Are atheists inevitably pessimists?

[Jack by the hedge]

The implications of the idea of God (especially in monotheisms) are not those of fairy beliefs.

Yeah, God's a special case among imaginary beings and non-existence is a special case among beliefs about the nature of God. You said that already. I'm not persuaded it's actually so.

 

[Lithrael]

Mo, I think where you’re getting people barking up a tree you didn’t intend is this kind of stuff:

“discarding the idea of a protective Superfather in the name of freedom”. “certain atheists seem not to have understood the problem and continue as if God's death (metaphor) did not imply consequences” “How to solve the problem of moral values autonomously?”

It all gives the impression that you feel the idea of freedom, the fact of having to face the problem, arise from not participating in god beliefs, rather than just being a different default way to approach life.

That and a lot of people feel that, quite often, a person who embraces god beliefs ends up having to wrestle with morals at least as much as a person that doesn’t have god beliefs. So it feels odd to see you state it like it’s such a basic difference in how people must approach basic questions of morality. I imagine this view has been true in some settings, but I’ve never myself experienced any religious community whose members were in anything near 100% moral confidence about everything all the time. I’ve run into a few people like that, but only a few. I might be able to see an argument that god beliefs are a necessary, but not sufficient, ingredient to someone feeling moral certitude.

ETA: it’s a bit like saying that atheists have chosen to face the idea of existence ending at death, instead of saying everyone has to face the idea of existence ending at death, and some (the sufficiently faithful) conclude that the idea is pants.

 

[Robin]

It is strange to say this because philosophers don't think like you. How many different philosophical theories exist about the issue?

There are different philosophical theories about whether or not all the possible fat bald men in doorways exist.

That is why philosophy is not the right.tool for morality and ethics.

We can talk until the heat death of the Universe about possible fat bald men in doorways and it does not matter.

Morality and ethics is different. We make these decisions every day. We can't wait for the philosophers.

We need clear, well defined questions and we need practical answers.

 

[Robin]

I don't see how you can easily solve the problem I put in:

But, is it [the dialogical ethics] valid in any situation? I have the suspicion that when noise and fury begin (too often, I'm afraid) dialogue is useless. But turning away from fury is not the solution either. How should we guide ourselves then?

I didn't say that talking it over worked in every occasion. Your question was a about shared values. I don't see how we are going to work out.which values we share if we don't talk to each other.

If some of those people want to get noisy and furious then we stay quiet and calm ourselves and find a way to deal with that.

 

[Robin]

Another reason that philosophy is the wrong tool is this tendency for everything to be pigeon-holed with some label.

Real life doesn't fit into neat little discrete packages.

I say "we sit down and talk with each other and work it out" and this gets transformed into something called "dialogical ethics", whatever that is.

But I didn't say "dialogical ethics" I said "we sit down and talk with each other and work it out". It doesn't make it a special branch of ethics when you chat to someone about it.

 

[David Mo]

Yeah, God's a special case among imaginary beings and non-existence is a special case among beliefs about the nature of God. You said that already. I'm not persuaded it's actually so.

God is all-powerful.
God is eternal.
God is absolutely good.
God grants immortality.
God punishes with eternal sorrows.
God has cults.
God has churches.
Belief in fairies is extinct or reduced to four lunatics.

I suppose an expert in the anthropology of religions could point out more differences, but these already seem to me sufficient in relation to the subject we are dealing with.

 

[David Mo]

Mo, I think where you’re getting people barking up a tree you didn’t intend is this kind of stuff:

“discarding the idea of a protective Superfather in the name of freedom”. “certain atheists seem not to have understood the problem and continue as if God's death (metaphor) did not imply consequences” “How to solve the problem of moral values autonomously?”

It all gives the impression that you feel the idea of freedom, the fact of having to face the problem, arise from not participating in god beliefs, rather than just being a different default way to approach life.

