Devekut said:
Jay,
I have no doubt that most atheists are good and moral people. What I do doubt is that this morality ultimately stems from their atheism. You have to remember, we are living in a world where transcendent morality has been the basic human assumption for thousands of years, widespread across basically every culture. It is the unique endeavour of secularism and the modern world to construct a moral system that is absent of the transcendent.
I don't think I was trying to make the case that morality stems from atheism. I was saying that morality is probably grounded in a lot of things, and it's probably not exclusive to religion or atheism.
Devekut said:
Now the atheist experiment hasn't had the oppertunity that it still seeks. The atheist still finds himself situated in a culture that, despite the more recent triumph of secularism (generally speaking) at the level of government, maintains a significant religious culture, and thus its moral assumptions, amongst the populace.
That's true, and I wouldn't deny that. I just speculated that our moral assumptions might not be a necessary product of our religious culture alone. It could be a number of other reasons, of which I'm not sure.
Devekut said:
Now what if atheism were to be the assumption of the majority, what if we really were to build a culture around it, one that lasted for, say 200 years or more? One that let the religious/theological/philosophical assumptions of the past become forgotten? I can't say that I would anticipate the results being progressive. This is not because atheists themselves are bad, but because their philosophy of the human person is weak and (ultimately) groundless and would bound to give way, eventually, to that natural greed in man. Would it be the end of the world? I doubt it. It would, I think, involve a serious regression.
I don't think atheism alone would lead towards a good or bad society necessarily. Similarly, I don't think Christianity alone will lead towards a good or bad society. The latter has examples going in both directions in history.
A successful morality for a culture probably depends on a lot of other factors including education, type of moral indoctrination in the youth, their practical willingness to change views etc. You can burn people alive in the name of religion and you can spawn the civil rights movement. Similarly for evolutionary ethics, I'm sure you can do some ridiculous "let the stronger survive" mentality... or you could believe that cooperation and mutual trust is a stronger evolutionary advantage. In the end, time would tell. I'd stand steadfast against the "stronger survive" ethics because I simply do not believe it is better for the species. Their mere existence and my willingness to stop them might somehow improve our species in some way, who knows.
I think Nietzsche puts an interesting perspective on this very topic:
The teachers of the purpose of existence. Whether I contemplate men with benevolence or with an evil eye, I always find them concerned with a single task, all of them and every one of them in particular: to do what is good for the preservation of the human race. Not from any feeling of love for the race, but merely because nothing in them is older, stronger, more inexorable and unconquerable than this instinctâ€â€because this instinct constitutes the essence of our species, our herd. It is easy enough to divide our neighbors quickly, with the usual myopia, from a mere five paces away, into useful and harmful, good and evil men; but in any large-scale accounting, when we reflect on the whole a little longer, we become suspicious of this neat division and finally abandon it. Even the most harmful man may really be the most useful when it comes to the preservation of the species; for he nurtures either in himself or in others, through his effects, instincts without which humanity would long have become feeble or rotten. Hatred, the mischievous delight in the misfortune of others, the lust to rob and dominate, and whatever else is called evil belongs to the most amazing economy of the preservation of the species. To be sure, this economy is not afraid of high prices, of squandering, and it is on the whole extremely foolish:â€â€still it is proven that it has preserved our race so far. I no longer know whether you, my dear fellow man and neighbor, are at all capable of living in a way that would damage the species; in other words, "unreasonably" and "badly." What might have harmed the species may have become extinct many thousands of years ago and may by now be one of those things that are not possible even for God. Pursue your best or your worst desires, and above all perish! In both cases you are probably still in some way a promoter and benefactor of humanity and therefore entitled to your eulogistsâ€â€but also to your detractors!
In this example, I would be a detractor of the "stronger survive" ethics. People will do what they feel is best for humanity regardless of whether or not it truly is. I can only say in confidence that, if I am right, my morality of cooperation will come out on top because it
is better. As of now, even if Christians want to claim to be the owner of this style of morality, an evolutionist would still say that this morality is succeeding. Whether or not you want to ground it in "God" or other, we share a common view of how man should be. We are all bigoted in this sense.
I'm willing to teach my children against stealing, killing, and harming others because I think it is fruitful and practical. It makes me feel good, and I think it does good for most people over all. I don't try to ground it in God, and I don't think it would matter regardless.
Devekut said:
I once wondered to myself, why is it that all atheists are not either all vegetarians or murderers? Now I realize that most atheists are not murderers, and probably not vegetarians, but the question surrounds how atheism, when pre-supposing the absence of inherent purpose in human life or life in general, somehow seems to still arrive at the unique value of human life? Again, most atheists beleive this, but I don't think they have good reason to.
And Ironically enough, most atheists would say you don't have a good reason for your beliefs either. I generally view morality from God as fairly arbitrary, vaguely stating that certain things are "good." Well, what makes it good besides him saying so? There has to be some criteria of examining the success of a moral, or else there's no way of knowing if it's worth having.
Devekut said:
The crisis point of atheism (in the strict material darwinist sense) is its proposal that man is a mere by product of natural processes. Nature did not intend man, his purpose does not precede his existence. On that basis we can indeed say, all life is precious because there is no after life and human consciousness is fragile and the result of millions of years of natural events. It is, in a sense, a precious jewel.
I do believe you are wrong here. Nature did intend man, or we wouldn't have been selected by it to be here.
The beauty of it all is that now we are here, we get to decide for ourselves what the purpose of our existence is. Ultimately, nature will decide if we are right - not us.
Devekut said:
And sure, that can be said. But can we infer from that that the human individual must be respected, and as an individual at that? Can we infer from that a moral imperative? I am extremely skeptical of any such moral imperative.
