You have a very shaky understanding of both proof and axiom. From wikipedia:
If an axiom can be proven it is not an axiom by definition.
Besides that, except in the realm of formal logic, philosophical proofs are actually chains of reasoning, and not actual proofs at all. As can be demonstrated by the number of incorrect things the Greeks proved.
Well.
THAT certainly would lead to an interesting imperative for someone who feels called upon to kill everyone who performs an abortion.
I didn’t say “religious views” I said “evidence of religiosity” - there is some hints of veneration around the dead, and the approaching-nature-worship rituals of the rain- and fire-dances they do.
We made a lot of progress on the previous page, or at least I learned a lot. Thanks to Voyager, Der, Sherrerd, JKellyMap and others. I think Malthus hit it when he pressed us to define faith. Dictionary.com helps: [INDENT]2. belief that is not based on proof:
He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
But there are bright lines separating religious beliefs from the wider notion of core assumptions: those lines that touch upon other definitions of faith (there are 7+ listed in all). I hope to think about those later.
So yes, atheist morality and religious morality are both based upon faith in the sense of definition #2. But not in the sense of other definitions.
Not really. My atheist beliefs are based on proof, by which I mean that it’s based on evidence. Only if you hold the word “proven” to mean “incontrovertible truth” would it move into the realm of faith. Like, technically I haven’t proven that if I stab Bob through the heart that he’ll bleed out and die, but based on evidence, it’s proven well enough that it doesn’t merit further study. That lack of conclusive, undeniable proof doesn’t mean that we’re just taking Bob’s probable death on faith. We’re just not morons.
I am finding it hard to imagine the circumstances of chimps doing a fire dance.Imho while holding nature a d death in awe CAN be a sign of religiousity I think the awe can stand on its own.
I’m not that thrilled with their definition #2. First. I’ve never heard anyone say they have faith in an unproven hypothesis (and I have a problem with that sense of proof also) - possibly because faith has a clear religious connotation. I believe in that hypothesis, yes.
I suppose they define proof as “substantiated by fact” but that is not a very good definition. “I think that all swans are white” can be substantiated by seeing hundreds of white swans, but then falsified by seeing one black one. Calling it proven before we see the black one sounds wrong.
Then we have the problem of what to call a belief after it has been demonstrated.
Is it no longer belief? Is it no longer faith? How much of a demonstration is required to make it not belief?
Let’s go to the track. I believe that Robbie will win race 2, while you have faith that Seabiscuit will win. When the dust has settled Beetlebaum has actually one. is this more of a shock to you than it is to me?
Saying that atheist morality is based on faith - even definition 2 faith - seems to use a non-standard definition. And it seems to me that many people say it to equate morality from reasoning with morality from revelation.
Sure you do. You claim, whether expressly or implicitly, to have a set of unprovable value judgments that inform your daily life. All of us, theists and atheists alike, make this claim, and no one can prove that his or her assumptions are objectively better than anyone else’s. We can call it faith in one case and something else in another, but those are just labels, and I see no basis for any substantive distinction among the different sources for different people’s value judgments.
Allow me to mention one other relevant thing that John Symonds mentioned in his talk: that extreme cultural relativists (usually associated with a certain kind of social liberalism) are actually more arrogant than people who unapologetically subscribe to a particular moral code, because the cultural relativist looks at all codes he encounters as if from the perspective of someone outside and above the human experience (when in fact he is as embedded in it as anyone else).
The traditional reason for the invention of god(s) was to lower the instinctive aggression between nearby tribes. Instinctively, two separate but nearby groups of primates which do not share a associated hierarchy will fight each other for territory.
Humans learned to make up an abstract alpha human(a ‘god’) which multiple nearby groups could all claim to be following. If multiple groups are subservient to the same alpha (even if the alpha is imaginary), they can somewhat circumvent the instinct to fight each other for territory and can cooperate with individuals they do not know well. This abstraction facilitated human cooperation in groups larger than a tribe.
Unfortunately, two groups who claim to follow a different abstract alpha human will still feel the tug of the old primate instinct to fight for territory… at least to a greater extent than would those who claim to follow the same abstract alpha human. It’s ‘us’ versus ‘them’, and the abstract alpha human is still a very effective method of making groups of humans feel like an ‘us’.
When you say “invention”, do you mean something we created ourselves or evolved? Either way seems implausible. And as you point out, it’s hardly effective for this supposed purpose; religious splits happen all the time and then become the very reason for conflict.
Personally I prefer the simple theory that it’s all down to our tendency to anthropomorphize. We see faces in clouds. When we watch babies or animals, we often imagine human (adult) thoughts going through their minds. And when weird stuff happens, it’s natural to think someone is responsible.
And generally-speaking it was probably good to have this cognitive bias. In terms of detecting and responding to other humans, the occasional false positive is fine, but a false negative could be deadly (or you could miss out on a mating opportunity etc).
So when there’s a big storm, say, we again think someone is responsible. And it can’t be a someone like you or I, it must be someone powerful.
Note how human the gods usually are. Even though they may be defined as all-knowing or whatever, they usually look like us, have human-like emotions and behave like they have a human’s limited view of events.
