atheistic morality

[siegfriedandroy]

I am a Christian theist, and have been engaging in an ongoing discussion with an atheist of friend of mine regarding the concept of morality within an atheistic world view. Perhaps there already some good threads in this forum on the issue...

My initial argument was that there can be no such thing as an absolute, ultimate and objective standard of morality (such as the one the Christian religion proclaims) within an atheistic philosophy. My belief is that atheistic morality is instead entirely subjective and (ultimately) w/o any true meaning apart from that placed upon it by each individual in his lifetime. In reality, the 'wicked' deeds of Hitler, Stalin, Mau, Bush (???), etc., are not evil in any meaningful or absolute sense. Expressions of hatred, distaste, and enmity towards any of these people are in truth (whatever that means) any more valid or legitimate than would expressions of praise and approval for their heinous (in my view they are truly and absolutely evil, as they are in direct opposition to the law of God) actions.

Anyway, my atheist friend could not seem to agree with my above characterization of his worldview's thoughts about morality. Instead, he made what I see as a foolish argument about how 'evil' deeds are somehow truly evil b/c they cause pain to others. He goes on to argue that b/c he knows how pain feels, that somehow he knows it is wrong to instill pain on others. I see this as crazy and directly opposed to the clear implications of atheistic philosophy. Of course, he is free to believe this (or absolutely anything else, for that matter). But in my view, these beliefs are in no way binding or meaningful in any way. To his credit (I guess), he ultimately admitted that his views are of no true and real value or validity beyond whatever pointless purpose they serve here on earth, during this infinitesimally brief flicker and flash of time we experience.

I was, and still am, of the opinion, that most atheistic thinkers would agree that there can be no such thing as an objective, absolute morality w/i an naturalistic view. From reading through some of the posts here, I can see that there are some atheists who seem to be well versed in philosoophy. I'd appreciate your input on this issue.

To be frank, I feel that many (or at least a significant #) of atheists seem incapable of comprehending these logical, moral implications of their philosophy. Rightly or wrongly, it upsets me when prominent atheistic thinkers (or even my good atheistic friend) pontificate endlessly about the pros and cons of each of the social/moral issues that predominate today in our world. It seems ridiculous to me to hear an atheist, one who admits that his views have no real substance, validity, import, etc., rant about how horrible the war is (or how noble it is), how we should believe (or not believe) this about the environment, etc. I understand this is a philosophically delicate topic, and I have not effectively articulated my thoughts to the degree I wish I could. But I do believe my basic ideas are correct, being (1) w/i atheism, there is no such thing as objective morality; (2) the most atrocious crimes committed in the history of the world are not really 'evil' in the sense that most people understand 'evil' to mean (poorly stated, but im tired and multitalbing, too!); (3) murder, rape, etc. is not really, objectively, and absolutely wrong and evil; (4) all arguments in such a world have absolutely zero moral truth inherent in them... i.e.- "we should not go to war b/c innocent iraqis are dying" is no more valid or true then "we should continue the war until we kill all innocent iraqis"- neither statement is really 'better' or worthy of more acceptance or following than the other- (this idea is difficult for me to articulate- basically i just think atheism reduces everything in the universe into utter chaos, confusion, meaninglessness, etc., making every single argument ever made w/o any true meaning); (5) cant think of a fifth- ill return later when i think of more!;

Anyways, just wanted to attempt to gather my thoughts a bit, and hopefully spark some dialogue over these issues regarding atheism.

peace

[David Sklansky]

I am in the minority of agnostics and tend to agree with you. Except that:

1. While there is no inherent right or wrong without God there is lots of what might be called deduced right or wrong. Thus once someone says something like "I believe it is wrong to inflict great pain" then he must believe that chopping someone's finger off is wrong.

2. The fact that there is no inherent right or wrong has no real implications. It doesn't mean that there is no reason not to rape someone for instance. Although if you like doing it, you feel no guilt about it (that's important), and you are sure there will be no repercussions if you do it, you should do it if you are an atheist. And in fact they do. Conquering armies do it all the time. But that conclusion certainly doesn't imply there is a God. It just implies that we are all simply animals with a brain. So what?

