Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[Rían]

I wanted to try to revive this topic, because I wanted to hear from the athiests a little more about their views on suffering. I don't think the atheistic view matches what we see and experience all around us every day, and I think the Christian view does.

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Origins of suffering: the Universe is as it is, and does not conform to our desires.

On the level of human as opposed to natural evil , having evolved as social animals, we exist between the poles of our desire to survive and our instinct to co-operate and help one another.

Purpose to suffering: none

Solutions to suffering: use our human intelligence and what moral feelings we have to make the world a little better.

OK, given these views, it seems like one could make the following deductions (please tell me if you agree with them):

1. So there is no being outside of the universe? If that's the case, why should it matter if I go around hurting people? After all, we're all just accidents.

2. But we could just as easily have evolved as non-social animals - in fact, maybe that's the next step in our evolution! - so you can have no objection to my going around hurting people, because instincts are neither right nor wrong, correct?

3. Then you can have no objection to my killing everyone and putting them out of their misery, right?

4. Why even bother to find a solution if there is no problem? How can one moral feeling be judged better than another, unless there is some outside standard that we judge them against? We're all gonna end up as slime again anyway, just like our supposed ancestor, so why not just kill everyone and get it over with?

(ps - I do NOT condone killing everyone, obviously! but only bring it up as a logical problem I see with the atheistic and evolutionary viewpoint.)

[Cirdan]

It's not a logical problem. The impact of your theoretical act of violence is a direct result of that (theorectical) physical action. The consequences would be real suffering. It is still pontless and the victim certainly doesn't benefit and it seems to have no purpose. Logic has no constraining effect. If you can kill everyone without creating misery in order to end it then we need you in Washington because they haven't figured out that on yet.

[GrayMouser]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
I wanted to try to revive this topic, because I wanted to hear from the athiests a little more about their views on suffering. I don't think the atheistic view matches what we see and experience all around us every day, and I think the Christian view does.



OK, given these views, it seems like one could make the following deductions (please tell me if you agree with them):

1. So there is no being outside of the universe? If that's the case, why should it matter if I go around hurting people? After all, we're all just accidents.

2. But we could just as easily have evolved as non-social animals - in fact, maybe that's the next step in our evolution! - so you can have no objection to my going around hurting people, because instincts are neither right nor wrong, correct?

3. Then you can have no objection to my killing everyone and putting them out of their misery, right?


(ps - I do NOT condone killing everyone, obviously! but only bring it up as a logical problem I see with the atheistic and evolutionary viewpoint.)

Uh-oh. I was afraid of this.

The answer to your questions is... I don't know (other than point 3- we're not all miserable; some of us are quite enjoying ourselves and don't want it to stop )

This is, of course, the central dilemma of secular humanist thought
(secular because it has to be dealt with without recourse to Higher Powers; humanist in the broad sense of caring what happens to other people).

In modern times, first raised by the Marquis de Sade, who correctly pointed out that the other Enlightenment philosophes were trying to keep an ethical structure standing while rejecting the foundation (God). This is the 'natural rights' theory which most modern humanists follow, without really justifying it. The Marquis's answer was that since we are 'nothing but' animals we are justified in preying on each other for our own pleasure.

Nietszche made the same point with greater depth and insight, and proposed rejecting Christian morality along with democracy, liberalism and socialism, which he considered Christianity's feeble offspring.

(I'm going through this historical background in the same spirit as doing an essay question on a test when you don't know the answer- keep writing down words and hope you fill up the space without the examiners realising you don't know)

Most answers have been some variation on the social contract- it's to my benefit to live in a society where people don't normally prey unrestrainedly on each other, but this doesn't answer the basic question of cheating i.e. why shouldn't I break the contract- lie, steal, murder- when I can get away with it? Or why shouldn't I reject it all together if I feel strong enough?

4. Why even bother to find a solution if there is no problem? How can one moral feeling be judged better than another, unless there is some outside standard that we judge them against?

