Atheism And Moral Progress

[carpedm9587]

Thanks for the greetings.

The main reason I stopped was his continual requests to answer something that had already been repeated addressed. I've better things to do with my time than go back through a thread to find a post I made earlier so I could copy and paste it into the thread again.

It's what Seer does. He repeats the same question over and over again, ignoring the many times it has been responded to. The first time you say, "I think I've responded to this enough," he jumps in with "why are you avoiding the question?" or something to that effect. I suppose it's an effective debate tactic - but it's not very conducive to exploring an idea and testing its boundaries and limits. I came to find it largely a waste of time. He's not the only one that does it. It's a common tactic around here.

About my faith - 'none'. I am an agnostic weak atheist. That is:
- I do not believe any gods exist (the atheist bit).
- I do not believe no gods exist (the weak bit).
- I believe it is not possible to know whether or not any gods exist (the agnostic bit).

So, after repeated readings, I keep coming to the same place: the first two appear to be in contradiction. Can you expand and perhaps resolve the contradiction?

I also note the implied distinction between faith (first two) and knowledge (third). Ultimately, it is not clear to me that we can ever "know" anything if "knowing" requires 100% certainty. The best we poor humans can achieve is varying levels of confidence in our conclusions. In this, the theist tends to have the advantage. If they have had a personal experience of their god, they will have a level of confidence in their beliefs that the atheist can never achieve.

Just a thought...

BTW - I am a recovering theist!

[seer]

You acknowledge your position (and yes, you have indeed made the arguments that subjective things are essentially "fake" and not worthy of consideration), but then complain about a "cheap shot?"

That's a tad confusing.

Not confusing, and I never said fake. There are simply no right or wrong moral answers in your world. Save what you personally prefer - which is no more meaningful that your particular taste in ice cream. And yes it was a cheap shot.

[Electric Skeptic]

It's what Seer does. He repeats the same question over and over again, ignoring the many times it has been responded to. The first time you say, "I think I've responded to this enough," he jumps in with "why are you avoiding the question?" or something to that effect. I suppose it's an effective debate tactic - but it's not very conducive to exploring an idea and testing its boundaries and limits. I came to find it largely a waste of time. He's not the only one that does it. It's a common tactic around here.

Yes, I've seen the tactic before. It's used on another, similar website I frequent as well - I find it very depressing. Are the people who use it completely uninterested in actually discussing positions and beliefs? Are they just here to 'score points' for their side? I honestly don't get it.

So, after repeated readings, I keep coming to the same place: the first two appear to be in contradiction. Can you expand and perhaps resolve the contradiction?

This is a common one - the difference between "I don't believe in God" and "I believe God doesn't exist". I'll explain it with an analogy, but I'd encourage you to read online about the difference between 'weak' atheism and 'strong' atheism (in my experience, they are the most common terms to describe the difference, although I've heard others used - mostly 'positive' and 'negative' atheism).

With regard to atheism, we're (obviously) talking about belief in the existence of gods.

But, by way of an analogy look, instead, at belief in the color of my shirt. Do you believe that, right now, that I am wearing a white shirt (I'm not claiming that I am or that I am not)? You can't honestly say yes; you have no idea what color shirt I'm wearing (or even if I'm wearing a shirt at all). So you're "awhiteshirtbeliefist" - you lack belief that I'm wearing a white shirt. But nor do you believe I'm not wearing a white shirt. Again, you have no idea what I'm wearing.

So you don't believe I'm wearing a white shirt, but you also don't believe I'm not wearing a white shirt. You're a weak awhiteshirtbeliefist. But there's another bloke who walked past my house an hour ago and saw me - and he noted that I was wearing a red shirt. He's a strong awhiteshirtbeliefist - he doesn't believe I'm wearing a white shirt, and he also believes that I'm not wearing a white shirt. That belief (that I'm not wearing a white shirt) is one that you don't have - again, you have no idea at all.

Does that make sense?

Similarly, I don't believe a god exists - I find the claimed evidence unconvincing. But I also don't believe that no god exists. I can think of gods who would leave no evidence for me to perceive. Or maybe I'm just wrong in my evaluation of the claimed evidence for the Christian (or Muslim, or Jewish) god.

In the end, it comes down to belief in propositions.

