|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: What exactly does atheism have to offer?
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tea:
What do Evensong and other theists who have to say about natural evils - those instances of pain and suffering that cannot be blamed on the choice of free agents to do wrong?
As an atheist, I don't have to suffer the torment of this "Lisbon earthquake" question.
I'm not sure how a theists suffers more torment than an atheist at natural processes that cause human harm.
Unlike other theists I certainly wouldn't ascribe evil or good to it. It just is. Earthquakes are a normal part of the way the earth's crust works.
The torment is less for a theist (a Christian one at least) in that those that have died live again in God. The atheist just suffers the torment of pure loss.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
Accounting for that intuition takes some doing.
Something something evolution...
Something something goddidit.
It almost sounds like you are arguing that because you don't like an answer it's less likely to be true.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Tea:
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
As a matter of interest, how would you explore the problem of evil?
Although Evensong at 16:30 understood what I meant by the "theist's problem of evil", I ought to have made it clearer in my post that I meant the problem of reconciling a belief in an omnipotent deity who who deserves our worship with our knowledge of the existence of evils, or undesirable states of affairs in the world. My apologies to Drewalexander and any others who were puzzled by my original phrasing..
Nothing to apologise for Tea Your post was clear enough and the question well made. I was wondering, coming back to the OP, what as an atheist you have to say to people who experience the effects of natural or moral evil. What does atheism have to offer?
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
This is probably one of the most famous statements by an atheist about good and evil, from Prof Dawkins:
"The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference." River Out of Eden
But I don't think that all atheists would necessarily subscribe to this. However, if an atheist adheres to naturalism, as many do in the West, then presumably they reject free will, they accept determinism, and they reject the idea of free conscious agents. In that case, the ideas of good and evil seem difficult to establish.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So how do you see evil? Come on, stop being so coy. The title of this thread is calling me - what does atheism have to offer?
To deal with the "problem of evil"? Nothing. But neither does religion, if you discount "pie in the sky".
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
I see it more as being the antidote to poison which we have drunk rather than the result of a decree; we are rescued from our own folly.
Damnation is the result of a decree, by definition.
OK, eliminate the word 'damnation' and substitute with 'torment' (as a result of drinking from the poison that is sin). We still need to be rescued from it.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So how do you see evil? Come on, stop being so coy. The title of this thread is calling me - what does atheism have to offer?
To deal with the "problem of evil"? Nothing. But neither does religion, if you discount "pie in the sky".
Pie in the sky here being eternal life and the New Jerusalem?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So how do you see evil? Come on, stop being so coy. The title of this thread is calling me - what does atheism have to offer?
To deal with the "problem of evil"? Nothing. But neither does religion, if you discount "pie in the sky".
Well, this thread is about atheism, and hopefully will not be reversed in the usual manner, so that we end up talking about theodicies.
I'm not sure that atheism has nothing to offer in relation to an ethical theory; otherwise, I wouldn't ask the question.
But I suppose you could say that the 'problem of evil' ceases to exist for atheists. If they are naturalists, it might even be said to be a nonsensical question, since evil cannot be derived from patterns of fundamental particles. But if an atheist is not a strict materialist, and accepts that individuals and societies exist, then I'm sure that an ethical theory can be described. However, the word 'evil' seems a bit of a stretch.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So how do you see evil? Come on, stop being so coy. The title of this thread is calling me - what does atheism have to offer?
To deal with the "problem of evil"? Nothing. But neither does religion, if you discount "pie in the sky".
Pie in the sky here being eternal life and the New Jerusalem?
Oops. Forgot to add the extra pie in the sky that "evil" is wrong?
If you have no basis on which to judge the problem of evil, how can you know it is evil?
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So how do you see evil? Come on, stop being so coy. The title of this thread is calling me - what does atheism have to offer?
To deal with the "problem of evil"? Nothing. But neither does religion, if you discount "pie in the sky".
Well, this thread is about atheism
Yes, and my answer about atheism was that it has nothing to offer in terms of an answer to the "problem of evil".
I then stated my opinion that religion has nothing to offer in terms of that particular problem either, unless you're willing/able to believe in pie in the sky. The point being that this isn't the knock-down argument in favour of religion that you appear to think it is.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Pie in the sky here being eternal life and the New Jerusalem?
Yes. It's everything that's promised to us after we die, for which we have no evidence and no reasonable reason to suppose it's going to actually happen.
