Ah, the sweet, refreshing smell of Atheism in the morning

[Elok]

I'm not even sure how to begin telling you the many reasons I "go along with the ride." I don't think I have the time or skill to put it all in words. For the moment, I will say that I find myself repulsed by almost everything a naturalist worldview entails. Not in the cosmology, or the lack of an afterlife, or anything else "comforting," but in the recentering of morality around individualism, which destroys it on so many levels. I begin with the axiom that morals are genuine, universal, and utterly imperative. From that beginning, I cannot end as an honest atheist. And if that beginning is false, then I see no value or profit in any inquiry whatever.

[kentonio]

For the moment, I will say that I find myself repulsed by almost everything a naturalist worldview entails. Not in the cosmology, or the lack of an afterlife, or anything else "comforting," but in the recentering of morality around individualism, which destroys it on so many levels.

Only if you see it as 'recentering'. For me there is no plausible alternative, so that is its natural state.

I begin with the axiom that morals are genuine, objective, and utterly imperative. From that beginning, I cannot end as an honest atheist. And if that beginning is false, then I see no value or profit in any inquiry whatever.

I don't really see the issue. You can see certain morals as imperative without seeing them as handed down supernaturally. Thou shalt not kill doesn't need a god figure to reinforce its importance, only a sense of the importance of life and the barbarity of taking away someone elses.

[snoopy369]

You can be a secular humanist without being an individualist... even a religious type should recognize that morals, fundamentally, are social in nature. You do things like 'not steal' and 'do unto others' because it would be bad for society if you did those things (and, conversely, bad for you if others did those things). Sure, it can be seen as individualist - we agree to the social contract because by promising to behave properly, we get others' promises to behave properly, and so are safe. You can see it from that individualist perspective - but you can also see it from a social perspective; humanity is what it is because of the social nature of humans, and as a result we evolve social rules (morals) in order to define how we interact, and define what our place is in society.

There is just as much, if not more, reason to believe that morals are inherent in human nature, as to believe they arise from individualism, or from a deity; look at other social animals. Nearly all have some concept of morals and of proper roles, evident from their behavior.

[Elok]

Suppose you can go back in time and talk to a young Leopold II of Belgium, who will go on to become fantastically wealthy by exploiting the Congo so brutally that some ten million people die. Eventually the rest of his government will notice and...take control of the Congo away from him. He gets to keep his money and his stuff, and dies a wealthy man in great comfort. What can you say, without lying, to convince young Leo that he shouldn't go ahead and waste all ten million of those dark foreigners who don't mean anything to him? Why shouldn't the CEO gut his own company to make a handsome profit, or the human trafficker ruin thousands of lives, mostly children's, for the same reason? I'm not appealing to a sense of justice here--really, what does it mean to be "barbarous" or "disrespectful to life" or anything else, if you personally feel okay with it? Will people tut-tut at you long after you die? So what? What's the point of it all?

[kentonio]

You can be a secular humanist without being an individualist... even a religious type should recognize that morals, fundamentally, are social in nature. You do things like 'not steal' and 'do unto others' because it would be bad for society if you did those things (and, conversely, bad for you if others did those things). Sure, it can be seen as individualist - we agree to the social contract because by promising to behave properly, we get others' promises to behave properly, and so are safe. You can see it from that individualist perspective - but you can also see it from a social perspective; humanity is what it is because of the social nature of humans, and as a result we evolve social rules (morals) in order to define how we interact, and define what our place is in society.

Yes of course, but it's difficult to not see that as steming from an individualistic core. I just don't see why that is inherently a bad thing. It just means you have skin in the game.

There is just as much, if not more, reason to believe that morals are inherent in human nature, as to believe they arise from individualism, or from a deity; look at other social animals. Nearly all have some concept of morals and of proper roles, evident from their behavior.

Hmm, a bit dubious. it only really works if you consider society as a seperate entity rather than an overall averaging for the good of the individuals in the group. Of course that means that occasionally an individual loses out for the good of the group, but I think it still stands true that it's for the benefit of the average individual.