That and a lot of people feel that, quite often, a person who embraces god beliefs ends up having to wrestle with morals at least as much as a person that doesn’t have god beliefs. So it feels odd to see you state it like it’s such a basic difference in how people must approach basic questions of morality. I imagine this view has been true in some settings, but I’ve never myself experienced any religious community whose members were in anything near 100% moral confidence about everything all the time. I’ve run into a few people like that, but only a few. I might be able to see an argument that god beliefs are a necessary, but not sufficient, ingredient to someone feeling moral certitude.

ETA: it’s a bit like saying that atheists have chosen to face the idea of existence ending at death, instead of saying everyone has to face the idea of existence ending at death, and some (the sufficiently faithful) conclude that the idea is pants.

When an explanatory model is offered, it cannot be assumed that the model is 100% compliant in all cases of the sample.
The explanation I have given of the difference between the atheist and the theist must be considered a model that is diversified by differences, circumstances and variables (I have already pointed out some), but that is not invalid for that reason. The formula of uniformly accelerated movement is not fulfilled without variations in reality. But that does not invalidate it.

To the extent that the theist and the atheist approach the logical model that I have proposed, the differences that I have pointed out are fulfilled. And, from what I have observed, it is true that the theist considers his moral principles to be based on submission to God's precepts and that the atheist must justify them with the sole use of his reason and freedom of thought. Whatever adjustments you make, this is so evident that I still do not understand what is going on in your head to discuss it.

I don't know what you mean by idea pant. But the case of death is typical. The certainty of death cannot bother a true believer. To avoid it, it is enough to trust in God. The solution is not good for the atheist. He has to find a personal way to face it. And this is not easy, it seems.

That at the moment of truth almost everyone is afraid to die is true. But that only calls into question the authenticity of those who call themselves believers, not the ideal model they assume.

 

[David Mo]

Morality and ethics is different. We make these decisions every day. We can't wait for the philosophers.

We need clear, well defined questions and we need practical answers.

You'll tell me where you get those moral ideas that are self-evident.

 

[David Mo]

Another reason that philosophy is the wrong tool is this tendency for everything to be pigeon-holed with some label.

Real life doesn't fit into neat little discrete packages.

I say "we sit down and talk with each other and work it out" and this gets transformed into something called "dialogical ethics", whatever that is.

But I didn't say "dialogical ethics" I said "we sit down and talk with each other and work it out". It doesn't make it a special branch of ethics when you chat to someone about it.

"We sit down and talk with each other and work it out" is a way of calling what in philosophy is called "dialogical ethics". Whether it is called one way or another does not change the content. Dialogical ethics has occupied the time of philosophers and jurists for years. No consensus has been reached on its validity. Apparently you have the formula without the need to do philosophy. I would like to know it. Although I am a little sceptical I confess.

 

[David Mo]

Another reason that philosophy is the wrong tool is this tendency for everything to be pigeon-holed with some label.

Real life doesn't fit into neat little discrete packages.

I say "we sit down and talk with each other and work it out" and this gets transformed into something called "dialogical ethics", whatever that is.

But I didn't say "dialogical ethics" I said "we sit down and talk with each other and work it out". It doesn't make it a special branch of ethics when you chat to someone about it.

That's the difficulty. Noise and fury don't just start. It is inevitable that participants in a debate go with red lines that they do not intend to cross. For example, I would not be willing to argue with someone who proposes to gas Jews o beat the women. Therefore, talking and discussing is no solution to the question of which principles I should consider unavoidable. The question remains open to your sole and exclusive reason. Dialogical ethics is not sufficient.

 

[Robin]

"We sit down and talk with each other and work it out" is a way of calling what in philosophy is called "dialogical ethics". Whether it is called one way or another does not change the content. Dialogical ethics has occupied the time of philosophers and jurists for years. No consensus has been reached on its validity. Apparently you have the formula without the need to do philosophy. I would like to know it. Although I am a little sceptical I confess.

Let's just repeat that for those who came in late.

Philosophers and jurists spent years discussing the validity of sitting down and talking stuff over and failed to come to a consensus.