Another big problem, moral relativism. When we condemn some action as evil- slavery, killing of innocents, sexism or racism- arn't we just saying "that's not the way we do it in my tribe".

I'll try and get more up on this a little later.

from Cirdan

It's not a logical problem. The impact of your theoretical act of violence is a direct result of that (theorectical) physical action. The consequences would be real suffering. It is still pontless and the victim certainly doesn't benefit and it seems to have no purpose. Logic has no constraining effect. If you can kill everyone without creating misery in order to end it then we need you in Washington because they haven't figured out that on yet.

Yes, but Rian's point is why should someone who doesn't believe in God even care about someone else's suffering? If Life, the Universe, and Everything is just a combination of physical laws and randomness (which I believe, in absence of contrary evidence ) why bother with morality?

[Guillaume le Maréchal]

Mouser,

You said earlier that the world is how it is despite human desire. Then you said that the universe is nothing more than a combination of physical laws and randomness. It seems that you are stating that the universe is an objective reality that is independent of the human mind. However, in saying that the universe is physical laws, and all laws are mental constructs, you place the universe back in the sphere of subjectivism. So do you think the universe is an objective reality, or a reality that is dependent on mental constructs and thus dependent on human mind?

I’m not clear what you mean by randomness. Do you mean that the universe is governed by random occurrences of physical bodies or energies interacting with other physical bodies or energies? or random effects of random causes? or the random perceptions of rational minds?

Regards,
Dave

[Cirdan]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Yes, but Rian's point is why should someone who doesn't believe in God even care about someone else's suffering? If Life, the Universe, and Everything is just a combination of physical laws and randomness (which I believe, in absence of contrary evidence ) why bother with morality?

I know. Both points vastly underestimate the independent value of ethical action in the sphere of human existence. That, however, is only the life aspect of the equation. It is zeroed out by the universe aspect of the equation in which all action is eventually pointless as it ends when all existence ends. This means, of course that the answer is zero and not 42.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

When we condemn some action as evil- slavery, killing of innocents, sexism or racism- arn't we just saying "that's not the way we do it in my tribe".

Not necessarily. Personally, I don't believe what "my tribe" tells me automatically. When I say something is evil, I am saying "That's not the way my God would have us do it."

[Valandil]

Hey Gwaimir,

I THINK GrayMouser is introspecting nicely and admitting some gaps in atheistic thinking in these areas Rian brings to attention. I think he's not saying, it SHOULD be based on "that's not the way we do it in my tribe"... rather, I think he's admitting that this is what it sometimes boils down to... when atheists set moral standards.

GrayMouser - am I reading you correctly there?

[Rían]

Originally posted by Cirdan
I know. Both points vastly underestimate the independent value of ethical action in the sphere of human existence. That, however, is only the life aspect of the equation. It is zeroed out by the universe aspect of the equation in which all action is eventually pointless as it ends when all existence ends. This means, of course that the answer is zero and not 42.

Then you have no objection to me hurting you and your family, since everything is pointless, right?

[Rían]

GrayMouser - IMO, you have intellectual integrity, and it showed in your last post. That's why I like posting with you.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally posted by GrayMouser

Yes, but Rian's point is why should someone who doesn't believe in God even care about someone else's suffering? If Life, the Universe, and Everything is just a combination of physical laws and randomness (which I believe, in absence of contrary evidence ) why bother with morality?

why dont rabbits kill other rabbits? why dont dogs attack each other whenever they encounter each other rather then smell each other's butts and jump around and play (the usual reaction)? you guys are missing the very simple Big Picture here I think. We are living machines and we operate under living machines rules. If I go out killing people because I can I am very much likely to get killed myself. End of me and my species killing propensity. Those of my species who DON’T go out killing people randomly survive to pass on their non homicidal (yes heres that word again) GENES. And guess what becomes the norm in our society. Treating killing as a last resort and usually an evil although with lots of exceptions that support the living machine theory of said behavior.

