Atheist..Please stand up

Raithere--darts, irony, leisure, and something about coffee

Perhaps what is needed here is an exploration of "religious methods". As I see it, the primary religious method is revelation and perhaps we can work in symbolism as well. What would you define as religious method?
It depends entirely on what facet of the methodology we're examining. Determining the basis for reality, for instance, is revelatory and symbolic, such as we see in creationism. But in moral and ethical decisions, the methodology is an examination of the results of that revelation and an application thereof; similarly based, the process is at least one step removed from direct revelation.

We might say the methodology is interpretive, but so are most methods for anything.

However, as a simple analogy, what consequence is there to pitching to you the idea that Tully's coffee is better than Starbucks'? Very little in terms of one's caffeine addiction; either product will suffice. But when we get to religions, we see that one product can have radically different results than another. This is based in large part on the priorities of each religious paradigm, which in turn determine the constraints of interpretation and application.

There is, for instance, a sound logical method applied within Catholic theology and its social implications. This is not revelatory. However, the constraints applied to the logical process--the basis of the reality that it examines, is quite revelatory.
But the reasoning was there and it was illuminated by some of the earlier thinkers such as Aristotle. It just kept getting overridden by religious interpretation.
I agree, even in the non-theistic religious sense.

One of my constant companions of late, despite it being boring reading, is Albert Hirschman's The Passions and the Interests: Political Arguments for Capitalism Before its Triumph. This relatively modern work examines the history of the ideas which lend to Capitalism, starting pretty much with St. Augustine and moving forward from there.

In previous discussions, I've derided Capitalists as being "religious" on the same grounds that atheists often criticize religion--a lack of objective foundation. A dollar is worth a dollar because we all agree so, just as "God exists" because people agree so. (I offer Salem, the Inquisitions, and the Crusades in support of the idea; people agreed that God existed, and acted in response to that idea as they understood it.)

In other words, I think you're more correct than you may realize.
Objectivity has it's limits. At some point there must be a transition between objectivity and subjectivity. I find our tendency to see dualism as a binary set to be partially to blame here. Objectivity/Subjectivity is seen as an either/or proposition. But there does need to be a congruency between the two.
Dualisms are part of the problem. Dualisms inherently limit possible perspectives, which can cause problems. They also inherently limit possible solutions, which obviously perpetuates problems.

I used to make a big point of the fact that even among atheists, certain Judeo-Christian fundamentals existed. In the West, at least, dualisms are part of this foundation.

Take artificial intelligence, for instance. Binary isn't enough. Yes/No? There needs to be a maybe in order to force a subjective decision, which in turn requires the development of criteria for that decision. Artificial thought requires subjectivity. Objectivity and subjectivity cannot be mutually exclusive and remain fully applicable to the human endeavor. Isolation of one or the other results in dysfunction.
At some point this may simply be a matter of focus, which is fine.
Examination of the priorities which determine focus can be fascinating.
However, I do think that you have a tendency to see objectivity as mechanistic... which, IMO, is a paradigm that quickly falls apart when forced upon humans.
Agreed.
I do find this problematic, on both sides. To wit, the Christian struggle to come-to-terms with non-Christians who live good lives and/or do not know about Christianity. The loopholes invented to justify the obvious contradictions would put a lawyer to shame. Yet, because of the paradigm they cannot see the issue for what it is.
I find this focus curious, and I only mention that for the irony.

When I examine this aspect of atheism, I run into the common assertion that atheism is a small idea. While it is in and of itself, it addresses a broad and complex array of ideas. An atheist may be a moral relativist, but the two are not separate ideas when atheism is put into a comparative with religion. The moral relativism fills a void left by the large religious structure.

When a religion isolates itself or another religion, the results are disastrous, as history shows. Encomienda, prayer villages, slavery, Manifest Destiny, creationism, and in the modern era terrorism.

Just for starters.
But then it's not literal... it's interpretative.
Exactly.
The Rorschach test acknowledges that it's interpretative. There is no single correct response.
The failure of a religion to acknowledge its own interpretive value supports the notion that there is no single correct response.

If I had a hammer, I'd hammer in the morning .... At any rate, I can also hammer your skull in with it. Point being, who says the limitation of religious interpretations is what religion was intended for, if it was ever intended for anything?

The problem is that this tool or product, being such as religion is, has radical effects on behavior and perception.

Give a man a license, he thinks he knows how to drive. Give a man religion, he thinks he knows anything.
The Rorschach test acknowledges that it's interpretative. There is no single correct response.
This is a matter of will and priority. If the relationships explored were important to people, such as our fellow posters at Sciforums or American voters (to take a couple of groups not quite at random), then they would focus on the relationships.