The proposition "A god exists" is not one in which I believe. The proposition "No gods exist" is another one in which I do not believe. That makes me a weak (or negative) atheist.

I also note the implied distinction between faith (first two) and knowledge (third). Ultimately, it is not clear to me that we can ever "know" anything if "knowing" requires 100% certainty. The best we poor humans can achieve is varying levels of confidence in our conclusions. In this, the theist tends to have the advantage. If they have had a personal experience of their god, they will have a level of confidence in their beliefs that the atheist can never achieve.

Firstly, a good website on the agnostic thing is here.

I agree with your comment regarding 100% certainty. IMO the only thing we can ever know is that we exist - cogito, ergo sum. Apart from that fact, we could all be brains in a vat and everything I perceive an illusion. I can never know 100% that that is not the case.

But most people use 'know' not to mean 100% certainty, but something less stringent. In this context I use it to mean belief based on evidence so strong that no reasonable person would dispute the belief if they had access to the same evidence. That sadly makes it rather subjective - who decides what a 'reasonable' person is?

My reasoning is rather simple - when I think of any religious experience anybody has ever claimed to have, including personal experiences of god, their accounts of the experience are indistinguishable from (a) documented hallucinations and (b) religious experiences of contradictory deities claimed by others. If person 1 claims to have had a personal experience of Jesus telling them that Islam is wrong and person 2 claims to have had a personal experience of Allah telling them that Christianity is wrong, obviously they both can't be correct. But they both claim equally valid and 'real' experiences - so at least one of those people is wrong, and actually had some sort of hallucination. But whichever one is wrong, the other one claimed precisely the same level of 'evidence' - so it's not reasonable to claim knowledge when someone with the same evidence for a contradictory belief is wrong.

Does that make sense?

Just a thought...

BTW - I am a recovering theist!

Welcome to the dark side! We have cookies!

[JimL]

Not confusing, and I never said fake. There are simply no right or wrong moral answers in your world. Save what you personally prefer - which is no more meaningful that your particular taste in ice cream. And yes it was a cheap shot.

That's just silliness, seer. Morals are not about ice cream or beauty, not about personal preferences, they are about what is in the best interests of human beings living together, aka human society. That means there are right and wrong answers even if morals are not themselves objective moral laws come down from heaven. For instance, the moral against murder serves the best interests of both individuals and of society as a whole and it needn't be a divine law in order to serve that purpose.

[Electric Skeptic]

That's just silliness, seer. Morals are not about ice cream or beauty, not about personal preferences, they are about what is in the best interests of human beings living together, aka human society. That means there are right and wrong answers even if morals are not themselves objective moral laws come down from heaven. For instance, the moral against murder serves the best interests of both individuals and of society as a whole and it needn't be a divine law in order to serve that purpose.

Of course morals are about personal preferences. Who says they are about the best interests of human society? That might be a great thing to pursue, but that doesn't make it anything to do with morality.

[Tassman]

Of course morals are about personal preferences. Who says they are about the best interests of human society? That might be a great thing to pursue, but that doesn't make it anything to do with morality.

Nevertheless we are predisposed to conform to communal rules of behavior (morality) because they are a product of evolution - they lend themselves to our survival as a species.

[JimL]

Of course morals are about personal preferences. Who says they are about the best interests of human society? That might be a great thing to pursue, but that doesn't make it anything to do with morality.

I disagree, to a degree. Morals may be ones personal preference, but the ultimate purpose is the benefit they provide to both the individual and to human society as a whole. The moral against someone murdering or robbing you is most likely your personal preference, but as moral laws they serve the best interests of human society as well. It's not the same thing as having a personal preference for chocolate rather than vanilla ice cream as such a choice has no effect on others. Morals, in my opinion are as much, or actually more about society than they are about the individual, though they ultimately serve the best interests of both.

[Tassman]

I disagree, to a degree. Morals may be ones personal preference, but the ultimate purpose is the benefit they provide to both the individual and to human society as a whole. The moral against someone murdering or robbing you is most likely your personal preference, but as moral laws they serve the best interests of human society as well. It's not the same thing as having a personal preference for chocolate rather than vanilla ice cream as such a choice has no effect on others. Morals, in my opinion are as much, or actually more about society than they are about the individual, though they ultimately serve the best interests of both.