Anyway when philosophers argue about right and wrong they are not being silly as long as they agree on some initial axioms. If they are arguing about what those initial axioms SHOULD be then perhaps I agree with you.

I would tend to rely more on the subjectivity of a fellow human than on the Subjectivity (lol the caps)of a god that find it necessary to inflict any form of suffering on his creatures.

I personally find the concept odious but no less so that the notion of obeisance, love or veneration towards such an entity.

But hey.. I am human... and probably off topic. Sorry!

MidGe
--
"Our human race is affected with a chronic underestimation of the possibility of the future straying from the course initially envisioned" - Nassim Nicholas Taleb

[siegfriedandroy]

Mr. Sklansky,

Thanks for the response. I cant believe you were the first to respond to my 1st ever philosophy post! I am star struck! (only half joking!). You are my poker mentor (even though you dont know me). That's cool how accessible you are...wait till i tell my poker buddy at school!

Anyway, I think now it's time to relieve you of your atheism. jk! i am actually quite interested in your thoughts on atheism, evolution, etc.

i was just skimming one of your posts where you mentioned how the fact that everyone seems so sure of their beliefs inhibits your susceptibility to belief. That's interesting. Would you really be any more inclined to believe in a god if everyone was only semi/quasi sure about their beliefs?
Anyway, it's always bothered me how confident everyone always is in what they say- even many posters on this forum- although overall im definitely impressed w/ the general average quality of posters' intellect here! Ive always been the opposite- I constantly doubt my beliefs and feel almost incapable of knowing anything at all. I am Christian, and have grown up in the Lutheran church (although I disagree w/ several key doctrinal issues of the denomination), but ever since high school have questioned my faith with extreme intensity and fervor, often to the point of great agony and torment (over the destiny of my soul). One might say this is crazy, but if you have legitimate reason to believe that hell really exists, and that you could possibly suffer there eternally (sort of a Pascal's wager type thought), then even if there's just a .00001% chance that Christianity is true (I dont see how you could ever come up with such a %- i was just reading that post about the odds on God's existence; while comical, i dont see how anyone could possibly ever put a line on such a question), you'd be a fool to not believe, thereby risking eternity in hell. Anyway, Im not sure exactly how i feel about that argument at this point in my life, as i drift aimlessly through law school, while entertaining less increasingly vague notions of playing poker (or blackjack) instead!

anyway, please excuse my ramblings and musings [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] As for you post, I think you are honorable (dont know if such a word has any real meaning in your world, though!) in admitting the true implications of morality in atheism. in my experience, many atheists/agnostics dodge these implications for fear of appearing to or actually condoning the behavior of the worst megalomaniacs in history. you said that you are in the minority here, though? surely most atheists cannot believe in an absolute and objective morality??

As for your first exception to your concurrence with my views, you said something to the effect of 'b/c it hurts to chop off a finger, therefore it is WRONG to cut off one's finger.' i dont believe this is really an exception. even if the atheist now truly believes (or deceptively convinces himself to believe) that it is wrong, if he is true to his philosophy, then he still doesn't believe it is really, truly, absolutely and objectively WRONG to do this deed, right? Or at least he shouldn't, in being consistent w/ an atheistic world view. but even saying he 'shouldn't' makes me uncomfortable. As i said in my original post, he can do whatever he pleases, and believe as he pleases- all these beliefs and deeds, though, are utterly pointless and w/o meaning.

Cant recall your 2nd exception! Ill go back and look later. In closing, i also remember you writing that you should check raise the river when....no, jk!... that you should do what feels good, etc., etc., but for those who are unintelligent and will not delay gratification, these people are best to believe in God. Why? Why is it good (whatever that means) for society if they do not commit crimes, kill, etc.? What is good for society? Dont know why i finished with that, just curious as to your response.

anyway, i am intrigued by the way you thinking, and am interested in further learning about some of your views, including especially evolution, God's existence, and the ressurection of Christ.

anyway, time to go back to my humble summer wage (as opposed to slaving at some damned law firm!) of 4 tabling party 2/4! or better yet go to sleep. anyway, cool to meet you (sort of)- had no idea you were a philosophy guy in addition to poker guru/sage! look forward to hearing your thoughts on the above.

peace

[Eidal]

Preface: I am an atheist.