I know it's not much, but if I had figured out what to do about it, I wouldn't be howling at our fellow posters nearly as much as I am.
Flexibility is apparent from a societal/historical viewpoint where we see the shift in principles over time. Meanwhile, taken at any single point in time we find a particular set of declared absolutes.
I might re-apply the beginning of this post. It seems we're addressing different facets of the issue. Or, at least, were at one point.
We are still locked into a Newtonian paradigm where facts are supposedly immutable, where reality is thought to be concrete and inflexible.
Which I find exceptionally interesting because the term "Newtonian God" refers to the notions of God which have come about since Newton, and to which modern Western atheism is largely a reaction. Diderot, Spinoza ... vital principles lending to modern atheism did not come about until people were faced with the absurdity of reconciling God to a Newtonian universe.
What is amazing is how, when a fact regarding a changing system is brought up, how quickly the issue is avoided. Bring up the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch trials, cross burning, and the modern Christian answer is almost always refers to a "false" interpretation. Yet I find no basis upon which a "true" interpretation may be founded. It is always interpretative.
I find it discouraging that so many Christians are unable to cope honestly with the history of the ideas they hold so dear. A rejection of one's history and heritage almost certainly indicates the eventual repetition of past errors. Funny how we think of the savage Catholics burning people at the stake. Compared to the modern-day televangelist, Anselm is Einstein, Huxley, and Hawking put together.
Heh... if I knew you'd be this happy about it I could have stated it at the beginning.
For all the monism and pseudo-monism going on in the world today, you'd actually be amazed at how few people realize it.
In this sense of God, God and knowledge are both. Zen philosophy has called it Beginner's Mind ("In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, in the expert's there are few.")
It tends to work that way, but it's subtle I admit.
That exists which is greater than can be imagined. Defined as such I don't know that it can be denied. Which I see as somewhat problematic in itself.
An exploration of the problematic issues might possibly reveal that the issues themselves are invalid. What happens with an idea like God being greater than what can be conceived is that you can't really assert anything about God. To me, that's the point. As the Sufis note, the balance of the rest is religion.
Definitely. Or the manipulation of terms in such a way that it forces a conclusion.
Politics, politics, politics: How subtly dost thou stain the social fabric ...

In other words ... agreed.
While I agree with the potential due to the lack of limits I think that most of the current measurable difference is symptomatic and I feel that it will grow smaller as atheism becomes more predominant. To wit, most of the world's population is religious and most societies have a strongly influential religious aspect. Therefore atheists tend to be the type of people who "think outside the box" who challenge the traditionally accepted beliefs... these people tend to be more intelligent.
I point out, for the record, that slamming a 757 into the World Trade Center is just a bit outside the box.

Nonetheless, I believe I understand your point. The digression that comes from there is long and unprepared. Suffice to say that I do wonder about the possibility of an age when only the intellectually destitute are left to cling to God, and what that condition begets society.
But it's not the gun or the label that's problematic... it's the use of them.
I question the use of the word "but", which seems to mount the form of an objection. I actually agree, and apologize if I hadn't made that clear.
But I don't find that to be necessary. I have not experienced anything like it. If anything, I find myself more capable of adopting various perspectives for various reasons. I think the problem lies in trying to apply a single point of reason across the board or a single method across paradigms.
The simple problem without a proper solution was the necessity of integrity. If I am willing to apply a fundamental test of objectivity to God and the ethics and morals thereof, I should be willing to apply that test to any ethical or moral construct. They all failed. Nihilism resulted.

You can't defeat God, as such. But you can certainly take the sting out of it. It's going to take the rest of my life to get back the things I lost, and the only reason it's possible at all is because technically, none of it matters to me in the sense that I don't worry about what God thinks or judges.

To the other, I wouldn't change that period of my life. I could not have learned many of the things I have since without experiencing that failure.
I agree with the statement that people are not refining, however, I disagree that they're taking a more artistic direction.
Perhaps we're crossing wires. I realize we sometimes switch between narrower considerations of Sciforums and broader cultural and world-level considerations. The lack of refinement runs throughout American at least, and seemingly Western thought and discourse. Certes, there are important ideas running around, but how many people read the journal of Sigma Xi, or Lancet, or the CDC-MMR? I can watch University of Washington lectures on my local cable network, but I don't because they're exceptionally boring and many are, to me, arcane. But whether it's FOX News or Sciforums or whatnot, if it has to do with ideas, it does seem that people are moving toward a lower standard. Part of this is the availability of tools. I do think people are getting more artistic. Remember watching home movies as a kid? I have Final Cut, for when I need it, and iMovie, for when I need it. I can make a movie with a cheap Super 8 video camera. You can get a thousand-dollar MIDI keyboard (ten years ago) for seventy bucks now. You can get 4-track recording for $300. Got an iMac? Furthermore, life is starting to imitate art. People seem to expect different things from life. They're becoming less conformist and more insistent and ideological. Beyond that, I have to think on your point some. It's been a while, and though I'm happy to see your post, I have to shake myself back into form.
In short, I find that refinement is the essence of art.
Ah, but the refinement of what? Or is that nitpicking? Bradbury, Coupland, Lovecraft, all quite refined. Mondrian or Rembrandt? Both refined, and how.

But in terms of our posters, have you noticed how presentation and style (e.g. artistic considerations at best) are more important than content? Well, generally speaking? Averages? Trends? Tendencies? ;)
We're more concerned with easier and faster rather than better.
Subjectively speaking, that's refinement.
This is particularly true in the Western experience. I mean, I'm all for getting my fast food quickly but when I find myself thrilled to find my fries are actually hot when I get them I have to wonder at the standards we're setting for ourselves.
Maybe I'm just confusing myself on context. Oh, well. I think I've caught up.

Speaking of standards, I lamented to a friend a few months ago that it had gotten so bad, that I had become so fixated on things going wrong, that I was enjoying the fact that I didn't miss the bus I was trying to catch. Hell of an aspiration, eh?

But I remember making "progress" jokes similar to what you're referring to when I was very young. Sometimes I think my cynicism is directly taught me. Probably was.
Similarly, I'm appalled and enraged at the influence of the psychiatric community. The norm has become the apex of our culture. We vigorously beat down any expression outside the range of normalcy.
It is easier to suppress what you fear than understand it. On the one hand, there's no arguing with killer bees, but to the other, it's quite hard to fathom the depths of the human psyche. Damn near impossible, it seems.
I mean, come on, ADD in pre-teen children?
I know ... and people wonder what's wrong with the culture.

And this is what I don't understand, the prescription for hyperactivity in children is to give them speed.

We start them young with caffeine and sugar. (The former is a known addictive substance.) And then we wonder why they are so high-strung. What gets me, though, is that we give them speed in order to "take care of the problem".

