WP: What Atheists Can't Answer

[PeterMP]

To sum it up, if society has determined that gays and the poor are bad for social development (don't contribute to the gene pool/ suck resources from society), and has decided that Jeffrey Dahmer was actually doing good by removing undesirable elements and advancing social Darwinism, can we still condemn his actions as evil?

That is the question that atheism cannot answer.

Actually, it can. The answer would have to be "no".

Thank you techboy. I've tried to make this point several times in this thread just be run over. If morals are defined by evolution (biological or social), then by definition they will and should change. The problems for atheist is who gets to decied the direction of this change and why them. The idea that we will pick the ones that best benifit human kind is not realistic. We can not see into the future. It is possible that next week that a group of extremely powerful aliens will show up and destroy MA because THEY think that there is something wrong w/ homosequality. It is possible the opposite thing will happen to some "conservative" group or state because of some action they've taken.

[techboy]

Thank you techboy. I've tried to make this point several times in this thread just be run over.

That's why I referenced you in my initial post. You're too quiet.

(Unless someone speaks ill of evolution, of course. Then you're a pit bull. Not that I could identify with having a pet issue, or anything. )

Seriously, though, as I noted, part of the problem is that even the author of the piece gets it wrong.

[Jumbo]

Yes, I'm aware of those ideas, and the semantics piece in use of "absolute" in that fashion. Thats why I used an example familiar to most, just as is the Dahmer (we used to use Speck ) one. I will try to get back to this, but I would rather someone else do it.

Another quick path to play with--aside from debating usage of “absolute”—is the “so what” angle. It usually produces interesting stuff.

Someone might want to explore "who cares if there's no ‘absolute’ according to some? So we make our decisions as we have and continue onward. I don't think its likely any society is going to celebrate Dahmer Days as a result”—even if just due to all the reasons atheists give as to how ethics and values do work, are attractive, and make sense--both as derived from evolutionary shaping forces and simply having the ability to make chocies--choices by people who find life more enjoyable by having more security and order than mayhem and chaos.

More later--hopefully.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I think that most people believe that there is some absolute standard, even if we can't know or understand it perfectly, and that is what allows us to condemn his actions as evil, regardless of what any hypothetical society might have to say.

Love your neighbor as yourself.

[alexey]

Too often, the concept of absolute morality is seen as saying that a particular action is always either right or wrong (for example, lying or stealing). That's a cariacature. Absolute morality is much more subtle.

The concept of absolute morality dictates that, given the surrounding conditions and circumstances, a particular action is always either right, wrong, or neutral (like, for example, selecting a tie to wear, at least usually).

The right/wrong/neutral terminology is not subtle. I prefer the "Eastern" way of putting it - there are skillful or unskillful actions. Same thing, but it automatically applies to all actions and there is no need for judgement.

It is a very powerful way of looking at it, if you think about it. It takes away the neurotic pressure. It gives space to improve one's skill.

[Corcaigh]

Another quick path to play with--aside from debating usage of “absolute”—is the “so what” angle.

I struggle with clear cut definitions of absolutes, and favor looking at the context or consequences to determine morality.

If we accept that a robust code of morality can derive from a mix of nature and nurture, the question remains what are the absolutes that only a god can provide?

It seems that the god of the Old Testament or the Koran committed or encouraged many practices (mass murder, slavery, rape and genocide) that might cause Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot to raise an eyebrow.

[techboy]

The right/wrong/neutral terminology is not subtle. I prefer the "Eastern" way of putting it - there are skillful or unskillful actions. Same thing, but it automatically applies to all actions and there is no need for judgement.

It is a very powerful way of looking at it, if you think about it. It takes away the neurotic pressure. It gives space to improve one's skill.

That's nice, but it has nothing to do with morality, either subjective or absolute.

The South (with the assistance of the North via the Triangle Trade) was very skillful in kidnapping the native peoples of Africa and using them to power a very robust and sucessful agrarian economy.

Are we allowed to condemn slavery?

If we accept that a robust code of morality can derive from a mix of nature and nurture, the question remains what are the absolutes that only a god can provide?

