WP: What Atheists Can't Answer

[alexey]

Yes, it really is irrelevant to the discussion. Let me try this. You think the answer is in Eastern philosophy. Which country in the East represents a successful political/societal manifestation of this philosophy? None? How about through out history?

The fact of the matter is that when presented w/ a repressive form of goverment the Eastern philosophies failed to offer any real resistance and either were completely defeated or co-opted. The end result is what we currently observe in Asia. Three democracies. Two of them rigoursly defended by Western countries w/ a sense of moral obligation due to the belief in God of the majority, and the third in country that is largely Hindu, which has a moral sense of right and wrong, which while no eminating from the same God is the related to the sense of higher powers.

In fact, the most resistance to the repressive forms of goverment in the East do not come from organizations based on any Eastern philosophy, but from Easterners that have taken to the Western religions (Catholocism and Baptist both have made grounds in China), despite the relative newness of these concepts to the region.

Many points to make in response. I'll pick three.

The interplay between religion, philosophy, society, history, and human nature is intricate. Things like geographic location also play important roles. Proper respect should be paid to all factors.

Much of Western success was driven by, and came from, refining ways of killing fellow men. It is hardly evidence of successful philosophy, unless you look at it from utilitarian point of view (but in that case you'd have to frame morality in utilitarian terms as well).

Check history of China.

[alexey]

Maybe so, but by elevating "skillful" beyond it's basic meaning, you've again inadvertently re-introduced morality and absolutes.

Why is it not "skillful" to efficiently enslave another to run one's economy? Maybe one can run an economy another way, but what if that's the best?

Why is it not "skillful" to take another man's wife? What if she is the most attractive, the most intelligent, the best cook, etc.? What if she would be the best wife by a wide margin?

Unless we re-introduce absolute morality into the equation, we're back to the idea that, however much we want to, we can't condemn slavery, wife-stealing, female circumcision, or Jeffrey Dahmer.

Good points! The "absolutism" aspect comes from more-or-less grounded ideas like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism#The_Four_Noble_Truths

[PeterMP]

Many points to make in response. I'll pick three.

The interplay between religion, philosophy, society, history, and human nature is intricate. Things like geographic location also play important roles. Proper respect should be paid to all factors.

Much of Western success was driven by, and came from, refining ways of killing fellow men. It is hardly evidence of successful philosophy, unless you look at it from utilitarian point of view (but in that case you'd have to frame morality in utilitarian terms as well).

Check history of China.

Well, I'm not really talking about the success of western culture. I am talking about the ability of Eastern philosophies to survive a corrupting philosophy (i.e. communism) imposed largely by their native leaders. I'm not blaming their philosophy for not being able to stand up to the colonization by westerners.

[Corcaigh]

That's outside the scope of this discussion. The point is that the atheistic/materialistic world-view can't have any.

I could tell you what I think are absolute morals, but others would disagree on some or all. This is a side-track, though, because the fact that people disagree about what they are has no bearing on whether or not they exist.

If there is no agreement of what they are, then arguing they exist could be stretch.

Look at what you wrote: "more developed". Even in attempting to defend relativism, you inadvertently refer to the absolute.

In order for one's morality to be "more developed" (a statement of superiority), one's morality must be developing towards something. That something has to be a fixed point towards which we develop, which is what we call an absolute.

Relativism allows no such value judgements.

I disagree. There is no problem with agreeing that our knowledge of medicine, science and engineering etc. being more developed than a few hundred years ago, why not morality?

[alexey]

Well, I'm not really talking about the success of western culture. I am talking about the ability of Eastern philosophies to survive a corrupting philosophy (i.e. communism) imposed largely by their native leaders. I'm not blaming their philosophy for not being able to stand up to the colonization by westerners.

Failure to survive? Please. You're talking about a very short period of time. Plus, I've heard some interesting projections for the upcoming century.

[PeterMP]

Failure to survive? Please. You're talking about a very short period of time. Plus, I've heard some interesting projections for the upcoming century.

Eastern Philosophies, not China, are going to make a come back?

[twist]

Religion is not a remedy for the subjectivity of morality if God doesn’t exist.

Whether or not God exists is also different question from whether or not morality is subjective.