Morality is a broad topic and I think lumping every question regarding "right" and "wrong" actions/thoughts together dilutes meaningful debate.

From an atheistic perspective, it seems only logical to agree that there can be no absolute moral truths regarding anything. For example, if you (pretend you are an atheist for a quick second) and I were standing outside a Starbucks and we watch as a man runs across the street and savagely kicks a dog in the ribcage.

While you may call this action immoral, you are actually only stating your emotional response (disgust) at the action. By using the term "immoral" you imply that not only does it disgust you, but it OUGHT to disgust everyone else. This interchange in our language gives rise to the concept of morality, when really, its nothing but insistance that because one human responds in one manner, every human should.

Now, when we include a deity into morality, things get less clear because many humans are boggled at the idea of omnipotence. We are raised in a structured reality, where, more or less, power sets the rules... so when confronted with a belief system that describes their deity (in this case, your God) as having absolute power, many people simply connect the dots and decide that absolute morality exists and is as described in the Bible.

In my opinion, any concept of absolute morality is human arrogance at its finest, because it reduces every shade of interchange of thought between humans into white/black. I can, however, see why the founders of the Church included the concept of morality and sin -- but that would be a topic for another thread.

Suffice it to say, if your atheist friend were to maintain that there ARE moral truths, and me to maintain the direct opposite, we would be at a deadlock.

For example.

Friend: ("Rape is immoral.")
Eidal : ("Rape is not immoral.")
Friend: ("You're so wrong, rape hurts people, that makes it immoral.")
Eidal : ("Rape also makes people feel good, whats your point?")

Between atheists, its just opinion. Between theists, they'll have to decide the TRUE INTERPRETATIONS of whatever books their gods left them.

[txag007]

"But that conclusion certainly doesn't imply there is a God. It just implies that we are all simply animals with a brain. So what?"

This links together with the conciousness thread. We all experience guilt at times. If there is no absolute truth, from where does guilt come?

[txag007]

"(I dont see how you could ever come up with such a %- i was just reading that post about the odds on God's existence; while comical, i dont see how anyone could possibly ever put a line on such a question)"

There are 68 requirements for the galaxy to support life on Earth. While the probabilities for each of them are not that impressive, the chance that they all happen together is astronomical. Borel's Law of Chance states that anything less than 1:10^50 is a statistical impossibility. The probability of all 68 variables happening at once has been computed to be 1:10^99.

The following is a list of each variable and the computed probability. For a more in-depth explanation (complete with references) look here.

Uniqueness of the Galaxy-Sun-Earth-Moon System for Life Support

galaxy size (p = 0.1)
if too large: infusion of gas and stars would disturb sun's orbit and ignite deadly galactic eruptions
if too small: infusion of gas would be insufficient to sustain star formation long enough for life to form

galaxy type (p = 0.1)
if too elliptical: star formation would cease before sufficient heavy elements formed for life chemistry
if too irregular: radiation exposure would be too severe (at times) and life-essential heavy elements would not form

galaxy location (p = 0.1)
if too close to dense galaxy cluster: galaxy would be gravitationally unstable, hence unsuitable for life
if too close to large galaxy(ies): same result

supernovae eruptions (p = 0.01)
if too close: radiation would exterminate life
if too far: too little "ash" would be available for rocky planets to form
if too infrequent: same result
if too frequent: radiation would exterminate life
if too soon: too little "ash" would be available for rocky planets to form
if too late: radiation would exterminate life

white dwarf binaries (p = 0.01)
if too few: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too many: orbits of life-supportable planets would be disrupted; life would be exterminated
if too soon: insufficient fluorine would exist for life chemistry
if too late: fluorine would arrive too late for life chemistry

proximity of solar nebula to a supernova eruption
if farther: insufficient heavy elements would be attracted for life chemistry
if closer: nebula would be blown apart

