If atheism is true, is life meaningful? Fellow Register blogger Jennifer Fulweiler recently touched off some discussion on this subject with an essay on her conversion from atheism, which inspired criticism from Will Wilkinson and defense from Ross Douthat, and has now come home to Jennifer’s Register blog.
In the combox of Jennifer’s latest post, a correspondent writes:
I still haven’t seen a cogent argument from anyone on why a god (or eternal life, or some other factor) changes a meaningless existence into a meaningful one. Once again, it seems to come down to arbitrary “feelings” instead of reason.
I think this is a cogent commentary regarding the existential implications of “a god,” in the broadest sense of that term.
Let’s suppose that by “a god” we mean, not only a powerful, long-lived being, but one with whom the lives and fates of men are in some important way entangled—a being whose activity or nonactivity, favor or disfavor could mean blessings or curses for men, and with whom we may reasonably hope or expect to be on better or worse terms depending on how we live and how we dispose ourselves toward the god through acts of worship, piety, sacrifice, etc.
Let it be said that a divinity meeting this definition, if it existed, could be an important and practical part of our understanding of the world. It might well be advantageous to do whatever might be done to try to stay on the god’s (or the gods’) good side, just as it makes sense for peasants or peons to enjoy the favor of the local lord or strongman. If he were a benevolent god, we might naturally have feelings of veneration or piety toward him in much the same way that men have always venerated parents and grandparents, etc.
But I agree with Jennifer’s correspondent that such a god doesn’t necessarily offer any radical departure from the existential implications of atheism (or materialism, or naturalism, or whatever term you prefer). That’s why Buddhism is sometimes called an “atheistic” worldview even though Buddha never denied the gods and indeed spoke respectfully of them. Buddhism is perfectly compatible with piety toward the gods, but Buddha recognized that the gods were of no ultimate existential importance.
The existential upshot of atheism is that there is no absolute frame of reference with respect to such categories as “meaning” or “good and evil,” just as relativity theory teaches us that there is no absolute frame of reference in physics. Terms like “meaning,” “good” and “evil” can only be understood as reflecting the subjective perspective of the observers, and no two observers need share the same frame of reference.
It’s true that introducing a god into our worldview might offer a powerful localized, relative frame of reference, just as our proximity to large objects like the earth and the sun offers useful frames of reference in the physical world. But it’s still not an absolute frame of reference, because such a god is himself merely a contingent part of the universe just like we are.
The problem with relative frames of reference with respect to meaning and morality is that however useful we may find particular models for particular purposes, no model is ultimately any more or less valid or real than any other. It may be simpler and more useful for some purposes to say that the earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa, but neither model is truer or less true.
Wilkinson argues that “the best reason to think ‘life is meaningful’ is because one’s life seems meaningful.” But what about when life doesn’t seem meaningful? What about when people feel that they are worthless, that life is meaningless? Is their perception any less valid or significant than the opposite one?
A buoyant, comfortable atheist may be content to “feel” meaningful in a universe he intellectually regards as random. Sometimes, though, random events, senseless tragedies—more precisely, events we call “tragedies” when we are thinking in a meaning-oriented mode—or a diffuse sense of angst, absurdity or despair burden people with a crushing existential weight of meaninglessness.
In such a psychological state, it may or may not be helpful to reflect, or to urge others to reflect, on the fact that they are valued by other people. For one thing, it may not be true; for another, it may invite the inexorable response, “What makes them or their feelings more meaningful than me and mine?” Society may possibly mediate meaning if “meaning” has meaning; it cannot create it—and the same is true of the gods of much human religion. The meaning question is not a rhetorical or academic one.
Sometimes even in our happier moments—or even especially in our happier moments, when the world seems bursting with significance, and everywhere we look, beauty, goodness and truth seem to invite us to joy and fulfillment—the nagging thought that it is all a bioelectrochemical flutter in our nervous systems, that the perceived “significance” does not in fact signify, that the “invitation” comes from no one, that it is all a projection, a Rorschach response to the universe, like seeing faces in random patterns, seems to threaten to devour us.
The proposal “Just regard life as meaningful because it feels meaningful” can easily have a Heisenbergian effect on the reality it seeks to describe. Do we necessarily continue to feel that life is meaningful when we look at it that way?
C. S. Lewis expresses what many find an insuperable objection:
You can’t, except in the lowest animal sense, be in love with a girl if you know (and keep on remembering) that all the beauties both of her person and of her character are a momentary and accidental pattern produced by the collision of atoms, and that your own response to them is only a sort of psychic phosphorescence arising from the behaviour of your genes. You can’t go on getting any very serious pleasure from music if you know and remember that its air of significance is pure illusion, that you like it only because your nervous system is irrationally conditioned to like it. You may still, in the lowest sense, have a “good time”; but just in so far as it becomes very good, just in so far as it ever threatens to push you on from cold sensuality into real warmth and enthusiasm and joy, so afar you will be forced to feel the hopeless disharmony between your own emotions and the universe in which you really live.
While I’m aware that many atheists resist this sort of analysis, I confess the logic of their resistance escapes me; at any rate, it is unarguably the case that Lewis here puts his finger on something that feels inexorably true to a great many people, both believers and unbelievers—and if “meaning” itself is anchored only in our feelings, then the feeling of meaninglessness is an unanswerable difficulty.
Comments
Post a Comment
Wait, wait, you can’t start a new series yet! You still owe us the end of the last one!
Pachyderminator: I know, I know. Believe me, I haven’t forgotten. It will come.
Sure, that’s what you said about The Petrine Fact, too. It’s not that your (awesome) blog series tend to leave loose ends, it’s just that you think “More to come” is a good closing line.
Thanks, Pachyderminator, I appreciate it.
Hey, at least with The Petrine Fact I completed the exegetical project I set myself. I was going to go on to do some ecumenical reflections, but, I don’t know, somehow I ran out of steam or something.
On the Redefining Marriage series, I need to do a concluding Q&A style post on the putative and actual implications of same-sex marriage. I will. I really will!
FWIW, this series won’t be too long—about three posts (two sort of double-length, like this one). It’s already pretty much done.
I’m glad to see this series start. I’m an atheist who’s been studying Catholicism for some time. I’ve read Jen’s reductionist objection before without being too moved, but I found Douthat’s thought experiment really troubling. I’ve been noodling over some possible rebuttals (http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unequallyyoked/2011/11/its-a-fair-cop-douthat.html) but I’ll admit I don’t find any of my answers completely compelling. Any help?
Leah, what about it is specifically troubling you?
We’re off to a great start with part 1, and maybe part 2 will have an “Army of Darkness” reference. I’ve been kind of spoiled as of late by the other blogs here at NCR.
Leah: Thanks for your comments. I read your post with interest. Some of your comments dovetail with comments I’ll be posting soon. Perhaps I’ll have some comments on your post in the future.
Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, has said more than once that neither believers nor unbelievers ever fully escape the tension between belief and unbelief. What if it is true after all? What if it isn’t? What if there is some transcendent reality, some source of real meaning? What if there isn’t? What if our ideas of morality and meaning really are perceptions of something real? What if they aren’t?
The believer is never finally free from all temptation of doubt about his or her faith. The unbeliever is never finally free from uncertainty about his or her unbelief. This is simply the reality of what it means to be human.
Posted by Steven D. Greydanus on Thursday, Dec 8, 2011 3:37 PM (EST):
“Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, has said more than once that neither believers nor unbelievers ever fully escape the tension between belief and unbelief.”
Perhaps you are aware that Dawkins makes a similar assertion in “The God Delusion.” He does not consider himself 100% atheist because of the fact that the existence of a transcendent reality cannot be disproven, just as it can’t be proven.
I believe the Pope and Dawkins are right.
Sorry, Leah, Ross Douthat has got you by the short and curlies.
Reason’s a b*tch, ain’t it?
Not sure how helpful that is, Pluto. On this topic, at least, I think reason beckons; she doesn’t twist the arm or yank the short and curlies.
“A buoyant, comfortable atheist may be content to “feel” meaningful in a universe he intellectually regards as random.”
This may help:
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismscienceevolution/a/RandomUniverse.htm
Overall it seems like a lot of mental gymnastics to get a theological version of reality to match what is observed.
“The proposal “Just regard life as meaningful because it feels meaningful” can easily have a Heisenbergian effect on the reality it seeks to describe. Do we necessarily continue to feel that life is meaningful when we look at it that way?”
Is a sunset any less awe inspiring because we know the physics behind it? No.
Yeah, Right: Nope. Doesn’t help.
“Yeah, Right: Nope. Doesn’t help.”
So you’d rather base your argument on a fallacious viewpoint?
“Let it be said that a divinity meeting this definition, if it existed, could be an important and practical part of our understanding of the world.”
