3,000 words, more or less
Oh ... my ... where to start?
So here's the thing -
For All: I've gone through this a couple times in hostile contact with others, and now that it's Thursday morning (well, not quite Thursday afternoon, here, but I generally only see the last hour of AM. so ... but I digress. At any rate, it's time now to go through this in a more general, less-polarized fashion.
-
Is murder wrong? Well honestly, after a bit of thought, I'm pretty sure it isn't. Nothing that can occur "shouldn't". (
Dr. Lou)
Some days you simply say, "Good enough," and move on. This is not one of those. In fact, this is a thoroughly intriguing answer that I can't just move past.
It is almost exactly what I was hoping to find in terms of grounds for future discussion, but I do admit that part of it puzzles me.
The way I go about that phrase, essentially, would be:
Is murder wrong? Well, after a bit of thought, I still think so but I can't prove it to you.
So
Dr. Lou has my attention. More on that in a minute. A couple more direct points that warrant immediate consideration:
Siddhartha: I'm not going to disagree with you, nor will I flame you. In fact, your paragraph on the wrongness of murder sounds quite familiar to me. As a practical argument (and for whatever it's worth) I not only accept the argument, but I approve of it as a progressive and functional examination of the issue. Like I said, for whatever it's worth ....
And
Crunchy ... as with
Siddhartha, I don't disagree at all ...
It's important to me to establish that the issues I've been fighting with people about have been the source of tension because I feel that they were distractions.
The question of why murder is wrong is a philosophical examination. It is, simply, a striking example of how our "objective" reality is essentially and truly subjective.
To digress to a couple more responses:
Everneo: Atheism failed in part because of the nature of people, but the critical and direct factor was one of my own invention. Having rejected a fundamental notion such as an established good and evil or right and wrong in the Universe (a symptom of "small" or specific gods; a symptom of religion), I sought an
objective foundation upon which to weigh right and wrong. In fact, I insisted on it. This path led straight to nihilism, and it was an interesting dance at the edge for longer than it should have been. What drove the last nail into atheism was an abstract and incomplete citation from Anselm which provided a working definition of God that, in the metaphysical, was hard to argue with. And while I certainly interpret the idea differently from Anselm, the result of it was that gods no longer had consequences of their own, but only those which people award them. In the end, there's a working definition of God that I "cannot" reject; it is inappropriate for me to call myself an atheist. My acknowledgment of the idea of God says nothing about establishing a right and wrong "from the horse's mouth". But in the same sense that some interpret "God's Universe" as a pretty mystery to be savored and figured, I do seek some fundamental objective anchor; once such a thing is established, people can hang their hopes on it and stop mucking around with petty gods. In the meantime, I admit that a chorus-line of atheists chanting, "There is no God, stupid!" just isn't helpful.
fadingCaptain: I'm starting to see that I'm having an odd difference of interpretation with people about the void.
I'm not talking about the poetic void of loneliness, and so forth. In fact, I find the presence of the idea (e.g. "invisible friends" arguments) rather odd, but that's for another time when the heat requires a nitpicking of such a point. However, if a Christian stands before you and converts to atheism, where "murder" and "adultery" were simply wrong by the nature of things in the Universe, those presumptions are gone. The moral structure stands atop a gaping abyss, and as long as one doesn't look down, the structure seems to hold. There is a void of moral or ethical justification left behind. There are, for instance, bits and pieces of James Joyce, J.D. Salinger, Lysander Spooner, Emma Goldman, GWF Hegel, Aleister Crowley, Albert Camus, and of late certain ideas irresponsibly adopted from Sufism (filling my canon of moral justifications);
Raithere, for instance, mentioned
social contract and
social Darwinism, both of which have practically-applicable aspects. In allowing freedom of thought, though, atheism has no inherent limitations; a classic phrase (Noah Webster, I think) goes
Too much liberty is tyranny. And while even I hope for the best from free thought, and see perhaps immeasurable value in it, I'm also aware that it leads to the sort of behavior that Christians call sinful, some Buddhists call inefficient, and most of the rest of us just plain think of as wrong--e.g. murder, having sex with your kids, violent repression, &c. And so I have great interest in understanding what shapes atheists' thoughts and ethical structures. And if the person "does not value the search for the truth" ... by what standard is that measured? It seems as subjective as anything else, which is sort of a running theme for me in this topic.
Jade Squirrel: You wrote,
Values such as these can be attained independent of religion. It is exactly this that I'm after: the process of attainment. The method of search. The how and the why of the what.
