So you're an atheist. Ok, what next?

[godless dave]

Derail...

For goodness sake let your boy join the Scouts. Maybe things are different in the UK but I had no problem being an atheist scout.

Things are definitely different in the UK. The BSA actively discriminates against atheists and gays. And there are plenty of American scouting organizations that don't; Campfire USA is one of them. So there is no reason for an American parent who doesn't approve of discrimination against atheists and gays to enroll their children in Boy Scouts of America.

 

[godless dave]

Moral truth is objective. I build up a picture of it internally via an examination of my individual conscience.
Another person's conscience will tell them slightly different things to mine, and they will describe it as such.
This does not mean that moral truth is subjective.

That's pretty much the dictionary definition of subjective.

 

[plumjam]

Let's pop the top on a Buddha beer (or is that a Hindu Heineken?).

Presumably, the "exterior intelligence" was aware of himself before he blew himself into so many myriad unaware pieces.

This journey back to awareness can't really be too meaningful if it winds up with the same bored eternal EI that twisted himself into this puzzle in the first place.

I don't have a problem with these games, but I see them for what they are. They don't manage to graft real meaning on a meaningless universe.

I can still find meaning in my own life, by choosing what is important to me. Yes, it's subjective meaning, but so what? Yes, it isn't "eternal," but my actions will still have consequences beyond myself, and I am aware of that, though I may not always know with accuracy just what those consequences will be. Subjective and limited is the hand I've been dealt, and I choose to play it.

Suit yourself. It's up to you.

(you can look up the concepts of lila and maya if you like)

 

[godless dave]

Conscience really is deeper than and prior to belief. When you look at your conscience to determine whether something is right or wrong you are not using words, rationality, beliefs etc..

When you feel empathy, you do exactly that.. you feel it. You don't first think up a sentence that expresses empathy. First you feel it. Without words or beliefs.

I agree, and I suspect every other poster on this thread agrees as well. So what the hell does that have to do with atheism?

 

[joobz]

Joobz, that's a faith statement of yours.

Nope. You're simply wrong. There's a completely organic explanation for what you call conscience.

D. Talami. "Neurobiology: Feeling right about doing right" Nature 446, 865-866

When you are making moral decisions what does it feel like to you?
You examining your conscience, or you examining your personal genetic makeup + experience?

conscience = the sum of your genetic makeup +experience +medical status(e.g., brain damage).

 

[plumjam]

Plum, you’re only postponing the inevitable sour taste of being wrong.


You already made a similar kind of post before (#590) to which I responded (post #628). Here it is again:



In short: you are wrong in a similar way as a person is wrong when he claims to have arrived at a though without thinking.




…”and the rock cried out, no hiding place”


It’s still subjective plumjam! I would think his position is less moral than mine (provided he knows approximately the same things about Sweden and Nazi Germany as I do). Whatever I think about that person or how I compare my morality to his; it’s still a subjective assessment, my assessment. You might agree with my assessment, that would be your subjective assessment.

By your logic all subjective assessments are literally of equal value. So Hannibal Lecter is literally just as moral as Superman.

But that would be nonsense.

 

[thaiboxerken]

yes, because moral truth is objective, and is perceived via the individual conscience

Feel free to provide scientific evidence to support this claim. As far as I know, science (the arbiter of objective facts) has yet to discover "moral truth."

 

[plumjam]

I agree, and I suspect every other poster on this thread agrees as well. So what the hell does that have to do with atheism?

sorry, but you'd have to go back and read the whole thread to see how I/we ended up here

 

[John_Geeshu]

I'd say 150 years ago people who suggested the existence of electromagnetic waves were ridiculed. Our current state of knowledge is no doubt minuscule to what it will be in the future. The fact that we currently don't know the nature of any 'mechanism' for the intelligent guidance of physical evolution does not mean we should conclude that such a thing cannot exist. We have no idea what gravity or magnetism are, or how they manage to work at a distance. We have no idea what is the 'mechanism' which makes consciousness possible. We cannot be sure even that 'mechanisms' are what are needed for consciousness or intelligently guided evolution. Perhaps intelligence sometimes works through mechanisms, sometimes not.

As I want to try to keep the discussion from fracturing too badly I'd like to stick with this point for now.