Why? When the outcome of it’s existence is indistinguishable from it’s absence?
“The existential upshot of atheism is that there is no absolute frame of reference with respect to such categories as “meaning” or “good and evil,” just as relativity theory teaches us that there is no absolute frame of reference in physics.”
Not really, just another made up position:
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmyths/a/selfish.htm
Hello, I wrote the original comment that you are commenting on now…
“The problem with relative frames of reference with respect to meaning and morality is that however useful we may find particular models for particular purposes, no model is ultimately any more or less valid or real than any other.”
I agree. My response is that, this is how the real world works, and we’ll just have to deal with it. Wishing for some absolute meaning and morality doesn’t make it so, and I would argue it actually makes thing *much worse*.
History is filled with fanatics who were (or still are) convinced that their morality is absolute, and (quite often) ordained by their god. It doesn’t matter if that god says to love everyone, or kill all the Midianites, or that wives must obey their husbands, or that gays can get married, or that they should be stoned to death—all of these have (very fallible) humans pretending to know what god wants, how you have to live to please their god, and under what conditions you should be executed.
Here’s a different way to look at it. Take all the purported “absolute” moral systems, and write each one up in detail, and put the rules in separate boxes, so each absolute moral system gets its own box. Number each box 1 to N.
Then, to simulate how people’s religion (and typically, how their absolute moral system) is chosen as essentially an accident of where they are born in the world, a random number is generated from 1 to N, and you get the absolute morals of whatever is in your box.
Congratulations! You now have absolute morals (and some kind of absolute meaningful existence). You may now battle for implementing your absolute morals with all the other owners of different, absolute morals. Of course, compromise is out of the question, since YOUR morals are the real, absolute ones and all the other ones are false.
Me, I think it’s ridiculously stupid.
Yeah, Right: The links you’ve provided so far address arguments I’m not making. On the implications of the existence of a god meeting the definition above, I’m not sure you read the definition carefully enough.
“The links you’ve provided so far address arguments I’m not making.”
So you didn’t write the quoted sections preceding the links? Perhaps the verbiage is superfluousness to your actual point?
“While I’m aware that many atheists resist this sort of analysis, I confess the logic of their resistance escapes me; at any rate, it is unarguably the case that Lewis here puts his finger on something that feels inexorably true to a great many people, both believers and unbelievers—and if “meaning” itself is anchored only in our feelings, then the feeling of meaninglessness is an unanswerable difficulty.”
For example this is comical. How can their logic escape you when you insist on using comical versions of their stances? What escapes me is why you insist on *analysing* a counter point (atheism) when you cannot demonstrate that the theists *meaning* isn’t based on *feelings*.
Brian Westley: The scenario you propose is something like the opposite of the scenario I would propose. You imagine a system of morality that is relative in itself but believed and adhered to as a matter of absolute knowledge. I propose a system in which morality is believed to be absolute in itself but known via relative knowledge.
“You imagine a system of morality that is relative in itself but believed and adhered to as a matter of absolute knowledge.”
By some people, yes. That’s how the world appears to really work. You can find all kinds of people who are willing to say what absolute morality is—but they don’t agree with other people with other “absolute morals”. So I discount any claims of absolute morals.
“I propose a system in which morality is believed to be absolute in itself and known with relative confidence.”
That doesn’t appear to match the real world.
Here are some moral questions that have large groups on both sides:
Is polygamy moral?
Is homosexual sex moral?
Is not believing in a god immoral?
How does your absolute system of morality answer these questions?
Yeah, Right: Or you misread or misunderstood the bit you quoted. On other point, my discussion here is about meaning as a human category shared by believers and unbelievers. I don’t know what “theists meaning” might mean.
Brian Westley:
Do you discount all claims regarding topics about which all kinds of people have competing theories?
Fine questions, but irrelevant at this stage of inquiry. I’m exploring the implications of the existence or nonexistence of any sort of absolute frame of reference. I’m not arguing for the truth of any particular frame of reference. The question with which you started is a good clue of the answer I’m working through.
Hi Steven,
Perhaps I can better explain to you why “atheists” have a problem with Lewis argument. Let’s use a different example though: an orgasm. I can assume you’ve had one, right? (Don’t answer that.) So, we understand exactly what is happening in your brain while you have an orgasm. We know, literally, why an orgasm feels good. Does this make the orgasm feel any less “good.” Hell no!
This same idea holds true for all of Lewis’ other examples. Even if we don’t exactly know why we enjoy music, it’s still enjoyable, that doesn’t mean it’s magic. More importantly, you don’t get an objective source of meaning for truth and love and morality by positing a creator. That just makes those things arbitrary, “beacause God says so.” We get objective morality by observing the effects of our behaviors on others. That’s how we learned that slavery was wrong. That’s how we learned that coporal punishment was wrong. We gradually learn how to treat each other better through practice.
Meaning and morality are entirely subjective, but only to the same extent that health is subjective. Health is only understood when you understand biology. So to understand something like morality we have to understand human behavior, psychology, culture, etc. It’s not subjective whether cancer is bad for your health, the same way punching your mother in the face for no reason is immoral. We don’t seek ultimate authority on whether cancer is bad, we can objectively measure and observe the effects. In the same way we can objectively measure and observe the effects of my fist on my mother’s face.
PaulK: Thanks. I’ll be poking at that theory a bit in my next update.
“Do you discount all claims regarding topics about which all kinds of people have competing theories?”
We aren’t talking about “theories”; we’re talking about people who claim to have absolute morals. If two people who claim to have absolute morals disagree on some moral point, at least one of them is wrong. When lots of people throughout history make mutually exclusive claims about “absolute” morality, I start to discount ALL such claims as more of the same.
“I’m exploring the implications of the existence or nonexistence of any sort of absolute frame of reference.”
Well, do you at least agree that if two people who claim to know an absolute frame of reference end up disagreeing, at least one of them must be wrong?
Brian Westley:
Fair enough. I suspect the word “absolute” may be adding a level of ambiguity here. “Absolute morality” could mean at least three things: it may refer to moral principles that are a) objective, b) exceptionless and/or c) known with certainty. When I spoke of an “absolute frame of reference,” with respect to morality I meant a) a basis for positing moral principles (especially first principles) that are equally valid for all observers (whether they recognize them or not). Whether specific moral rules are exceptionless, and whether moral truth can be known with certainty, are separate questions.
That makes sense as regards c), claims of infallible certainty. As regards a) and even b), I’m not sure why it shouldn’t be the case that objective moral principles exist that apply to all observers, even though human perception of them, though real, is fallible and prone to error.
I agree that at least one of them must be wrong to the extent that they disagree. For example, Galileo and his fellow heliocentrists got a lot collectively right, but insofar as Galileo disagreed with other heliocentrists of his day regarding elliptical orbits, and insisted that planetary orbits were perfectly circular, he was wrong. Most disagreements in the moral sphere are far from absolute; in fact, probably the only really absolute disagreement is between those who believe that there is is an absolute frame of reference and those who believe there isn’t.
Looks like someone commented using some language that resulted in an automatic deletion (I didn’t remove the comment). I’ll respond to the substance of the comment with some edits.
The problem with your “example” is that it is precisely the sort of obvious example that Lewis specifically allowed for (in case you didn’t know, this was what Lewis was talking about when he referred to “the lowest animal sense” of “loving” a girl). This sort of obvious bodily pleasure is the one sort of pleasure that we really can take for what it is. (Incidentally, it’s not at all true that “we know why it feels good.” We can describe certain bioelectrochemical phenemonena that obviously have something to do with it, but consciousness itself remains mysterious, and pleasure has at least one foot in that elusive world.)
But it’s the rest of what we think of as “being in love,” with all the attendant notions of devotion, obligation, sacrifice, fidelity and so forth that is hard to square with a relentlessly materialistic view of man.
I don’t mean that a materialistic view of man can’t account for the origins of such behavior. I’m saying I can’t see both accepting a materialistic view of my own person and that of my lady and continuing to feel toward her and our life together as I do.
Ask me about my marriage, and I’ll tell you I’m blissfully married to a domestic and maternal goddess. Press me on that last term, and I’ll acknowledge that “goddess” is neither literal nor cultic, but a figure of speech, a hyperbolic metaphor. But it’s a figure of speech at least intended by me to express something real about my lady—not just something about the state of my emotions or feelings.
I can’t imagine the marital bliss that I enjoy apart from a trans-materialistic perception of what love is, and who and what Suz is, that would collapse if I were thoroughly persuaded of materialism. Pointing out that if I were a materialist intercourse would still feel good does not at all address the issue here.
On the other points, I’ll be getting to all that. Suffice to say, I have no intention of proposing a divine command theory of morality in which “God says so” is the basis of anything.