Wesmorris: We
so need to drink together sometime. And while atheism and the wrongness of murder are directly irrelevant as many people have pointed out, well ... I think I did this part somewhere above. While I flat-out agree with your reasoning, the larger point that comes next is that we're still, even without God, smack amid a jungle of subjectivity. As to the connection between selfishness and atheism ... this topic suggests, by the participation of several atheists, that the connection is that atheism can and does lead to pure selfishness if one does not give proper consideration to the ethical structures. But there
is a larger and more important consideration coming. This morning I am utterly delighted to find the foundation stones almost all in place to proceed.
Dr. Lou, in fact, has given me a device by which I might be able to skip part of the process and (blessing of blessings?) move more quickly to the endpoint.
Dr. Lou (redux):
I have to admit, I'm at a loss for an argumentative response to murder not being wrong. At the absolute core, I can almost agree because "right" and "wrong" seem quite conventional.
But ... you've handed me something I didn't expect to get, partially because I was thinking in other terms of influences. I was thinking more along the lines of philosophy and literature and other communicative ideas that may have had some impact; we could then examine the nature of the impact ... I promise there's a larger point at the end of the process, but it's starting to feel anticlimactic, so let that serve as a disclaimer.
I figured that I would discover a god myself if there was such a thing. I gathered from my experience that human beings lie and don't really know what they are doing.
So I looked elsewhere for answers.
What other animals are there? hmmm .... well there is alot so I will just see if there is any code they all follow, surely that would be a good way to get a taste for what this planet is all about, if there is one "faulty apple" it won't take away from the big picture if every other apple is coloured basically the same.
And guess what, they are.
There is a "code" to live by, its so freaking obvious that its not funny.
Your instincts(Just like james R said )
You know, I smoked
so much dope last night after reading your post. You blew my mind.
I might disagree with instincts, but I won't flinch in disagreement with the notion that there is a code to live by or even that it is (somewhat) obvious. Okay, so I might temper a couple of the points with different adjectives, but ....
Part of my problem, of course, is the notion of "instincts" While that could be a whole topic of its own, suffice to say that there are degrees of instinct, and even when speaking casually with behavioral researchers I find it difficult for everyone to settle on a definition of "instinct". So I hope to encourage the growth of this idea in discussion in order to see the larger form. Because I may be about to ask for the same answer from a different direction.
Do you find among other animals and life any patterns which suggest the possibility that an objective answer might be found in terms of a "purpose of life"? To that end, I'll suggest my ultra-sketchy phrase:
Life is. That's all I can figure out at this point. Species evolve out, 'tis true, but this is generally perceived as a failure to evolve to maintain within the environment. A failure to adapt, not an adaption out. (The illustrative point, I suppose, is that human beings, if they extinct themselves through warfare or environmental-waste issues, can be said to have chosen extinction; can any other species say the same? I suppose some whales could all beach themselves simultaneously, but ....)
So what does life
do? It consumes, it generates, it procreates; it rearranges matter and energy in the Universe while perpetuating and even augmenting its capacities to do so. Or is there some yet-unobserved process to which life
responds? On at least one level, life appears to be nothing more than a balance of matter and energy in the Universe that is capable of perpetuating itself. Certes, there are lightning bolts that will burn for another 150,000,000 years out there in the galaxy, but they'll run out of fuel at some point, and can a lightning bolt perceive and respond to its diminishing fuel? Can it pick up and move somewhere else in the Universe? Life simply is, in one respect, and what it does is not that much different from fire or stone or dead wood or a star or .....
But the question remains:
Is there an objective truth to be had in there somewhere?
And the question must arise at some point,
How does this relate to atheism?
Well, as it stands, the atheistic assertion is as invalid as the theistic assertion. The basis of the rejection of the idea of gods, the denial of God, or however one chooses to phrase it, centers around reason, logic, and rational consideration of objective data. But reason, logic, rationality, and even objective data only go so far. Enough real data exists that one can reasonably and even prosperously function at the current level of sublimated subjectivity--you will not find me asserting that atheism is inherently dysfunctional. But it
does seem a little odd to reject a godhead for lack of logic while clinging to equally-irrational moral constructions. Especially in light of the seeming association between gods and moral structures. Does this mean that the atheist should just give up and go back to religion? Quite obviously not. It seems a no-brainer, but the atheist dwells on right and wrong like anyone else, and the atheist has ways of coming to their own conclusions. But what if all we're doing is looking at it wrongly? What if the purpose of life is merely that? Can we find anything suggesting an objective anchor applicable to the curiousity called Life?