Just because someone doesn’t believe in god (which isn’t a genetic trait. Its simply a cultural one) certainly doesn’t mean they have no compulsion against hurting or killing others. I don’t see why that’s at all hard to grasp.

By the way if Christianity is the only source to morality then why has it been used as a rightful justification for mass murder even extermination in human history? Morality is simply independent of religion.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Christianity is not the only source of morality; such an idea is ridiculous. God, however, is.

Also, a question: Why is it perfectly acceptable for Saracen sword to take the land and slaughter pilgrims, but wrong for Christian lance to retake it later? Quite simple: Because it is a Christian lance. Allow me to quote from St. Justin Martyr, when he wrote to the Roman Emperior:

"...if any of the accused deny the name [of "Christian"], and say that he is not a Christian, you acquit him, as having no evidence against him as a wrong-doer; but if any one acknowledge that he is a Christian, you punish him on account of this acknowledgement."

It is for the name of Christ that the Christian is hated, and the Muslim accepted; the Crusader would be an all right chap, if not for the Cross.

[Earniel]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
OK, given these views, it seems like one could make the following deductions (please tell me if you agree with them):

1. So there is no being outside of the universe? If that's the case, why should it matter if I go around hurting people? After all, we're all just accidents.

There isn't necesarily a connection between our abilty to go around hurting people and a being outside of the universe, or the chance that we are all accidents.

2. But we could just as easily have evolved as non-social animals - in fact, maybe that's the next step in our evolution! - so you can have no objection to my going around hurting people, because instincts are neither right nor wrong, correct?

I'm unsure, I doubt we would have been as 'succesful' as we have been without social activity in the past. Whether we'll evolve in that way is still to be seen.

If you were nothing more than instincts, I probably can't judge whether you hurting people is right or wrong from your perspective. Right or wrong are IMHO elements belonging to reason, not instinct. But I don't see why I can't object to it.

Instincts aren't all about hurting others either.

4. We're all gonna end up as slime again anyway, just like our supposed ancestor, so why not just kill everyone and get it over with?

Why would we end up as slime again? Just because we might have started like it quite a while ago doesn't mean we'll end up like it again.

It could be just me but these deductions look slightly illogical to me. Here and there, there are some very big leaps taken to arrive at the next point.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

It could be just me but these deductions look slightly illogical to me.

Not really, in my opinion. If someone is only an accident, then A) they have no real purpose, and B) they have no real value. When I type messages, I make accidents in my typing. It would be silly and ridiculous if I posted it saying "tupe" instead of "type". The typo has no purpose, and no value; I delete it.

[Earniel]

Gwai, are you comparing humans to typo's now?

Well I disagree that accidents are always without purpose of value. Just because something was unintentional, doesn't mean it's worthless.

[The Gaffer]

Absolutely. Perception is intention, so we can't get away from it. There may be randomness out there in objective reality, but we immediately start to impose order, and thence meaning and value, upon it as soon as we perceive it.

To me, morality has greater value, not less, because it derives from the person and not from the divine.

And atheists don't have to be materialists.

Lots of great chat going on tonight. Curse the deadline that takes me away! Have fun.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Earniel: Only the evolutionist (note: not all who believe in evolution) view of them; to me, the two are quite different.

Accidents can be good, but they rarely are. The vast majority of the time, they are not good things. So then, assuming that we as accidents have value; do then the beasts and birds as "lesser accidents" not have value? Few accidents turn out to really be good things, few accidents lead to things of value.

Pardon, Gaffer; I usually use atheist and materialist interchangeably, I suppose because it seems to me, if there is some supernatural force above us, it is in effect a deity.

[Rían]

Originally posted by The Gaffer
Lots of great chat going on tonight. Curse the deadline that takes me away! Have fun.

Thanks, Gaffer, and congrats on your new Elven Warrior status! woo-hoo!!! *throws frog-shaped confetti in honor of your lovely avatar* I've enjoyed your posts very much. From what I've read, you're 1) intelligent, 2) courteous, 3) funny, and 3) able to disagree without taking it personally, which makes for very good discussions, IMO!