I always wondered why people got so easily hooked on cocaine. Then again, I never took Ritalin. However, I did recently take Wellbutrin, which my doctor gave me to quit smoking. Here's the stunning thing: it's a drug they give kids for ADD. It turns out that it can quell nicotine cravings.

I don't ever want that drug near me again. I've never felt so awful. It was really clean speed, with a massive static wall in the forebrain. Cocaine doesn't make me feel that bad. It makes me about as dysfunctional, perhaps moreso. But holy crap, I can almost see why so many of my peers, having taken antidepressants as children, are drawn to coke and meth like, well ... flies to shite.
As opposed to what?
One of my favorite questions in all the world.

Apparently, folks long for the old days when children worked sixteen-hour days in coal mines. Of course, none of those, generally speaking, lived very long.
But we're not focused upon survival here in the US. We're focused upon immediate gratification. Quantity, not quality is our standard.
How many people are living day-to-day, hand to mouth? How many people are timing their grocery purchases not to when they need it but to when they can afford it?
But we're not focused upon survival here in the US. We're focused upon immediate gratification. Quantity, not quality is our standard.
Spiritually, psychologically, or functionally as relates the species, you may well be correct.
They'd have less time to fuck things up and less imaginary problems if they were dealing with real ones.
They're applying the necessities of subsistence to a condition of luxury, such as in the United States. I mean, the American version of hand to mouth is no way for a person to live, but it's a far shot better than the equivalent in Afghanistan.

But part of progress has been a struggle to reduce essential labor in favor of progressive labor. However, progressive labor is not nearly as gratifying a condition of luxury as entertainment.
Hallelujah!
But Tiassa, it's too much a product of our culture to be anything else. I've learned to appreciates those occasion where we rise above the common babble but most of the time it is beyond a public forum such as this.... there is a leveling affect at work.
It's just that for the amount we all bitch about products of our cultures ... I mean, you and I are subject to it, too, so I'm not claiming that. But at some point we put a foot down.
I think the primary problem in Western culture is our use of leisure time. The large majority uses leisure time strictly for playing.
Agreed entirely. I must have been thinking about that line a few minutes ago.
And there you hit it on the head... it's not the necessities that are the problem. It's all those things we "invent" and then declare necessary... but aren't.
Ah, the lovely accretions--products of our culture.
I believe that for the most part we're medicating it and educating it out of existence. But one must also acknowledge that such works were bought at great expense.
Of course, what are the odds that someone's going to pay you to paint a chapel ceiling? Or pay me to write the epic history of whatever? Changing priorities, a new perspective on art. I mean, hell ... a record company says you like it, and ten million people instantly agree that they do. (How is a song a "hit" before it is released?) Faster, cheaper ... something like that? (I haven't the energy to be ironic, but you hit on it exactly somewhere above.)
For all the offenses of the leisure class they make tremendous contributions to civilization but they were paid in blood and suffering.
Now there is one I don't understand. It seems the leisure class has never learned any other way to do it. I have no idea why. I mean, it seems to me that one has to be stupid to not figure out that this isn't the best way to do it.

Of course, if they don't care ...? Well, we shouldn't wonder about the whys and wherefores of revolutions.
Actually, I have a particular aptitude for that.
Cool. But it's 5:30 in the morning and I haven't slept. So all I can see in my head right now is Homer Simpson opening beers, turning off the TV, and putting out the lights with his pistol.
Now, after the collapse... we can all watch fucking football.
The benefits of capitalism--five-hundred channels, and there's still nothing on worth watching.
It's worse than that... we're actively pursuing something lesser all the time, telling ourselves and each other that it's what we really want/need.
A strange separation of perspective that I only mention because observing it might be useful. I think my statement agrees with yours directly. I think we settle for the lesser and then, naturally pursue it. The pursuit isn't in question, though the settling is. I think people settle for less because it's too much effort for them, in this age of relative luxury and leisure, to give any thought so anything more.

Now here's the problem: Moral relativism has value here because the depth and breadth of the social indictment becomes shocking otherwise.

In the end, we the people choose this result. And it always bugs me when religious extremists have a point. But my dirty secret is that part of the reason I've never had a proper emotional reaction to 9/11 is that the people who chose to work for the companies in those buildings were willfully contributing to the problems of the world. You can't go around bombing people for that, but I've been aghast at the stupidity of Americans since. As Dubya put it: Why do they hate us?

Well, George ... how much time you got?

What's fascinating is the difference. When viewed microcosmically, at Sciforums, such devices as we're discussing seem nearly quaint. How deep does it run, though, through people's lives?

In the lesser scale, I don't know what to do about it. In the larger scale, all I can do is holler at people that, whether they want to admit it or not, we've given "them" (as such) a reason.

At times like this, being a theist helps. I can say God help us all without guilt. Accepting God as a mystery, the phrase seems somewhat fitting. What will change this process is presently beyond my knowledge. However, when I figure it out I can stop saying God help us all and start telling people what God (e.g. Life, nature, the way of things that exist, the indescribable condition of being alive) has revealed, and hopefully even call it wisdom in the end. In other words, I can stop worrying about it and do something.

In the meantime, let's get drunk and play darts. It's about as effective. :D

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
Raithere--darts, irony, leisure, and something about coffee

But in moral and ethical decisions, the methodology is an examination of the results of that revelation and an application thereof; similarly based, the process is at least one step removed from direct revelation.
To examine the results, however, is to step out of the religious paradigm and into the realm of reason and critical analysis. What matters the result if the rule is ordained by God? When man becomes the measure of God of what use is God anymore? Or if it is the results that are important to God then we need to question his methods.