[lightblue]

I can only echo what snoopy said. Those individuals that are best adapted to living in a society are those that are most likely to survive and pass on their genes (as well as teach their behavioural traits that made them successful). The best adaptations to living in a society are those that allow the society to function without falling apart. In human society this includes altruism, caring for younger and older member of society as well as universal taboos such as murder, cannibalism or incest.

It makes sense that these rules were codified in religions, but I believe that most of the moral rules are inherent to human nature, and I find it worrying if religious people say that the only thing holding them back is the fear of some sort of supernatural punishment/reward system.

[Dinner]

Did Sloww just say he's gay?

It seems that way.

[kentonio]

Suppose you can go back in time and talk to a young Leopold II of Belgium, who will go on to become fantastically wealthy by exploiting the Congo so brutally that some ten million people die. Eventually the rest of his government will notice and...take control of the Congo away from him. He gets to keep his money and his stuff, and dies a wealthy man in great comfort. What can you say, without lying, to convince young Leo that he shouldn't go ahead and waste all ten million of those dark foreigners who don't mean anything to him? Why shouldn't the CEO gut his own company to make a handsome profit, or the human trafficker ruin thousands of lives, mostly children's, for the same reason? I'm not appealing to a sense of justice here--really, what does it mean to be "barbarous" or "disrespectful to life" or anything else, if you personally feel okay with it? Will people tut-tut at you long after you die? So what? What's the point of it all?

How does a religious system change that in any way, other than to threaten that person with the prospect of damnation? Leo was around in a far more religious time than today, and yet did what he did regardless.

[Elok]

There is just as much, if not more, reason to believe that morals are inherent in human nature, as to believe they arise from individualism, or from a deity; look at other social animals. Nearly all have some concept of morals and of proper roles, evident from their behavior.

Yes, but those rules don't necessarily have anything to do with what we'd call morality. Among wolves, for example, there are social roles, but the whole social structure is maintained by naked power. Various humans have, at various times, had all sorts of social rules we would call flagrantly immoral--slavery, cannibalism, sex with children, ethnic cleansing, human sacrifice. And a truly massive number of humans have neatly ignored those rules in all times and places, whether the rules were good or bad, and prospered by dint of superior cunning or social position or material advantage or pure luck. Where is the universal imperative?

[lightblue]

Suppose you can go back in time and talk to a young Leopold II of Belgium, who will go on to become fantastically wealthy by exploiting the Congo so brutally that some ten million people die. Eventually the rest of his government will notice and...take control of the Congo away from him. He gets to keep his money and his stuff, and dies a wealthy man in great comfort. What can you say, without lying, to convince young Leo that he shouldn't go ahead and waste all ten million of those dark foreigners who don't mean anything to him? Why shouldn't the CEO gut his own company to make a handsome profit, or the human trafficker ruin thousands of lives, mostly children's, for the same reason? I'm not appealing to a sense of justice here--really, what does it mean to be "barbarous" or "disrespectful to life" or anything else, if you personally feel okay with it? Will people tut-tut at you long after you die? So what? What's the point of it all?

I am not sure what the catholic Leopold II has to do with the argument. Anyway, my argument is that humans as a species have an interest in the survival of the genes that make up the species. Whilst a person in the Congo shares fewer genes with Leopold than he does with his brother, we still share enough that most normal people would care if they saw another person suffering. Those that don't are often diagnosed as psychopaths (or it sociopaths).

In fact it is likely that the religious upbringing which saw those not converted to a particular religion as less important led to the events in the Congo that you reference. As the natives had not been converted yet, and as non-whites were seen as inferior, it was easier to disregard this feeling of empathy.

Many of the issues arising from this are due to the tribal nature of religions (and nation states for that matter), reinforcing an us vs them world view. Once you disregard religion, and the view that your particular religion/god/whatever is better than someone else's, it becomes a lot easier to accept everyone as equal and thus act empathetically.