You didn't really explicitly answer my question, but I infer* from your answer that you disagree with them to the extent that the jury is still out on what they are proposing and the argument you are posing seems either more likely to you or stronger in some way.

Have you read Attenborough's, Dawkin's and Stenger's arguments about this point?

* Edited from "imply" to "infer." Mistyped.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So Hannibal Lecter is literally just as moral as Superman.

This is a value-judgment, in other words, it's subjective.

 

[godless dave]

the consequence of what you wrote is that if you knew you could get away with a crime that would benefit you, there's no real reason why you shouldn't do it.

That's not the consequence at all. One real reason why he shouldn't commit a crime is that his conscience would probably bother him.

 

[godless dave]

sorry, but you'd have to go back and read the whole thread to see how I/we ended up here

I have read the whole thread. Your statement doesn't follow from it.

No one except you is denying that atheists have consciences. Having a conscience is not incompatible with materialism. Human consciences come from the brain; the brain is material.

By asking "what does any of this have to do with atheism?" I was making the point that beliefs about morality, and behavior related to those beliefs, has absolutely nothing to do with one's beliefs about the supernatural or the meaning of life. Atheism says nothing about morality for the same reason the germ theory of disease says nothing about guitar technique - they are totally unrelated topics. Morality comes from inside human minds; it has nothing to do with the existence or nonexistence of deities.

 

[John_Geeshu]

So that will mean that people who are good at reasoning should be more moral than those who aren't so clever, shouldn't it?

1) That does not follow logically from what I said.
2) Reason is not the exclusive domain of the intelligent. It is accessible to all.

 

[plumjam]

Feel free to provide scientific evidence to support this claim. As far as I know, science (the arbiter of objective facts) has yet to discover "moral truth."

Which is why moral systems based on materialist empiricism ("objective" facts) have been so catastrophic.
Nazi morality, for example, was based on objective scientific facts like skin colour, shape of head, colour of eyes, genetic inheritance etc..

The 'scientific' way of looking for things will never find morality. So when moral systems can be set free in this way of thinking, it's a free-for-all folks. Time to single out the 'objective facts' we don't like; and get rid of them.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Which is why moral systems based on materialist empiricism ("objective" facts) have been so catastrophic.

Any real examples?

Nazi morality, for example, was based on objective scientific facts like skin colour, shape of head, colour of eyes, genetic inheritance etc..

Nazi morality was based on the bible. Did you have any real examples of "materialist morality"? I can't think of any moral systems based on materialism, it's as silly as basing morality on mathematics. That's not to say that materialism can't explain where morality comes from, it just doesn't dictate what the morality should be.

The 'scientific' way of looking for things will never find morality.

Mathematics will never find morality either. What's your point?

 

[plumjam]

As I want to try to keep the discussion from fracturing too badly I'd like to stick with this point for now.

You didn't really explicitly answer my question, but I infer* from your answer that you disagree with them to the extent that the jury is still out on what they are proposing and the argument you are posing seems either more likely to you or stronger in some way.

Have you read Attenborough's, Dawkin's and Stenger's arguments about this point?

* Edited from "imply" to "infer." Mistyped.

some of Attenborough's, some of Dawkins'. I haven't heard of Stenger.

yes, to me it seems more likely

 

[godless dave]

The 'scientific' way of looking for things will never find morality.

Is anyone saying that it will? You appear to be arguing with someone who doesn't post here.

 

[plumjam]

1) That does not follow logically from what I said.
2) Reason is not the exclusive domain of the intelligent. It is accessible to all.

yes, but is it your experience of life that people who are better at reasoning are more moral than those not as adept at reasoning?

it certainly isn't mine

people who have highly developed consciences are people who have highly developed consciences
people who are good at reasoning are good at reasoning

I don't see any strong connection at all.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

What you need to understand is the distinction between fact and fiction.

By your logic all subjective assessments are literally of equal value. So Hannibal Lecter is literally just as moral as Superman.

My assessment about Superman being morally superior to Hannibal Lecter is my subjective assessment. I can only hope that you’re subjective assessment is similar.

 

[plumjam]

No one except you is denying that atheists have consciences.

If that was what you got from reading the whole thread then I think you wasted your time.