Incidentally, when you say “That’s how we learned that corporal punishment was wrong. We gradually learn how to treat each other better through practice”—is that what “we,” the human race, have learned? Some people have learned through practice how to engage in suicide bombing, genocide, systematic rape and so forth—and their strategies can be as successful for their purposes as yours. More anon.
“I’m not sure why it shouldn’t be the case that objective moral principles exist that apply to all observers, even though human perception of them, though real, is fallible and prone to error.”
OK, this might be where we differ. In my opinion, even if objective moral principles exist, there doesn’t seem to be any coherent and agreed-upon way to derive these moral principles, or to somehow verify that a particular moral precept is in the set of [objective moral principles].
From what I see, people use “absolute morals” as an (invalid) argument from authority; an attempt to give their opinion more weight by claiming it’s an absolute moral principle (or what god wants, or whatever) instead of what it really IS, which is just their opinion.
Sadly, if the author was trying to prove how god “changes a meaningless existence into a meaningful one”, I don’t think he succeded.
I do appreciate him trying to define god (he didn’t capatolize, so I didn’t either, no offense intended). God has done such a great job of being undetectible, he has me convinced he doesn’t exist. As other commenters on this and Jennifers blog have stated, Life is what you make it and it’s importance is for others to decide.
Gods choice; a multiple murder that accepts Crist on his deathbead going to heaven, and a social atheist goes to hell. Christianity is unique in that it doesn’t allow for good works to be rewarded. To some a selling point, to me, a dam_ing indictment.
Rover Serton:
So far I haven’t tried to show that anything changes a meaningless existence into a meaningful one. In fact I agreed with Brian Westley that the existence of a god doesn’t do this (and the decapitalization was deliberate I assure you). More anon.
Christianity teaches that it is possible for a murderer to go to heaven. I don’t know what a “social atheist” is. No one goes to hell except through his own culpable choices, and no one deserves heaven except through God’s grace.
It is not the case that Christianity “doesn’t allow for good works to be rewarded.” The Bible teaches that God will reward everyone for his works (e.g., Romans 2:6). But what we think of as our good works will be tested by fire, and may well be revealed as chaff (1 Cor 3:13ff).
Brian Westley:
And that’s fine, though let’s remember that the question we began with was not “Can we know whether there is a source or basis for objective meaning or morality?” but something more like “What would constitute a source or basis for objective meaning or morality?”
At any rate, couldn’t objections similar to these apply at least partially to other types of disputed questions? Do all historians agree on the same historical methodology and standards of proof for investigating contested historical matters? Yet we still try to arrive at historical knowledge, even where there is considerable dispute, and in some cases we may hope to achieve a measure of confidence.
“Opinion” is another one of those slippery words with more than one possible meaning. We may have different “opinions” about the tastiness of sushi or haggis; or conversely we may have different “opinions” about what really happened to Jimmy Hoffa. Neither question can be definitively settled here and now, but one is a question about a state of affairs independent of events within our own particular organisms, and the other is not.
“Do all historians agree on the same historical methodology and standards of proof for investigating contested historical matters? Yet we still try to arrive at historical knowledge, even where there is considerable dispute, and in some cases we may hope to achieve a measure of confidence.”
This is a good analogy; presumably, the past is “fixed” and there is one right answer for questions about the past, even if it’s impossible to discern what that answer is, or if people can’t agree. But that shows us what we’re left with—people DON’T always agree, and historians have to argue their various opinions. Yet if a historian showed up and claimed he had absolute knowledge of what really happened in the past, I doubt many people would believe him. They would want to know HOW he knows what he claims to know, and if his answer was some sort of divine intervention, I think he’d be laughed off the stage. And if two historians made such claims, but their descriptions of historical events conflicted, it would be safe to assume that at least one of them MUST be wrong. And if there are 100 such historians, I’d say it’s prudent to assume ALL of them are wrong (note that parts of their history could be correct, just don’t buy their infallibility).
We’re stuck with the same sort of arguing over morals, EVEN IF some kind of absolute morals exist. The problem is, not nearly enough people are getting laughed off the stage when they claim they have morals that come straight from their god.
Brian,
But we do have some clues. Just as historians do. We have some laws which are universally accepted…in all times, in all places. And in the odd circumstance where some culture diverges from these accepted moral laws, they are noted precisely because they diverge. For instance, cannibalism. So we could start by looking at which moral laws have been accepted by everyone, throughout all of history, and acknowledge that at least some morality appears to be absolute (Stevens first definition). Most of these laws are expressed in the Ten Commandments, but every culture has had some version or another of them. I expect you’ll come back with the statement that not all cultures interpret those laws identically, but that is not because the laws are not absolute, but rather because we are flawed and have interpreted them incorrectly. The one law that is accepted across the board is “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”. Since the beginning of time, man has accepted this “law” to some degree or other.
CS Lewis points out, in The Abolition of Man, that while all cultures might not have all of the laws, NO culture has ever existed that had none of them.
As Steven points out, it is important to make a distinction between whether or not there are absolute moral laws and whether or not man “knows” them or follows them. Two different claims.
Brian Westley,
Some things to keep in mind:
1) Not all claims of an absolute frame of reference are grounded in claims of special revelation. It is possible to accept some absolute source of universal meaning and morality without relying on special religious experience, including the special experience of divine revelation. More anon.
2) Exclusive religious claims of universal truth based on special revelation aren’t nearly as multitudinous and disparate as some people think. For the most part it is an Abrahamic phenomenon, with a few footnotes like Zoroastrianism and traditions influenced by the Abrahamic tradition, such as Sikhism. Most religious traditions, including most forms of Hinduism, Buddhism, and pagan polytheism either do not make exclusive claims of universal truth, or do not ground such claims in special revelation. (At this point I’m tempted to plunge into the Abrahamic tradition and block out the situation further, but one thing at a time.)
3) For the purposes of this discussion, I’m willing to live with your conclusion that we’re “stuck with the same sort of arguing over morals, EVEN IF some kind of absolute morals exist.” The more important point to me is whether our “arguments” are about states of affairs independent of events within our own organisms, or whether we are only “arguing” about our own personal preferences and wishes, in which case there is nothing really to “argue” about. Again, more anon.
mk writes:
“We have some laws which are universally accepted…in all times, in all places. And in the odd circumstance where some culture diverges from these accepted moral laws, they are noted precisely because they diverge. For instance, cannibalism.”
I don’t see how that helps your case. Most societies condemn cannibalism, but that still hasn’t been universal; same with rape, infant sacrifice, and other odd cases like how the Shakers are making themselves extinct via celibacy. We’ve even had suicide cults that kill themselves.
“So we could start by looking at which moral laws have been accepted by everyone, throughout all of history, and acknowledge that at least some morality appears to be absolute (Stevens first definition).”
I wouldn’t agree that it’s absolute, as such a claim is not just making the obvious claim that a moral law is extremely common (and you still can’t say “by everyone”, since, from our history lesson, history is incomplete in any case; there could be an exception we just don’t know about in the dim past), but the additional claim that it exists as an “absolute” moral in some existential way. I don’t see any reason to give it that invisible property.
“Most of these laws are expressed in the Ten Commandments”
Oh, I really have to disagree there. The 10 commandments don’t even prohibit cannibalism (and you can’t point to the prohibition of murder, since cannibalism is possible via normal deaths). Making graven images isn’t what most people would even consider to be a moral issue. Even the common laws against murder, stealing, and lying are often defined to have exceptions, particularly for outsiders.
“I expect you’ll come back with the statement that not all cultures interpret those laws identically, but that is not because the laws are not absolute, but rather because we are flawed and have interpreted them incorrectly.”
Well, that just goes back to my assertion that “absolute morals”, even if they exist, can’t be agreed upon, so it isn’t very helpful to say they exist if there’s no way to derive them. We’re back to arguing, but now we’ve got more fanatics, so we’re actually worse off.
“The one law that is accepted across the board is “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.”
Whaaat? No it isn’t. If it was truly universal, it wouldn’t need to be expressed, since every moral system would follow it implicitly. Kings were above the law.
There are broad moral principles that can be found in all cultures.
For instance, there are no societies with no sense of fairness or equity, in which the idea of cheating, robbing or abusing someone has no purchase. In many societies a powerful man can abuse the weak with impunity, but let him try it on his equals and we’ll see that the idea of fairness is alive and well. Incidentally, that’s another universal moral reality: every society recognizes that the moral law is more exacting than the actual behavior of individuals and peoples.
There are no societies in which people are not understood to have special duties to kin, in which children are not expected to honor and respect their parents and elders, even when the children are grown. No cultures exist in which men are honored and esteemed for cowardice or betrayal of their kin.
