I had a thought today for atheists: consider what you base your morality on. Be honest, think hard on this: do you find the basis for your morality, from an intellectual standpoint, to be purely rigorous and satisfying?
I don’t. I’ve read a fair amount on ways to derive morality that don’t involve God (and for what it’s worth, I believe that God doesn’t provide an intellectually sound basis for determining morality either), and I’ve not found any argument that really rings true to me.
And yet I continue to believe that treating other beings with kindness and compassion is the right thing to do, and treating them with cruelty or indifference is the wrong thing to do.
This may be where I have faith, in the sense that Polycarp is describing it. Other things (such as the existence of an objective universe that I can understand through my senses) I accept as “rules of a game,” things that may or may not be true but that I behave as though they’re true. Morality I believe without evidence.
I don’t either, but I never expect to. The broad outlines of ethics or morality can be agreed on, but when you drill down to specific cases there are so many variables that each must be resolved by deciding on weights for often conflicting moral principles. I don’t think even the religious believe any moral code exists that would cover all cases. God, if he existed, would be the arbiter, but there is no way of us knowing whether he resolves a dilemma by tossing a holy coin.
On the bright side, it keeps philosophers and GD in business.
This discussion seems to have evolved into an ethics thread… as in: moral ethics being guided by faith/religion vs evolution. Much too deep a subject for me to wade in to right this minute.
To answer your questions, I find that I do decide (conclude) on what is true through very conscious means. I may not always make the right decision but that is not what we’re discussing. Given all the available evidence (to me) at any given point in time, I try to reach a rational conclusion. But it is not always my final position as further contrary and/or more reliable evidence may compel me to change my original position. I don’t normally vascilate but I am open to rethinking my position about certain things. More importantly, when it’s not important to make a final decision about something, I find it important NOT to make a final decision.
Certainly. I see the distinction, and even realized that you were not proposing ignorance in the name of faith. I got it, and I thought it was obvious that I was on a rant against basically faith-based ignorance. I’d explore the discussion further, but I only have a limited amount of time, and must use it as I see fit. Since I thought it was obvious I didn’t bother to elucidate and distinguish, not the first time I’ve been wrong, won’t be the last, I have faith in that.
Of course, even that (statement of faith) is misguided. I extend my rant to faith in general. Faith is useless: you calculate your odds and take your chances. What good does faith ever do?
Faith involves predicting the future, or trusting in a prediction of the future. It’s stupid. Better one should rely on a best estimation grounded in scientific information and human experience. Even those will let you down, but faith will let you down even more. Reason and education can stand on their own, they don’t need faith. Even They can’t 100% predict the future, but they give us an adequate basis to make decisions. Dropping faith on top of them is a crutch.
If the Swiss aren’t against us, that means they’re on our side.
Seriously though, I disagree with the idea that atheism is a “default”. To me, the proposition has always seemed like an attempt to shift the burden of proof to one side, when in this debate, it belongs on neither side IMHO - but I suppose that may because I agree more with Polycarp’s definition of atheism. Perhaps the proper term we should use is “anti-theism”…but regardless, I think the default position is having no position on the matter, which makes a person neither a theist nor an atheist.
The analogy, while amusing, isn’t entirely correct. I don’t think the word “atheist” means “not a theist”. Everyone in this world does not have to be either a theist or an atheist.
I’ve asked her before if she considers herself an atheist, and she says “no”. I think she’s better-equipped to answer the question than I. I’m not certain if “theist” is the proper classification for myself, but my views aren’t all that different from hers. Hmm…
Actually, I’m not entirely sure my faith does have anything to do with predicting the future or trusting in a prediction of the future. It has more to do with trusting in the present and the Presence, although I’m don’t think even “trusting in the present” is right. When I pray, it’s rarely to ask for any specific future thing; it’s more to pour my heart out to God and, ultimately, soothe my soul and align my spirit with His. At their purest, prayer and faith for me are not a way to influence or know what comes next in time, but ways of entering a place in which time does not matter, only unity with God.
And yet, you continue to behave (I imagine) as though certain acts (such as sadistic murder) are wrong; I am guessing that, despite the lack of any intellectually rigorous proof of this concept of wrong, you feel in your gut that sadistic murder is wrong. Am I right?
