Atheism And Moral Progress

[Electric Skeptic]

But:
(a) we can never have knowledge of whether such ethereal true forms beyond the veil of our world actually exist; and
(b) if they did exist and we were absolutely sure they existed, it still need have zero implications on our own actions because frankly what does it matter if we could say that such platonic forms of morality existed out there somewhere in the ether, why would that motivate our behavior in the slightest?

So, it seem to me, using this idea of morality is the wrong approach in the sense that we can never know if it's true, and if it is true then it doesn't affect anything. Why bother with something that can't affect us and which we can never know?

So instead of unknowable, untestable, ethereal ideas of morality which would have no implications for humans even if true, it seems better to focus on very down-to-earth things about human-human behavior. How do humans assess behavior, because that's what morality is in practice.

Evolution has put into humanity some pretty fundamental instincts, like threat-assessment. Every act by another being our brain assesses, often subconsciously, to determine if that poses a danger to our well-being, and also assesses to try and determine if the other being was intentionally trying to harm us. We can't get away assessing actions and those doing them based on whether harm was intended, or benefit was intended, and categorizing the person acting as an enemy or an ally (or somewhere in between). Our being a social animal, and being at times a predator and a prey animal, evolutionarily has made us deeply hardwired to make these sort of harm-benefit assessments of other people's intentions toward us. Unsurprisingly, then, we seem to find this harm-benefit assessment theme present in the thinking of all cultures with regard to morality.

I can't really disagree with anything you've said here. Remember, I finished my last post to seer with:

"As I write this I'm wondering if I should have even brought this up. Calling murder morally wrong works for just about all of humanity, and in that sense it doesn't even really matter if there is some actual moral category out there that we can't access. Maybe I'm just trying to count those dancing angels."

Basically, I wish we could dispense with the term 'moral' when it comes to judging human actions. It comes with too much baggage. If someone performs an act that benefits a lot of people (apart from other considerations) I have no trouble saying that they've done something good, without reference to any deity or any ethereal notion of morality. Similary, if I read of someone murdering someone, or raping someone, I don't need to think about deistic rules or any Platonic concepts to quickly form the opinion that they have acted badly and that society is better off if people do not perform such acts and that we should (all) act so as to prevent them where we can.

I think talking of the morality of such acts basically just confuses the issue.

[Electric Skeptic]

That's pretty much my conclusion. It's not everyone, mind you. But the practitioners of that art are devoted to its efficacy. Further discussion with them is largely pointless. It's why I don't engage here all that often anymore.

It's (one of the reasons) why I abandoned a forum in which I used to post and came here on another's recommendation, hoping for more meaningful discussion. Thus far I've found arguments in general to be of a much higher standard here.

It makes sense, but the language is a little thick. The statement "I don't believe you are wearing a white shirt," is ambiguous. It could be parsed to mean, " 'You are wearing a white shirt' is not a belief I possess." It can also be parsed to mean "I assess your claim that you are wearing a white shirt as untrue." You seem to be constraining it to say the former. However, if I heard someone say "I don't believe you are wearing a white shirt" on a phone call, I would assume they were telling the other person they believed they were wearing a shirt of a different color, or no shirt at all.

Well, it makes sense to you - that's a start, at least.

I must disagree with your claim that

The statement "I don't believe you are wearing a white shirt," is ambiguous'

It neither says nor implies anything about me having made a claim at all. Certainly it's compatible with you having made a claim about the color of your shirt, but all it says is your first option above:

'You are wearing a white shirt' is not a belief I possess.

Similarly, going back to what this analogy for, "I don't believe in the existence of gods" says nothing more (or less) than that "'God(s) exist' is not a belief I have."

I understand your explanation, and am familiar with the weak/strong atheist propositions. I think I formulate my position a bit differently. Ultimately, I believe that proofs for the existence of god all fail to prove what they set out to prove, for any god I've ever heard proposed. I have also never encountered a proof for the nonexistence of a god. I'm not sure such a thing could even be constructed.

Sorry if I came across as patronising, then, since you are aware of the weak/strong positions. Reading your response, you are clearly more knowledgeable/experienced in this area than I incorrectly thought. My apologies.

As far as proofs for the nonexistence of a god go, I do not know of one that would do for all gods. However, I believe the problem of suffering to be a proof of the non-existence of an omnimax god.

