Can atheists/existentialists help me out here? Two questions...

[Lex Orandi]

First things first. I hope we can keep this civil. Let's respect differences in belief and avoid even subtle backhanded remarks (i.e., "Well, not all atheists are this way, but the ones I've met were all cheat coward liars." or "I just can't understand how someone can believe 2,000 year old fairy tales.") We can start a separate thread for arrogance, sarcasm, and spite. Let's limit this one to polite and rational debate, and let's try to stay on topic.

Disclaimer: I'm a pretty rational person, perhaps more rational than is healthy. I do my best to found my opinions on reasoned argument. I'm a Catholic Christian, but like many people I can understand the arguments in favor of both belief and non belief, and both have some appeal.


First, to existentialists. I might be oversimplifying this (please be charitable if I am), but this is what existentialists seem to believe: all values in the world are subjective, thus (in Sartre's words) we are in a state of "abandonment" or freedom from the laws of a higher power. At this point, nihilism extrapolates that everything is meaningless and worthless. Existentialism says that man is now free to create his own meaning. But, if everything is subjective, what is the point of creating your own meaning? Isn't that just self-deception?

Now, to atheists. Since most atheists seem to reject the idea of objective, eternal truths as unprovable and/or nonexistent (instead, we are controlled wholly be evolutionary processes and chemical reactions), subjectivity is the only alternative. Now, most atheists reject moral relativism, because nobody wants to condone the actions of rapists, murders, and other people whose actions make us feel squeamish. They contend that ethics and morality can exist outside of a higher power/God/unmoved mover/watchmaker/etc. How can that be reconciled with relativism? I think this guy here took a pretty manly and logical approach to the issue, but in the comments he is lambasted.

What do you guys and gals think?

 

[Faye]

First things first. I hope we can keep this civil. Let's respect differences in belief and avoid even subtle backhanded remarks (i.e., "Well, not all atheists are this way, but the ones I've met were all cheat coward liars." or "I just can't understand how someone can believe 2,000 year old fairy tales.") We can start a separate thread for arrogance, sarcasm, and spite. Let's limit this one to polite and rational debate, and let's try to stay on topic.

Disclaimer: I'm a pretty rational person, perhaps more rational than is healthy. I do my best to found my opinions on reasoned argument. I'm a Catholic Christian, but like many people I can understand the arguments in favor of both belief and non belief, and both have some appeal.


First, to existentialists. I might be oversimplifying this (please be charitable if I am), but this is what existentialists seem to believe: all values in the world are subjective, thus (in Sartre's words) we are in a state of "abandonment" or freedom from the laws of a higher power. At this point, nihilism extrapolates that everything is meaningless and worthless. Existentialism says that man is now free to create his own meaning. But, if everything is subjective, what is the point of creating your own meaning? Isn't that just self-deception?

Now, to atheists. Since most atheists seem to reject the idea of objective, eternal truths as unprovable and/or nonexistent (instead, we are controlled wholly be evolutionary processes and chemical reactions), subjectivity is the only alternative. Now, most atheists reject moral relativism, because nobody wants to condone the actions of rapists, murders, and other people whose actions make us feel squeamish. They contend that ethics and morality can exist outside of a higher power/God/unmoved mover/watchmaker/etc. How can that be reconciled with relativism? I think this guy here took a pretty manly and logical approach to the issue, but in the comments he is lambasted.

What do you guys and gals think?

For existentialism: it is because of nihilism, because of the meaningless of the universe, that we are both free and responsible for creating our own meaning. The lack of God gives us a feeling of abandonment. Yes, it is a form of self-deception: Sartre's term for it was 'bad faith', and we are, according to him, always in bad faith in some form.

For atheism: there is nothing in being an atheist that necessarily entails that one must be a moral subjectivist. There are things such as the Kantian deontological ethics, for example, that one can adopt even as an atheist. It is also possible to adopt a sort of pragmatist ethic, a variety of virtue ethics (like in Buddhism, for example), or of course consequentialist ethic. Typically people conceive of the sole motivator for ethical action to be the fear of punishment and desire for reward through a higher power, but one doesn't need a higher power in order to fear punishment or to, more importantly, desire reward. My grandmother was a self-proclaimed 'atheist Christian', and she said that this life is your reward. She spent a lot of her time (even in her old age) helping people, and she believed fully that there was no heaven awaiting her for all her good deeds.

 

[Lex Orandi]

For existentialism: it is because of nihilism, because of the meaningless of the universe, that we are both free and responsible for creating our own meaning. The lack of God gives us a feeling of abandonment. Yes, it is a form of self-deception: Sartre's term for it was 'bad faith', and we are, according to him, always in bad faith in some form.

