2 2
mbohu

Inconsistencies with Atheism

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, jakee said:

You're talking about free will vs predeterminism. You're misunderstood because you misrepresented the discussion.

No. Here is the inconsistency:

Religious person: "My religion makes me moral. Therefore religion is good and necessary."
Atheist: "No. Atheists can be moral. In fact here is how religion is not a good moral system, and here is why atheists can actually be more moral:..."
(This is an argument you can see presented often by Mat Dilhaunty, Richard Dawkins, etc.)
When really, what they SHOULD be saying is: "Morality is irrelevant. As far as we know, there really isn't such a thing. You THINK you are moral, when in reality you simply HAVE to act the way you do because of physical laws."

Now, the issue with this is, that this then completely makes the entire discussion irrelevant, because, for the same reasons, there is NO WAY the religious person could not be religious, nor is there a way the atheist could not be an atheist. Both are slaves to the firings of their synapses. No reason the atheist should feel superior or more intelligent. It's not his achievement.

What I really THINK though, is that no one TRULY believes that kind of determinism. Because everyone acts (HAS to act) as if they had control over their lives.

Hence the inconsistency.

(And: it isn't really about determinism as such, because there are ways that indeterminate events--such as quantum fluctuations--can be part of the physical infrastructure BUT that still doesn't change anything, because unless you believe that quantum indeterminism is controlled by consciousness or some such thing--the kind of woowoo stuff atheists would be horrified by--the indeterminism of chance doesn't change the fact that no conscious influence can be taken.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, mbohu said:

No. Here is the inconsistency:

Religious person: "My religion makes me moral. Therefore religion is good and necessary."
Atheist: "No. Atheists can be moral. In fact here is how religion is not a good moral system, and here is why atheists can actually be more moral:..."
(This is an argument you can see presented often by Mat Dilhaunty, Richard Dawkins, etc.)

And they are correct. Atheism is at least as good a basis for morality as religion. 

 

42 minutes ago, mbohu said:

When really, what they SHOULD be saying is: "Morality is irrelevant. As far as we know, there really isn't such a thing. You THINK you are moral, when in reality you simply HAVE to act the way you do because of physical laws."

...

Hence the inconsistency.

That’s called begging the question.  You may think consciousness is either an illusion or the inhabitant of a metaphysical realm beyond the knowable universe but you haven’t proved it. You can’t simply assume it is true and then use it as a ‘gotcha’ trap. 

 

You are, again, simply using a god of the gaps approach. And confusing the issue by pointlessly framing it as a morality discussion. It really is your fault that people weren’t getting your point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

In the 'Grand Scheme of Things', you are right. 

No action that I take has any real effect on the Universe. It's too big. The Total Perspective Vortex showed this.

But to think that I can take any action, and it has no effect and because of that, 'morality' doesn't exist is a pretty disingenuous position to take.

It has effect on other people. And those other people can then take action that affects me.
That's called 'society'. 

And, not surprisingly, the mores of any given society dictate it's acceptable and unacceptable actions.

As a fairly extreme example, would it be moral for me to kill someone?
Reality says 'it depends'.

In some societies, the level of 'acceptable' killings is quite strict. In others, its much more lax.

There are societies that permit 'honor killings'. The murder of one's child because they brought 'disgrace' on the family.
There are other's that frown upon killing, even in self defense. The laws in the US have relaxed a good bit in recent years, but even up until the 1990s, there were states that didn't permit 'self defense' killings unless the killer was defending himself, his family or his servants. And the killer had to show he had done everything possible to avoid the killing, including fleeing his own home at risk to himself (situations like jumping out of a second story window). 

"Morality" is an entirely human construct. As is religion.

The former is necessary for society to function. The latter is a big aid in enforcing the former. 

The 'morality enforcement' that religion brings is one reason that religion flourished in early societies.

I took the argument to mean that if there is no god, then life is pure physics and thus concepts such as morality exist only in the perceived consciousness of the individual experiencing the perceived consciousness.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I took the argument to mean that if there is no god, then life is pure physics and thus concepts such as morality exist only in the perceived consciousness of the individual experiencing the perceived consciousness.

