Atheism, neurobiology, and pleasure

[Whitney]

bandit...if you are asking if any of the atheists here believe in objective morality then just come out with it.

You'll get a combination of yes, no, and maybe responses; well assuming that enough people respond to demonstrate the wide range of responses individual atheists give to that question.

I'm in the it seems to be that way and the foundation of morality would be empathy towards others but it's also complicated since what is good for one group is not good for another and there can be more than one right approach to a given situation.

[bandit4god]

People (irrespective of their theistic/atheistic views) live their lives to minimise stress, hunger, thirst and any number of negative situations they find themselves in. They may also gain pleasure from reading a good book, drinking a fine wine, masturbating or raping a choir boy.

Human motivations are complex and unique because our brains are complex and unique.

I live my life to keep a roof over my head, food on the table and the central heating running. I think that 99% of the human population don't live for pleasure but from the simple need to eat, drink and keep a roof over the heads of their families. Thus pleasure is a 'red herring' in terms of day-today motivations for all but the rich and terminally hedonistic.

Science is quickly approaching a point at which it could say with confidence which stimuli (and mixture thereof) generate the most dopamine production over time.  (I understand this is oversimplifying the neuroscience of reward, but hereafter I'll use the proxy of "dopamine production" to represent the complex biochemical process of one experiencing of pleasure)  It is just as natural to imagine that scientists could target their recommended stimuli of what generates the highest volume of dopamine production by the "customer's" background, income level, and any number of other contextual conditions.

Overlay on this the answer to the earlier question, "Do you believe there are valueable actions/outcomes in an absolute sense?"  Tank's above answer seems to be "no".

Why, then, would Tank or any other reasonable atheist overlook the above scientific research and live of life of sub-optimal dopamine production?

[Whitney]

um...it's hard for doctors to prescribe the right anti-depressant to someone; they aren't close at all to figuring out the perfect formula to making people continually content let alone continually optimally happy.

[xSilverPhinx]

Some drugs can give reasonable people a dopamine rush (and a whole lot of other problems with it), does that mean that reasonable people should seek them out?  Frequent users might see themselves as living a life of sub-optimal dopamine production when they're not high...

[Asmodean]

You may wish to reverse the order of those two 

Nono, first MASSIVE killing spree, then sleep with top five at the same time while they are alive and otherwise undamaged, then gnaw their heads off. 

...Then perhaps try the necrophilia OldGit suggested... Could be... Interesting. Oh! And then, cook and eat their brains.

[bandit4god]

bandit...if you are asking if any of the atheists here believe in objective morality then just come out with it.

Not morality, value.  My question has always been, "Do you believe actions/outcomes can be valuable in an absolute (objective) sense?"
- if yes, why?
- if no, do you take the next logical step, make a concerted effort to discover what brings you the most pleasure and fill your life with it?  If so, how?  If not, why not?

um...it's hard for doctors to prescribe the right anti-depressant to someone; they aren't close at all to figuring out the perfect formula to making people continually content let alone continually optimally happy.

Thinking too narrow... remove the adverse affects of crystal meth and you're there.

If that makes you squirm, consider instead the fascinating thought experiment of the neverending, blissful dream (think "The Matrix").  If you could plug into a dream world free to perform the most dopamine-producing mixture of life events for the rest of your life (even get to test it for an hour beforehand to make sure it works), would you?  If you say no, it may be a clue that you actually do believe in valuable actions/outcomes in an objective sense.  If you say yes (as millions of World of Warcraft addicts have!), you're perfectly coherent with atheism.

[Attila]

My question has always been, "Do you believe actions/outcomes can be valuable in an absolute (objective) sense?"
- if yes, why?
- if no, do you take the next logical step, make a concerted effort to discover what brings you the most pleasure and fill your life with it?  If so, how?  If not, why not?

Asked and answered already. Try and read more carefully.
Are you sure that you're not asking us to do your homework for you? The phrasing of your questions lend themselves to this interpretation.

[Recusant]

If you could plug into a dream world free to perform the most dopamine-producing mixture of life events for the rest of your life (even get to test it for an hour beforehand to make sure it works), would you?  If you say no, it may be a clue that you actually do believe in valuable actions/outcomes in an objective sense.  If you say yes (as millions of World of Warcraft addicts have!), you're perfectly coherent with atheism hedonism.

OldGit has already pointed out that you are describing a hedonist position, not atheist. You responded with what I consider to be a disingenuous assertion that you're "trying to put myself in the shoes of an atheist." You ignored what he had told you, and proceeded to assert that people who do not believe in absolute value must "scientifically" be judged to be intent on an "exercise in pleasure." What scientific evidence do you have to back up your position? Until you produce some, I cannot see why anyone would take your position of equating atheism with hedonism seriously.