Well, there are a lot of people who have said there are implicit moral imperatives grounded in things other than God. Jurgen Habermas wrote in his "pragmatics of communication" that implicit within language itself is a moral imperative. He dubbed it "discourse ethics," which we are actually doing in this very conversation. We treat each other with respect in conversation, implicitly searching for the best argument to agree upon.
Alan Gewirth made a rationally derived principle of rights that works as a moral imperative, I also mentioned Kant several times earlier.
We can rationally derive mutual respect based on the fact that it would be contradictory to expect it from others while not giving it yourself. It has been worded in different ways, like the second formulation of the categorical imperative that states we should treat everyone as an end and not as only a means.
We must respect others, and this can be grounded both rationally and emotionally, both with and without God.
Devekut said:
If we can establish that our life is a mere natural happening, not intended, to what standard do we hold human life to? To a mere pragmatism? Is it to safeguard against anarchy alone? Morality then ceases to become about fulfillment of the individual in society, and solely about protecting the individual from the other. This, I think, is a philosophical regression. On what basis can we demand any man to conform to this if he decides otherwise?
I think have explained this earlier in general. I can have similar values as you that I am willing to fight equally hard for with no theistic foundation what-so-ever. It is self fulfilling, it protects the individual from the other, and it benefits society as a whole. We can have rationally derived rights, and society can embrace this rational morality.
Devekut said:
If the powerful man looks at this weak neighbour and desires his goods, does he stop himself ultimately because doing so would ignite an unfortunate and anti-societal trend? Of course many people, religious or otherwise, refrain from evil acts for these pragmatic reasons. But that is never where the reasoning stops.
Society would have reason to stop him from a rational perspective if they happened to adopt the categorical imperative. It is both pragmatic not to steal, and it is our duty not to steal because rationality tells us that we are contradicting ourselves. We should not steal from others and expect others not to steal from ourselves. The first formulation would say that by me stealing from my neighbor, I would expect all neighbors to steal from each other. This would be counterproductive to the act of stealing itself, and thus immoral.
And just think, this is just one philosopher's attempt at a rationally derived moral system and it works out wonderfully. We can feel emotional about not stealing while grounding it in this rationality.
Devekut said:
Is compassion and sympathy for the other, as Richard Dawkins says, just a mechanism for the surivial of the species? I think this pragmatism inadaquately explains the roots of human morality (written in every man's heart by God).
And if we evolve, or have evolved, to the point that these tools of progress are no longer neccessary, is it then okay to discard them? Are we so sure that some will not, at some distant point, lift the demand to respect of all human life in the name of a greater progress?
I'd say it's certainly acceptable in cases (for me) to drop a tool of progress when they are no longer useful. The pork example from earlier is a great example of this in action.
I simply cannot conceive of a point where dropping respect for all human life will be evolutionarily useful, and since I cannot, I will stand against any evolutionist who tries to enforce it.
Let's run with your social darwinism idea though. Part of the whole evolutionary perspective is that nature knows what is best for survival better than we do. While one man might be stronger than another and could kill at will, it might not serve as much of an evolutionary purpose. We have thus far learned that cooperation has seemingly advanced our species far further than if we had adopted the "let the stronger man survive" mentality. Being intelligent and practical allows us to pick a morality that we think will be most beneficial to the species, and that's what we generally do in the religions anyway. We do things to preserve order and improve the wellbeing of all - and that implicitly means the wellbeing for ourselves
Devekut said:
The above bolded is what I consider most dangerous about this paragraph. That we, right now, do not know that the stronger man who kills another will serve a better evolutionary purpose. It creates a relative morality based on current ignorance. "Nature knows best". Science seeks the understanding, harnassing and, ultimately, control of nature. There is no reason to suppose that nature will always remain a "mystery". One day we may very well have deeper insights into the evolutionary process by which we can anticipate it and, in fact, consciously assit the process. Isn't that the salvation of futurism?
I don't think we embrace the ignorance so much as decide for ourselves what we think is the right path. The fact we don't know for sure doesn't mean we shouldn't make an educated guess for ourselves. Surely, we can see human progress as a result of a certain moral system, and that should be reason to continue to follow it now. The fact we don't know for sure doesn't mean that I should suddenly toss up my arms and say, "Oh, well since we don't know for sure I may as well kill this guy and steal his money." If everyone acted this way, I'd try to convince them that banding together in cooperation would overpower even the strongest single selfish entity. This is herd morality in its essence
Devekut said:
Also, on what basis is propagation of the species a moral good to which all men must orient themselves towards? Is that not the beauty and liberation of self-consciousness? That we are not obliged to our nature but have superceded it?
We all decide our individual nature, and then nature selects which ends up being the best for survival. I sincerely hope that mine is the right one, and that's all I can say. I'll fight against people I perceive to be tyrants.
Devekut said:
How can we escape the conclusion of materialist, darwinist atheism that we are obliged to nothing because we came from nothing and will return to nothing?
I can not stress enough that the above assumption is a unique point in our history as a race. Even the atheisms of the past, and that of Buddhism today, do not share that we "return to nothing" or "came from nothing".
BTW, I take John 6:35 literally :D
Buddhists don't really think that we came from nothing and return to nothing. They speak vaguely as being a part of a whole, not as an individual. The goal is to become awake to this fact, and that death isn't returning to nothing so much as continuing to be a part of the whole of reality. At least that's my basic understanding of it... my father's a Zen Buddhist.
However, the position you are arguing against typically does assert that we came from nothing and will return to nothing. In this time while we live though, we can seek enjoyment for ourselves and others if we so choose. I do not see the necessity of dropping the value of human life with the position. In fact, I'd consider it more valuable if this is the only one we have. When someone violates the value of life in others, I'll stand against them and encourage others to do so with me.