There is, for instance, a sound logical method applied within Catholic theology and its social implications. This is not revelatory. However, the constraints applied to the logical process--the basis of the reality that it examines, is quite revelatory.
This automatically leads me to question its veracity. Constraints to the logical process can only be a function of the process. To allow exterior constraints imposed by revelation is like saying you can't use the number 3 in mathematics because God says so.

Objectivity and subjectivity cannot be mutually exclusive and remain fully applicable to the human endeavor. Isolation of one or the other results in dysfunction.
I'm beginning work on "GEB" by Douglas Hofstadter. I will probably have more thoughts regarding this as I progress, though it will take some time as it's rather complex. Thus far, I must say that the work keys in on my own thoughts regarding the importance of patterns. Of course a "reduction" of consciousness into a mathematical function would force me to re-evaluate the possibility or even probability of a conscious Universe. A concept I've toyed with prior to this but have not fully expanded.

Examination of the priorities which determine focus can be fascinating.
And confounding at times... even excluding prejudice or perhaps particularly when excluding prejudice. I find I have some difficulty rationalizing the justification for a particular focus which leads me to think that there is a relationship that needs to be defined. This relates both to our attention to the fallacy of binary dualities below and GEB above.

When I examine this aspect of atheism, I run into the common assertion that atheism is a small idea. While it is in and of itself, it addresses a broad and complex array of ideas.
I agree, atheism is a small idea with a broad effect. In fact, it demands a change of paradigm which is why it is so problematic and why it is so difficult to fill the 'gap'. Ethics, in particular, are affected. This is why I find it important to build a framework for a rational and compassionate set of ethics. I find relativism too weak to found anything solid upon and think we need to look more closely at our nature, at what it is to be conscious, intelligent, human.

An atheist may be a moral relativist, but the two are not separate ideas when atheism is put into a comparative with religion. The moral relativism fills a void left by the large religious structure.
Actually, I do not accept a purely relativistic ethical system. I find that it ignores certain fundamental propositions.

When a religion isolates itself or another religion, the results are disastrous, as history shows.
I think this holds true for any ethical structure... and here comes that principle of unity again.

The problem is that this tool or product, being such as religion is, has radical effects on behavior and perception.
That and the demand for faith are what make it so dangerous.

Which I find exceptionally interesting because the term "Newtonian God" refers to the notions of God which have come about since Newton, and to which modern Western atheism is largely a reaction. Diderot, Spinoza ... vital principles lending to modern atheism did not come about until people were faced with the absurdity of reconciling God to a Newtonian universe.
Agreed. Also interesting is watching the developing response to the uncertainty of quantum physics. Uncertainty to certainty to uncertainty... very interesting stuff.

For all the monism and pseudo-monism going on in the world today, you'd actually be amazed at how few people realize it.
The interesting thing is that I reached the concept of unity from both the religious and the scientific paradigms.

An exploration of the problematic issues might possibly reveal that the issues themselves are invalid. What happens with an idea like God being greater than what can be conceived is that you can't really assert anything about God. To me, that's the point. As the Sufis note, the balance of the rest is religion.
I guess I'm just missing the point then.

I point out, for the record, that slamming a 757 into the World Trade Center is just a bit outside the box.
Not for the individuals who carried it out; they were doing precisely what they were told to do. In this case it is the society that is radical but the individuals remain well tethered.

Suffice to say that I do wonder about the possibility of an age when only the intellectually destitute are left to cling to God, and what that condition begets society.
As long as we maintain compassion and wonder I think we'll be okay.

The simple problem without a proper solution was the necessity of integrity. If I am willing to apply a fundamental test of objectivity to God and the ethics and morals thereof, I should be willing to apply that test to any ethical or moral construct. They all failed. Nihilism resulted.
But I think the problem lies in that this is dualist approach. One must address the transition from the subjective to the objective and recognize that both have validity. Now I find that the objective approach is more reliable, however, to deny the subjective eventually becomes a denial of self... or as you put it; nihilism. Still I think it is quite possible to build an objective ethical structure... but it begins subjectively, with an examination of what we are.

But whether it's FOX News or Sciforums or whatnot, if it has to do with ideas, it does seem that people are moving toward a lower standard.
I think that, in part, its a response to information overload... there is so much now that we're exposed to that handling it all is impossible. Simplification eases the burden. We've got the information gathering part down pretty well now... it's time to start developing methods to sift the data for that which is significant and exceptional. Critics and reviews help but they're always so opinionated that it's difficult to draw a conclusion.

Part of this is the availability of tools. I do think people are getting more artistic.
I see your point there. However I do wonder how much of it has any real value... or is truly art. On one hand we have a young Kubric at the inception of his career on the other we have Tim-Bob painting a smiley on his dork and broadcasting it over the internet. I suppose one Kubric is worth a thousand Tim-Bobs but do I have to search through this dross myself?

Furthermore, life is starting to imitate art. People seem to expect different things from life. They're becoming less conformist and more insistent and ideological.
I don't know that I agree. I seem to be seeing the same old thing non-conformity as conformity. Hell, non-conformity has been the music industry's biggest marketing success ever. It's teenage rebellion and that's great but that's all it is.

But in terms of our posters, have you noticed how presentation and style (e.g. artistic considerations at best) are more important than content?
Style is fine, but style relates only a simple message most of the time, without content the communication is rather empty. The trick is to combine style and content in such a way that it relates a deeper meaning to both messages.

It is easier to suppress what you fear than understand it. On the one hand, there's no arguing with killer bees, but to the other, it's quite hard to fathom the depths of the human psyche. Damn near impossible, it seems.
And we run into the same old dilemma as whenever people refuse to admit they do not know and try to act as if they do. One of the greatest and most common of human failings IMO.