For atheism: there is nothing in being an atheist that necessarily entails that one must be a moral subjectivist. There are things such as the Kantian deontological ethics, for example, that one can adopt even as an atheist. It is also possible to adopt a sort of pragmatist ethic, a variety of virtue ethics (like in Buddhism, for example), or of course consequentialist ethic. Typically people conceive of the sole motivator for ethical action to be the fear of punishment and desire for reward through a higher power, but one doesn't need a higher power in order to fear punishment or to, more importantly, desire reward. My grandmother was a self-proclaimed 'atheist Christian', and she said that this life is your reward. She spent a lot of her time (even in her old age) helping people, and she believed fully that there was no heaven awaiting her for all her good deeds.

Existentialism:
So, Sartre admits that we are always in "bad faith." For a person who wanted to find ultimate, naked truth or truths (or whether or not they exist), isn't "bad faith" a step in the wrong direction? To put forth a blunt (and hopefully inoffensive) analogy, isn't this bad faith similar to discovering and feeling the "cosmic horror" so wonderfully and terribly depicted by Lovecraft, only to shut our eyes, cover our ears, and try very hard to imagine some alternate reality for ourselves?

Atheist morality:
I think people tend to mischaracterize the true motivation for obedience to religious morality. (Here I am speaking only about Catholic Christianity, as I'm admittedly quite ignorant of most of the other world religions.) While it is true that many people follow moral codes for fear of punishment, legal or divine, this charge is true of both atheists and theists. Many Christians are just cultural Christians following the path of least social resistance. Their main motivation is an emotional one. Likewise, many atheists (at least that I have met) have a veneer of rationality, but (like Christians) are unable to adequately justify their beliefs--instead, they seem to have come about from lifestyle choices or social pressure (again, like Christians).

Other Christians are indeed motivated to do right only due to fear of divine retribution. This does not invalidate the morals they hold, but simply means that their motives for holding these morals are not as rational and pure as they could be. To use an old analogy, take a child brushing his/her teeth or eating vegetables because he/she is afraid of punishment. The child's reasons for doing so may not be pure, but that does not at all address the question of whether or not eating vegetables and brushing teeth are objectively good things for a human child to do.

On to the last type of people, those motivated by a comprehensive, ration belief system. Many atheists are (of course) motivated to do the things they do because have reasoned their way to their conclusions and are convinced that these are the best conclusions available. Many Christians are the same way. I am not holy or strong enough to do anything for God or for my fellow man out of love. When I do good, I do it because it follows natural law and centuries of reasoned theology. I believe that there is a state of "perfect goodness" toward which the universe can be moved, and, being a rational creature in this universe, I can decide whether to move it toward or away from that ideal. I choose to move it toward the ideal because I know that even in my earthly life, I will live a happier, more fulfilled life, even if I don't completely understand why sometimes (remember the child and his vegetables?). It is impossible for a Christian to fully enjoy heaven if he removes his consciousness from this world (and the present state of his soul) to focus on the next. God is not foolish--he recognizes those who are insincere far more easily than even we do. (Sorry about the theology.)

Finally, Kantian ethics. Kant's concept of duty is interesting, but admittedly I have a poor grasp of his philosophy. From what I understand, the "Categorical Imperative" is a broader version of the Golden Rule, in that you place your duty (your conception of which springs forth from your conscience) higher than yourself. That is to say, you act ethically without thinking about how you would like other to treat you. This is all fine and good, but it fails to address why the Categorical Imperative should have any authority. Indeed, as many evolutionary materialists believe, our supposed morality is just a product of evolution; Dawkins says we have "morals" to further our genetic material and/or species. How would these two views be reconciled?


Sorry for the length of this rambling post! : P

 

[Faye]

Bad faith exists in two forms for Sartre. There is being what we are in the form of what we are not, and there is being what we are not in the form of what we are. I'm not that familiar with Lovecraft. We can strive toward authenticity, but ultimately it remains out of our reach. That doesn't necessarily mean it isn't worth engaging in the process of trying to be authentic individuals.

As for the evolutionary psychology issue: What we ultimately run into here, I think, is another existential problem. We can speculate about how our morality has been produced as a result of evolution, thus assigning to it some deterministic structure; however, we cannot accept any deterministic hypothesis without perceiving ourselves as making the choice to do so. Insofar as we are concerned, we can never escape from the subjective experience of free choice- it always seems to us that we have a free choice.

The categorical imperative, in the simplest way I can put it, is simply that you should only do something that you could wish to be done universally. That presents us with a host of issues, but I'm not going to go into them now.