Yes. As is the case to some degree with ALL social animals.

[Starlight]

What I said was that there are NO universal moral standards – religious or secular. Morals have demonstrably evolved and varied from culture to culture over time. This is not a “moral standard” in and of itself, it is merely an observation based upon human history.

Jonathan Haidt's anthropological research on moral foundations seems to suggest that cultures choose a subset from a set of 5 main moral ideas. There are two main moral idea that seem to be universally used by everyone everywhere, which he calls "Harm" and "Fairness". And an additional 3 that are optional and can be pretty arbitrary (Loyalty to your group, Respect for proper authorities, and Disgust).

So, while those last three ones do vary hugely from culture to culture and have degrees of arbitrariness (If we're part of many groups which are we supposed to be loyal to and to what degree? Who are the 'proper authorities' and how much respect is 'appropriate'? Which things are supposed to cause us gut reactions of disgust, and how is this not simply a product of community or personal experiences?), it seems like the first two ideas of Harm and Fairness, could be argued from an anthropological point of view to be always-and-everywhere moral principles.

I would say that in Western culture over the last couple of hundred years, liberals have kept thinking hard about morality and whenever they found an idea that was arbitrary or purely a product of cultural upbringing, they rejected it, so they gradually paired away the last 3 ideas from their thinking about morality, leaving only the first two. In that sense, liberal secular morality today is pretty close to the universal core that was present in all human societies in history, though nearly all such societies arbitrarily added their own ideas in addition.

So, from a purely anthropological view, though there obviously hasn't been 100% agreement in human history, it's not true that there's been 0% agreement. After all, as you point out, evolution is going to promote certain behaviors among social species like humans, so it's unsurprising that such a shared evolutionary core will lead to shared core moral concepts present in all human societies. We tend to agree a lot in this forum about a lot of things, but it always rubs me the wrong way on the topic of morality when you insist on a complete lack of existence of universal morality. I feel like you need to phrase such statements in a vastly more nuanced way given you point to the fact that evolution has innate requirements for the human social species. Obviously such innate evolutionary requirements will have a reflection in all human cultures, and in that sense it's totally plausible for this to give rise to some core universally shared human moral concepts.

[JonathanL]

Of course morals are about personal preferences.

Morals are either a useful fiction, or an objective fact. Morals do not have much to do with personal preference, since you can act in ways that go against your personal preference in order to satisfy your sense of morality.

[Electric Skeptic]

Nevertheless we are predisposed to conform to communal rules of behavior (morality) because they are a product of evolution - they lend themselves to our survival as a species.

That does not make those rules anything to do with morality.

[Electric Skeptic]

I disagree, to a degree. Morals may be ones personal preference, but the ultimate purpose is the benefit they provide to both the individual and to human society as a whole.

Who says morality has anything at all to do with the benefit they provide to the individual or to human society as a whole?

You are confusing tendencies the vast majority of us have (not to murder, not to steal, etc.) with morality. Who says they have anything to do with morality?

The moral against someone murdering or robbing you is most likely your personal preference, but as moral laws they serve the best interests of human society as well.

Again, who says they're anything to do with morality?

[Electric Skeptic]

Morals are either a useful fiction, or an objective fact.

False dichotomy. There are other options, such as that they exist but are subjective, that they are about personal preference.

Morals do not have much to do with personal preference, since you can act in ways that go against your personal preference in order to satisfy your sense of morality.

Define 'personal preference' as used here. You seem to be using the term in a different way to me.

[seer]

You are confusing tendencies the vast majority of us have (not to murder, not to steal, etc.) with morality. Who says they have anything to do with morality?

So to murder or not murder is not a moral consideration?

[JimL]

Who says morality has anything at all to do with the benefit they provide to the individual or to human society as a whole?

You are confusing tendencies the vast majority of us have (not to murder, not to steal, etc.) with morality. Who says they have anything to do with morality?


Again, who says they're anything to do with morality?

Well, obviously I said so. It's my opinion that morals serve a social purpose and are not simply personal preferences. We are not born moral, morals are drilled into us, they are a learned set of values and acceptable behaviors that serve both your own interests and the interests of human society as a whole. Where do you think morals come from?