We start them young with caffeine and sugar. (The former is a known addictive substance.) And then we wonder why they are so high-strung. What gets me, though, is that we give them speed in order to "take care of the problem".
And the ones that mother gives you
Don't do anything at all.

How many people are living day-to-day, hand to mouth? How many people are timing their grocery purchases not to when they need it but to when they can afford it?
And how many of these have television sets in their apartments? Still the point is valid; too many. But something is intrinsically wrong here, poverty is one thing but squalor is another. Frankly, I see more of the latter here in America. Something is failing and I don't think it's just economic. For example; how many vegetable gardens do you see in poverty stricken areas? $.50 for a packet of seeds, some labor and luck and you feed yourself.

It's just that for the amount we all bitch about products of our cultures ... I mean, you and I are subject to it, too, so I'm not claiming that. But at some point we put a foot down.
Hell, I agree. I'm just as susceptible to the allures of immediate gratification as anyone else. But every so often I do raise my head and ask "What the fuck am I watching, reading, listening to?"

Now there is one I don't understand. It seems the leisure class has never learned any other way to do it. I have no idea why. I mean, it seems to me that one has to be stupid to not figure out that this isn't the best way to do it.
For much of history I believe it was simply economics, the labor to output ratio was too low, someone had to go without for another to have an excess. Still some of the behaviors are simply unbelievable... probably tending to develop from a belief in one's own superiority. What is more bothersome is that as we approach a level of technology that could alleviate much of the problem... well, things aren't changing. Instead we actually turn down the production rates to 'stabilize' things.

I think people settle for less because it's too much effort for them, in this age of relative luxury and leisure, to give any thought so anything more.
Why is it that thought seems so difficult to so many?

I've been aghast at the stupidity of Americans since.
They just really don't want to know. Or to quote from Seven "Hell, I sympathize; I sympathize completely. Apathy is the solution. I mean, it's easier to lose yourself in drugs than it is to cope with life. It's easier to steal what you want than it is to earn it. It's easier to beat a child than it is to raise it. Hell, love costs: it takes effort and work."

....when I figure it out... I can stop saying God help us all and start telling people what God (e.g. Life, nature, the way of things that exist, the indescribable condition of being alive) has revealed, and hopefully even call it wisdom in the end. In other words, I can stop worrying about it and do something.
I think we just need to hammer and hammer and hopefully some small part of the world will change. To some extent that is what I'm doing here. For one, you may note that I often take a more strident atheist position in many of the other discussions than you see here... or that I do in RL. The reason is twofold; One; is simply comprehension; the subtleties of God, existence, etc. are quite lost on most people particularly in a diametrically aligned forum. Two; by hammering on some of these points perhaps I can make some change... if not in my 'opponent' perhaps in the mind of a third party.

~Raithere
 
Raithere and tiassa:

I haven't followed this discussion closely, but I'd like to pick up on a point raised regarding moral relativism. There is a claim that atheism implies moral relativism - how can an atheist judge what is good or right without some authority dictating it? Are we forced to assume that every society's rules are equally valid? Are the practices of the Taliban as morally defensible as those of moderate Christian religions, for example? Where should an atheist start in developing a defensible moral system?

I've just been reading Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate", which I highly recommend to you. He makes the point that moral relativism is rooted in a denial of human nature. The assumption that morality is entirely culturally determined ignores many findings of psychology, which in turn are explicable in terms of the evolutionary history of humanity.

It seems to me that a good starting point for an atheistic morality (or any other defensible moral system) is an acknowledgement of inherited human nature - our inbuilt tendancies and drives which partially lead us to act the way we do. In combination with a concern for the suffering of individuals and groups, this would provide a powerful rationale for advocating certain moral positions, I think.
 
You asked where we were before conception, but where was Chrisitanity (or even monotheism) before 1000 BC. I don't recall cavemen worshipping God in my history. So, you explain to me where this wonderful knowledge was conceived.
 
For James R

There is a claim that atheism implies moral relativism - how can an atheist judge what is good or right without some authority dictating it?
The atheist should judge what is right or good according to the same criteria other people employ--what truly works best for them.

The problem is the comparison of the ideal to the real. In the ideal, one rightly guided will conduct themselves rightly despite differences of culture or label. However, most people (myself included) tend to worry a great deal about others.

To wit: In my personal relationship with the mother of my child, I'm largely frustrated by Tigger's inability to let things lie. One can "turn the other cheek", but she's one of those kinds that just keeps coming; thankfully, her needs are not too twisted, but nonetheless, conflict reduction is problematic when one party sees conflict as the standard operating procedure.

So, what to do? In the end, I have no choice but to suck up and let my actions speak louder than my words over the next period. In other and broader situations, this route does not seem palatable. But to transfer the idea to a broader notion, what of the United States in its war on terror? Do we have the right? Yes. Do we have the reason? On most counts, it would seem so. Yet our actions in general as a nation work to perpetuate the conditions which inspire terrorism. We can engage the hostile party in attrition, or we can circumvent the hostile party through demonstration.

This broader idea is not palatable because it often means that people will die. But to die for one's country does not mean you pick up a rifle and go kill someone in a far-off land. In this case, 3,000+ people died in atonement for our nation's sins unto an unjust judge who bears no real entitlement to judgmemnt.

I, for one, am less settled with the idea of my death than I was two weeks ago, for reasons of my new parenting duties. However, the concept still holds. The disappointment I would feel at my death at the hands of terrorists would come from a lack of assurance that the situation will someday end in favor of peace and harmony among people. But I'm aware I'm living in wartime; my federal government, through persecution of my kind (e.g. stoner, leftist, bisexual, &c.), has prepared me for the possibility of an untimely end at the hands of the social instrument. That the social instrument should be Bin Laden's is a matter of rhetoric; it's all worth about the same.