By definition, nature and nurture cannot produce any absolutes at all. At best, they can produce mores that work at the time, but by their very nature, are always subject to change and revision, and thus relative. So, I'd have to say, all of them.

It seems that the god of the Old Testament or the Koran committed or encouraged many practices (mass murder, slavery, rape and genocide) that might cause Hitler, Stalin or Pol Pot to raise an eyebrow.

If we start debating the Old Testament, this thread is going to go completely off course, so I'll just say that I disagree with your assertion on that count and leave it at that. That being said, please consider two things:

1. Though most of the participants on the "absolute" side (myself included) are Christians, the existence of absolutes need not come from the Christian God, or Allah, or even any deity we currently know about. All that can be said with any certainty is that absolutes cannot come from the materialistic or atheistic viewpoint. They just can't.

As such, this line of reasoning is a sidetrack, and irrelevant.

2. By what standard are you judging said actions? If not by absolutes, then how can we judge? The Muslims and Jews created succesful, powerful empires, and their society said it was okay. Conquest was the accepted mode of nation building then. If not by some absolute standard, how can you imply it was wrong?

Anyway, if your point was that people who adhere to the idea of moral absolutes frequently fail to live up to them, well, duh. Christians even have a name for this. We call it man's "fallen nature".

On the other hand, if there's no absolute standard to measure such people against, how do you know they're failing?

[PeterMP]

The right/wrong/neutral terminology is not subtle. I prefer the "Eastern" way of putting it - there are skillful or unskillful actions. Same thing, but it automatically applies to all actions and there is no need for judgement.

It is a very powerful way of looking at it, if you think about it. It takes away the neurotic pressure. It gives space to improve one's skill.

Before you favored destructive and constructive. You're just changing labels. It is meaningless.

[Corcaigh]

So, I'd have to say, all of them.

But what are the absolute morals?

All that can be said with any certainty is that absolutes cannot come from the materialistic or atheistic viewpoint. They just can't.

But do they even exist?

On the other hand, if there's no absolute standard to measure such people against, how do you know they're failing?

We are using our relative morals which are more developed, but we can still apply them to a times when such morals may not have been the norm.

[Jumbo]

Really, semantics often run away with the bone in these things. Pragmatically, the whole dialogue of turning morality/values/ethics inside out and upside down can be sorta mental mustabation in the end.

We have functioned in this manner--theists, agnostics, atheists, and others--all types able and desirous of living within codes and guidelines without universally or even predominantly agreeing on various definitions of absolutism and relativism--this is established. It has been so worldwide for millenia without any required and essential link to any one belief system, all word-games aside, end of story, Dahmer Festival and all. :laugh:

But regardless of all that, and not attached to those comments, here are some quick and easy internets tubes for anyone who wants other information on some of this thread's main themes.

The first link will just give some general direction and definitions of relevant terms. This type of discussion topic can be extra challenging if there is little agreement among participants to what "rules" and definitions are in play (see semantics comment above). It usually helps even just to know that there are differing ways of defining and framing how certain terms are used, and in what kind of context.

http://www.answers.com/topic/moral-absolutism

The next link can yield some more background on the concepts of absolutism (and relativism and consequentialism) and their meanings in more fully developed context in various applications (ethics, moral dilemma, etc.) by well known philosophers. Typical relevant stuff includes Socrates’ old query of "whether the pious or holy is beloved by the gods because it is holy, or holy because it is beloved of the gods" and the implications left for further pondering. There is a search engine available.

http://plato.stanford.edu/

And here’s an essay that would make a good, lively, post in the thread :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: .

http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1994/1/1front94.html

Here's a review of a debate that touches on aspects of this topic--an excerpt that relates to some processes in this thread:

"His argument...was that atheism entailed moral relativism, moral relativism is repugnant to us, therefore atheism is false. That is simply an egregious fallacy."

It is a biased review, but informative and has tables. Gotta love tables.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/barker-rajabali.html#Morality

I'm passing this all on (uncharacteristically) for a couple reasons. One, mainly, because I was checking in on here and I "stopped by" the Skeptic website, and saw this feature for the first time:

"search the secular web."