No society exists in which anyone is morally free to have sex with anyone else at any time with no consequences. Incest is a universal taboo, and sexual jealousy is a universal phenomenon. To quote one of my favorite writers, “Zeus had a wife, no matter what nymphs he might visit, and he knew Hera was his wife, and she knew Zeus was supposed to be her husband, and from that idea there arose the quarrels whose olympian fallout so often blighted things below. Solomon had three hundred wives and seven hundred concubines, but there was no mistake about whose they were; they were the King’s, and let the rest of you jolly well keep your hands off.”
There’s a lot more that could be said regarding murder, reverence for the divine, rape (practiced in some cultures with impunity against enemy populations, and odiously discounted in some cultures within marriage, but never considered acceptable toward the daughters or neighbor wives of one’s fellows), sexual modesty (even among the most naked indigenous peoples) and so on.
None of this, I hasten to add, proves that there are any objective moral norms. But if we are willing to consider the possibility of objective moral norms, and further willing to consider human experience, conscience and cultural mores as indications, if fallible ones, of those norms, then broad convergences like these offer a good place to start.
Incidentally, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” was a moral novelty introduced by Jesus of Nazareth, though earlier moralists had used a negative formulation with a similar spirit: “Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.” Jesus’ most shocking moral novelty, not really anticipated by earlier moral thought, was “Love your enemies.”
Thank you Steven G.,
You elaborately beautifully.
My point was not that this proves moral absolutes, but that it suggest them. And that when we diverge from them, it does not meant they don’t exist. Gravity exists. But you still have people jumping from 40 story buildings to their death. Just because a law is a law, it does not follow that we will follow it. When Joe speeds we don’t say SEE, there are no laws against speeding. We say there are laws and Joe broke them.
Likewise when men treat each other poorly we don’t say See, there are no absolute moral laws. We say there may very well be absolute moral laws, and men break them all the time.
Yes, but a person jumping off a building is still obeying the law of gravity, just as we all are, all the time. The physical “laws” of nature are not laws in the same sense as moral laws; they’re simply systematic descriptions of the way the universe works. Moral laws are prescriptive, not descriptive. As SDG said, all cultures recognize that moral laws are not perfectly followed. This makes them fundamentally different from what are called laws in physical science. Your analogy of jumping off the building is good, however, insofar as it suggests that people will inevitably harm themselves by ignoring the absolute moral law - not because God is vindictive, but because that’s the way things work.
Pach,
Perhaps it would be better to say that they “ignore” the law of gravity. But the end is the same. There are consequences for “ignoring” both types of laws. The person standing on the ledge, knows he “should not” jump, and I am assuming it is the “should” that you are speaking of as prescriptive. The law of gravity says you “shouldn’t” jump 20 stories…if you do, then…and the moral law says you shouldn’t kill unborn children in your womb…if you do, then…
Either way, there is a law, and ignoring it or breaking it will have consequences.
Sadly today, many people try to eliminate the consequences of their actions, rather than change their actions. This works with gravity and flying airplanes because physical laws have no moral consequences, but it doesn’t work out so well with the moral laws.
Sorry, got interrupted…let me just add that when you commit a sin (for purposes of this discussion, a sin meaning “breaking” a moral law, you are still obeying the law in the same way that you obey gravity. The law says that there are consequences. A cracked skull is the result of the law of gravity at work. The immoral condition of our world is a result of the moral law at work. Even when going against the moral law, you are still obeying it, just as when you jump out the window you are obeying the physical law of gravity. Either way, you have to faces the consequences.
mk, you’re right, of course, about the consequences being part of the law itself. I think you’re stretching the analogy between physics and morality too far, though. The law of gravity, by itself, doesn’t say anything about whether you should jump or not. It only says that if you do, you will accelerate toward the center of the earth at 9.8 m/sec.^2. Other laws, including the the moral law, if you subscribe to one that prohibits suicide, and the simple biological instinct for survival, tell you that that will be a bad thing, and you therefore should not jump. The law of gravity doesn’t give you any reason not to want a cracked skull.
I don’t think the best way to think of moral laws is to present them as a choice the universe offers us - either you do this, or you face consequences - because it then seems that the choice itself is morally neutral, and we can only choose on the basis of our own desires. In other words, if the moral law is simply a matter of consequences, I don’t see a logical barrier between that and “do whatever makes you happy.” Moral laws are different from physical laws in that they tell us what ought to be, not what is.
Pach,
This is because you are only thinking of consequences to yourself. I am thinking of consequences to the world itself. Evil feeds on evil. It might be generations before the ramifications of my choices manifest themselves. I do not base my moral decisions on what is best for me…but on what is “best”, period. When Mother Teresa said that the fruits of abortion is nuclear war, she was saying that evil begets more evil. The fruit of our choices resembles those choices. I think it works very much like physical laws. This is why the Church does not choose the lesser of two evils, but chooses instead, the greatest good.
Whoever said that being an atheist meant that one’s life had no meaning?
Atheists in general like to think for themselves, rather that have some established dogma that they are told to blindly follow. This means that each Atheist is a little different, each has developed his or her own view of the world.
I was brought up in the Church of England, however realized in my mid-teens that there was something missing from the picture I’d been asked to believe in. I thought deeply at the time, and came to the conclusion that for me there was no God. At the time this did cause me to worry about the meaning of life - and it was difficult to come to terms with the idea that death was final. I came to my own realization of what the meaning of life was for me - that, when I was on my deathbed I should feel that I’d made the world a better place and had made some lasting achievement. This proved to be a great motivator and has guided me for the last 40 years.
So Atheists can enjoy a deep and meaningful life, they just work out for themselves what “meaningful” is.
I give up, Alan. Whoever said that being an atheist meant that one’s life had no meaning?
I’m pretty sure I didn’t say that. So I’m wondering if you read my post, or if you’re just reacting to keywords and filling in the blanks with other things you remember other people having said (like our friend Yeah, Right).
What I’m pretty sure I said is that the existential upshot of atheism is that there is no absolute frame of reference with respect to such categories as “meaning” or “good and evil,” which means that such terms can only be understood as reflecting the subjective perspective of the observers, and no two observers need share the same frame of reference.
Maybe that’s more or less what you meant by atheists having to “work out for themselves what ‘meaningful’ is.” I’m not sure. Let’s find out with a few thought experiments.
You say you concluded, in your mid-teens, that the meaning of life for you has to do with feeling on your deathbed that you’ve made the world a better place and had made some lasting achievement.
Let’s imagine another young man facing a similar crisis, and deciding for himself that a meaningful life for him involves deflowering as many teenaged girls as possible—and that 40 years hence he’s still following his path just as you are still following yours, and that he’s as satisfied with his achievements as you are with yours. Does that mean that he’s been as successful as you and that his life has been just as meaningful?
Thought experiment #2: Imagine a Nazi on his deathbed, having put thousands of Jews to death and successfully escaped prosecution, judging his life by the same standard that you chose. Like you, he feels that he’s made the world a better place and had made some lasting achievement. Does that mean that he’s been as successful as you and that his life has been just as meaningful?
Thought experiment #3: Suppose that toward the end of your life you were to look back and conclude that your efforts to make the world a better place (whatever that means) have generally been a failure, that the world is no better because of you and perhaps may even be worse. However, a mind-altering drug exists which can give you the feeling that you’ve made the world a better place and had made some lasting achievement.
By the definition you’ve provided, this drug will allow you to achieve your goal. Would this mean that by taking the drug, you would have achieved the meaning you set out to achieve? Would this life therefore be just as meaningful as one in which you actually accomplished the good you wanted to accomplish? What about someone else who never even tried to make the world a better place, but chooses to take the drug in order to die with the same feeling of satisfaction that you wanted to achieve? Is his life just as meaningful as yours?
Would you actually choose to take the drug on your deathbed? Why or why not?
Posted by Steven D. Greydanus on Saturday, Dec 10, 2011 2:12 PM (EST):
“For instance, there are no societies with no sense of fairness or equity . . . . There are no societies in which people are not understood to have special duties to kin . . . . Incest is a universal taboo, and sexual jealousy is a universal phenomenon.”
It seems to me that these broad convergences have more to do with making tribal survival possible than with some abstract set of objective morals. Humans are social creatures, and generally do not thrive outside of a community. A community has to achieve some kind of harmony among its members that balances each member’s needs and desires against the needs and desires of other members. A community where the members continually fought each other for food, shelter and sex, did not care for their young, and failed to cooperate in defending the group from human and animal enemies would fail. There may have been such tribes, but they did not survive to influence human civilization.
Humans with biological predispositions toward altruism, fairness, empathy, cooperation, and the ability to follow a rule rather than act on impulse would have a considerable edge when it came to the survival of their offspring. There have been some interesting experiments with bablies recently that suggest that they recognize unfairness at 15 months.
http://news.yahoo.com/babies-young-15-months-grasp-fairness-134603377.html
I don’t think we need to postulate the existence of an absolute morality to explain the similarities of human behavior in every culture.