Make it sound as glorious as you like, it's still an empty promise that nobody will ever be able to prove is trustworthy.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
So how do you see evil? Come on, stop being so coy. The title of this thread is calling me - what does atheism have to offer?
To deal with the "problem of evil"? Nothing. But neither does religion, if you discount "pie in the sky".
Well, this thread is about atheism
Yes, and my answer about atheism was that it has nothing to offer in terms of an answer to the "problem of evil".
I then stated my opinion that religion has nothing to offer in terms of that particular problem either, unless you're willing/able to believe in pie in the sky. The point being that this isn't the knock-down argument in favour of religion that you appear to think it is.
Thank you for quote-mining me. It is always refreshing and sort of elevating for this to happen, since it presumably means that the bit that was quote-mined was so powerful and eloquent, that the remainder of it needn't be quoted as well, especially as it is relevant to the points that you make here! Good strategy!
[ 09. October 2012, 12:17: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Pie in the sky here being eternal life and the New Jerusalem?
Yes. It's everything that's promised to us after we die, for which we have no evidence and no reasonable reason to suppose it's going to actually happen.
No. It's not all about after we die. All that pie in the sky is about now AND in the future.
And there's plenty of evidence.
And quite reasonable seeing as how it was what Jesus was on about.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Thank you for quote-mining me. It is always refreshing and sort of elevating for this to happen, since it presumably means that the bit that was quote-mined was so powerful and eloquent, that the remainder of it needn't be quoted as well, especially as it is relevant to the points that you make here! Good strategy!
"Quote mining" can also perhaps be referred to "paring down the part you're quoting so you don't end up with 100 lines of preface and only 3 lines of response." This latter practice is kind of fucking annoying.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amika
Shipmate
# 15785
|
Posted
A lot of interesting points in the most recent posts.
I see the universe as a cold, randomly pitiless place, but (probably unlike Dawkins) I wish it were not so. I believe our genes are an innate 'program' that responds to events. 'Evil', or behaviour that goes far beyond human norms, is therefore an innately faulty program (by our accepted standards) or one that has been set on a new, disastrous course by events. (I don’t believe in free will.)
I don't think there's anything surprising about our having accepted standards of behaviour and thereby knowing what is outside their norms. When previously undiscovered tribes are found in forests and jungles they usually exhibit patterns of behaviour that are similar to our own. Cultural differences aside, humans are much the same wherever they are found. One only has to watch Bruce Parry’s Tribe, and other similar programmes, to spot this.
What does atheism have to offer to those who suffer in a cold universe? Well, certainly not much comfort, if there is really comfort to be found in ideas of heaven etc. I would say an absence of false hope, but I don't really see anything wrong with false hope, if that's what gets you through.
Posts: 147 | From: Ingerland | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Thank you for quote-mining me. It is always refreshing and sort of elevating for this to happen, since it presumably means that the bit that was quote-mined was so powerful and eloquent, that the remainder of it needn't be quoted as well, especially as it is relevant to the points that you make here! Good strategy!
"Quote mining" can also perhaps be referred to "paring down the part you're quoting so you don't end up with 100 lines of preface and only 3 lines of response." This latter practice is kind of fucking annoying.
Oh well, Marvin retained 6 words of my post, and got rid of 113! I suppose it's one way of having a discussion, you can dispense with most of what somebody said, then you don't have to reply to that, especially if it contradicts what you say.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I forgot to say: it's dishonest.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Drewthealexander
Shipmate
# 16660
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
how would you explore the problem of evil? It is, after all, an issue for humanity whatever particular belief system we subscribe to.
It is only a 'problem' if you believe in a good God.
For an atheist, it is not a 'problem'. it just is.
You would have thought so wouldn't you? Yet aggressive atheists in the Dawkins mould are avowed moralists. But since Dawkins gives thoughtful atheists a bad name, I would still be interested in Tea's view on all this.
And your view on his would we welcomed as well Leo.
Posts: 499 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, that intrigues me, how moralistic some atheists are, but then I think Nietzsche argued that just deciding that there is no God is only half the battle, since the cultural residue of Christianity would still remain. He was particularly sniffy about people like George Eliot:
"In England one must rehabilitate oneself after every little emancipation from theology by showing in a veritably awe-inspiring manner what a moral fanatic one is. That is the penance they pay there."