Kinda - but also that the person experiencing the perceived consciousness is actually a biological robot that is acting automatically on predetermined responses to stimuli.

 

the problem is that the rest of the argument relies on the assumption that this is both true and accepted by the other party, which is why it’s reached an impasse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, pchapman said:

But that's doesn't make morality any less real as a concept. Religion or not, every society ends up trying to have some form of morality, which is a concept about fairness, justice, not causing harm, and whatnot.

Well, but doesn't there have to be a YOU that is capable of making a decision, in order for morality to exist? See, you say: "every society TRIES..." This assumes that there is someone who can TRY to do something (rather than something else; so you can decide NOT to kill your neighbor versus killing him)
But if every single thought in your mind (including the one "I want to kill my neighbor") is simply an effect of something that you have no control whatsoever over (your neurons firing in your brain, which simply fire because of physical laws that force them to), then how can there be any moral or immoral action?

Think of your brain like a pool table and the neurons like billiards balls. Let's say the thought "kill my neighbor" is manifested by the 8-ball going into a corner pocket: The reason the 8-ball goes into the pocket is simply because it was hit in a certain way by another ball, which in turn was hit by another ball before, etc. etc. Once it has been hit, you cannot prevent it from going into the pocket (and in fact, once the very first ball was hit, the outcome is already clear). It is simple physics. In case of your brain, the physical actions that make the "kill neighbor" neuron fire, were set into motion long before you even came into existence, and there is simply nothing YOU can do to stop it from happening.
The only way you can have an influence is, if there is something that your consciousness can do, that can have some kind of influence on this firing of synapses, that is OUTSIDE of the purely physical law. But that would be woowoo!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jakee said:

That’s called begging the question.  You may think consciousness is either an illusion or the inhabitant of a metaphysical realm beyond the knowable universe but you haven’t proved it. You can’t simply assume it is true and then use it as a ‘gotcha’ trap.

Let's try to come at it from a different angle:

So let's start with: consciousness is neither an illusion, nor does it exist as an inhabitant of some metaphysical realm.

So, let's then say that consciousness is just a name for the collection of physical matter and activity in the brain--correct me if that is again an assumption that you do not subscribe to, and maybe you can define what it is for you.

If this is the case, then we have to consider that the brain is simply embedded in the physical world around it and reacts to stimuli in a way that is predetermined by physical laws. It cannot "decide" to react one way or another. So: It does not make any decisions as such. We really cannot say that the brain is moral or immoral. It has no choice in the matter. If consciousness equals brain, then we have to completely redefine the word "moral" in order to apply it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, mbohu said:

Let's try to come at it from a different angle:

So let's start with: consciousness is neither an illusion, nor does it exist as an inhabitant of some metaphysical realm.

So, let's then say that consciousness is just a name for the collection of physical matter and activity in the brain--correct me if that is again an assumption that you do not subscribe to, and maybe you can define what it is for you.

If this is the case, then we have to consider that the brain is simply embedded in the physical world around it and reacts to stimuli in a way that is predetermined by physical laws. It cannot "decide" to react one way or another. So: It does not make any decisions as such. We really cannot say that the brain is moral or immoral. It has no choice in the matter. If consciousness equals brain, then we have to completely redefine the word "moral" in order to apply it here.

I understand where this is going, I think.

Consciousness come down to electronic transmission from synapse to synapse.

And we know that we can affect the synapses with application of electricity.

So with the right combinations of electrical impulses - theoretically one could give another person their morality.  Hence - it is simply an illusion and only a biochemical reaction.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

So with the right combinations of electrical impulses - theoretically one could give another person their morality.  Hence - it is simply an illusion and only a biochemical reaction.

Yes. But not only "could". This is how it works right now, every single time, if you truly believe that consciousness equals only brain activity. In a sense, what you wrote and what I am writing right now is simply an effect of synapses firing, which is determined by other physical occurrences (such as the photons from the screen hitting my retinas, etc) and I have no choice in writing this whatsoever.