Believing in God because you want morality to be objective is like believing Santa because you want presents to appear under your tree on Christmas day (it doesn’t work that way).

If God doesn’t exist Christian morality was developed by ancient goat hearers.

Whether or not those goat hearers hit on some of the more pressing truths (God inspired or no) about forming human societies is going to be how objective and accessible to societies in general that morality will be.

[techboy]

Good points! The "absolutism" aspect comes from more-or-less grounded ideas like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism#The_Four_Noble_Truths

Right. The 4 Noble Truths certainly could serve as anchors for absolute morals. Again, my point is not that any one particular set of anchors is the correct one (though I can argue that too another time ), but rather that a purely materialistic wordview, by its very nature, cannot provide any such anchors.

If there is no agreement of what they are, then arguing they exist could be stretch.

Tell me, what is the precise chemical composition of planet HD 189733b?

We of course, have no idea, though astronomers are currently studying it.

It would be foolish to argue, though, that our lack of certain knowledge about this planet's composition means that it has no definite composition, and it doesn't mean that scientists aren't always trying to learn more about it.

Likewise, the fact that humans seem to be unable to perfectly understand what the absolutes are, and even disagree about some (though I think a course in Anthropology will show you that there is a perhaps surprising amount of agreement across cultures), has absolutely no bearing on their existence, nor, should they exist, does it absolve us of the responsibility, to the best of our ability, to find out what they are.

I disagree. There is no problem with agreeing that our knowledge of medicine, science and engineering etc. being more developed than a few hundred years ago, why not morality?

We measure medicine by its ability to save and improve lives and health.

We measure engineering by its ability to build new and more efficient machines.

By what standard do we measure morality? If not by some absolute standard, measurements become meaningless and value judgements (such as the one you made) become impossible.

Secular Humanists answer that morality should be judged by its ability to improve quality of life for all mankind. They would care for the mentally retarded with social programs, making sure that they are happy, healthy, and well cared for. They might even push for more rights, such as the ability to vote, marry, and have children. Such movements exist today.

Social Darwinists, on the other hand (as found especially in the 19th century, but I'm sure some exist today), would argue that this is weakness that dilutes the gene pool. They would argue that the mentally ill and retarded should be euthanized, so that the human race as a whole might become stronger (sound familiar?). Why should we waste resources on the weak who are not productive and add nothing to society? We certainly shouldn't allow them to have children and pollute the gene pool even further...

Without an absolute standard (such as the idea that all life is sacred and to be protected) there is absolutely no way to argue that one is superior, or more advanced, or more "progressed" than the other. They're just different.

The intellectually honest atheist can say "well, I prefer option 1", but he has not a leg to stand on beyond that. He has no grounds to judge.

[techboy]

Believing in God because you want morality to be objective is like believing Santa because you want presents to appear under your tree on Christmas day (it doesn’t work that way).

I'm sorry. Is someone in this thread arguing that people should believe in God because the consequences of subjective morality suck? I must have missed it.

[stat2883]

I haven't read much of this thread, but something I read a long time ago kinda popped into my head. I remember seeing a magazine (newsweek maybe?) that had "The God Gene" printed on the cover. I remember the article basically saying that religion might be a product of genetic code (affecting behavior...kinda like herding animals) that enabled man to survive and band together. I don't remember the details of the article and I'm not presenting any kind of argument here. Its just something I remember reading once and was wondering if anyone here possibly remembers that article or had heard something similar somewhere.

Anyone? ...Anyone? ...Bueller?

Again, not arguing one way or the other, just some gee-whiz info.

-----edit------

funny what google does for ya

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101041025/

-----another edit-----

I think this is the actual article, though I only read the first couple paragraphs (7 pages long)

Which came first, God or the need for God? In other words, did humans create religion from cues sent from above, or did evolution instill in us a sense of the divine so that we would gather into the communities essential to keeping the species going?

[techboy]

I haven't read much of this thread, but something I read a long time ago kinda popped into my head. I remember seeing a magazine (newsweek maybe?) that had "The God Gene" printed on the cover. I remember the article basically saying that religion might be a product of genetic code (affecting behavior...kinda like herding animals) that enabled man to survive and band together.

chomerics raised this earlier. This is the idea put forth by Daniel Denett, among others.