Twilight of the Idols.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
how would you explore the problem of evil? It is, after all, an issue for humanity whatever particular belief system we subscribe to.
It is only a 'problem' if you believe in a good God.
For an atheist, it is not a 'problem'. it just is.
You would have thought so wouldn't you? Yet aggressive atheists in the Dawkins mould are avowed moralists. But since Dawkins gives thoughtful atheists a bad name, I would still be interested in Tea's view on all this.
And your view on his would we welcomed as well Leo.
Although I am a theist, i dfon't think my answer is much different from that of some atheists - the earth hasn't finished evolving yet so it isn't perfect yet - much as Iraenaus also thought.
I am looking forward to the Dawkins programme - i don't like him when he talks rubbish about religion but he is good when talking science.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
how would you explore the problem of evil? It is, after all, an issue for humanity whatever particular belief system we subscribe to.
It is only a 'problem' if you believe in a good God.
For an atheist, it is not a 'problem'. it just is.
You would have thought so wouldn't you? Yet aggressive atheists in the Dawkins mould are avowed moralists. But since Dawkins gives thoughtful atheists a bad name, I would still be interested in Tea's view on all this.
And your view on his would we welcomed as well Leo.
Although I am a theist, i dfon't think my answer is much different from that of some atheists - the earth hasn't finished evolving yet so it isn't perfect yet - much as Iraenaus also thought.
I am looking forward to the Dawkins programme - i don't like him when he talks rubbish about religion but he is good when talking science.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Drewthealexander:
how would you explore the problem of evil? It is, after all, an issue for humanity whatever particular belief system we subscribe to.
It is only a 'problem' if you believe in a good God.
For an atheist, it is not a 'problem'. it just is.
You would have thought so wouldn't you? Yet aggressive atheists in the Dawkins mould are avowed moralists. But since Dawkins gives thoughtful atheists a bad name, I would still be interested in Tea's view on all this.
And your view on his would we welcomed as well Leo.
Although I am a theist, i don't think my answer is much different from that of some atheists - the earth hasn't finished evolving yet so it isn't perfect yet - much as Iraenaus also thought.
I am looking forward to the Dawkins programme - i don't like him when he talks rubbish about religion but he is good when talking science.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Grokesx
Shipmate
# 17221
|
Posted
quote:
If they are naturalists, it might even be said to be a nonsensical question, since evil cannot be derived from patterns of fundamental particles.
I'm still not getting this idea. It is, of course, the same question as we discussed earlier in relation to consciousness. I'm afraid I'm going to bring out another analogy, one that I brought up on EE's "What's the point of anger, justice..." thread a while back which went unanswered: Is it nonsensical to say that water is derived from oxygen and hydrogen on the grounds that neither of them are wet?
Also, I've never met any materialist who denies that individuals and societies exist.
As for atheism and the problem of evil - I think there is still a bit of confusion around equivocation on the term. The classic problem of evil that turns many people away from religion and has spawned a million idiocies, sorry, theodicies, is, as has been noted, not a problem for atheists since there is not the contradiction of a loving god allowing evil to thrive to ponder upon.
But how do I see evil? At an "ultimate" level, something something evolution plus something something culture, as against something something original sin, something something Satan and demons, something something karma, something something separation from God. Whatever one's ultimate view, it only really matters in regards to what human beings do, usually to each other and so the definition "profound immorality" covers it. But that only puts us back on the merry go round of that last thread, where a few atheists gave their view - I think Justinian linked to a poem that - slightly schmaltzily - summarised the humanist perspective and some theists said, yeah, I get that. And some didn't.
--------------------
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. H. L. Mencken
Posts: 373 | From: Derby, UK | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Squibs
Shipmate
# 14408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Something something goddidit.
It almost sounds like you are arguing that because you don't like an answer it's less likely to be true.
I've never proposed goddidit as an explanation. Though I supposed that God must be the ultimate answer to the problems of pain and suffering. While I can accept "something something evolution" as part of the answer, it doesn't get to the heart of it.
Evolution remains one of the few explanations at hand, George. That and perhaps some other random or deterministic forces that push and pull us in certain directions. "Something something evolution" might appear to be a glib one liner, but it is fundamentally true. In the universe you occupy there is at root no good, no evil and no purpose. These are concepts we invented.