Despite that, I believe that all of the gods I have encountered in my studies of human history/mythology/theology are beings constructed from the imagination of humanity; they do not exist outside of the human mind. I hold that belief on the strength of a wide body of evidence gathered over the last three decades. No single element of that evidence is proof in and of itself, but the collection paints a portrait I find enormously compelling. I cannot say that "no gods exist" because such an absolute statement would require a level of knowledge/certitude not possible for a finite being. But it believe that is the most likely truth.

I am tempted to agree but the idea of an indifferent god - one who creates and then walks away - is, IMO, not able to be evidenced against. The only evidence against such a being is the absence of evidence for it.

I think Descartes was just a tad off. His "cogito ergo sum" should have been "cogito ergo existit aliquid." Unfortunately, it doesn't look as good on a mug or a t-shirt!

My Latin is not that good - could you translate? Google was sadly unsatisfying here.

You are posting in the land of absolutes, ES. The response will likely be "god does," and then around we will go.

To which my response would be that as soon as you can evidence the existence of such a being, we can discuss it.

It does indeed, and aligns with many of my own observations. You should perhaps know that I am a recovering evangelical Christian. 35 years ago I was in formation for the Catholic priesthood. I left the novitiate, then the sect, then the faith altogether over a period of about seven years. I've been atheist for almost three decades. Part of my journey out was due to my growing awareness of the circularity of the beliefs.

Thanks for the background.

If they have only let you have the cookies, you must still be on probation. When you get your horns, they give you access to the good stuff...

You're crazy. The cookies (chocolate chip, if I had my druthers) are the good stuff.

[Electric Skeptic]

I have often noted that calling "murder" morally or legally wrong is nothing more than redundant. "Murder" is defined as "the unlawful or wrongful premeditated killing of one human being by another."


So "murder is wrong" expands to "wrongful killing is wrong." It's a simple tautology. The question is, what makes the killing of a human being by another human being "wrongful?" Clearly, one human being killing another is not always wrongful - at least not to most people.

I disagree with the above as I have never seed 'murder' defined using the word 'wrong'. Murder is the illegal killing of a person. Whether that killing is right or wrong is irrelevant. Whether or not it is murder is solely a matter of legality. Certainly saying that 'murder' is a legally wrong act is redundant; it is defined by its illegality. But I don't find that with the idea that murder is wrong (or right) - that's no part of its definition.

[Tassman]

I wish we could dispense with the term 'moral' when it comes to judging human actions. It comes with too much baggage. If someone performs an act that benefits a lot of people (apart from other considerations) I have no trouble saying that they've done something good, without reference to any deity or any ethereal notion of morality.

I agree that the term “moral” comes with too much baggage. It has connotations of absolutes – especially among the religiously inclined. It is often regarded as universally and eternally valid without relation to any mitigating factors. Whereas, as practiced in actuality, it refers to socially acceptable and unacceptable behavior and this has evolved and varied from culture to culture over time.

[Starlight]

Basically, I wish we could dispense with the term 'moral' when it comes to judging human actions. It comes with too much baggage. If someone performs an act that benefits a lot of people (apart from other considerations) I have no trouble saying that they've done something good, without reference to any deity or any ethereal notion of morality. Similary, if I read of someone murdering someone, or raping someone, I don't need to think about deistic rules or any Platonic concepts to quickly form the opinion that they have acted badly and that society is better off if people do not perform such acts and that we should (all) act so as to prevent them where we can.

I think talking of the morality of such acts basically just confuses the issue.

Unfortunately the choice to try and stop using moral language out of a desire to prevent confusion, essentially cedes the 'moral high ground' to the group of religious zealots who are using the terms wrongly. This can have serious negative consequences if we are talking about political issues concerned with human rights etc. Swing voters can be swayed by moral terminology, so if one side is yelling that something is morally wrong at the top of their voices, and the other giving a wishy-washy explanation of "well I'm not going to argue against the claim that the thing is morally wrong because I don't want to use moral terminology, but I'm supportive of the thing for a bunch of reasons having to do with it reducing harm done to people", then public sentiment is strongly in danger of siding with the clearer message that the thing is 'morally wrong' and this can have the effect of preventing basic human rights for oppressed minority groups etc. So, the use, or not, of moral language becomes not an intellectual philosophical choice that one makes for the purposes of having clearer discussions, but something with massive impacts on people's lives.