It seems that the best I can do is to seek a proper morality, and by that I mean to seek the sum of all that human beings find good in the world, and to test them for their alleged goodness. For instance, I've heard of the love of a family, of a parent for a child, but in addition to a lesson in that aspect of love, I've also been the fortunate recipient of an epiphany about love in general. What was once theory finally poured into me as a reality through the grace of finally having a blood relative on the face of the earth; I'd never known that aspect of human security and sentiment existed, and certainly not to the poignant degree with which it washed over me. Yet that goodness has been reduced to mere rhetoric in the world around me; opponents of gay adoption speak of the "love" of two differently-gendered parents, of the horrible and apparently willful deprivation of a child's right to call for either parent. The opponents of sexual education cite family as their primary argument; such education should come from family. The taming of religion in public schools is an offense to family (yet, strangely, the Christian voices on that issue disregard the forcing of children to violate their family's principles when calling for mandatory school prayer). Family this, family that. Yet as I now sit awash in familial love for the first time in my life, I see no inherent connection between this sensation and the political issues which people stake on family. In the end, I must look to the asserted goals and call them good. Happiness, harmony, security, love and appreciation--these things, unfortunately, are not as important to us as money, status, and reputation. So be it. However:
Are the practices of the Taliban as morally defensible as those of moderate Christian religions, for example?
Short answer: Yes.

Simply, this is the way the world is, and this is how these people have been educated (or not, according to my theories about poverty and undereducation as factors in political violence). But the world looks a certain way to the Christians, as such, and also a certain way to the Islamist extremists. Until someone can defeat the psychological development of such ideas and provide a better outlook for the disenchanted, the disenchanted will continue to rely on what foundations they have. Without greater stability to compare to, Jell-o seems stable compared to freefall through the air. We need to give the Taliban and others some lime Jell-o, or something, to show them that the world isn't as grim as they think. What is written in the Koran is written in the Koran. What the Taliban and others do with it is entirely dependent on the immediate factors affecting the decision to be made according to the prevailing paradigm. I don't like it, but the Taliban, Osama bin Laden, Palestinian terrorists--can anyone tell me the functional difference between flying jets into towers and killing thousands and the execution of foreign policy that, in the interests of a single nation, require conditions that leave thousands starving to death?

Hint: Bin Laden's stunt with the 757's was merciful compared to the sufferings of people in third-world Islamic nations, the sufferings of the Nepalese, and so forth. We, the People, of the United States of America opposed Iraq's invasion of Kuwait because it was a war they could win; why, we might ask, do Americans have such little regard for the cruel and illegal Chinese occupation of Tibet?

But in order for me to say that Bin Laden was "immoral" or "wrong", there exists an obligation to answer the question, As compared to what?

Can I assert that my morality is truly right and correct for all humanity? Of course not; what, then, would separate my advocacies from those of Christian fundamentalists or Islamic extremists? If the world "must" agree with me ...?

Comparatively (e.g. via moral relativity) it's already a war, and was long before anyone bombed the World Trade Center (the first time, even). As much as it pains me to admit, the actions of the Taliban and Al Qaeda are no less moral--or no more immoral--than the petrol policies of the United States.

When we view the process of water privatization in Africa, for instance, doesn't it strike anyone as strange that money is more important than life? In some areas, a majority of customers cannot afford the registration fee, much less the monthly bills. If we take into consideration that Vivendi, for instance, is one of the companies seeking profit from water sales in Africa, we must ask whether or not a failure in Vivendi's entertainment division would affect water prices in Africa. It's a fair question; other companies raise prices in one division in order to accommodate shortfalls in other divisions. Hence the question becomes, Is a human life worth less than Vivendi's profits? At present, the answer is Yes.

Someone, eventually, will stick a bomb up someone's ass for that. In the case of the Taliban and Al Qaeda, it seems that someone was the U.S., and what scares me most is that people in the U.S. don't seem to understand this. As George Bush pondered, Why do they hate us?

Because our money is more important than life. And that's only one example.
Where should an atheist start in developing a defensible moral system?
It's an issue that puzzled my own atheism. After all, you must start a priori at some time. Demands for objective resolutions of atheistic questions (e.g. God) seem somewhat at odds with the large number of subjective resolutions applied situationally (e.g. ethical systems).

On the one hand, it seems well enough to recommend a similar course to my own: Examine the expressed goals, priorities, and needs of the culture in which you exist, validate and build from there. The only problem is that we (myself included on this one) tend to treat those cultural values as correct a priori. This is a confusing issue to resolve, but withholding moral or ethical enactment is a fair course of action while questions exist. Moral or ethical exploitation, it must be mentioned, is off the list, as such exploitation would equate a moral or ethical enactment.

But this whole process is thrown in the air according to the atheistic demand for objective resolution of other issues. There is a lack of integrity in demanding of others what one will not provide for oneself. I hate to put it that way, but it seems to be what most of Sciforums' atheists look past (with some exceptions).

In the end, that morality starts with the self. As I cannot think of a suitable reason for the atheist to quell the "self" (as in Hindu philosophy, or according to some Sufi assertions), it's fair enough to make the ethical system self-centered (but, obviously, not greedy). From there, one must simply be honest with themselves about what the hell they want for themselves in the world. If, for instance, it comes at the expense of others, then we'll get another Bill Gates at best.