Was there ever a better illustration of why philosophy is the wrong tool for ethics and morality?

 

[erwinl]

God is all-powerful.
God is eternal.

So you say. But is this true?

God is absolutely good.

So you say. But is this true?

God grants immortality.

So you say. But is this true?

God punishes with eternal sorrows.

So you say. But is this true?

God has cults.

So you say. But is this true?

God has churches.

So you say. But is this true?

Belief in fairies is extinct or reduced to four lunatics.

Not really

I suppose an expert in the anthropology of religions could point out more differences, but these already seem to me sufficient in relation to the subject we are dealing with.

So you say. But is this true?

 

[Robin]

If philosophers don't think that talking to people is a good way to find out what their values are, what alternative approach do they suggest? Guessing?

 

[Robin]

"Apparently you have the formula without the need to do philosophy. I would like to know it. Although I am a little sceptical I confess.

Remember we were specifically asking how we find out about shared values.

So try this.

Bob wants to know Alice's values about homelessness. So he goes up to her and says "Alice, I think that we, as a society, should be doing more about homelessness, how about you?"

Alice says "Hey I think so too" and Bob finds out they share a value. Or maybe Alice says "no way, I am not wasting money on those bums" and Bob finds out that this is a value they don't share.

I guess all those philosophers and jurists didn't think of that approach huh?

 

[BadBoy]

Let's just repeat that for those who came in late.

Philosophers and jurists spent years discussing the validity of sitting down and talking stuff over and failed to come to a consensus.

Was there ever a better illustration of why philosophy is the wrong tool for ethics and morality?

I just spat my tea. That's funny.

 

[BadBoy]

When an explanatory model is offered, it cannot be assumed that the model is 100% compliant in all cases of the sample.
The explanation I have given of the difference between the atheist and the theist must be considered a model that is diversified by differences, circumstances and variables (I have already pointed out some), but that is not invalid for that reason. The formula of uniformly accelerated movement is not fulfilled without variations in reality. But that does not invalidate it.

Sorry Mo, I have no idea what you mean here.

To the extent that the theist and the atheist approach the logical model that I have proposed, the differences that I have pointed out are fulfilled. And, from what I have observed, it is true that the theist considers his moral principles to be based on submission to God's precepts and that the atheist must justify them with the sole use of his reason and freedom of thought. Whatever adjustments you make, this is so evident that I still do not understand what is going on in your head to discuss it.

Is it just me, or am I correct in saying that no one here has argued that the highlighted is not correct? I would think we would all agree more or less to that wouldn't we?

I am struggling here Mo, I can't put my finger on it but it feels as though you keep changing your argument to the extent that I'm not even sure what we are discussing anymore.

 

[BadBoy]

BTW, we may have some evolutionary innate instinct for some morals - if you want to even term them as such.

Generally small groups of people require each other to survive. Not killing people could just be innate and instinctive. Ants don't kill each other - generally - as far as I know. Lions within a pride don't eat each other either. Some stuff maybe doesn't need discussion?

 

[David Mo]

Let's just repeat that for those who came in late.

Philosophers and jurists spent years discussing the validity of sitting down and talking stuff over and failed to come to a consensus.

Was there ever a better illustration of why philosophy is the wrong tool for ethics and morality?

I just spat my tea. That's funny.

I didn't say "wrong". I said "insufficient". There is a big difference between the two things.

 

[David Mo]

So you say. But is this true?

So you say. But is this true?

So you say. But is this true?

So you say. But is this true?

So you say. But is this true?

So you say. But is this true?

Not really

So you say. But is this true?

They are not true, but believers think so and this is the subject.

There are many people who believe in fairies? Really? How much?

 

[David Mo]

If some/many philosophers don't think that talking to people is a good sufficient way to find out what their values are, what alternative approach do they suggest? Guessing?

This is not my point. It was you that affirmed that this problem has an easy solution. I was sceptic. The burden on proof is on your side.

NOTE: Maybe this needs a new thread.