Personally, I find that an untenable philosophy, but I really don't think anyone thinks the "brain=consciousness" theory through to its logical conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, mbohu said:

Yes. But not only "could". This is how it works right now, every single time, if you truly believe that consciousness equals only brain activity. In a sense, what you wrote and what I am writing right now is simply an effect of synapses firing, which is determined by other physical occurrences (such as the photons from the screen hitting my retinas, etc) and I have no choice in writing this whatsoever.

Personally, I find that an untenable philosophy, but I really don't think anyone thinks the "brain=consciousness" theory through to its logical conclusion.

I think it's the hollow place in your chest with all the feels.  That is your base of morality.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, mbohu said:

Let's try to come at it from a different angle:

That’s not another angle, that’s the same angle using slightly different words. I understand your point. 

 

Its still just a god of the gaps approach. Just because we don’t fully understand how the brain generates consciousness yet doesn’t mean that free will must be metaphysical. Therefore, premising all your arguments of what atheists should say based on the assumption is begging the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
On 1/7/2020 at 7:27 PM, mbohu said:

But, there is one logical problem, I think Atheists*) have, and I haven't seen this addressed very well:
If you look at it in terms of the source of one's moral values, there really is nothing in atheism that one could base one's moral values on. On the contrary, at least given the definition of atheism in my footnote, everything in that particular "belief system" points to seeing "moral values" as an illusion, or irrelevant in terms of having any real effects on reality. This does not preclude atheists from being "moral" people, but it does point to the fact that--at least in purely logical terms--their morality cannot have its source in their atheism. It is something quite separate from it.

But that’s just demonstrably false.  The concept that you’re looking for is called moral philosophy, and it can exist with or without a belief in a deity or deities.  There are libraries full of books on utilitarianism, consequentialism, virtue ethics, and so on that define ethics without reference to a deity or deities, other libraries full of books on how to determine what is moral (normative ethics) and other libraries full of books that apply those various theories in proscriptive ways (in other words, what is a person morally obligated to do in a particular situation and what are they morally mandated to do in that situation?)

A moral code is not a faith or belief in a deity. They don’t really even overlap: You can have Christian utilitarians and atheist utilitarians, for example. 

In fact, I’d argue that in most cases, religion doesn’t actually answer a lot of moral questions.  For example: the Trolley Problem - a great thought experiment in ethics.  (Google it; it’s too much to write here.) What would the Christian answer to the Trolley Problem be? (It’s pretty clear that there isn’t one - or at least there is no uniform one, so your ethical code isn’t too clear.)

Edited by Skwrl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2020 at 10:51 AM, Skwrl said:

A moral code is not a faith or belief in a deity.

You did not understand what I was saying. I said nothing about deities. (You may not have followed the entire discussion, which is understandable)

But since you bring up the Trolley Problem, let's switch topics entirely, because this is an interesting one:
It is based on a completely utilitarian definition of morality, which I think is not a good definition.
Morality really isn't about calculating costs versus benefits, (5 dead people versus one dead person, etc.) and I think this way of defining morality has led to some real catastrophes in human history (calculating "megadeaths", and justifying some terrible wars, etc.)
Morality is more about certain principles (which, although they are likely to be colored by individual and cultural factors, may also have some universal aspects to them). So, I wouldn't even say that there is much morality involved in switching the train to one track or another, if you are simply calculating the benefit of either decision.

There IS morality involved in saying you won't throw the fat man on the track, even if that COULD save 5 lives, because in this case you are likely acting out of some internal principles, which override your simple stone-cold calculation.

What's interesting is of course, that most people will say, they'll switch the train to a track with one person, but will NOT throw the fat man on the track (and people who like that example will say how stupid that is, because both actions have the same results in terms of number of dead people), but this shows that we have evolved to understand that morality is more than a simple benefit calculation--and I think that's a good thing.

 

Of course the entire train example is extremely contrived to begin with, because it leaves out the possibility of anything happening between the train choosing one track or another and the impact. It also assumes that you can calculate with certainty that the fat man will stop the train, but your own body won't, etc. It generally assumes that you know all possible outcomes exactly, and real morality exists especially in those places where you do NOT know outcomes with any kind of certainty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2020 at 9:35 PM, JerryBaumchen said:

Hi mbohu,

And I think you should quit insulting people.