And inherent in all that is the matter of who is judging the atheist's moral system, and according to what criteria it must be defended.
the point that moral relativism is rooted in a denial of human nature. The assumption that morality is entirely culturally determined ignores many findings of psychology, which in turn are explicable in terms of the evolutionary history of humanity
I don't understand how so many people in the world as do consider evolution something that is not still going on. You and I might see morality as possibly determined according to evolutionary necessity, but something about the freeze-frame that takes place when we figure that out bugs me. People often think the present is as far as we can go. That it's better than it was suffices for them. Of course, that's why the U.S. has imbroiled itself in wars it cannot win. (e.g. "War on Drugs", "War Against Terrorism", and, to some extent, "War Against Poverty", though I think this last can be won.)
It seems to me that a good starting point for an atheistic morality (or any other defensible moral system) is an acknowledgement of inherited human nature - our inbuilt tendancies and drives which partially lead us to act the way we do. In combination with a concern for the suffering of individuals and groups, this would provide a powerful rationale for advocating certain moral positions, I think.
In addition to that is the consideration of what morality is for and what it achieves. For some, morality or ethical propriety lead to material success and therefore a manner of spiritual comfort. For others, though, the recognition of the common human condition is paramount, and success and comfort come only when that human condition is reconciled with its evolutionary needs.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

PS: Raithere, I'm working on it.
 
Lady

(1) Logically explain the origin's of human& animal evolution?
Organic molecules are common throughout the universe, and obviously more common on planets, more concentrated. Under great stimulation, they perform trillions of interactions per second. Eventually, some fold over into greasy little RNA strands. Trillions of these strands go nowhere. One eventually is stimulated into yet another pattern. This cycle repeats ad infinitum.

(2) Who or what initated the big bang? How is it that the earth was designed for the human make-up?
Nothing started the Big Bang, if it happened. I prefer the cyclical universe theory, that it all expands, slows, then contracts into another Big Bang, and so on, ad infinitum. The universe had no beginning and will have no end, it was simply always here.

(3) I hear that atheist base their belief on science, however has science disproved or proved the existence of God?
Science has never disproven god/gods. However, it has disproven certain claims by religions. This, however, is where Occam's Razor comes into play. God is, and gods are, simply very unlikely.

(4) As far as space travel goes we can't even get out of our own solar system so why dismiss the existence of God or any other life form?
We have sent unmanned probes outside our solar system. But what has this got to do with god/gods? If you never left your home town, would that make god/gods more likely to exist?

(5) Does anyone have any reculection on where they were before conception? And where the life giving force came from?
Before conception? I did not exist. Unless we do indeed have spirits/souls, which also has yet to be proven. And even if we do have such, it still does not prove god/gods; it merely proves that there is more to us, to life, than we knew yesterday.

(6) Who or what would you say is the designer of this complex universe and all that is in it?
Natural physical laws.

(7) Did a human being create him or herself? If so why are women still getting pregnant?
This just makes no sense.

(8)What does a atheist expect after death? To go back to?
Either nothing, or a big surprise.

(9) Explain the mystery of conception?- reflective thinking
Biological material combining in such a way as to promote variation.

(10) Can the non-existence of God be proved scientifically?
First define what you wish to prove or disprove.

(11) Science is a on going study of the universe....why?
We humans were born without claws and armour and such. Our natural weaponry is intelligence and technology. Learning. Discovery is hard-wired into us through billions of years of evolution.
 
Re: Lady

*Originally posted by Adam
Discovery is hard-wired into us through billions of years of evolution.
*

What billions of years of evolution?

There are about six billion people living today.
Are you actually claiming that the population of the planet has been increasing by, like, two per year?

Besides, the average person cranks out about 1 pound of crap per day.
For six billion people, that would be three million tons per day, a billion tons per year.
So over the last five billion years or so, you'd have to explain where a billion billion tons, or so, of crap went.
Not to mention where all the animal feces over the same period went.

Even if that adds only one thousandth of an inch per year to the soil depth, the soil should be about 4,600,000 inches or about 72 miles deep.
Where's the missing crap?

Not to mention the billions and billions of fossils that should be the main feature of our landscape.
 
Tony1

What billions of years of evolution?
Life has been on this planet for billions of years.

There are about six billion people living today.
Are you actually claiming that the population of the planet has been increasing by, like, two per year?
Please don't tell me you're this stupid.

Besides, the average person cranks out about 1 pound of crap per day.
For six billion people, that would be three million tons per day, a billion tons per year.
So over the last five billion years or so, you'd have to explain where a billion billion tons, or so, of crap went.
Not to mention where all the animal feces over the same period went.
1) Where does that material come from?

2) See above, the bit about you being stupid.

Not to mention the billions and billions of fossils that should be the main feature of our landscape.
Matter breaks down over time. However, luckily we have found many fossils from different periods.
 
Re: Tony1

*Originally posted by Adam
Life has been on this planet for billions of years.
*

No, it hasn't.
It has only been here for a few thousand.

You teachers lied to you.

*Please don't tell me you're this stupid.*

You're the guy trying to get me to believe that the human population of the earth takes 4.6 billion years to go from 0 to 6 billion.
That works out to less than two per year, on average.

*1) Where does that material come from?*

For some people, their rectums, for others, keyboards.
That's not to mention the general garbage that piles up universally.

*2) See above, the bit about you being stupid.*

Scorn is not a valid argument.
In fact, it usually indicates a major flaw in your theories, or rather the theories you been indoctrinated in, primarily, evolution.
It actually highlights something that you really should have thought of, along with everyone else, but didn't.

*Matter breaks down over time. However, luckily we have found many fossils from different periods. *

Perhaps, you don't understand.

The existence of fossils proves that some material, i.e. bone, does not break down over time.

Now, if the planet earth had actually been around for 4.6 billion years, there would have to be a lot of fossils around because, the death rates for every known and unknown species would have to be astronomical.

If we start going backwards from 6 billion people and dividing the population by a factor of 1.1 per generation, we end up with 231 generations going back to a population of two.
That factor of 1.1 leaves 60 billion corpses to account for over a period of about 6900 years.