A full system of ethics should give answers to all moral dilemmas. That I am uncertain if it is correct to pull the plug on a very old person in pain does not mean that I have to be uncertain if it is wrong to club the next person I meet to death.
There are various ways of assigning values to actions. If we could all agree on precise valuations, then we could put all the parameters of a situation into an algorithm and let it crank out the proper response. But in reality you and I and Joe Blow assign different values, and the variation can get pretty wide. The moral appeal of God is that he gives a number we have to accept, and resolves all disputes. Example: you can’t work on the Sabbath, except you can defend yourself if someone attacks. But God hasn’t updated the specs for a while.
Just about anyone who isn’t a psychopath rates the negatives of sadistic murder way above the positives (for the murderer, I suppose) so cases like that can be easily resolved. But, ask the participants in an abortion debate to rate the positives and negatives of various options, and you’ll see what I mean.
I’m talking about the first sentence, not the second sentence. Yes, I know that there are thorny moral issues. My question is about the easy issues. Do you have an intellectually rigorous reason for believing that sadistic murder is wrong?
I apologize is this is a hijack; my point is that I, as an atheist, strongly feel that sadistic murder is wrong, bad, villainous, despite the lack of an intellectually satisfying argument for this case. Sure, I can talk about social contract theory, but that has big and well-known holes in it (Perfect Murders, murders of your own infant children, etc). I can talk about empathy, but my feelings about sadistic murder go beyond empathy: I don’t feel as if a person who lacks empathy is doing hunkydory if she commits sadistic murder. I feel that she’s wrong.
In other words, although I recognize the lack of a strong intellectual argument for principles of right and wrong, and although this lack is very uncomfortable for me, I nonetheless believe that these principles are sound, that sadistic murder is wrong. That’s probably the closest I come to faith.
I don’t know if this is intellectually rigorous. I’m not sure even I think it is. Do we really all believe sadistic murder is wrong? I think the sadistic part we can agree on, since it implies motives to the murderer outside the bound of a rational calculation of the ethical consequences of the action. But we permit sadistic murders if there is rationale. Drowning someone is sadistic, especially slowly, right? But we as a society approve the use of depth charges against submarines, which, if successful, may well lead to the slow drowning of the crew. Same for torpedoing ships. Not everyone agrees that this is right, but that is not a matter of religious belief, since both atheists and theists can be pacifists.
Look at the torture controversy. Rational people seem to have decided that torture was acceptable. Before we get too condemning, many of us might well agree given big enough stakes and an assurance that the torture would be effective. How much of the opposition stems from the belief of most that the torture was not effective, the chance of harming the innocent was too high, and the side effects in loss of support were much greater than any benefits?
I was responding to the idea of a grand unified theory of morals. I’ve always been partial to utilitarianism, but don’t think this gives an answer that everyone can agree on. Our weighting of actions depends on our training and experience. Things that might put me in jail have really, really negative weights for me, but have less negative weight (or even positive) for some people.
I wonder if anyone reading this feels they have a very non-utilitarian model for making moral decisions. I fear I am projecting what works for me as an absolute.
Can’t you do the same thing without faith? By just meditating? Connecting yourself with whatever IS? Must you have faith that a diety is there to get the comfort?
Not sure if you’re referencing Seige or EvanS here, but when I meditate, without interjecting faith of any kind, I get all the same ‘benefits’ as Seige.
I empty my thoughts into the void, to help reflect and clear my mind, I cause soothing feelings in my being and align myself with the feelings that are there (I don’t have to name them). I become unified with what is, whatever that is. One difference, though, is that I do use this state of meditation, of experience to be a place where I project the thoughts of the future, of what I would like in the world for myself and for others. But I do this not as a prayer for something but to clarify in my experience exactly what my direction is, to the best of my ability.
I don’t have any faith that anyone is listening or even that anyone is there. The only thing I am sure of is my experience, that I am having this experience, now. I guess anything else requires faith to greater or lesser degrees.
I think what I’m saying is that anything that is done with the use of faith can be equally satisfactorily be done without faith.
Which definition of prayer? Requesting favors? Promising allegiance? Worship?
Sure. Any and all kind of prayer can be done without faith. Drop in on a 2nd grade cathecism class if you want to see one example.
You don’t need faith to pray. Anyone can pray, any time they like. So what? Most often those I see praying do so without faith.