Jerry Baumchen

Hi Jerry,

 

Wow! I'm so sorry. I really don't see how I am insulting people. On the contrary: I get the feeling that I want to engage in an interesting exchange of ideas and concepts and find that a lot of people react by personal attacks. (Not you, as far as I can tell, nor the poster who I responded to in this particular post) But please let me know how I was in any way insulting anyone with this post (or really any other one) Any one sentence, particularly in this post that was insulting?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
50 minutes ago, mbohu said:

Any one sentence, particularly in this post that was insulting?

If I may be so bold as to respond for Jerry, his single line quote of you makes it clear what he found insulting:

quote: (You may not have followed the entire discussion, which is understandable)

By that line, you meant:

"You have obviously not followed the entire discussion. The discussion is not easy for anyone to follow because it is so fragmented, so even though you are an intelligent person, the messy format of this thread caused you to miss a few points"

But Jerry read it as:

"You have obviously not followed the entire discussion. It is a straightforward set of posts, but because you are stupid, I would not have expected you to be able to follow it."

-------------

we will see if Jerry agrees with my read...

 

Edited by SethInMI
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, SethInMI said:

If I may be so bold as to respond for Jerry, his single line quote of you makes it clear what he found insulting:

quote: (You may not have followed the entire discussion, which is understandable)

By that line, you meant:

"You have obviously not followed the entire discussion. The discussion is not easy for anyone to follow because it is so fragmented, so even though you are an intelligent person, the messy format of this thread caused you to miss a few points"

But Jerry read it as:

"You have obviously not followed the entire discussion. It is a straightforward set of posts, but because you are stupid, I would not have expected you to be able to follow it."

-------------

we will see if Jerry agrees with my read...

 

nice breakdown     

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SethInMI said:

If I may be so bold as to respond for Jerry, his single line quote of you makes it clear what he found insulting:

quote: (You may not have followed the entire discussion, which is understandable)

By that line, you meant:

"You have obviously not followed the entire discussion. The discussion is not easy for anyone to follow because it is so fragmented, so even though you are an intelligent person, the messy format of this thread caused you to miss a few points"

But Jerry read it as:

"You have obviously not followed the entire discussion. It is a straightforward set of posts, but because you are stupid, I would not have expected you to be able to follow it."

-------------

we will see if Jerry agrees with my read...

 

Ha! Great analysis, thanks! (and as you wrote, only Jerry can say if that's what it was)
Myself, I thought the "which is understandable" made pretty clear what I meant.

 

I would like to offer a suggestion:

What if we just discussed the actual topics and--if we had to make any assumptions at all--we simply make the assumption that the other person meant whatever they said in the best possible way...or in any case simply not veered off into these side-discussions about style and assumed intentions? They simply distract from the topic.

Personally I think the thread is confusing because of these kinds of distractions. It is hard enough to communicate in a useful way when people are coming from very different angles at an issue.

 

 

And NO!!!!!!!!!!! By the above paragraph I do not mean to say "You are all idiots and can't even stay on topic, and I am the only one who is staying on topic"

Hey, eventually we may even become aware of these pesky images that we tend to form in our minds of others (or in our brains, as some would say) , usually based on one or two opinions we read from them (which most likely we didn't even fully understand); images like: "trump supporter", "libtard", "religious nut", "conservative", "typical atheist" "probably a Bernie supporter", etc. ...all standing in the way of actually hearing what that person is saying RIGHT NOW about this SPECIFIC TOPIC --and we can try to hear past those made up images? No? Too much to ask?     Yeah, probably...I can't really do that so well either!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, mbohu said:

Ha! Great analysis, thanks! (and as you wrote, only Jerry can say if that's what it was)
Myself, I thought the "which is understandable" made pretty clear what I meant.

 

I would like to offer a suggestion:

What if we just discussed the actual topics and--if we had to make any assumptions at all--we simply make the assumption that the other person meant whatever they said in the best possible way...or in any case simply not veered off into these side-discussions about style and assumed intentions? They simply distract from the topic.

Personally I think the thread is confusing because of these kinds of distractions. It is hard enough to communicate in a useful way when people are coming from very different angles at an issue.