I would say in general that a key successful change in liberals' political strategies over the last 30 years has been this move from "I don't want to use moral terms in my arguments, I'm happy to cede the claim that conservatives are morally right, I just want to concentrate on laws that minimize harm and maximize freedom and human rights and happiness, morality aside" to a full-throated "The conservative position is morally wrong, because it harms people. The liberal position is morally right, because it improves people's lives in numerous ways." In some ways this seems to have been a generational shift. Or one could view it as the difference between 'liberals' and 'progressives', where progressives push for moral progress and are forthright about how they see politics connected to morality and why they see the conservative positions as immoral.

[Electric Skeptic]

I agree that the term “moral” comes with too much baggage. It has connotations of absolutes – especially among the religiously inclined. It is often regarded as universally and eternally valid without relation to any mitigating factors. Whereas, as practiced in actuality, it refers to socially acceptable and unacceptable behavior and this has evolved and varied from culture to culture over time.

I agree completely.

[Electric Skeptic]

Unfortunately the choice to try and stop using moral language out of a desire to prevent confusion, essentially cedes the 'moral high ground' to the group of religious zealots who are using the terms wrongly. This can have serious negative consequences if we are talking about political issues concerned with human rights etc. Swing voters can be swayed by moral terminology, so if one side is yelling that something is morally wrong at the top of their voices, and the other giving a wishy-washy explanation of "well I'm not going to argue against the claim that the thing is morally wrong because I don't want to use moral terminology, but I'm supportive of the thing for a bunch of reasons having to do with it reducing harm done to people", then public sentiment is strongly in danger of siding with the clearer message that the thing is 'morally wrong' and this can have the effect of preventing basic human rights for oppressed minority groups etc. So, the use, or not, of moral language becomes not an intellectual philosophical choice that one makes for the purposes of having clearer discussions, but something with massive impacts on people's lives.

I would say in general that a key successful change in liberals' political strategies over the last 30 years has been this move from "I don't want to use moral terms in my arguments, I'm happy to cede the claim that conservatives are morally right, I just want to concentrate on laws that minimize harm and maximize freedom and human rights and happiness, morality aside" to a full-throated "The conservative position is morally wrong, because it harms people. The liberal position is morally right, because it improves people's lives in numerous ways." In some ways this seems to have been a generational shift. Or one could view it as the difference between 'liberals' and 'progressives', where progressives push for moral progress and are forthright about how they see politics connected to morality and why they see the conservative positions as immoral.

I can't disagree with anything you've said here.

[carpedm9587]

It's (one of the reasons) why I abandoned a forum in which I used to post and came here on another's recommendation, hoping for more meaningful discussion. Thus far I've found arguments in general to be of a much higher standard here.

Well, it makes sense to you - that's a start, at least.

I must disagree with your claim that

The statement "I don't believe you are wearing a white shirt," is ambiguous'

It neither says nor implies anything about me having made a claim at all. Certainly it's compatible with you having made a claim about the color of your shirt, but all it says is your first option above:

'You are wearing a white shirt' is not a belief I possess.

Similarly, going back to what this analogy for, "I don't believe in the existence of gods" says nothing more (or less) than that "'God(s) exist' is not a belief I have."

On this one, we might have to agree to disagree. However, it is not a serious issue - it is merely a grammatical disagreement. I think, if you ask around, you will find that most people would interpret "I don't believe you are wearing a white shirt" to mean "I believe you are not wearing a white shirt." Grammatically, either interpretation is possible. Note, however, that the only result from this is that using the statement will likely cause you and the person you are talking with to talk at cross purposes until your definition is clarified. It doesn't mean I disagree with your underlying point.

Sorry if I came across as patronising, then, since you are aware of the weak/strong positions. Reading your response, you are clearly more knowledgeable/experienced in this area than I incorrectly thought. My apologies.

Gracious of you, and unusual in this setting. Apologies around here are as rare as a smokeless day in northern California these days. You are a breath of fresh air!

As far as proofs for the nonexistence of a god go, I do not know of one that would do for all gods. However, I believe the problem of suffering to be a proof of the non-existence of an omnimax god.

I would tend to agree. Some gods are logically non-functional. But that doesn't seem to stop the holders of those beliefs, and they will go to some amazing lengths to defend those beliefs.

I am tempted to agree but the idea of an indifferent god - one who creates and then walks away - is, IMO, not able to be evidenced against. The only evidence against such a being is the absence of evidence for it.

Technically true, but I think the preponderance of the evidence suggests that we created god(s) in our own image, or the image of some aspect of nature.

My Latin is not that good - could you translate? Google was sadly unsatisfying here.

Cogito ergo sum: I think, therefore I am
Cogito ergo existit aliquid: I think, therefore something exists

And then there is:

Cogito ergo spud: I think, therefore I yam!