Seems to me like this is all some desperate attempt by believers to self-aggrandize. Religion is, at its core, an exercise in narcissism.
The universe is an overwhelmingly cold, dark and empty space. You are nothing but an insignificant speck of carbon stranded on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam. Your thoughts and actions are the product of chemical activity in your brain and are not fully under your conscious control. If you fear waking up from bed every morning to these facts, and insist on manufacturing an alternate reality for yourself where child molesters and war criminals who escape prosecution are tortured for enterity, and you play a vital role on the cosmic stage, so be it.
The universe does not owe you anything, it will not shed a tear when you exit. Life is what you make of it and you will find your time here vastly more tolerable (dare I say enjoyable) if you treat your fellow Earthly companions with dignity and respect.
Let me restate that in less emotional language: The universe is very large compared to the earth.
That’s true, of course. It escapes me how that implies that religion is bunk.
Steve,
Although your thought experiments are not directed to me, I’ll bite.
There is no cosmic yardstick upon which we measure the accomplishments of teenage-deflowerers or SS officers. If they feel they led meaningful lives, then that is the way they feel. The vast majority of us feel they didn’t because we are inclined (read: hard-wired) to engage in pro-social behavior and we distrust those who don’t. So why do most of us prefer to treat other people well? Coincidentally, treating people well promotes trust, respect, sharing, safety, etc, etc, among the group. We don’t need any other incentives. We see the results first hand when we cross someone and betray their trust.
Manufacturing a scoreboard or finishline (heaven, hell, nirvana, eternal bliss) doesn’t help you. Since some people will inevitably think, at least to themselves, that hell is preferable to heaven or that killing people is better than loving them. Some people are psychotic, mentally ill, whathaveyou.
Understatement of the century: The universe is very large compared to the earth.
Or, as Ptolemy put it in 150 AD: The Earth, in relation to the distance of the fixed stars, has no appreciable size and must be treated as a mathematical point.
Again: why should that matter?
Some people seem to find that. Some people seem to find the reverse. Since our perceptions are all colored by confirmation bias, isn’t it possible and even likely that you’ve inflated the case for of treating your fellow Earthly companions with dignity and respect and underestimated the case for alternative behaviors?
BTW, note that I haven’t said anything about “scorecards” or “finish lines,” but the presence or absence of an absolute frame of reference that applies to all acts and all agents.
“Some people seem to find that. Some people seem to find the reverse.”
I address that with my second point: “some people will inevitably think, at least to themselves, that hell is preferable to heaven or that killing people is better than loving them.” This other “some” are unquestionably in the minority and we have a justice system to separate them from society.
Some people will think the teen-deflowerer is a saint, but so what? The overwhelming majority of us think he’s a weasel because we understand that his behavior is reflective of someone who shouldn’t be trusted. To say we find his behavior immoral because it breaks some metaphysical rules is gilding the lily; you don’t need it.
I’m certainly not inflating the case for treating my fellow humans with dignity and respect. Societies that value pro-social behavior flourish, there are myriad examples. Contrarily, show me a single thriving society that values or is built upon cowardice, disloyalty or selfishness.
“absolute frame of reference” is tantamount to a scorecard, measuring stick, finishline. They’re analogous. So I don’t see what your point is there.
samuel: Selfishness is an unworkable policy for building societies. It doesn’t follow that selfishness is an unworkable policy for individuals in societies. As long as a certain critical mass of people maintain a bourgeois morality, selfishness can be an eminently successful strategy for the bold risk-takers willing to embrace it. This isn’t abstract. It can work in practice, and plenty of selfish people can attest to it.
Scorecards, measuring sticks and finish lines are all arbitrary. So, not analogous.
“It doesn’t follow that selfishness is an unworkable policy for individuals in societies.”
I’d go even further. Some selfishness is necessary, but on the whole, societies that value unselfish behavior flourish while those that promote self-centeredness do not. Now we’re splitting hairs. Just acknowledge that it is objectively unsustainable to build a society on selfishness.
“Scorecards, measuring sticks and finish lines are all arbitrary.”
BINGO. Someone else above already mentioned this and I don’t think you’ve adequately addressed it (The health is to biology argument is somewhat borrowed from Sam Harris’ Moral Landscape). Essentially, you can’t have an non-arbitrary, objective frame of reference absent some subjective knowledge. In this case, it is subjectively agreed upon that well-being is better than suffering. It is subjective because some (a very small minority) prefer pain and suffering to pleasure.
@ Pachyderminator
It doesn’t prove or imply anything. It simply is. However, it should give believers serious pause.
Why should it give believers pause, if it doesn’t imply anything?
I already acknowledged that, but I don’t at all agree that we’re splitting hairs. I think the Randian Objectivists are probably wrong about the feasibility of a society based on “enlightened self-interest” (although they would give me an argument about that). Be that as it may, I think selfish individuals often flourish by any of a number of possible measures within societies that are not themselves dedicated to selfishness. Being among the top 10 percent of the most selfish people in society often works out quite well, by some measures.
From certain frame of reference, such selfish individuals have the best of both worlds—much like individual unvaccinated children in a vaccination society benefit from herd immunity without themselves running the risk of bad reactions, side effects or the occasional full-blown infection. Other people take the hit; they get the benefit. Same with selfish people in a society that values unselfishness. They get the benefits of living in a society in which other people don’t behave as selfishly as they do, but they also get to behave selfishly.
That may be giving Harris too much credit, but never mind. Some people engage in all kinds of behaviors that are supposed to be bad for your health—they smoke too much, drink too much, eat too much rich foods and so forth—and live longer, healthier, happier lives than lots of other people. Other people die of cancer in childhood. The idea that being nice promotes moral health is a nice idea, but outcomes are way too uneven, on a materialist accounting, to make a strong materialist case that being nice is the “right” decision for everyone.
I haven’t said anything that implies the possibility of escaping subjective knowledge.
Stephen
“If atheism is true, is life meaningful” seems like an invitation for an atheist to answer “yes” and to explain why.
My apologies for thinking that you may be interested in honest dialog on the subject
Alan
Alan,
I read your whole comment and tried to respond to it thoughtfully, point by point. So far you haven’t responded to anything I’ve said past the first line of my initial post and the first line of my comment. If you’re as interested in honest dialog as I am, try engaging my thoughts as I’ve tried to engage your thoughts.
I’ve no objection to an atheist answering “yes” and explaining why. I objected to what seemed to be your implication that my question suggested a negative answer. If you got past my opening question and read the rest of my post, you’ll see that my answer was more nuanced than that.
“Some people engage in all kinds of behaviors that are supposed to be bad for your health—they smoke too much, drink too much, eat too much rich foods and so forth—and live longer, healthier, happier lives than lots of other people.”
I’ve already addressed exceptions in the earlier examples. But again, you’re using “some” much too loosely. It would be more fair to say, “the overwhelming majority of people who smoke too much, drink too much, eat too much rich foods and so forth - live shorter, unhealthier lives and often die suffering.”
The outcomes are not nearly as uneven as you’re making it out to be.
Posted by Steven D. Greydanus on Monday, Dec 12, 2011 9:48 PM (EST):
“The idea that being nice promotes moral health is a nice idea, but outcomes are way too uneven, on a materialist accounting, to make a strong materialist case that being nice is the ‘right’ decision for everyone.”
I think you’re responding to Samuel, who said on Monday, Dec 12, 2011 8:19 PM (EST):
“. . . on the whole, societies that value unselfish behavior flourish while those that promote self-centeredness do not.”
I don’t believe Samuel is saying that selfish behavior never benefits the individual. I think he is saying that society can’t promote selfish behavior for everyone because if everyone indulged in it, the society would fail. There is some tolerance for individual selfishness built into a community, but I would argue that there is a tipping point where when a certain percentage of the members act as though selfishness was a virtue, the society starts to fall apart. Your vaccination analogy is an excellent illustration of this phenomenon.
Of course it is unfair that some people benefit inordinately from being in the “selfish,” group. As you pointed out, life is deeply unfair. Cancer kills some people in childhood. Etcetera, etcetara. To me this suggests a universe where there are no moral absolutes. To you it suggests a universe where a non-material existence corrects the “mistakes” that result from the acting out of the physical laws of the universe.
OK. There is no resolution to these interpretations.
Most people die suffering, unless they die unnaturally. Dying is hard to do.
And “the overwhelming majority” is really overstating things. For example, this study suggests that at least half of all lifelong smokers die earlier as a result of smoking. But that suggests that close to half of all lifelong smokers don’t die earlier as a result of smoking—much less than “the overwhelming majority.” If you have good genes and good money, you have a good chance of beating the odds. You can probably smoke for decades, quit by the time you’re 50 (almost half of all smokers quit), and by 65 your risk factor will be comparable to anyone else’s. Even if you die ten years earlier than you might have, you may still be better off than the majority of people.