timing of solar nebula formation relative to supernova eruption
if earlier: nebula would be blown apart
if later: nebula would not attract enough heavy elements for life chemistry

parent star distance from center of galaxy (p = 0.2)
if greater: insufficient heavy elements would be available for rocky planet formation
if lesser: radiation would be too intense for life; stellar density would disturb planetary orbits, making life impossible

parent star distance from closest spiral arm (p = 0.1)
if too small: radiation from other stars would be too intense and the stellar density would disturb orbits of life-supportable planets
if too great: quantity of heavy elements would be
insufficient for formation of life-supportable planets

z-axis range of star's orbit (p = 0.1)
if too wide: exposure to harmful radiation from galactic core would be too great

number of stars in the planetary system (p = 0.2)
if more than one: tidal interactions would make the orbits of life-supportable planets too unstable for life
if fewer than one: no heat source would be available for life chemistry

parent star birth date (p = 0.2)
if more recent: star burning would still be unstable; stellar system would contain too many heavy elements for life chemistry
if less recent: stellar system would contain insufficient heavy elements for life chemistry

parent star age (p = 0.4)
if older: star's luminosity would be too erratic for life support
if younger: same result

parent star mass (p = 0.001)
if greater: star's luminosity would be too erratic and star would burn up too quickly to support life
if lesser: life support zone would be too narrow; rotation period of life-supportable planet would be too long; UV radiation would be insufficient for photosynthesis

parent star metallicity (p = 0.05)
if too little: insufficient heavy elements for life chemistry would exist
if too great: radioactivity would be too intense for life; heavy element concentrations would be poisonous to life

parent star color (p = 0.4)
if redder: photosynthetic response would be insufficient to sustain life
if bluer: same result

H3+ production (p = 0.1)
if too little: simple molecules essential to planet formation and life chemistry would never form
if too great: planets would form at the wrong time and place for life

parent star luminosity (p = 0.0001)
if increases too soon: runaway green house effect would develop
if increases too late: runaway glaciation would develop
surface gravity (governs escape velocity) (12) (p = 0.001)
if stronger: planet's atmosphere would retain too much ammonia and methane for life
if weaker: planet's atmosphere would lose too much water for life

distance from parent star (p = 0.001)
if greater: planet would be too cool for a stable water cycle
if lesser: planet would be too warm for a stable water cycle

inclination of orbit (p = 0.5)
if too great: temperature range on the planet's surface would be too extreme for life

orbital eccentricity (p = 0.3)
if too great: seasonal temperature range would be too extreme for life

axial tilt (p = 0.3)
if greater: surface temperature differences would be too great to sustain diverse life-forms
if lesser: same result

rate of change of axial tilt (p = 0.01)
if greater: climatic and temperature changes would be too extreme for life

rotation period (p = 0.1)
if longer: diurnal temperature differences would be too great for life
if shorter: atmospheric wind velocities would be too great for life

rate of change in rotation period (p = 0.05)
if more rapid: change in day-to-night temperature variation would be too extreme for sustained life
if less rapid: change in day-to-night temperature variation would be too slow for the development of advanced life

planet's age (p = 0.1)
if too young: planet would rotate too rapidly for life
if too old: planet would rotate too slowly for life

magnetic field (p = 0.01)
if stronger: electromagnetic storms would be too severe
if weaker: planetary surface and ozone layer would be inadequately protected from hard solar and stellar radiation

thickness of crust (p = 0.01)
if greater: crust would rob atmosphere of oxygen needed for life
if lesser: volcanic and tectonic activity would be destructive to life

albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount falling on surface) (p = 0.1)
if greater: runaway glaciation would develop
if less: runaway greenhouse effect would develop
asteroid and comet collision rates (9) (p = 0.1)
if greater: ecosystem balances would be destroyed
if less: crust would contain too little of certain life-essential elements

mass of body colliding with primordial earth (0 = 0.002)
if greater: Earth's orbit and form would be too greatly disturbed for life
if lesser: Earth's atmosphere would be too thick for life; moon would be too small to fulfill its life-sustaining role