I had heard about this being set-up. I read people would type in topics that were of broad interest (like evolution) and get a bunch of Christian sites they weren't really wanting to filter through. So I tried “moral absolutism” on it just to see and all this was among a bunch of stuff that came up.

Just like most internet sources. caution before assuming really authoritative information, but at bottom they care guides to ideas. And most of these kinds of webpages I saw are just opinion pieces, likely as full of error, if, perhpas, less fraudulent and more ethical, then their typical Christian counterpart <rimshot!>

I have used the Stanford philosophy site before, though, and it’s well-designed and straight forward. Om could probably get lost there. :cool:

In the meantime, I have to go make some enormous donations to the local Catholic parish.

[AJ_Skins]

Okay, that was nice... But what about when someone is trying to believe, doesn't want to blindly follow and wants to have some sort of mental "proof" that there is a God. He waits, and waits, while bad things happen around him and to him, there is not greener grasses on the other side, but he still says "I want to have what most other people have in their lives, I want to know that there is a God and that there's greater purpose in life", yet nothing still happens, and then when he tries to go to church, he cannot stand it, he hates it, he dreads it, he vows never to go back again...

How is a person who wants to believe but cannot worse than someone who says they believe when they are just doing it to live up to society's expectations?

I think the only answer I can give you from my point of view is this, which is what Jesus said:

"Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.

For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.

Or what man is there among you who, when his son asks for a loaf, will give him a stone?

Or if he asks for a fish, he will not give him a snake, will he?

If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give what is good to those who ask Him!"

I don't know everything you've tried. But I can say that you shouldn't go to other people for the answer. Go directly to God. Pray. Ask him to show you the truth.

[Enter Apotheosis]

I can't believe I actually read the entire thread... and the only thing I have the energy to reply to is relatively irrelevant :doh:

I don't know everything you've tried. But I can say that you shouldn't go to other people for the answer. Go directly to God. Pray. Ask him to show you the truth.

People who dedicate themselves to seeking god with the sole purpose of becoming a believer will begin to see him where he does not exist. :2cents:

[alexey]

That's nice, but it has nothing to do with morality, either subjective or absolute.

The South (with the assistance of the North via the Triangle Trade) was very skillful in kidnapping the native peoples of Africa and using them to power a very robust and sucessful agrarian economy.

Are we allowed to condemn slavery?

No, forcing other people to do things for you would not be considered "skillful."

Let me give you an example. Coveting another's wife would be considered the "wrong" thing to do. It can also be considered an unskillful way of dealing with one's desires. A skillful individual would not even have those desires. A less skilled individual may still have them, but deal with them differently.

Any moral issue can be framed in such terminology.

[alexey]

Before you favored destructive and constructive. You're just changing labels. It is meaningless.

You sound frustrated. Everything is meaningless when you're frustrated.

Looking at the same thing from different angles helps understanding. The way you word something is the way you end up thinking about it. Words do not contain the meaning, they merely point to it. The word is the starting point for meaning, a general direction in which the meaning lies. It is a fundamental and very common mistake to limit the concept based on the word used to point to it. Words must be treated very carefully.

[twa]

People who dedicate themselves to seeking god with the sole purpose of becoming a believer will begin to see him where he does not exist. :2cents:

Strangely enough I agree with this

Of course I also believe this:

Believers look into the skies at night, and they know. Believers see a sunrise or sunset, and they know. Believers know that they don't know everything or have the answers to all the questions. Believers also know that it doesn't matter.

[Corcaigh]

Believers look into the skies at night, and they know. Believers see a sunrise or sunset, and they know.

Ah ... but what do they know ... and is it true?

Taking a placebo has benefits too.

[twa]

Ah ... but what do they know ... and is it true?

Taking a placebo has benefits too.

And no harmful side effects

What do atheist know?....and is it true?

I know what I see...I feel what I feel...Or maybe I don't :laugh:

I think we're chasing rabbits here...sorry for the distraction.