[snoopy369]

Yes of course, but it's difficult to not see that as steming from an individualistic core. I just don't see why that is inherently a bad thing. It just means you have skin in the game.

Because some people prefer to look at it from a 'socialist' point of view (not intending the polticial definition). I don't see what's wrong with that. To each his own.

Hmm, a bit dubious. it only really works if you consider society as a seperate entity rather than an overall averaging for the good of the individuals in the group. Of course that means that occasionally an individual loses out for the good of the group, but I think it still stands true that it's for the benefit of the average individual.

Society is considered by many to be an entity in and of itself, driving individual actions. Again - I don't see what's wrong with either method of thinking.

[Elok]

How does a religious system change that in any way, other than to threaten that person with the prospect of damnation? Leo was around in a far more religious time than today, and yet did what he did regardless.

Whether it's the prospect of damnation or whatever, morals have a purpose when a supernatural element is injected. Without that element, morals are a fairly arbitrary set of rules, easily and sensibly broken by those in the right circumstances when they see that the good of "society" and their own good overlap only in a very limited way. Also the very character of moral demands is vastly altered. Jesus (or Buddha, or Mohammad, or...) can ask me to give without hope of return, to turn the other cheek, to live for others. A naturalist can only tell me that certain behaviors will, on average and in general, optimize my chances of survival. And when it comes to high-risk, no-return activities--such as sheltering impoverished Jews from the Nazis, risking my life for the powerless--you can't give me a reason not to say "tough luck" and tell myself I did all that could reasonably expected of me as I send them off to the camps. Can you?

[snoopy369]

Yes, but those rules don't necessarily have anything to do with what we'd call morality. Among wolves, for example, there are social roles, but the whole social structure is maintained by naked power. Various humans have, at various times, had all sorts of social rules we would call flagrantly immoral--slavery, cannibalism, sex with children, ethnic cleansing, human sacrifice. And a truly massive number of humans have neatly ignored those rules in all times and places, whether the rules were good or bad, and prospered by dint of superior cunning or social position or material advantage or pure luck. Where is the universal imperative?

The universal imperative is in the society itself surviving. Religion hasn't been any different, Elok - 300 years ago slavery was defined as moral by the religious (specifically moral - ie, we were doing the savages a good turn). Sure, you can argue it's the interpretation that is wrong, but then why are your religion's current interpretations any better? I think a socialist perspective is just as possible, and has just the same failings as religion - namely, defining what is right at the current time is a hazy science. And that 'right' can change in any event as things progress - what is right for a wolf is different than for a human, no? Perhaps a millenium ago, women and men having defined roles was truly for the better of society. Today, that's not true. I don't see a problem with that; the ultimate good is for society to survive and be its best (Whatever it is).

*I say these as possible arguments, not necessarily my belief - I'm somewhere in between individualist and societalist, myself.

[Elok]

I am not sure what the catholic Leopold II has to do with the argument. Anyway, my argument is that humans as a species have an interest in the survival of the genes that make up the species. Whilst a person in the Congo shares fewer genes with Leopold than he does with his brother, we still share enough that most normal people would care if they saw another person suffering. Those that don't are often diagnosed as psychopaths (or it sociopaths).

In fact it is likely that the religious upbringing which saw those not converted to a particular religion as less important led to the events in the Congo that you reference. As the natives had not been converted yet, and as non-whites were seen as inferior, it was easier to disregard this feeling of empathy.

Many of the issues arising from this are due to the tribal nature of religions (and nation states for that matter), reinforcing an us vs them world view. Once you disregard religion, and the view that your particular religion/god/whatever is better than someone else's, it becomes a lot easier to accept everyone as equal and thus act empathetically.

Among the loudest cheerleaders for murdering the hell out of Muslim "barbarians" until they learn our superior values: Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris.
Among the loudest voices against same: Roman Catholic Church.

Oversimplify much?

[Jon Miller]

Religion also was one of the biggest forces against slavery. So don't lie (by omission) and say that religion was supporting slavery.

JM