I admit that yesterday, as I wound up tighter and tighter, I was flabbergasted by the nature of the response. And there's a reason for this.
What most Sciforums atheists don't seem to realize--though it's been long enough that some wouldn't know without reading three-year-old topics--is that I'm actually "on atheism's side".
I, for one, would like to see atheism blossom.
But I'm also a realist. Humanity won't just chuck its gods to the wind. So to me it seems that what must happen is that gods must be rendered without consequence, and atheism is an excellent way to do this. You cannot promise objective reality through atheism, but the lesson to be learned is that you can promise a more rational state of being more dedicated to understanding what is not yet understood as opposed to falling over and worshipping it and confessing to it. Gods, without consequence, become delightful human mysteries, the kind to entertain and enlighten for a lifetime. And it may be that this will be the best people can achieve as far as bringing the population toward atheism. Humans will always tend toward the irrational, at least until love and hope are crushed beneath the weight of the scientific validation of their paucity and humanity considers making the mistake of throwing out the things that make us human. But imagine humanity
capable of having that debate ... it's a far cry from our own time.
When, for the lack of a better notion, will Sisyphus finally put down the damn rock and walk away and see what happens next?
But of course, the value of these considerations in relation to what atheism can do involves a discussion of why people choose atheism. And since there are no real Vulcans yet, we can't ask Spock to forward us some transcripts of the logical debates pertaining to fundamental issues of existence. But when one
chooses or
concludes atheism ... it's not all about the self, is it? Other people remain a vital consideration, right?
The discussion of why people choose atheism can help determine what people seek in the world. And here's the thing: for those who believe in general human progress of whatever sort, well? If you could suck the venom from religion and dull its blade, would you? For your own satisfaction, or for the betterment of humanity? And it's that latter issue worth focusing on, in my opinion.
If the methods of consideration related to moral and ethical structures of atheists are made more accessible to those-not-atheist, right there atheists will be doing the world some good. And it seems a minimal effort, given the number of words people are willing to write on the subject of religions they don't believe in.
But think about it, atheists:
The people in the throes of religion will look at the alternative and see a huge question mark as far as fundamental issues of moral and ethical validation are concerned. This pretty effectively discourages the "leap of faith" into logic.
People
won't make the leap away from their religious bonds if they don't see anywhere to land. And sitting there and telling them to jump because the building's on fire ... you know, only the desperate jump when there's no place to land. And so you can be the firefighters and rescue workers moving the nets into place and sending ladders up the building, or you can be the camera eye on 9/11 following the final seconds of desperate human suffering as the body tumbles, seemingly in slow motion, downward, until the rudeness of the moment interferes jarringly.
Short digression amid the tall grass: I'm convinced that one of the reasons so many philosophy students seem overridingly snotty is that philosophy is largely ridiculed in youth. The inquisitive mind often doesn't get to go through its rebellious and shallow period with ideas until meeting its first college philosophy class. What if subjective identity issues weren't such a stake? What if that study time was spent in more appropriate philosophical development? One of the ways we can bring such a condition about is by breaking the addiction to gods, which create fundamental identity issues. After Christianity, it took me four or five transitions of label before I finally figured out the point. I mean, I still
adore some of my labels, but why wouldn't I? They're fun, but they're not really useful. Oh, and for the record, I didn't take any philosophy classes while in college; but I did fake a report on Sartre when I was in high school ....
Can the atheist imagine a day when there's nothing about religion to complain about? When you can just get up and go about your life and "atheist" becomes the small facet of the self that it's supposed to be, and not a small idea with huge comparative implications? Atheists will never be 85% of the population, but can you imagine the day when they're formally half the population? And when they don't actually have the need to argue with the religious folk because
there is greater understanding and communication as a result of a widespread stomping of extraneous identity issues?
It should go without saying, but ... er ... well, okay. At any rate, it should go without saying that the Abramic monotheisms will not survive to this era in any form we would recognize. ("It should go without saying ...." Where the hell did I pick that up, because it's one of the dumbest wastes of words I've ever used.)
Thank you,
Dr. Lou ... you provided an excellent springboard with that excellent post. To turn this back to a general address:
That's what this is all about folks. It's a simple question of influences which can have tremendous implications for the future. Seize the day. When comes the thought revolution? Why not today? Or, in a simpler sense:
What is anybody waiting for?
And if anyone tells me that "the masses" aren't ready, I'm only going to ask why. And from there we can go round and round the mulberry bush as much as we want.
:m:,
Tiassa
Edit: Parenthetic amendment of my remarks to fadingCaptain for clarification of a point I'd left hanging.