And I do, of course, realise that my own personal preference don't make the truth of what we are talking about more or less likely. I'll admit that I might well be wrong about God - perhaps he doesn't exist. But I've never argued that "the world without God is horrible there God must exist". Instead, what I've said is that things like objective morality and purpose are illusory in a Godless universe. This thread is not about what I like, George. It's about what atheism offers. And absolute moral truth and purpose are not offered.
Posts: 1124 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I would have thought that no good, no evil, and no purpose, were absolutely fundamental in any kind of naturalist or materialist view of the universe. Of course, not all atheists adhere to those views, I suppose.
But it seems to me that some atheists just don't think through the implications of naturalism, or perhaps don't want to. They want to have their naturalism and eat their metaphysics too. It's just difficult to derive the latter from the former.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl
But it seems to me that some atheists just don't think through the implications of naturalism, or perhaps don't want to. They want to have their naturalism and eat their metaphysics too.
The best comment I have read on the Ship all year!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
This thread is not about what I like, George. It's about what atheism offers. And absolute moral truth and purpose are not offered.
No, absolute moral truth and purpose are not offered by atheism.
Which, looked at from a different angle, means that there's not one rigid standard to which everyone must conform their lives whether they like it or not. We are free to decide our own moral truth and purpose, be it as individuals or as societies. Looked at this way atheism offers moral freedom while religion offers moral tyrrany.
Which is better? Ask any member of a group that has been persecuted because they don't conform to the moral absolutes of the dominant religion.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would have thought that no good, no evil, and no purpose, were absolutely fundamental in any kind of naturalist or materialist view of the universe. Of course, not all atheists adhere to those views, I suppose.
But it seems to me that some atheists just don't think through the implications of naturalism, or perhaps don't want to. They want to have their naturalism and eat their metaphysics too. It's just difficult to derive the latter from the former.
I don't understand the problem, to be honest.
To be an atheist is to have unbelief in a deity, it is not to deny the notion of society or justice. You might believe that the only purpose of life is replication, but nonetheless own a theory of justice within the society you live. You might accept that all ideas are piffle across millions of generations whilst at the same time accepting that these terms are meaningful to you in the here-and-now.
You might not accept that evil exists as a force or a personality, whilst at the same time accepting that justice is a useful concept for you and your community.
Repeatedly claiming that the atheist is 'not allowed' to believe in evil is to diminish their moral reasoning powers.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
But I am not speaking of all atheists. I am speaking of those who adhere to naturalism or materialism. I think there are atheists who do not.
It's the consistency of naturalism which is the issue. If you see reality as consisting of fundamental particles, fine, but then this has certain implications. For example, the eliminative materialists argue that things such as ideas and persons don't really exist.
Of course, as a naturalist, you might argue against that, but it seems to me that the eliminativists are just being consistent.
But, just to repeat, not all atheists are naturalists. In fact, you could be a total philosophical idealist (or mentalist), and an atheist (I think).
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I forgot to add that you can be an atheist and a dualist. Well, I don't see why not. That is, for example, you might think that reality has several levels - at the physical level, it consists of fundamental particles - but at another level, there are abstract objects, such as numbers and propositions and ideas.
An eliminative materialist would (I think) dispute this, and would argue that the abstract objects are themselves constructed from fundamental particles, or if you like, from patterns of neurons.
These are the people who reject 'folk psychology' as a group of illusions. However, this presumably means that a belief in materialism is itself an illusion.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
I think this has much to do with perception. Take this example.
It seems to me that a naturalist can legitimately argue that although our perceptions tell us that the colours in the middle of the faces are different, science tells us that they're not (and it really does, I've checked).
And perception is important as it is the way we perceive and operate in the world. In the same way someone could have an underlying belief about the way things are (which is characterised above as 'eliminative materialist') whilst at the same time embracing the perception that abstract things exist.
Many of the things we perceive are illusions. That is just a fact. But that doesn't mean they're unreal to us.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, I agree with that. I sometimes talk about 'necessary illusions'.
I suppose the radical materialists, or whatever you want to call them, are pointing out that an illusion is an illusion, and that, for example, morality is such an illusion.
But it still seems to me there is an element of bad faith here by some atheists, who on the one hand, profess materialism, and on the other hand, are quite happy to use various metaphysical ideas. Perhaps they are being very sophisticated, and are saying this 'as if'. I live as if morality actually existed, although between you, me and the bed-post, I know that it doesn't. Well, maybe.