Of course, it has absolutely no bearing on the discussion, because if true, such a morality would still, by definition, be subjective, and as I noted earlier, no one can sensibly deny the idea that at least some of our mores are socially (or perhaps genetically) derived.

What atheism (and this theory) cannot provide for is the existence of absolute morality, and without such, Hitchens has not a leg to stand on when denouncing the wrongs of religion, which I find rather ironic.

Of course, I've read several philosophers (both theist and atheist) note that Hitchens is an excellent writer, but a lousy philosopher, so there we are...

[PeterMP]

I'm sorry. Is someone in this thread arguing that people should believe in God because the consequences of subjective morality suck? I must have missed it.

Actually, that's what the writter of the piece that started this whole thing seemed to be saying to me. I don't think it is arguement that is going to get many people to believe in God though.

[techboy]

Actually, that's what the writter of the piece that started this whole thing seemed to be saying to me. I don't think it is arguement that is going to get many people to believe in God though.

Hmm... Maybe so. Of course, I dismissed the article as weak first thing, so I kind of forgot what it said. Perhaps this is another case of "good writer, lousy philosopher."

[stat2883]

chomerics raised this earlier. This is the idea put forth by Daniel Denett, among others.

Of course, it has absolutely no bearing on the discussion, because if true, such a morality would still, by definition, be subjective, and as I noted earlier, no one can sensibly deny the idea that at least some of our mores are socially (or perhaps genetically) derived.

good point.

Thanks for bringing me up to speed and sorry for posting old info.

I'll retire back to my corner and just read some more. I'm really out of my comfort zone here anyway

[PeterMP]

Hmm... Maybe so. Of course, I dismissed the article as weak first thing, so I kind of forgot what it said. Perhaps this is another case of "good writer, lousy philosopher."

He should have ended w/ this:

"Atheists can be good people; they just have no objective way to judge the conduct of those who are not."

He then goes on, and I think ruins his point.

[twist]

I'm sorry. Is someone in this thread arguing that people should believe in God because the consequences of subjective morality suck? I must have missed it.

The contention was that theism was a superior belief system because it presents an objective basis for morality.

No one in the thread said it as far as I read, just the article.

So the dilemma is this: How do we choose between good and bad instincts? Theism, for several millennia, has given one answer: We should cultivate the better angels of our nature because the God we love and respect requires it. While many of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.

He is saying that Theists have a good explanation. I would argue they have more explainations that aren't nessisarily good. The question is why do they require one? Well, to make morality non-subjective.

He is saying theism is a better belief system because it presents an objective basis for morality.

Again this is equivalent to believing in Santa is superior because you want presents under your tree. If there is no Santa it doesn’t matter what you believe.

[techboy]

The contention was that theism was a superior belief system because it presents an objective basis for morality.

No one in the thread said it as far as I read, just the article.

Okay, you're right. I agree with you. To say that theism is superior because it presents an objective basis for morality is begging the question of whether or not there is an objective morality, because if there is no objective morality, then religion becomes subjective as well.

I got confused because we kind of moved past the actual article a long time ago. Personally, I rejected it's premise immediately and agreed with PeterMP that the article is flawed, and that the actual ground that atheism cannot provide is any kind of absolute morality, and by extension, the ability to find the morality or behavior of others wanting, something Hitchens is prone to do.

[desioreo87]

Many people would love to believe that after death they are going to a happy place. Dawkins view is you are dead and buried in the ground in a cold box.

This is one thing that mny people will have a lot of trouble accepting, myself included. This isn't to say i'm christian but i would like to believe in some kind of rebirth. It feels like we are getting gipped after we have lead an emotion-filled life that once you die you are literally nothing for the rest of time.

[PokerPacker]

This is one thing that mny people will have a lot of trouble accepting, myself included. This isn't to say i'm christian but i would like to believe in some kind of rebirth. It feels like we are getting gipped after we have lead an emotion-filled life that once you die you are literally nothing for the rest of time.

i used to have that feeling, but i've come to realize that its not quite as bad as nothing. in addition to there being nothing, there also isn't time. you just stop existing. you wouldn't feel bad, you just wouldn't be. kinda link you were before you were born.

[techboy]

It's also pretty much irrelevant, because what we want to be true has absolutely no bearing on what actually is true. Wishing does not make it so.