Whether or not we should take any ethical code as authoritative is one issue, but simply because we have difficulty deciding doesn't necessarily mean that moral relativism goes. Very few people actually endorse moral relativism and the ensuing nihilism as a matter of practice. They will say things that purport to substantiate it, but when push comes to shove, they fall back on particular ethical codes. For example, a moral relativist might say that it is okay to kill as long as it is okay according to the moral code you adopt; however, unless they are out of their mind, they'll probably concede that killing of innocent people for no reason whatsoever is immoral. No we can't ever get around the question of whether or not that constitutes an evil above/outside ourselves, but I don't think we really need to try so hard to transcend our anthropocentrism. The point, though, is that by conceding any kind of normative proposition whatsoever, the nihilist falls back on some form of ethics, likely consequentialist ethics.

I don't know where so many people get the idea (not saying you or anyone else in particular thinks this, but a lot of people in general do) that you need religion in order to be moral or that morality is somehow intimately connected with religious perspective. I am not so certain that it is.

 

[Lex Orandi]

First paragraph: What does it mean to be "authentic?" Why should we strive toward being so? What will it benefit us? Again, I'm not terribly familiar with the philosophy, so I hope you won't mind dumbing it down for me a little. Also, the reference to Lovecraft was the emotional reaction to the discovery of "abandonment" and is not very relevant.

Second paragraph: You recognize that evolutionary materialism and free choice are contradictory, but then say that we are unable to escape the subjective experience of free choice. Is free choice not then just an illusion, and, if pursuing the truth, shouldn't illusions be discarded?

Third and fourth paragraphs: Here it appears that you are saying that moral relativism is impractical and rarely followed to its logical conclusions; on this point, I agree with you. However, you also say that we can't "transcend our anthropocentrism," which seems to imply that there is no way/no need to find a solid philosophical foundation from which to derive authority to whatever moral code we choose. Are you saying, then, that mankind does not have the capability to understand morality, and that, for all intents and purposes, we are trapped in "relativism" since we can't find/understand the real truth? This seems to be a bit circular to me.



Also, I am not looking to prove the existence of God or a deity as a source of morality. I would like nothing more than to discover that religion is but a dream and there is a firm, fully reasoned position that provides an alternative. But like Lewis, I am haunted by the terrifying specter of its plausibility.

Thanks for the debate, this has been fascinating so far. Looking forward to your next post!

 

[Lex Orandi]

Bump! This thread has been so good, don't let it die on me now!

 

[Sai]

yes, its something like deceiving yourself. Life doesnt have any meaning or purpose. We humans create our own ways of living so that we can cope with it. If you want to read some nice existentialism i recommend you the writings of Emil Cioran

 

[Lex Orandi]

yes, its something like deceiving yourself. Life doesnt have any meaning or purpose. We humans create our own ways of living so that we can cope with it. If you want to read some nice existentialism i recommend you the writings of Emil Cioran

But if life doesn't have a meaning or purpose, and you want to live life rationally, then what is the point of living? Certainly you could just live driven by your emotional and physical needs and not think too deeply, but what if you wanted something more? Is the answer just "don't think too hard about it?"

 

[Sai]

But if life doesn't have a meaning or purpose, and you want to live life rationally, then what is the point of living? Certainly you could just live driven by your emotional and physical needs and not think too deeply, but what if you wanted something more? Is the answer just "don't think too hard about it?"

There is no point of living, and yes that's the answer . Try to be happy and do what you want. In the end you will die and that's it. If you want to believe otherwise or you want to make yourself believe something because the idea of being an insignificant creature in an endless universe disturbs you, then thats fine

 

[Lex Orandi]

There is no point of living, and yes that's the answer . Try to be happy and do what you want. In the end you will die and that's it. If you want to believe otherwise or you want to make yourself believe something because the idea of being an insignificant creature in an endless universe disturbs you, then thats fine

So, I guess your solution is to do whatever feels good, to assume that there's no meaning to your actions oryour relationship with others, and not to worry too much about it. Certainly a valid viewpoint if it satisfies you.


Maybe you could help me with my other question, but first, are you a moral person? From where do you derive your sense of morality? (Please, no need for a lecture on God or gods here, just let me know upon what you base your sense of right and wrong, if you consider yourself to possess one).

Note: none of this is meant to come off as rude, I'm just typing fast before I start my next class.

 

[Sai]

So, I guess your solution is to do whatever feels good, to assume that there's no meaning to your actions oryour relationship with others, and not to worry too much about it. Certainly a valid viewpoint if it satisfies you.


Maybe you could help me with my other question, but first, are you a moral person? From where do you derive your sense of morality? (Please, no need for a lecture on God or gods here, just let me know upon what you base your sense of right and wrong, if you consider yourself to possess one).