timing of above collision (p = 0.05)
if earlier: Earth's atmosphere would be too thick for life; moon would be too small to fulfill its life-sustaining role
if later: Earth's atmosphere would be too thin for life; sun would be too luminous for subsequent life

oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere (p = 0.1)
if greater: advanced life functions would proceed too rapidly
if lesser: advanced life functions would proceed too slowly

carbon dioxide level in atmosphere (p = 0.01)
if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop
if less: plants would be unable to maintain efficient photosynthesis

water vapor quantity in atmosphere (p = 0.01)
if greater: runaway greenhouse effect would develop
if less: rainfall would be too meager for advanced land life

atmospheric electric discharge rate (p = 0.1)
if greater: fires would be too frequent and widespread for life
if less: too little nitrogen would be fixed in the atmosphere

ozone quantity in atmosphere (p = 0.01)
if greater: surface temperatures would be too low for life; insufficient UV radiation for life
if less: surface temperatures would be too high for life; UV radiation would be too intense for life

oxygen quantity in atmosphere (p = 0.01)
if greater: plants and hydrocarbons would burn up too easily, destabilizing Earth's ecosystem
if less: advanced animals would have too little to breathe

seismic activity (p = 0.1)
if greater: life would be destroyed; ecosystem would be damaged
if less: nutrients on ocean floors from river runoff would not be recycled to continents through tectonics; not enough carbon dioxide would be released from carbonate buildup

volcanic activity
if lower: insufficient amounts of carbon dioxide and water vapor would be returned to the atmosphere; soil mineralization would be insufficient for life advanced life support
if higher: advanced life would be destroyed; ecosystem would be damaged

rate of decline in tectonic activity (p = 0.1)
if slower: crust conditions would be too unstable for advanced life
if faster: crust nutrients would be inadequate for sustained land life

rate of decline in volcanic activity (p = 0.1)
if slower: crust and surface conditions would be unsuitable for sustained land life
if faster: crust and surface nutrients would be inadequate for sustained land life

oceans-to-continents ratio (p = 0.2)
if greater: diversity and complexity of life-forms would be limited
if smaller: same result

rate of change in oceans-to-continents ratio (p = 0.1)
if smaller: land area would be insufficient for advanced life
if greater: change would be too radical for advanced life to survive

distribution of continents (p = 0.3)
if too much in the Southern Hemisphere: sea-salt aerosols would be insufficient to stabilize surface temperature and water cycle; increased seasonal differences would limit the available habitats for advanced land life

frequency and extent of ice ages (p = 0.1)
if lesser: Earth's surface would lack fertile valleys essential for advanced life; mineral concentrations would be insufficient for advanced life.
if greater: Earth would experience runaway freezing

soil mineralization (p = 0.1)
if nutrient poorer: diversity and complexity of lifeforms would be limited
if nutrient richer: same result

gravitational interaction with a moon (p = 0.1)
if greater: tidal effects on the oceans, atmosphere, and rotational period would be too severe for life
if lesser: orbital obliquity changes would cause climatic instabilities; movement of nutrients and life from the oceans to the continents and vice versa would be insufficient for life; magnetic field would be too weak to protect life from dangerous radiation

Jupiter distance (p = 0.1)
if greater: Jupiter would be unable to protect Earth from frequent asteroid and comet collisions
if lesser: Jupiter’s gravity would destabilize Earth's orbit

Jupiter mass (p = 0.1)
if greater: Jupiter’s gravity would destabilize Earth's orbit 9
if lesser: Jupiter would be unable to protect Earth from asteroid and comet collisions

drift in (major) planet distances (p = 0.1)
if greater: Earth's orbit would be destabilized
if less: asteroid and comet collisions would be too frequent for life

major planet orbital eccentricities (p = 0.05)
if greater: Earth's orbit would be pulled out of life support zone

major planet orbital instabilities (p = 0.1)
if greater: Earth's orbit would be pulled out of life support zone