Not only moderate drinkers but even heavy drinkers outlive nondrinkers. Even if you drink very heavily, you don’t automatically become part of an “overwhelming majority” that dies sooner. Men can drink more than women and not suffer for it. Even if you drink too much, you may only be, say, twice as likely to die of certain risk factors—which, if the initial risk isn’t that great, doesn’t sound like too bad a deal.
I’m not suggesting that there aren’t self-interested reasons not to smoke or drink too much. But when it comes to selfish or immoral behavior, on a materialistic accounting it can easily be argued that “enlightened self-interest” works well as a personal philosophy, arguably better than the alternatives. Ruthlessness and lack of principles can enable men to make more money, sleep with more women—potentially a lot more money and a lot more women—enjoy revenge on their enemies, etc, etc.
I believe I’m much happier than the most successful unprincipled man—I’m probably the happiest man I know—but as I’ve said above my happiness is bound up in a trans-materialistic worldview of the universe, reality and the people around me. (This is the grossest error of your opening statement above, by the way. Rejecting materialism isn’t about narcissism. It’s about love. Materialism is the most narcissistic philosophy available, except maybe solipsism.)
If I believed in materialism, the life I live wouldn’t give me the happiness it does. I would have to opt for what happiness I could find in other ways—much more selfish ways. It’s silly to pretend that this wouldn’t make sense just because your conscience tells you it’s wrong.
Steven D. Greydanus said: “If I believed in materialism, the life I live wouldn’t give me the happiness it does. I would have to opt for what happiness I could find in other ways—much more selfish ways. It’s silly to pretend that this wouldn’t make sense just because your conscience tells you it’s wrong.
Religious authoritarian ideologies tend to promote enlargement of the right amygdala, part of the lower (reptilian) brain, the emotional, fight or flight part of the brain leading to binary thinking, threat-non threat, good-evil, black-white thinking.
Anything questioning their beliefs or confirmation bias is seen as a personal attack inhibiting the use of the anterior cingulate and critical thinking.
People with a larger anterior cingulate make better use of serotonin at the reward centers of the brain providing happiness and meaning naturally while those with a larger amygdala require a placebo or belief system. Of course its varies in degree with each individual.
The studies you mention only measure life expectancy, not quality of life, or other subjective measures (which is the entire point I am trying to make with you) about health. Again, you can’t understand health, or morality, or meaning, without subjective knowledge of human beings. Therefore, there is no absolute frame of reference for health, or morality, or meaning.
Insisting that the creator of the universe takes a personal interest in your thoughts and actions is the height of narcissism. It’s nothing short of deluded self-importance. Let’s be honest here, Steven. Calling yourself “made in God’s image” does not strike you as even a tad bit narcissistic?.
“The problem with relative frames of reference with respect to meaning and morality is that however useful we may find particular models for particular purposes, no model is ultimately any more or less valid or real than any other.”
Let me disagree in the following way: A “useful” model should be considered “more valid”. Now the question becomes: is a person more likely to be “happy” following a “more useful” model of reality rather than a “less useful” one. How should one define “more useful”? Perhaps it is “more useful” to be religious in a religious society even if that model does not match “reality”.
“It may be simpler and more useful for some purposes to say that the earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa, but neither model is truer or less true.”
I disagree. One model is “true” in the sense that it matches the observed reality of the “Law of Gravity” and the other is “false” since it contradicts the “Law of Gravity”. But this is Physics, not morality.
“be in love with a girl if you know (and keep on remembering) that all the beauties both of her person and of her character are a momentary and accidental pattern produced by the collision of atoms”
That’s fine with me. So what? Therefore some god exists? How silly! Therefore one should not “keep on remembering”. Fine with me.
“you will be forced to feel the hopeless disharmony between your own emotions and the universe in which you really live.”
This is the “argument from nihilism”? Our lives are ultimately meaningless, therefore a god exists? How silly! But yes, perhaps it is better to ignore this obvious “hopeless disharmony” most of the time.
Psy: FWIW, my post doesn’t say anything about “religious authoritarian ideologies.” Your commentary about comparative brain anatomy strikes me as bizarre. Sources?
Samuel: It’s precisely the subjective angle that supports my case. Two convinced materialists each set out to be as fulfilled and successful as they can. One successfully pursues altruism, moderation, health and so on. Another successfully pursues a self-indulgent, occasionally ruthless agenda of enlightened self-interest. Both subjectively feel like successes and are completely satisfied with their lives. Materialistically speaking, I see no grounds for preferring one approach to the other, and indeed I find the latter approach more consistent with materialism than the former.
It seems to me that your charge of “narcissism” amounts to something like “Doesn’t Christianity offer a higher, grander view of man than materialism—one more suited to man’s sense of his own exalted status in the material world?” Yes, I freely agree that that is the case. How could I say otherwise? But that seems to me a confused definition of narcissism.
Narcissism as I understand it means self-absorption, being in love with oneself, preferring oneself to external reality, external beloveds. If any philosophy on earth justifies narcissism, it’s materialism. Materialism means—as we have seen atheists affirm in this very thread—that I alone decide what the meaning of my life is. I belong to myself alone; I am the captain of my soul (that is, my life). If I want to make myself the center of my world, no one can say I’m wrong to do so. I can’t imagine anything more narcissistic than that.
Materialism also means that so far as we know, we are the pinnacle of mind in all reality, that in us alone the universe has produced the power to contemplate itself. Nothing is better or wiser than we are.
Christianity teaches that we are nothing compared to God—God said to Teresa of Avila, “I am He Who is; you are she who is not”—and also that God Himself is self-gift, self-donation. God Himself is not self-absorbed; His own inner life is the communion of really distinct divine Persons, of lover and beloved and the act of love between them.
Calling human beings created in God’s image unambiguously means that I cannot call myself the center of my own world or the pinnacle of anything. It means I have an infinite duty to God and an inexhaustible duty to my neighbor. It means that I am created for the opposite of narcissism, for gift of self to the other.
Russell Brown: “Usefulness” and “validity” are not interchangeable concepts. Newtonian physics is highly useful, but we recognize it as inadequate compared to relativity. The “usefulness” of frames of reference is highly relative to ends. If you’re plotting a course for a mission to Mars, a heliocentric frame of reference may be useful, but if you’re plotting a course from New York to Chicago, a heliocentric frame of reference would be disastrously complicated. For that you want a geocentric frame of reference. Incidentally, it is certainly not true that a geocentric model of the solar system “contradicts” the law of gravity. Rather, the sun, the earth, the other planet and everything else are all in motion relative to each other and to the rest of the galaxy and the rest of the universe. To describe these movements we can define any frame of reference that we like, and while simpler frames of reference are generally more useful, they are not “truer” than more complex frames of reference and for certain purposes (for example, to illustrate the theory of relativity) it may be more useful to adopt a more complex frame of reference.
=To describe these movements we can define any frame of reference that we like, and while simpler frames of reference are generally more useful, they are not “truer” than more complex frames of reference and for certain purposes (for example, to illustrate the theory of relativity) it may be more useful to adopt a more complex frame of reference.
At the moment they use a simple frame of reference by comparing movement of galaxy clusters and our own galaxy’s moment to the cosmic background radiation.
The outcomes are not entirely subjective, Steven. You’re confused. That a few people may get through life screwing everyone over, does not mean that there is a broad range of outcomes. Besides, I don’t know who you’re thinking of that goes through life entirely self-interested and still has a strong sense of well-being. Even if they did, they are usually locked up in prison, be it petty theft all the way to Bernie Madoff (see: anti-social personality disorder).
The first web definition I got for narcissism:
“inflated self-importance, egotism, vanity, conceit, or simple selfishness.”
You constructed some pretty twisted logic for yourself, Steven. Insisting that you are created in the image of a god, a honor typically reserved for royalty, is the height of self-aggrandizement. To make matters worse (for you), there is no evidence to suggest that the creator of the universe cares how your treat your neighbors. But, thankfully, if you treat your neighbors with dignity and respect (subjective concepts), they are more likely to do the same to you. This will result in objective outcomes like: increasing your safety, availability of food and other resources, increasing the likelyhood of finding a mate, increasing the likelihood or reproductive success and increasing the safety, availability of food and other resources for your offspring. It is so simple, yet it provides the entire foundation for morals (among all kinds of species). You don’t need to manufacture metaphysical yardsticks.
=Your commentary about comparative brain anatomy strikes me as bizarre.
Empathy is a product of the anterior cingulate cortex which explains where non-believers get their ‘morals’.
“Incidentally, it is certainly not true that a geocentric model of the solar system “contradicts” the law of gravity.”