To which my response would be that as soon as you can evidence the existence of such a being, we can discuss it.

- The bible says so!
- How do you know the bible is correct?
- The bible says so!
- (repeat, ad infinitum)

And then they complain about turtles...

Thanks for the background.

You're crazy.

The cookies (chocolate chip, if I had my druthers) are the good stuff.

Blasphemy!

[carpedm9587]

I disagree with the above as I have never seed 'murder' defined using the word 'wrong'. Murder is the illegal killing of a person. Whether that killing is right or wrong is irrelevant. Whether or not it is murder is solely a matter of legality. Certainly saying that 'murder' is a legally wrong act is redundant; it is defined by its illegality. But I don't find that with the idea that murder is wrong (or right) - that's no part of its definition.

I concede the point. Having checked multiple dictionaries now, murder is always defined in terms of legal systems. So it can be called "wrongful" only so far as it is "legally wrongful."

Of course, I think the Christians hereabouts will tell you that it transgresses the law of god, which makes it a moral issue (for them), since the heart of their moral framework is rooted in "what god wants."

[Electric Skeptic]

On this one, we might have to agree to disagree. However, it is not a serious issue - it is merely a grammatical disagreement. I think, if you ask around, you will find that most people would interpret "I don't believe you are wearing a white shirt" to mean "I believe you are not wearing a white shirt." Grammatically, either interpretation is possible. Note, however, that the only result from this is that using the statement will likely cause you and the person you are talking with to talk at cross purposes until your definition is clarified. It doesn't mean I disagree with your underlying point.

Okay.

Gracious of you, and unusual in this setting. Apologies around here are as rare as a smokeless day in northern California these days. You are a breath of fresh air!

I like to think that when I err, I admit it and apologise. Of course, everybody likes to think that of themselves :)

I would tend to agree. Some gods are logically non-functional. But that doesn't seem to stop the holders of those beliefs, and they will go to some amazing lengths to defend those beliefs.

Agreed again.

Technically true, but I think the preponderance of the evidence suggests that we created god(s) in our own image, or the image of some aspect of nature.

I think that's likely, but I'm not confident enough to move to strong atheism on the strength of it.

Cogito ergo sum: I think, therefore I am
Cogito ergo existit aliquid: I think, therefore something exists

I am curious here. Why do you think that "something exists" is a better/more accurate conclusion than "I am"?

And then there is:


Cogito ergo spud: I think, therefore I yam!

My favourite (in my younger partying days, at least, is Bibo, ergo sum - I drink, therefore I am.

- The bible says so!
- How do you know the bible is correct?
- The bible says so!
- (repeat, ad infinitum)


And then they complain about turtles...

I've been on that merry-go-round once or twice..

Blasphemy!

There is no higher cookie than the chocolate chip.

[Electric Skeptic]

I concede the point. Having checked multiple dictionaries now, murder is always defined in terms of legal systems. So it can be called "wrongful" only so far as it is "legally wrongful."

Of course, I think the Christians hereabouts will tell you that it transgresses the law of god, which makes it a moral issue (for them), since the heart of their moral framework is rooted in "what god wants."

I cannot disagree - but I will say that I would be a lot less skeptical about "what god wants" if it didn't so often turn out to be the same thing wanted by the person telling you what god wants.

[seer]

- The bible says so!
- How do you know the bible is correct?
- The bible says so!
- (repeat, ad infinitum)

And then they complain about turtles...

Carp says so...
How do you know Carp is correct?
Carp says so...
(repeat, ad infinitum)

[Electric Skeptic]

Carp says so...
How do you know Carp is correct?
Carp says so...
(repeat, ad infinitum)

A very poor response. Whether or not what Carp says is correct can be determined by the evidence supporting his claim. Sadly, the same is not true of the bible.

[seer]

A very poor response. Whether or not what Carp says is correct can be determined by the evidence supporting his claim. Sadly, the same is not true of the bible.

What evidence? Moral beliefs come down to personal preference, nothing more. You already agreed with that.

[mattbballman31]

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.

That's all non-normative descriptions. You might be investing axiology into moral concepts metaethically. But it's just sociological axiology. It's a good sociological or psychological description of individual and collective preferences that murder is deemed 'bad'. But 'bad' here is a non-moral descriptor. It semantically means an act within that subset of actions that contingently align with said descriptive preferences. Even the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's entry on Moral Naturalism doesn't ultimately go down this route.