Um, BTW, have you met Eärniel? (this could be a match made in heaven..... Or does the Gaffer have a Gammer already?)

(Just to fill you in, because you're a bit new, Eärniel is very fond of frogs!)

Which reminds me - how's your practical going, Eärniel? Is it still about frogs?

[Rían]

Originally posted by GrayMouser
Another big problem, moral relativism. When we condemn some action as evil- slavery, killing of innocents, sexism or racism- arn't we just saying "that's not the way we do it in my tribe".

Yes, I think you're right, and that if tomorrow we decide that the killing of innocents is the thing to do, then there is no logical basis to say it's wrong.

Yes, but Rian's point is why should someone who doesn't believe in God even care about someone else's suffering? If Life, the Universe, and Everything is just a combination of physical laws and randomness (which I believe, in absence of contrary evidence ) why bother with morality?

I think you know what I mean, but I would reword "why should someone who doesn't believe in God even care about someone else's suffering" to "why IS IT THAT someone who doesn't believe in God cares about someone else's suffering." I think you understand what I mean, and I wouldn't have objected to your wording, except Ruinel misunderstood me to mean that I think that athiests are not caring or moral. My point is that athiests ARE caring and moral, and there is no logical explanation for that given the belief that there is no God; hence the minor rewording.

I would love to hear more of your thoughts on this issue, GrayMouser. It seems to me that you see the logical problem that I do, and I'm certainly having a hard enough time getting my thoughts on the subject across - maybe you can express it better.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Insidious Rex
why dont rabbits kill other rabbits? why dont dogs attack each other whenever they encounter each other rather then smell each other's butts and jump around and play (the usual reaction)? you guys are missing the very simple Big Picture here I think. We are living machines and we operate under living machines rules. If I go out killing people because I can I am very much likely to get killed myself. End of me and my species killing propensity. Those of my species who DON’T go out killing people randomly survive to pass on their non homicidal (yes heres that word again) GENES. And guess what becomes the norm in our society. Treating killing as a last resort and usually an evil although with lots of exceptions that support the living machine theory of said behavior.

1. Re the rabbits - is it even pertinent *drat, must check spelling* to the discussion? I don't see how it is, unless you are claiming that rabbits have morals or that humans don't. Are you saying rabbits and humans are of equal value? If I am driving down the road and can't stop in time to avoid hitting either a rabbit or a human, I know that I would hit the rabbit. What would you do?

2. I think YOU are missing the big picture here I think it is entirely false that we are living machines. Do machines appreciate beauty? Do machines create art? Do machines have a sense of humor? It appears that you are placing humans in among the other animals. My answer is that I'll believe that you believe that ... when you tell me you'd hit the human with the car just as easily as the rabbit

3. Since the only morality you appear to recognize is the value of passing on your genes (to which I say why bother if we're only machines? I'd rather be dead! ) I still say why is it even good that we survive? Why do we even have the idea that it is GOOD to survive? Note the moral judgements here - in YOUR set-up, it would be equally "good" to NOT survive, because there is no morality involved in the choice of a machine. A machine can be programmed to make good survival choices, but only by a PROGRAMMER that KNOWS that it's GOOD to survive.

Just because someone doesn’t believe in god (which isn’t a genetic trait. Its simply a cultural one) certainly doesn’t mean they have no compulsion against hurting or killing others. I don’t see why that’s at all hard to grasp.

Again, I've never claimed that someone that does not believe in God does not have moral values. My only claim is that it is very odd that they DO, if you really think it through!

By the way if Christianity is the only source to morality then why has it been used as a rightful justification for mass murder even extermination in human history? Morality is simply independent of religion.

Ditto on Gwai's answer.

[Rían]

BTW, IRex, you are a splendidly joyful contradiction to your claim to be a living machine every time you make one of your wonderfully funny posts.

Woo hoo!