atmospheric pressure (p = 0.1)
if smaller: liquid water would evaporate too easily and condense too infrequently to support life
if greater: inadequate liquid water evaporation to support life; insufficient sunlight would reach Earth's surface; insufficient UV radiation would reach Earth's surface

atmospheric transparency (p = 0.01)
if greater: too broad a range of solar radiation wavelengths would reach Earth's surface for life support
if lesser: too narrow a range of solar radiation wavelengths would reach Earth's surface for life support

chlorine quantity in atmosphere (p = 0.1)
if greater: erosion rate and river, lake, and soil acidity would be too high for most life forms; metabolic rates would be too high for most life forms
if lesser: erosion rate and river, lake, and soil acidity would be too low for most life forms; metabolic rates would be too low for most life forms

iron quantity in oceans and soils (p = 0.1)
if greater: iron poisoning would destroy advanced life
if lesser: food to support advanced life would be insufficient
if very small: no life would be possible

tropospheric ozone quantity (p = 0.01)
if greater: advanced animals would experience respiratory failure; crop yields would be inadequate for advanced life; ozone-sensitive species would be unable to survive
if smaller: biochemical smog would hinder or destroy most life

stratospheric ozone quantity (p = 0.01)
if greater: not enough LTV radiation would reach Earth's surface to produce food and life-essential vitamins
if lesser: too much LTV radiation would reach Earth's surface, causing skin cancers and reducing plant growth

mesospheric ozone quantity (p = 0.01)
if greater: circulation and chemistry of mesospheric gases would disturb relative abundance of life-essential gases in lower atmosphere
if lesser: same result

frequency and extent of forest and grass fires (p = 0.01)
if greater: advanced life would be impossible
if lesser: accumulation of growth inhibitors, combined with insufficient nitrification, would make soil unsuitable for food production

quantity of soil sulfur (p = 0.1)
if greater: plants would be destroyed by sulfur toxins, soil acidity, and disturbance of the nitrogen cycle
if lesser: plants would die from protein deficiency

biomass to comet-infall ratio (p = 0.01)
if greater: greenhouse gases would decline, triggering runaway freezing
if lesser: greenhouse gases would accumulate, triggering runaway greenhouse effect

quantity of sulfur in planet's core (p = 0.1)
if greater: solid inner core would never form, disrupting magnetic field
if smaller: solid inner core formation would begin too soon, causing it to grow too rapidly and extensively, disrupting magnetic field

quantity of sea-salt aerosols (p = 0.1)
if greater: too much and too rapid cloud formation over the oceans would disrupt the climate and atmospheric temperature balances
if smaller: insufficient cloud formation; hence, inadequate water cycle; disrupts atmospheric temperature balances and hence the climate

dependency factors (estimate 100,000,000,000)

longevity requirements (estimate .00001)

Total Probability = 1:10^99

[Scotch78]

For objective theories, try Utilitarianism or Kant's ethics. For a principle, try equality. Furthermore, I would not agree to your claim that Christian ethics, either ideally or practically, is objective. I would agree that divine command morality is ultimate/absolute, and that atheist/agnostic theories are not, but that is a very different thing from objectivity.

Scott

[andyfox]

"surely most atheists cannot believe in an absolute and objective morality??"

Why not? What is morality other than doing the right thing because it's the right thing to do? What would believing in God or a god have to do with that?

Doesn't it make more sense to say that Christians don't believe in an absolute and objective morality? Because they need the concept of hell, a never-ending punishment for their sins, to force them to act in a moral way. They're trying to please God so that they get to go to heaven instead of to hell. I'd rather have somebody do the right thing because they thought it was a good thing to do than because they fear punishment in the hereafter. Because when temptation comes up, they might doubt that there really is a hereafter and be susceptible to foregetting their morality.

[andyfox]

It seems ridiculous to me to hear an atheist . . . rant about how horrible the war is (or how noble it is),

I don't understand why an atheist cannot be well-versed in, say, Iraqi history and United States foreign policy, and give an intelligent explication of why the war is horrible or noble. I do understand why some would worry about a president who wants to remake the Middle East and says he takes more guidance from Jesus Christ than from his own father, a former director of the CIA and president of the United States.