The “Law of Gravity” specifies that the forces are proportional to the masses. So having the Sun go around the Earth is contradictory to the Law of Gravity. Mathematically there can be different “frames of reference”. But everyone knows what the Law of Gravity means about reality. So the point is that there are “truths” about “reality” that can be discovered by “science”.
““Usefulness” and “validity” are not interchangeable concepts.”
I did not claim that they were “interchangeable”. I claimed that they should be “related”. For example:
“Materialistically speaking, I see no grounds for preferring one approach to the other, and indeed I find the latter approach more consistent with materialism than the former.”
Your opinion is noted and dismissed as wrong. The point is that most of us live in a human society. So often the most “useful” actions are those actions that allow us to get along harmoniously with our fellow humans. And altruism is one of those actions. Not to mention obeying the civil and criminal laws. So “usefulness” should be related to “validity”.
“Materialism also means that so far as we know, we are the pinnacle of mind in all reality, that in us alone the universe has produced the power to contemplate itself. Nothing is better or wiser than we are.”
So what? Who is this “we” that you are talking about? Your opinion seems completely irrelevant. Morality is personal. There is no “we” in morality. But there is the greater society that we live in. And if that society says that the penalty for blasphemy is death by stoning, one should take that into account.
“Calling human beings created in God’s image unambiguously means that I cannot call myself the center of my own world or the pinnacle of anything.”
So what? How can that provide moral guidance?
“It means I have an infinite duty to God and an inexhaustible duty to my neighbor.”
Well, that’s a hard hill to climb Mr. Sisyphus. Does the rock come rolling down time after time?
“It means that I am created for the opposite of narcissism, for gift of self to the other.”
Well, that should give you a pretty good purpose towards altruism. How are you going to earn a living?
Psy: You are full of curious claims I’d like to see documented. Since the universe’s background radiation is constant in every direction, and since every part of the universe is expanding all the time and moving further from every other part, I would be interested to learn how it provides the sort of framework you suggest. Your claims about brain anatomy run afoul of the continuing mystery of consciousness previously noted.
Samuel,
I’m sorry, I think the picture is darker than you suggest. I think a disproportionate percentage of powerful and wealthy people in any social context get to where they are and stay there because they a) have morally distorted wants and ambitions and b) are willing to do morally unhealthy things to get them. I think the lesser-known last line of Lord Acton’s famous dictum, “Great men are almost always bad men,” is even truer than his better known first half, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” because I think it evokes the reverse tendency for corruption to come to power as well as power tending to corrupt.
I haven’t said anything about “going through life entirely self-interested.” Even then, enlightened self-interest can certainly recognize the value of cooperating and being a part of a larger social structure. I’m not thinking of criminals like Bernie Madoff. I’m thinking of the people on Wall Street and in Washington who continue to accrue millions while the world burns by screwing stockholders and taxpayers. I’m thinking of people like Stalin, Mao, Castro, Kim Il-sung—or, for that matter, Popes Alexander VI and Benedict XIV (note the Roman numeral). I’m thinking of the flagrant womanizing, harassment and even rape that powerful alpha men often get away with. These are not the outlying cases you seem to want them to be. This is, in a significant way, the way the world works.
Did you pull your definition of narcissism from Wikipedia? Here are some definitions I find both more precise and truer to the defining mythic image of Narcissus captivated by his own reflection:
“an extreme interest in your own life and problems that prevents you from caring about other people” (source)
“1. Excessive love or admiration of oneself. See Synonyms at conceit.
2. A psychological condition characterized by self-preoccupation, lack of empathy, and unconscious deficits in self-esteem.” (source)
You’ve made your case that there is a straightforward case for altruistic, virtuous living carrying its own benefits. I agree up to a point, especially in a transmaterialist context in which “respect and dignity” actually mean something more than bioelectrochemical flickers in our nervous systems, but overall I find your case entirely unconvincing. You find my counter-case unconvincing. I’m content to leave it there, move on, and let readers decide for themselves. Cheers.
=Since the universe’s background radiation is constant in every direction, and since every part of the universe is expanding all the time and moving further from every other part,
I think it was about a 6 months ago they determined the galactic clusters as a whole is rotating in relation to the cosmic background. Also I am not convinced of an expanding universe and I find too many dependencies in the big bang theory.
As for my statements they are just something to consider as opposed the the old ‘life is depressing without God’ cliche and atheism vs religion 101 debates.
Psy: Well, FWIW, you wouldn’t need background radiation to provide a basis for defining whether the universe is or isn’t rotating. According to Stephen Hawking, you can do it with gyroscopes—and according to Hawking, “our observations show that our universe is not rotating, at least not noticeably.” I’d be curious to know what discoveries have been claimed in the last six months, but as is becoming your annoying modus operandi, you provide no specifics.
If you don’t agree with the standard view that the universe is expanding—and, what’s more, accelerating rather than decelerating—how do you explain cosmological redshift?
My brief here, BTW, is not that “life is depressing without God.” The question with which I started, provided by an atheist correspondent, was what difference it would make to our concepts of meaning if there were a god. So far my answer has been that a god as defined above wouldn’t make a difference. I haven’t gotten any farther than that.
Russell Brown:
No, it doesn’t (contradict the law of gravity). The law of gravitation states that every object in the universe affects every other object in the universe in direct relation to the product of their masses and inverse relation to the square of their distance. So the earth and the sun attract one another with a force that is based on their combined mass and the distance between them. One might say that the sun’s gravitational pull on the earth is greater than the earth’s gravitational pull on the sun—or one might say that the sun’s inertial resistance is greater than the earth’s—but bottom line is that the earth moves the sun just as the sun moves the earth. It would be accurate to say that the sun and earth orbit one another. Of course it’s further complicated by the fact that the sun is doing the same with respect to all the other planets, etc. The most accurate statement is that everything affects everything else.
Your point is noted and dismissed as not refuting my observations regarding the practicality and success potential of selfishness, ruthlessness and corruption. See my most recent comments to Samuel for more.
We’re getting ahead of ourselves. We don’t even know what moral guidance means yet.
Heh. It’s not a rock rolling up a hill. It’s a dance. It’s harmony. It’s grace. It’s joy.
By giving my heart to God and to others to start with, and then noticing that my Creator who delights in His creatures doing the sorts of things He made them to do and fulfilling the natures He gave them has given men a capacity for and a dependency on work … and that in order to love my fellows effectively, starting with my lady and the children we are bringing into the world, I need to be able to support them … and by working and earning money I am also able to effectively love others as well, for example through hospitality and charity.
=how do you explain cosmological redshift?
I don’t jump to the conclusion that there is a single cause for redshift.
=what difference it would make to our concepts of meaning if there were a god. So far my answer has been that a god as defined above wouldn’t make a difference. I haven’t gotten any farther than that.
Do you mean a claim of such a ‘God’ or actual proof that such a ‘God’ exist?
Psy,
FWIW, not only the expanding universe but the now-standard view of its accelerating rate of expansion fits observations along a number of fronts. This year’s Nobel physics prize was awarded to the astronomers who first discovered the accelerating universe in 1998. It’s possible that future observations will result in a better hypothesis, of course, but I’m curious to know whether you have any actual grounds besides contrariness for doubting the standard view here.
I’m don’t mean a claim or a proof. I believe my meaning is clear from what I said.
=but I’m curious to know whether you have any actual grounds besides contrariness for doubting the standard view here.
There is always room for doubt, and I have reasons for doubt but I didn’t to come here to derail the topic. Also the issue of politics and funding preference in the field of science.
What difference it would make to our concepts of meaning if there were a god. So far my answer has been that a god as defined above wouldn’t make a difference.
Followed by Pascal’s wager.
Appeals to emotion fallacies.
And C. S. Lewis and yourself don’t understand that others think differently than yourselves.
=I’m don’t mean a claim or a proof.
OK, a hypothetical debate on “what if there was proof of God” would be interesting.
But now that we have gotten to the actual point:
To me philosophy is a great thought exercise but it is for those with insecurities, who need to justify there existence to themselves and I consider it a pseudo science.
=I’m don’t mean a claim or a proof. I believe my meaning is clear from what I said.
If is a belief then I agree it makes no difference.
=“If is a belief then I agree it makes no difference.”
This is assuming I understand what you point is.
If its a belief its irrelevant to me.
Or to offer any specifics or substantiation for anything you say, apparently. You have a great trick for sophistry and condescension but you seem to be a one trick pony. I could continue to disentangle my line of thought from your flotsam and jetsam, but I think I’m done playing that game. Cheers.
Jennifer’s article only suggests that by being lucky, her feeling of meaninglessness were replaced with feelings of love.
You suggest something similar with the words, “By giving my heart to God and to others to start with, and then noticing that my Creator who delights in His creatures doing the sorts of things He made them to do and fulfilling the natures He gave them has given men a capacity for and a dependency on work … and that in order to love my fellows effectively, starting with my lady and the children we are bringing into the world, I need to be able to support them … and by working and earning money I am also able to effectively love others as well, for example through hospitality and charity.”