But sometimes it does seem to matter. For example, if there really are no such things as persons, or no such thing as free will, this is important in many different areas. To argue that the person is a necessary illusion (or free will), is very clever, but is it consistent?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, I agree with that. I sometimes talk about 'necessary illusions'.
I suppose the radical materialists, or whatever you want to call them, are pointing out that an illusion is an illusion, and that, for example, morality is such an illusion.
But it still seems to me there is an element of bad faith here by some atheists, who on the one hand, profess materialism, and on the other hand, are quite happy to use various metaphysical ideas. Perhaps they are being very sophisticated, and are saying this 'as if'. I live as if morality actually existed, although between you, me and the bed-post, I know that it doesn't. Well, maybe.
I've met many people, all are capable of holding apparently contradictory ideas at the same time. In this case I don't even think they are contradictory.
quote:
But sometimes it does seem to matter. For example, if there really are no such things as persons, or no such thing as free will, this is important in many different areas. To argue that the person is a necessary illusion (or free will), is very clever, but is it consistent?
Yes. And I don't even think it is that clever either.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Two interesting quotes from Ruse and Wilson:
"Ethics is an illusion fobbed off on us by our own genes to get us to co-operate, thus morality ultimately seems to be about self-interest."
"Humans function better if they are deceived by their genes into thinking there is a disinterested objective morality, binding upon them, which we should obey".
'The Evolution of Ethics'
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Neither of which imply ethics or morals are bad though.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Using the word 'bad' in this context is a bit risky! Well, they are saying that morality is an illusion. I would say that is quite a statement really, but surely other atheists have backed this up.
Think of Crick again:
"The astonishing hypothesis is that you, your joys and your sorrows, you memories and your ambitions, your sense of identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules."
I would have thought that the implications of this are absolutely revolutionary.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
I'm sorry, how does that change what I said earlier about illusion? They are stating that ultimately (over millions of generations) human concepts like justice are illusions. But where are they saying that justice and rights and freedoms are actually unimportant to them and their communities in the here-and-now?
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
My point is that the implications of these ideas, that things like persons and ideas and so on, are illusions, are only just being worked on. In other words, people are only at the beginning of this work.
For example, if justice and morality are illusions, what implications might this have? I don't know, but I would think they could be quite considerable.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's the consistency of naturalism which is the issue. If you see reality as consisting of fundamental particles, fine, but then this has certain implications. For example, the eliminative materialists argue that things such as ideas and persons don't really exist.
It depends on what you mean by words like "reality" and "exist".
Take love, for example. Can you show me a single molecule of love? Of course not - love is merely a concept invented to describe the way humans interact. It doesn't "really exist" in the same way that, say, a brick "really exists".
So does that mean there's no such thing as love, that it's a meaningless and useless fantasy? Of course not! The interactions between humans that 'love' describes are still real, the emotion called 'love' that humans feel is still real, and as a concept in philosophy it's massively useful. In that sense, it does indeed "really exist".
The problem is that too many people on this thread see the first explanation of how love doesn't "really exist" and assume it means the second explanation of how it does "really exist" is therefore false. Love may not be a physical object in the universe, and therefore not a thing that really exists, but that doesn't mean it's a useless concept.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
For example, if justice and morality are illusions, what implications might this have? I don't know, but I would think they could be quite considerable.
I think you have the wrong end of the stick. I suspect they're actually arguing against the notion that there is an absolute truth and that there is an absolute standard of justice which is unchanging and static.
Arguing that morals are an illusion is to argue that those things are social constructs rather than divinely ordained set standards.
This has absolutely no bearing on the perception of justice and fairness and freedom in an individual or a society. Whether you think those terms are nothing more than social constructs is totally irrelevant.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would have thought that no good, no evil, and no purpose, were absolutely fundamental in any kind of naturalist or materialist view of the universe. Of course, not all atheists adhere to those views, I suppose.
But it seems to me that some atheists just don't think through the implications of naturalism, or perhaps don't want to. They want to have their naturalism and eat their metaphysics too. It's just difficult to derive the latter from the former.
And you simply haven't followed through on the implications. There is no purpose except the purpose we make. But that is not the same thing at all as saying there's no purpose. A purpose we give ourselves is at least as valid as one given to us by someone who doesn't manifest directly in a confused and contradictory book and being looked over and interpreted by a range of differingly corrupt organisations.