But I’ll raise you a nickle… maybe you found the fly in my ointment. I suppose that in order to BELIEVE in that which you can neither see, experience or prove, you have to have faith. But I could be wrong…
Actually, I think it does matter what you “connect” with in some meditative techniques – the exercise of self-management, self-control, calming, mind-clearing, and such does not call for a particular theology or philosophy – merely that Og, Cthugha, or Whoever has no problem with meditation. But to go beyond self and seek understanding, union with a Noumenon, the accomplishment of anything with impact beyond one’s interior self, calls for proper identification of and connection with an External Reality that is in fact a valid one, not the product of delusion, self- or otherwise.
But if I can get in on the above wager, I’ll see you and raise you a kilopascal (he said, turning up the pressure! ;)).
Done.
And I’ll raise you Infinity (with a capital “I”).
Why bother to believe in something without knowing it for certain? Why not suspend belief and/or disbelief and just have an open mind? (Oh, I know… the Randiites will tell you with a too open mind your brain will fall out. Well that’s just a trick to keep you from thinking. Another form of subjective emotional control.)
And, Poly, if you connect with anything beyond the “self” in meditation, why must you get “proper identification” and need to ensure that it is a valid “External Reality?” What are you afraid of? Even if it is delusion, self or otherwise, you can use it to learn, and if anything, that is the meaning and purpose of life: learning. Do you fear something will steal your soul? Take over your mind? Take your life?
The only thing one can be sure of is ones’ experience. Not that it has any relation to others in your experience, but that is is yours, and that it is an experience. All else is in question, and requires faith. Save your time – your experience is all you can be sure of. And what do we learn from? Always our experience, never anything else; all else is illusion, tricks, lies. Even learning from others is not learning from them but learning from our experience of them. Or likewise we can be learning from our experience of delusion, or of Noumenon. It’s all our experience; this cannot be denied. The learning, however, is your choice. And where you assign the power, that also is your choice.
Is there anything outside of you? Are you sure? Or is acceptance of external reality an act of faith? Do you need to accept the reality of that which is outside you? Do you need to put your finger in the spinning wheel of fortune and stop it at one number or another in order to win some mythical prize? Or can you let it spin, and leave your mind open to all reality, all possibility and let it all be what it is without imposing artificial definitions brought about by faith?
How big is your mind? How much can it hold? Do you need to narrow down your concept of reality by having faith in some narrowed definition in order to fit it all in? Or are you willing to step in and take the chance that the multi-level hologram that is your mind can hold it all so long as you don’t impose artificiality upon it?
What do you have to lose? Your faith? Are you ready to trade your faith for something more valuable? After all, is not faith merely “the product of delusion, self- or otherwise?” Who stops the wheel?
Polycarp and Othersider: I thank you more than you will ever know.
Because it allows moving forward. If I waited for certainty, I would never move.
I don’t know for certain that my family will last until next year, that our love will be strong enough to overcome turmoil, that one of us may not die in a car accident, or any of a number of other things that may come to past; yet I choose to believe that it is worth working to maintain this definitely transient (and in the long run, certainly transient) thing.
I don’t know for certain that my physical health will remain even at its current level in the long term, that those places where it is questionable will not degenerate, that new problems will not manifest, or, for that matter, that I won’t slip on an ice patch and break my neck; yet I choose to continue with my life in a manner that requires me to have some subset of those physical capabilities. Should that change, I will adjust accordingly.
Likewise, I have no certainty that my gods are in truth as I experience them, as the lore records them, no certainty that the rituals and practices of my religion will remain satisfying to me, no certainty that I will continue to find beauty and wisdom there; yet I choose to continue as if they are, because I see no sense in wittering away my energies seeking certainty.
Certainty is something I can only achieve in retrospect; it is certain that some relationships ended, some health failed, some events happened, some choices were wrong for me, some things did not nurture. Behaving as if things within the realm of the uncertain can be trusted and acted upon is something I find necessary to be able to act at all, and so I use faith that they will continue as a guideline for stepping into the future rather than constantly query to see if they have elected to persist.
Life happens mostly in the margins for error, anyway.
Really? What for? I mean, glad I could help.
Seriously though, I think everyone missed my “joke” (which, admittedly, was quite lame). See, a “nickle” is a bird. I think you meant to type ‘nickel’, so I tried to make a joke, and I raised you a different type of bird.
