fun.
If you wish to be useful, please pray your deity that my Baby Lock stop breaking threads or for batteries to appear in my camera (they'll understand which one.) You know, something concrete and helpful.
Which god was that again? Would I recognize him if I met him on the street?

[Cato]

I personally think moral systems are essential and good things. What I'm saying, however, is that without some ultimate basis for them, any reasonable person could argue against them or even their elimination.

You have yet to demonstrate the existence of the ultimate basis you keep referring to or what the ultimate basis has to say about any particular ethical consideration.

If by chance you want to reference some deity as your ultimate basis you will have to address Euthyphro's dilemma.

[IATIA]

What I'm saying, however, is that without some ultimate basis for them, any reasonable person could argue against them or even their elimination.

Morality changes from culture to culture and generation to generation. There is no "ultimate basis" for morality.

Fucking a thirteen year old girl is considered immoral in our society, but in some cultures it is fully accepted. In the bible it is fully accepted.

There are no rules for morality, only laws that determine what morality should be. Note the phrase "should be", not "is".

[Esquilax]

I personally think moral systems are essential and good things. What I'm saying, however, is that without some ultimate basis for them, any reasonable person could argue against them or even their elimination. A thoroughgoing anarchist could offer a well reasoned, logically consistent argument that they are perfectly right to do whatever they want and all restrictions on individuals should be eliminated. It's "every man for themselves" is logically defensible without some ultimate basis for morality saying it's not right.

So, you're just going to ignore everything I've said to you in this thread, including the questions I've asked you and the requests for demonstration of your otherwise baseless assertions, in favor of just restating your original position, despite the fact that I've given you plenty of material on why you're wrong, and contentions that you'll need to address for your position to make any kind of justifiable sense?

That's what you're going for here, little more than a "nuh uh!"?

[robvalue]

If you are looking for "objective morality", that is what religions use, and it is terrible. It's a series of prescribed rules of what is and isn't moral. It's arbitrary, inflexible, unnatural and doesn't cover the grey area we spend our whole life in. Morality changes depending on context, and often many different moral considerations overlap. You may be choosing between the lesser of two or more evils. The only proper way to evaluate moral behaviour (moral as in the wellbeing of individuals and of society) is a benefit/harm analysis. This can never be objective, and is unlikely to ever be perfect, but we generally do a good job at it. We've evolved that way.

It sounds kind of like you're looking for a cosmic policeman or authority, but the fact is we police ourselves more than anyone else. We have a conscience which tells us when we are doing bad stuff, and it makes it harder for us if we ignore it.

[*steve*]

In your estimation, is the God you assert omnipotent? Omniscient? Cosmic Muffin, Hairy thunderer? It's hard to fight a vapor.

My approach to theology is minimalistic. I think way to much is speculated on in theology and religious philosophy. The "omini" issue is not that interesting to me and, I don't think, that important for an actionable theology. I'll leave that to the scholars who like those sorts of metaphysical gymnastics.

Here's a snip from the summary on my website that partially addresses your question:

At least in my view, one of the things that distinguishes theism from other religious forms is that it represents the ultimate as intentional and possibly personal. If the ultimate is personal then a relationship may be possible. But how can this ultimate intentionality, personhood, and relatedness be described? This is where ontology comes in.

To me ontology is a dicey concept. Since it deals with the concept of being itself, it opens up difficult definitions and issues to navigate. However, ontology is extremely important for a systematic theology. Historically there have been numerous ontologies offered in theology and religious philosophy. Often they are labeled with terms like monism (non-dual), dualism, or pluralism. In the East, monism (non-dual) seems to be more prevalent (i.e. Buddhism, Hindu philosophies) although there are examples of dualism and pluralism. In the West, strains of both monism and dualism can be found in Abrahamic religions.

One way to approach the issue of ontology for a systematic theology could be to somehow characterize distinctions between God and “the world”. Is there a strong distinction between God and the world or not? This is obviously a huge topic but let me try to distill it down within my understanding of it.

In dualism there are strong distinctions between God and the world. These could be metaphorized as some sort of divide between the divine and the mundane where delineation of being or engagement/detachment of God with the world is an important issue. Often there seems to be a need to shield God from the “evil” found in the world. So God is “perfect” and the world is “imperfect”. Or there is an essential nature and an existential nature.

In a monism (non-dual) there is only the One where if there are distinctions they are about aspects or qualities of the One. There is no stark divide within the One. An example in the East of an ontology with distinctions is Vishishtadvaita Vedanta. Its ontology is a qualified monism. In the West there are strains of pantheism and panentheism.

From a theological perspective, the terms themselves (dualism, monism, pantheism, etc.) are not as important as how they are reflected in the religious sentiment that emerges from a chosen ontology. For a systematic theology, ontology is the stepping off point for much of what follows. So, this is one of those decision points that must be made.

Now an intuition concerning the ontology of reality could go lots of ways. This is where informing intuitions may be helpful. While our investigations into the structure of reality relate to our reality, they may offer hints as well into the structure of reality, ultimately. This may be a stretch but I think this is what metaphysics often does, draw from our experience of this reality and extrapolate to the meta level.

So how can we characterize ontological distinctions within our reality? At first blush, it’s tempting to see sharp distinctions of being as we look around at “beings”. But this can be misleading. If we just look at ourselves, we are a conglomerate of many beings, i.e. cells, each having its own being. Also biology has shown that we are also a host for many other beings like viruses, bacteria, and parasites. Some are even essential to our health.

Some other examples to ponder:

Psychologically somehow a self emerges from the myriad of beings and processes within the body and mind.

Economics emerges from the actions of billions of individuals around the world.

Sociologically, somehow groups, organizations, and countries emerge from the actions and interactions of many.

In physics there is this strange phenomenon of quantum entanglement where particles no matter how far apart spatially they are somehow show the same measurement at the same time. So even the entire universe appears holistic.

Also in physics and biology there are emergent properties that arise from the collective that can’t seem to be explained through reductionism.

Then there are controversial psi experiments that may indicate some sort of consciousness interconnectivity.

All this taken together seems to support the intuition that there is a relational whole (one thing) and that all things are aspects of it. Aspects affect themselves, other aspects, and the whole. If this is the case then it may be reasonable to expect all of reality to be “one thing” i.e. the One. I call this ontology an aspect monism. This is the first crossroad decision for the system.

So, with this decision made, a theology can begin to be fleshed out as follows. An aspect monism says that God is the One and that all things are aspects of the One. This has several consequences. First it means that God has a Life. Our lives and that of all things are aspects of God’s Life. It also says there is a communion of all things within the One.

A metaphor I use to describe this is Author/Story. As an author creates a narrative in her mind, she creates environments, characters, and situations. These are within the author’s mind (aspects) but they also seem to have a life unto themselves. As authors will tell you, sometimes as the narrative unfolds the characters will surprise the author with what they do and how they develop. They seem to have a level of freedom to emerge. Freewill?

[robvalue]

Just my opinion:

(Almost) no one here will argue that there could have been a creator for our reality, of some sort. The question is whether there actually was or not, and if so, is it at all relevant. So far, there appears to be absolutely no credible evidence that there was, or ever has been a creator. And if there was one, all the evidence points to one which has not interacted with the universe at all since its birth. So either way, his existence or attributes are kind of irrelevant.

That is my take on it I see everything else as just the imagination projecting parts of itself, or things it likes, onto a cosmic father figure.

[Cato]

Holy fuck. He just dropped a quantum entanglement reference, badly I might add, proving without a doubt that he's full of shit.

The woo express has a full head of steam now.