Note: none of this is meant to come off as rude, I'm just typing fast before I start my next class.

Yes, i do have morals, my own morals.

What are your other questions?

 

[acd]

Upbringing, culture, and personal experience all influence a person's sense of morality, regardless of religious or philosophical beliefs.

There isn't much difference between someone whose morals are derived from their god and an unbeliever. It all comes down to making choices based on your experiences.

 

[Lex Orandi]

Yes, i do have morals, my own morals.

What are your other questions?

Do you think your morals are better than someone else's? If so, why?

For example, let's say (totally hypothetically) that I steal your wallet. My moral code says it's okay, because I wanted your money to buy a new TV. But you don't think it's okay, because that's your money, and you tell me so. I say, "Well, that's of no concern to me--my moral code says that I should strive for my own happiness. A TV would make me happy, so I'm keeping your wallet." How would you show me that ? (You could say you would hit me or get the police, but that doesn't demonstrate anything other than the fact that you can forcibly take something from me, and that "might makes right.")

Upbringing, culture, and personal experience all influence a person's sense of morality, regardless of religious or philosophical beliefs.

There isn't much difference between someone whose morals are derived from their god and an unbeliever. It all comes down to making choices based on your experiences.

But there is a world of difference, if you want to be logical. Most non-theists/atheists claim to be governed by reason, but there's no rational basis to act morally. Let's say that you grew up in feudal Europe and believe that the stars rotated around the Earth, while I grew up in feudal China and believed that the heavens moved according to the actions of the Emperor. Both of our views our shaped by our culture, but surely you wouldn't say that they're equally valid (unless you deny objective truth)? Morality must be the same way.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "It all comes down to making choices based on your experiences."

 

[acd]

I meant whether you are a theist or not it is a choice and choices we make are informed from life experience.

Your star analogy doesn't work because it can be proven that no human commands the heavens. Subjective morality is clearly not the same thing.

 

[Sai]

[MENTION=5085]Lex Orandi[/MENTION]
No i dont think my morals are superior. In that case yes i would kick your ass xD

 

[Lex Orandi]

I meant whether you are a theist or not it is a choice and choices we make are informed from life experience.

Your star analogy doesn't work because it can be proven that no human commands the heavens. Subjective morality is clearly not the same thing.

[MENTION=5085]Lex Orandi[/MENTION]
No i dont think my morals are superior. In that case yes i would kick your ass xD

So you're both admitting that morals are subjective?

Sai:
Why would you "kick my ass" unless you felt that me taking your wallet was wrong (which implies I'm doing something I shouldn't be)? I believe that taking your wallet is right. And if my morality is equal to yours what right do you have to tell me what to do?

acd:
Actually, that's the point I'm trying to make. Cultural ideas have nothing to do with objective reality. It doesn't matter if I think the stars move because of the laws of physics or because of the Emperor's benevolence; that has no effect on how they actually move. However, you seem to imply that culture does change morality and that people from different cultures can have different and equal moral codes. That is moral relativism.

 

[acd]

I've been saying that morality is subjective, yes.
That doesn't mean that I think all things are permissible though.
I have morals.

 

[Sai]

[MENTION=5085]Lex Orandi[/MENTION]
in this case, might is right

 

[technics]

But, if everything is subjective, what is the point of creating your own meaning?

To express your subjectivity.

Since most atheists seem to reject the idea of objective, eternal truths as unprovable and/or nonexistent (instead, we are controlled wholly be evolutionary processes and chemical reactions), subjectivity is the only alternative.

You were confusing science and ethics. Separate those two.

 

[This]

Morals are subjective in my opinion. For example we cannot say "murder is always wrong" because it's isn't necessarily. That's just one point of view on it. The morality of a situation comes down to the consequence of that decision. In Buddhism it's karma but karma in the traditional indian sense isn't what we think of as karma in america, it simply means action. The consequence comes from performing right or wrong karma (aka right or wrong action.) For example I know that if I eat big macs for a month I'm going to be in poor health, so it is wrong action. If I eat healthy and exercise for a month I'll be in good health so it's right action. To me that is morality, seeing consequence.

It doesn't quite work the same way in todays society because of the structures we have set up. There is still consequence for action but it is more structured consequence. Take rape for example, say you rape someone; our consequence for rape now days is to go to prison so that is likely where you would end up (ideally anyway), but without a structural construct in place to prevent her father or brother or friend from bashing your head in with a rock (in modern society they would likely go to prison for bashing your head in.) they very well may take this action instead and you would get your head bashed in. So there is still consequence in your action, only that it is consequence that is upheld by society rather than by law.