[ 10. October 2012, 14:07: Message edited by: Justinian ]
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
My point is that the implications of these ideas, that things like persons and ideas and so on, are illusions, are only just being worked on. In other words, people are only at the beginning of this work.
For example, if justice and morality are illusions, what implications might this have? I don't know, but I would think they could be quite considerable.
It would mean we live in a universe without consequences and one in which we are all such special snowflakes that we are entirely unlike each other.
And just because something doesn't exist doesn't mean it doesn't have meaning. Pi doesn't directly exist - but it is very meaningful.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
As a beginning atheist I have made the choice on the good/bad spectrum as a moral choice that hinges on which best meets the criterion of creating, preserving or enhancing life. On the opposite end the choice would be things that destroy, reduce or demean life.
I think it is a scientific fact that all living things want to live and reproduce. If you call this drive to live as being from God or just is, it makes no difference in your moral choices.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would have thought that no good, no evil, and no purpose, were absolutely fundamental in any kind of naturalist or materialist view of the universe. Of course, not all atheists adhere to those views, I suppose.
But it seems to me that some atheists just don't think through the implications of naturalism, or perhaps don't want to. They want to have their naturalism and eat their metaphysics too. It's just difficult to derive the latter from the former.
And you simply haven't followed through on the implications. There is no purpose except the purpose we make. But that is not the same thing at all as saying there's no purpose. A purpose we give ourselves is at least as valid as one given to us by someone who doesn't manifest directly in a confused and contradictory book and being looked over and interpreted by a range of differingly corrupt organisations.
What do you mean by 'the purpose we make' and the 'purpose we give ourselves'? If you accept physical determinism, which I would think most naturalists would, (allowing for stochastic processes), then in what sense is there a 'we' which 'makes' or 'gives'?
Are you saying that there is a human subject which is able to create or construct things or concepts? And is this a free conscious agent?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What do you mean by 'the purpose we make' and the 'purpose we give ourselves'? If you accept physical determinism, which I would think most naturalists would, (allowing for stochastic processes), then in what sense is there a 'we' which 'makes' or 'gives'?
Are you saying that there is a human subject which is able to create or construct things or concepts? And is this a free conscious agent?
1: Cogito Ergo Sum. So yes.
2: Define free. We are relatively free - free to choose our friends but not our relatives.
But ultimately yes. I believe consciousness is an emergent property rather than an illusion.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Take love, for example. Can you show me a single molecule of love?
*snip*
Love may not be a physical object in the universe, and therefore not a thing that really exists, but that doesn't mean it's a useless concept.
Super post - applause!
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What do you mean by 'the purpose we make' and the 'purpose we give ourselves'? If you accept physical determinism, which I would think most naturalists would, (allowing for stochastic processes), then in what sense is there a 'we' which 'makes' or 'gives'?
Are you saying that there is a human subject which is able to create or construct things or concepts? And is this a free conscious agent?
1: Cogito Ergo Sum. So yes.
2: Define free. We are relatively free - free to choose our friends but not our relatives.
But ultimately yes. I believe consciousness is an emergent property rather than an illusion.
Cogito ergo sum is total nonsense, since it takes its conclusion as its premise. 'I think' - no, it is this I which we are trying to demonstrate, but not by assuming it in the first place.
Your arguments strike me as the decaying remnants of 19th century positivism, a kind of pitiful ruin, embellished by 'I believe'. Your faith is touching, I suppose.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Cogito ergo sum is total nonsense, since it takes its conclusion as its premise. 'I think' - no, it is this I which we are trying to demonstrate, but not by assuming it in the first place.
No. Cogito Ergo Sum works. It's disproof of the negative by contradiction. Something must think to be able to formulate such a statement because if nothing thought neither the statement nor its antithesis would have meaning - therefore paradox. And I might as well call that thing that thinks and uses me to articulate that thinking 'I'.
Of course after that point it becomes a dead end. You can't get where Descartes did with it admittedly.
quote:
Your arguments strike me as the decaying remnants of 19th century positivism, a kind of pitiful ruin, embellished by 'I believe'. Your faith is touching, I suppose.
And you have just thrown the baby out with the bathwater.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Justinian
But your arguments are pure metaphysics. Perhaps you are not claiming to be an adherent of naturalism or physicalism? Otherwise, I can't see how you reconcile all this metaphysics with physicalism. I suppose the awkward bits are emergent!
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