Your theory has to account for about 20 quadrillion human corpses alone over about two million years.
Where are they?

That quantity would actually mean that corpses should be lined up pretty much shoulder to shoulder everywhere in the world, and we're only talking about human corpses, for now.

Not only that but every one of those corpses would leave a lifetime of garbage behind.

The theory of evolution is absolutely ludicrous.
 
Still hung up on crap, tony1?

Have you forgotten our previous discussion? Such a shame.
 
Crap and evolution are just such an obvious pairing, that's all.
Besides, scorn isn't a valid argument for you, either.

You haven't explained the missing volumes of crap and/or garbage, in spite of the fact that since 1900 or so, garbage has been one of the primary problems facing civilization today.
It was primary before that, too, but locating places to put it was much easier.

It must be great living the fantasy that problems go away just because one isn't currently thinking about them.
 
You're the guy trying to get me to believe that the human population of the earth takes 4.6 billion years to go from 0 to 6 billion.
That works out to less than two per year, on average.

And since pop. was 5 billion in 1980 and will be 8 billion in 2020, the earth must have been formed after 1900.
 
Tony1

All that matter doesn't just mysteriously appear at your rectum. Where does it come from? Think harder.
 
*Originally posted by Voodoo Child
And since pop. was 5 billion in 1980 and will be 8 billion in 2020, the earth must have been formed after 1900.
*

Aside from the shoot-yourself-in-the-foot way of making your argument, you do see the problem.

*Originally posted by Adam
All that matter doesn't just mysteriously appear at your rectum. Where does it come from? Think harder.
*

Let me guess...
Eating fossils?

In case you have never thought of it, the biomass on the earth is continuously increasing.
If your argument is that garbage out = biomass in, then where's the 4.6 billion years' worth of decayed biomass?

You can't win this one, no matter how hard you try.
There's only about three feet of soil on average on the earth, which is about 5 or 6 orders of magnitude shy of being enough.
 
And since pop. was 5 billion in 1980 and will be 8 billion in 2020, the earth must have been formed after 1900. *

Aside from the shoot-yourself-in-the-foot way of making your argument, you do see the problem.

Yes, I'm applying a constant rate of growth to something that does not grow uniformly and ignoring catatastophic events like plagues, etc. Don't I look foolish?
 
Last edited:
Re: Re: Tony1

Originally posted by tony1
You teachers lied to you.
No, yours are wrong.

You're the guy trying to get me to believe that the human population of the earth takes 4.6 billion years to go from 0 to 6 billion.
That works out to less than two per year, on average.
Yes it did take about 4.6 billion years before there were 6 billion humans alive at the same time. However, for most of that time there were no humans.

For some people, their rectums, for others, keyboards.
That's not to mention the general garbage that piles up universally.
You cannot defecate unless you ingest and everything you ingest comes from the Earth. After you defecate bacteria, molds, insects, plants, etc. consume your feces and , in turn, defecate and are eaten and die. We all feed off of each other. You really need a biology lesson.

The existence of fossils proves that some material, i.e. bone, does not break down over time.
Wrong. Bone breaks down over time and is only preserved in relatively rare situations.

Now, if the planet earth had actually been around for 4.6 billion years, there would have to be a lot of fossils around because, the death rates for every known and unknown species would have to be astronomical.
Once again, the conditions under which fossilization occurs is quite rare. Most organic material is broken down and used by other organisms.

Your theory has to account for about 20 quadrillion human corpses alone over about two million years.
No, not nearly so many corpses. Please note that the world population in 1900 was approximately 1.5 billion, in the year 1000 the highest estimate is 345 million. The population has not been increasing in a linear fashion.

Where are they?
They decomposed.

~Raithere
 
Originally posted by tony1
In case you have never thought of it, the biomass on the earth is continuously increasing.
No, it is not. The total biomass on Earth has remained relatively stable for the last few billion years aside from a couple of massive die-offs which were rather quickly recovered from.

If your argument is that garbage out = biomass in, then where's the 4.6 billion years' worth of decayed biomass?
In the organisms living today.

You can't win this one, no matter how hard you try.
No. You already lost you just don't understand it yet.

~Raithere
 
tony1, I can't believe you're still hung up on this crap issue.

The amount of energy used up in any kind of reaction must be higher than the amount of energy released, as all energetic systems are not 100% efficient. That means some of the energy (or matter) found in what we digest is released as waste heat. More of it is used to fuel chemical reactions in our body, which produce even more waste heat, and the remainder is flushed out of our systems in the form of crap. This works much the same for all animals.

Plants feed on crap, it's a well known fact. So as these plants feed on this crap they are also releasing waste energy. Animals eat these plants, we eat the animals and the cycle starts all over. Your little theory is simply rediculous. You are assuming that nothing decomposes or feeds off of the crap produced by animals, something that is simply not true.

Lets say we go along with your little theory for a minute. You say humans crank out 1 billion tons of crap a year combined. This is assuming a population of 6 billion. Lets average this population out to 2 billion. That's an average of about 333 million tons of crap a year. Now lets go back 2000 years. 2000 x 333 million is 666 billion tons of crap. Where is it? Assuming your theory is correct we should see 666 billion tons of crap covering the Earth, and that's just counting humans. See how rediculous this is?

As for topsoil, you are forgetting about erosion. Topsoil is in a constant state of near equlibrium, with as much being eroded as is being created. It's not a one way process. Really not difficult to understand.

I'd be interested to know just why you think the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Do you have any proof of this or is it simply your opinion?
 
Last edited:
couldn't resist

A relative of mine is working in Korea. He says there is a small
Island nearby with a particular type of pig whose diet is exlusively
crap. That's some effecient bacon there yesireee!
 
Back
Top