[PeterMP]

No, forcing other people to do things for you would not be considered "skillful."

Why not? Who determines what is skillful and what is not? Is the same action in different circumstances always skillful or unskillful?

You've just changed the vocabulary. At best, your change is going to have no significant affect. At worse, it will slow the process down because you are going to force people to think in and use another set of terms. It does nothing towards actually coming to a solution or answer any more than if we made everbody having moral/philosophical discussions speak French.

[Corcaigh]

And no harmful side effects

What do atheist know?....and is it true?

I know what I see...I feel what I feel...Or maybe I don't :laugh:

I think we're chasing rabbits here...sorry for the distraction.

Let's all agree that we all actually know squat with certainty, and agree not to tell each other what the truth is.

[alexey]

Why not? Who determines what is skillful and what is not? Is the same action in different circumstances always skillful or unskillful?

The same action in different circumstances is not the same action

There is no solid line between skillful and unskillful. I suppose one action can be more skillful than another, but then another action can be more skillful yet.

Just so you know, I'm attempting to describe the "Eastern" way of looking at this stuff. These things fall into an expansive set of philosophies that have been developed over thousands of years. By no means I am an expert in them, but I am familiar enough to provide some info. They do have some interesting stuff to say, considering they have been stressing wisdom and personal development required for it, instead of blind devotion and dogma.

You've just changed the vocabulary. At best, your change is going to have no significant affect. At worse, it will slow the process down because you are going to force people to think in and use another set of terms. It does nothing towards actually coming to a solution or answer any more than if we made everbody having moral/philosophical discussions speak French.

Forcing people to think is a good thing.

I'm not sure how to address this. Language and word selection are extremely important. Most philosophical problems are nothing more than conceptual or linguistic confusions created by philosophers by using ordinary language out of its original context.

[Jumbo]

Strangely enough I agree with this

Of course I also believe this:

Believers look into the skies at night, and they know. Believers see a sunrise or sunset, and they know. Believers know that they don't know everything or have the answers to all the questions. Believers also know that it doesn't matter.

Same with most non-believers I know. :laugh:

[PeterMP]

Forcing people to think is a good thing.

There are more constructive things people need to think about rather than just changing vocabulary.

[alexey]

There are more constructive things people need to think about rather than just changing vocabulary.

Before applying the mind you have to teach it to think.

I'm not sure why you insist on diminishing the role of language. Judging by your attitude it makes no sense to continue this.

[PeterMP]

Before applying the mind you have to teach it to think.

I'm not sure why you insist on diminishing the role of language. Judging by your attitude it makes no sense to continue this.

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.

[techboy]

But what are the absolute morals?

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.

I can tell you there is a Yellow Labrador curled up on a couch next to me. If you don't believe me, it doesn't change the fact that he's still there.

But do they even exist?

I say yes. I think most people (even many atheists, who haven't really thought through the full implications of this) would say yes.

I'd argue that, as the Founding Fathers wrote about a similar topic, it is self-evident.

We are using our relative morals which are more developed, but we can still apply them to a times when such morals may not have been the norm.

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.

"His argument...was that atheism entailed moral relativism, moral relativism is repugnant to us, therefore atheism is false. That is simply an egregious fallacy."

It is a fallacy, but not in the area we are discussing here.

The fallacy lies not in the idea that atheism requires moral relativism (because it must, by its very nature), but rather that the idea that this is unpalatable makes it false (which goes directly to the "so what?" defense you alluded to earlier).

Of course, most arguments from Morality I have seen don't rely on this unpalatability (though it is a nice side bonus to persuade the more emotional in the crowd ), but rather on the establishment or agreement that absolutes exist, and it does follow that should such absolutes exist, atheism is false.

No, forcing other people to do things for you would not be considered "skillful."

Let me give you an example. Coveting another's wife would be considered the "wrong" thing to do. It can also be considered an unskillful way of dealing with one's desires. A skillful individual would not even have those desires. A less skilled individual may still have them, but deal with them differently.

Any moral issue can be framed in such terminology.

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.