Apparently, that is a relative frame that provides pleasant feelings and a perspective for you. The frame probably buffers you against unpleasant feelings. “Giving your heart to God” suggest to me the capacity to let go of what you are not in control of and hope for the best.
With the words “No one goes to hell except through his own culpable choices, and no one deserves heaven except through God’s grace.” are you suggesting that one’s choice of a relative frame condemns one to hell? This church teaching is nonsense. The words “hell”, “culpable”, “heaven”, “God”, and “grace” remain undefined except in an imaginary context. Perhaps you meant them in a mythical and metaphorical sense. In that case, in your frame, in your imaginative relationship to your life, these words mean something. Ditto for Jennifer.
I might suggest that this particular Catholic frame of reference may make it impossible for you to appreciate how wonderfully pleasant life can be without God or the notion of God, even in difficult circumstances. Please keep up your hospitality and charity. I’ll do the same.
The wordle of the discussion so far: http://www.wordle.net/show/wrdl/4586006/A_tired_argument_for_absolute_morality
“Your point is noted and dismissed as not refuting my observations regarding the practicality and success potential of selfishness, ruthlessness and corruption.”
The point is that such an outlook on life is certainly practical in our society for many individuals. There are many such people in our jails. Many escape prosecution. So what? You have a title that contains the words “atheism”, “meaning”, and “god”. I can’t see how your supposed point has anything to do with “atheism” or “god”. Of course it does have to do with the “meaning” that individuals place on their lives.
The opposite point is that humans evolved while living in a tribal society. In a small group, one who did not get along with the group was cast out and thus had a much lower rate of survivability and reproduction. So it would be expected that even today parents would take care of their children and raise them to be “kind” and “loving”. And this might have nothing to do with “atheism” or “religion”.
Perhaps you will try to come up with a “point” in your part 2?
Bill Hallinan: The title of your wordle is wrong. I haven’t advanced an argument for absolute morality. Other things you say are wrong too, but I’ll wait till later parts to confront those.
Russell Brown: God is in my title because God is in the question which I started out with. I haven’t answered the question yet.
A careful reading of my post will discover that the central thesis of part 1, laying the groundwork for answering the question, is this paragraph:
As far as I can tell, your objection this point boils down to the first half-dozen words, inasmuch as you apparently accept my substantive description of the relativity of the concepts of “meaning” and “good and evil,” but dispute that this is the existential upshot of atheism in particular, since you don’t see how any other worldview offers an absolute frame of reference that is any different from this. That is what I will go on to discuss in subsequent parts.
I claim artistic license with the title. What would title would you give to the wordle of this discussion?
“If you argue right and wrong, you are a person of right and wrong.”
I like “Absolute Moral People” as an alternative title to the Wordle, certainly not “Atheism, Meaning, and God.” I, too, am curious where, “Part 2” leads.
As a new comer to your posts, do you mind if I challenge your notion of being “able to effectively love others as well, for example through hospitality and charity”? I just read your Macy’s post and the subsequent fear engendered in the responses. Anything but hospitable and charitable there. Why do you not challenge your audience in that post with the same enthusiasm you show towards a demonstrably more moral atheist community?
To address the title of your blog post, perhaps in the absence of God, I have more utility in observing what human behavior means. Is that in itself not meaningful?
“The existential upshot of atheism ... and no two observers need share the same frame of reference.”
So what? Perhaps you should try to say something interesting in part 2.
“God is in the question which I started out with”
“Let it be said that a divinity meeting this definition, if it existed, could be an important and practical part of our understanding of the world.”
Quite possibly. But there is absolutely no evidence for such a “divinity”. So discussion of this “question” is simply a waste of time.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/report-it-all-some-kind-of-sick-joke,26592/
“The results are clear and irrefutable: Everything from the unfathomable expanses of the universe to our own continuously deteriorating bodies is apparently nothing more than an elaborate and perverse joke that’s being perpetrated on us repeatedly and entirely against our will.”
Copied quote:
“Belief in the supernatural is worse than a waste of time: religious supernturalism is actually destructive of thinking and science. Attempting to be not-of-this-world is not a practical idea for living, thinking, and thriving.”
Bill Hallinan: As I would have hoped was clear by now to attentive readers, I see this discussion, starting from Brian Westley’s interesting question, as an inquiry into the implications of different worldviews. This is not directly an argument for or against any worldview.
I issue challenges in all directions, including challenges to my own readership. If I find a battle I feel inclined to fight, I usually write a post about it, and if necessary continue the battle in the combox. I’m not inclined either to judge or to defend comments in some other combox.
“demonstrably more moral atheist community”: Sir, this is either trollery or absurd naivete. Consider one contrary metric (oh, and Russell Brown take note as well regarding the canard of “not-of-this-world” impracticality, etc.).
I haven’t claimed that believers are more moral than nonbelievers but the contrary claim, especially where a) a working definition of “morality” has not been established and b) no evidence has been cited, is unworthy of anyone wishing to contribute to any discussion.
Russell Brown: I admire the thoroughness moving you to comment repeatedly in comboxes of discussions that you find an uninteresting waste of time. It’s not what I do when I encounter a discussion I find an uninteresting waste of time, I assure you.
Please be aware that further posts consisting of quotations from other sources or generalized attacks on religion that are not a part of an ongoing discussion are not welcome.
Friends,
I had foolishly thought that two additional posts last week might wrap this series up, but I wound up spending my blogging energies elsewhere.
Now, having spent yesterday engaged in Christmas decorating, rehearsing carols for next weekend’s Masses and so forth, I feel that to continue this discussion into Christmas season borders on the obscene.
To post part 2 now, and to engage in the renewed combox battles that would ensue, is not how I want to spend the last week of Advent and the Christmas octave, etc. It is time for believers to celebrate what we believe, not to spend hours battling contrary points of view.
Therefore, part 2 in this series will follow in January, and I will endeavor to limit further combox discussion here as much as possible. I apologize for keeping the interested hanging, but that’s the way it has to be.
Merry Christmas!
Mr. Graydenus,
You may be interested in this recent research. Perhaps what your comment section is experiencing is not so much a discussion of meaning as a reflection of lack of trust. “Do You Believe in Atheists? Distrust Is Central to Anti-Atheist Prejudice” http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~will/Gervais et al- Atheist Distrust.pdf
I may be censored on this blog, but something about it still makes me visit it sometimes—maybe the total lack of compassion Catholics display on this site is so hard to fathom.
All of your arguments are analytical. You claim everyone has “free will” but expect that everyone analyzes life instead of living it. I don’t stop to think my partner is “merely a bunch of atoms”—he is a warm, loving, and compassionate human being. It comes naturally to him—he doesn’t stop to think about helping other people because it’s what his religion dictates he should do.
I’m pretty sure you would would first ask a bleeding person whether s/he is a homosexual and/or an atheist before you decide to help.
Man’s inhumanity to man will not stop until man stops loving God and starts loving his fellow man.
Adrienne,
I assume you’re writing sincerely and in good faith, but for such a short, substanceless comment that’s an impressive amount of passive-aggression, straw manning and judgmental ad hominem you’ve crammed in.
Bill Halliman: Most minority groups in history, and many majority groups as well, have unfortunately been subjected to unfavorable stereotypes. On the subject of atheist credibility or lack thereof, I know it’s unfair to take comments like Adrienne’s above and apply them to all atheists, but they don’t do you any favors either, do they?
@Steven D. Greydanus on Monday, Dec 19, 2011 8:28 AM (EST):
“I see this discussion, starting from Brian Westley’s interesting question, as an inquiry into the implications of different worldviews.”
Okay. I understand. I have a naturalistic worldview, free of supernatural and mystical elements, and my ethics and actions are based on a naturalistic worldview. I have found this world view to be very practical and helpful in leading a good life, more so than the Catholic worldview, which, for me and others, falls short in providing congruence and meaning in 2012. However, supernatural worldviews, like Catholicism, work for many.
An inquiring into implications would take some time and I suspect be fraught with example and counter example. What is obvious is the Catholic worldview has a 2000+ year history of implications. How do you plan on addressing Worldview implications in Part II?
Part 2 is now posted. (Happy Ordinary Time, everyone!)
Bill Hallinan: There are many possible methodologies for an inquiry into the implications of different worldviews. Historical inquiry is certainly a valid and necessary method, and there have been many important contributions to that discussion, but it is beyond the scope of my present blogging project, which is an existential or philosophical inquiry. If you want me to recommend some historical resources, I would be happy to do so.
Okay, I admit the discussion is proceeding very slowly—lots of stuff pressing lately—but Part 3 is now up.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.