I don’t think it especially relevant if your axioms can be provable or not or whether they can be justified internally or not. What matters is the process or lack thereof each individual atheist utilizes. In short, if an atheist short-circuits the work you are discussing, its entirely possible he is working his moral code based on faith because that is all he brings the same conclusion you work through…
Your atheism is arguably based upon evidence, but I was discussing your moral system. Those are grounded on things not subject to proof.
I didn’t like their example either, but I didn’t think definition 2 was nonstandard. Next to me is Webster’s New World College Dictionary (which incidentally is vastly superior to Mirriam Webster). Here is their presentation: [INDENT]1. Unquestioning belief that does not require proof or evidence.
2. Unquestioning belief in God, religious tenets, etc.
4. Anything believed
5. Complete trust, confidence or reliance [/INDENT] Again, we have #4. Consider, “I’ll take that on faith”, or “Leap of faith” mentioned earlier.
Still, the key word is unquestioning. Contrast that with believing something provisionally or for the sake of argument. Or believing something until you can come up with something better. I think that might be the sort of bright line that Skald the Rhymer was looking for.
But just because we all wish to continue living in no way implies that I shouldn’t murder you. Maybe I like that sort of thing. Why does one necessarily follow from the other? Why should I accept axioms of reciprocity, etc?
My philosophy professor told me that I was going down a slippery slope with that argument. Which is fine, and I readily agree. My point here is that sociopathic morality is just as logically consistent as any other moral system. Religious and atheistic morality share a need to make assumptions and therefore a need for faith in terms of definition 4 above. But the “Unquestioning” aspect is unique to certain monotheistic religions. (To be fair, there’s no reason why somebody can’t be a practicing Christian utilitarian. And Buddhists are encouraged to compare the Buddhist teachings and doctrine with their own experience.)
It might be possible to construct a meta-moral system based upon evolutionary psychology. But a) I haven’t seen it done, and b) the fallacy of deriving an ought from an is would have to be addressed.
Yes, particularly the utilitarian ones. Lots of thought experiments. Kant not so much IIRC.
ETA:
Final Q: How would you (or an atheist or anybody else) characterize their belief in the moral axiom of reciprocity? Faith? Strongly held belief? What? Given that certain (most?) Christian traditions accept doubts how does such a stance differ from a strong but less than iron faith in God?
Why? Seems both provincial (why humans above other species?) and unnecessarily altruistic (why should you care if the species continues after you die?)
Again, why?
It seems you’d be able to prove it to them … why is the burden of proof on others?
You may be open to hearing new arguments, but you’re still arbitrarily insisting that you will be the one to determine whether or not those arguments are valid. Why is that choice any better than theirs?
Skald the Rhymer = human.
All the people Skald the Rhymer cares about = human.
Skald the Rhymer doesn’t want to suffer.
The people Skald the Rhymer cares about don’t want to suffer either.
Therefore, human suffering = bad.
We’re talking pretty obvious enlightened self interest, here.
I was talking about my moral system. Morality is based on proof. It’s not random chance that humankind tends to act similar (within some variance), across the planet. Ask me a moral question and I’ll tell you the evidence behind it.
Wildfires - google it.
That’s why I said evidence, not proof.
That’s the problem with dictionaries - they are necessarily descriptive. At least this sense is down to #4.
Unquestioning I can go with. It definitely rules out faith in a hypothesis.
But here is another use of the term, which I think supports this. A spouse is said to be faithful, and one has faith in a spouse. That is a secular kind of faith similar to religious faith, in the sense that many will deny all evidence to the contrary.
It is often claimed that God never shows up anymore since that would ruin the faith of believers. Maybe what they are really saying is that God appearing to answer the questions and ease the doubts of believers means that they have doubts and questions - and this is what is ruinous of faith.
There is not exactly one step between my axiom and this conclusion! I’d say reciprocity has something to do with roughly equal power. There are lots of moral systems that don’t use it. A King may execute a subject morally, but not vice versa. God kills us and we worship him for it - killing or even cursing God is a big sin.
Like I hold most things - provisional acceptance. Though I didn’t realize it at the time, that was exactly how I believed in God when I did believe. When I saw strong evidence to the contrary, I dumped that belief. I guess I’m a natural-born scientist
Sorry to harp on John Symonds, but I wanted to clarify just how his observations/opinions are directly relevant to the OP’s question:
It’s likely that, someday pretty soon, even computers are going to have to pick some “moral code” and stick with it. So, on some level, there is no real difference between the “purpose” of a piece of software and the “purpose” of a human life. Once computers can design themselves without our help, this equivalency will be clearer.
Few people would define “religion” in a way that could ever include computers. Therefore, religion is not necessary for having a moral code. It’s just a set of rules, a template to guide behavior, which must exist, for man, beast, or machine.
What are the specific rules, and should we expect them to be different among atheists versus among theists? You folks are well along in this discussion, but the general answer to the latter question is “no.” There is no reason to expect a statistically significant difference in the rules among atheists vs. theists. Overall, both will tend to rely on the same sorts of “axioms” to generate rules: do unto others as you would have others do into you; protect the life and health of my immediate family…like you folks have said, obvious stuff that Charles Darwin, Immanuel Kant, Gautama Buddha, and Jesus Christ would have agreed upon, sitting around a table chewing the fat. “Religion” doesn’t really come into the picture at all, any more than “musical preferences” or “haircuts.”