 

 

And NO!!!!!!!!!!! By the above paragraph I do not mean to say "You are all idiots and can't even stay on topic, and I am the only one who is staying on topic"

Hey, eventually we may even become aware of these pesky images that we tend to form in our minds of others (or in our brains, as some would say) , usually based on one or two opinions we read from them (which most likely we didn't even fully understand); images like: "trump supporter", "libtard", "religious nut", "conservative", "typical atheist" "probably a Bernie supporter", etc. ...all standing in the way of actually hearing what that person is saying RIGHT NOW about this SPECIFIC TOPIC --and we can try to hear past those made up images? No? Too much to ask?     Yeah, probably...I can't really do that so well either!

That's not really how it works here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2020 at 11:35 PM, JerryBaumchen said:
On 1/17/2020 at 10:44 PM, mbohu said:

 (You may not have followed the entire discussion, which is understandable)

Hi mbohu,

And I think you should quit insulting people.

Jerry Baumchen

Hi Jerry,

mbohu is probably one of the most thoughtful and respectful intellectuals on this site.  He is an inspiration, even if I don't always agree with him.

I'm just glad he even bothered to come back here after your unwarranted and jaded judgement against him.  Perhaps you need a break from this place to get your perspective straight.  You should be ashamed of yourself, lol.

 

Anyway, wrt atheistic inconsistencies, here's an article I posted awhile back:

"just because you believe in evidence-based, scientific research – which is subject to strict checks and procedures – doesn't mean that your mind works in the same way."

"The problem that any rational thinker needs to tackle, though, is that the science increasingly shows that atheists are no more rational than theists. Indeed, atheists are just as susceptible as the next person to "group-think" and other non-rational forms of cognition. For example, religious and nonreligious people alike can end up following charismatic individuals without questioning them."

" Clearly, the idea that being atheist is down to rationality alone is starting to look distinctly irrational.  But the good news for all concerned is that rationality is overrated.  Human ingenuity rests on a lot more than rational thinking. . . The truth is that humans are not like science – none of us get by without irrational action, nor without sources of existential meaning and comfort. Fortunately, though, nobody has to."

https://phys.org/news/2018-09-atheists-rational.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/17/2020 at 10:44 PM, mbohu said:

You did not understand what I was saying. I said nothing about deities. (You may not have followed the entire discussion, which is understandable)

I had not; I was responding to your comment.

Having said that, I think you're mixing a few things up.     What you are calling "atheism" in your (alternate) definition is actually better described as physicalism, I think.  You are then saying that this atheism/physicalism cannot be the basis of morality.  I'm willing to completely agree that it's not the *basis* of morality; a moral code exists or doesn't without regard to it, and can be determined by a bunch of principles that are independent to theism/atheism (using your terms).   They are different things, and serve different purposes.

Quote

Morality really isn't about calculating costs versus benefits, (5 dead people versus one dead person, etc.) and I think this way of defining morality has led to some real catastrophes in human history (calculating "megadeaths", and justifying some terrible wars, etc.)
Morality is more about certain principles (which, although they are likely to be colored by individual and cultural factors, may also have some universal aspects to them). So, I wouldn't even say that there is much morality involved in switching the train to one track or another, if you are simply calculating the benefit of either decision.

There IS morality involved in saying you won't throw the fat man on the track, even if that COULD save 5 lives, because in this case you are likely acting out of some internal principles, which override your simple stone-cold calculation.

This is one perfectly reasonable way of making that conclusion.  But not the only one.  Ethics describe different possible answers, from utilitarianism (save five even if sacrifice means kill one) to deontological ethics (we have a rule that says don't kill people; therefore we should apply that rule, even if the consequence to do so is others dying).   Theists (using your definition) don't come up with much different answers than atheists in these puzzles.  So what's the different "basis"?  

I'll take it a step further: one could be a Theist (using your definition) and not have a moral code either.  One could believe in a God or a transcendent or something beyond the physical and still not then conclude, "aha, I should do this or that..."  If there is a transcendent reality, how do I know what it wants me to do?  The one (atheism/theism) doesn't address the other (moral ethics).

So, if "atheism" (using your terms) isn't the basis for morality, neither is "theism" (using your terms).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

2 2