Even if you can produce scientific evidence which shows that a person who does not believe in absolute value is automatically thereby devoted to making life an exercise in pleasure, that is irrelevant to atheism. Atheists may believe in "absolute value," even if they don't believe that such value is determined by a deity. You may find it hard to accept, but there is no reason that lacking a belief in deities means one cannot believe that there are absolute values.

[bandit4god]

OldGit has already pointed out that you are describing a hedonist position, not atheist. You responded with what I consider to be a disingenuous assertion that you're "trying to put myself in the shoes of an atheist." You ignored what he had told you, and proceeded to assert that people who do not believe in absolute value must "scientifically" be judged to be intent on an "exercise in pleasure." What scientific evidence do you have to back up your position? Until you produce some, I cannot see why anyone would take your position of equating atheism with hedonism seriously.

Is not the rational extension of (atheism & all-value-is-subjective) doing what one values as pleasurable?  I don't mean pleasurable in any seedy way, mind you, could be learning, art, etc.

Even if you can produce scientific evidence which shows that a person who does not believe in absolute value is automatically thereby devoted to making life an exercise in pleasure, that is irrelevant to atheism. Atheists may believe in "absolute value," even if they don't believe that such value is determined by a deity. You may find it hard to accept, but there is no reason that lacking a belief in deities means one cannot believe that there are absolute values.

I'm interested in this group (atheism & objective-value-exists) more than any other, but can't seem to find any willing to step forward, describe their taxonomy of value, and explain why it is so.

Would you care to, Rec?

[Recusant]

Is not the rational extension of (atheism & all-value-is-subjective) doing what one values as pleasurable?  I don't mean pleasurable in any seedy way, mind you, could be learning, art, etc.

By adopting such a position, one would merely be putting pleasure in pride of place over any other perceived good: "[T]he doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the sole or chief good in life." (Merriam-Webster) Hmm. Let's compare that to "a disbelief in the existence of deity." (Ibid.) It would appear that you are badly off track. You have not shown this supposed direct "rational extension," nor have you produced any scientific evidence which would support such a "rational" position. Until you do either or both, I feel justified in considering your argument a feeble caricature of atheism.

I'm interested in this group (atheism & objective-value-exists) more than any other, but can't seem to find any willing to step forward, describe their taxonomy of value, and explain why it is so.

Would you care to, Rec?

I don't happen to agree with this position, so I would be arguing for something that I myself do not accept. I might do so as an exercise in rhetoric, but one of the reasons I didn't pursue life as an attorney is that I'm not really interested in building skills in argumentation to hire them out. However, if you're truly interested in learning about an atheist position which asserts that there are objective (and depending on one's definition, "absolute") values and objective morality, you might read Sam Harris's book The Moral Landscape.

[Whitney]

Thinking too narrow... remove the adverse affects of crystal meth and you're there.

You said scientists were almost there....if meth is as close as you think they can get then there is a LONG way to go.  Almost all effects of meth are negative; especially after long term use.

If that makes you squirm, consider instead the fascinating thought experiment of the neverending, blissful dream (think "The Matrix").  If you could plug into a dream world free to perform the most dopamine-producing mixture of life events for the rest of your life (even get to test it for an hour beforehand to make sure it works), would you?  If you say no, it may be a clue that you actually do believe in valuable actions/outcomes in an objective sense.  If you say yes (as millions of World of Warcraft addicts have!), you're perfectly coherent with atheism.

Watch Vanilla Sky for an example of why doing that would be a bad idea.

Frankly, I don't even know what you mean by "Values" because you are using them in reference to pleasure and even most theists wouldn't say that that kind of values are objective.   That's why I thought you were talking about moral values.  Perhaps if you were more clear....

[bandit4god]

Frankly, I don't even know what you mean by "Values" because you are using them in reference to pleasure and even most theists wouldn't say that that kind of values are objective.   That's why I thought you were talking about moral values.  Perhaps if you were more clear....

Valuable:  of considerable significance, import, worth, or quality

The discussion of objective/subjective morality is well-trodden ground by this point, but I've always found the discussion of objective/subjective value much more interesting.

An example based on a true exchange from another thread:

"I've made it my purpose to tear down silly superstition"

    "Why do you find that valuable?"

"Are you really asking me why I want to promote reason?"

    "Yes.  Is it objectively valuable, or just valuable to you?"

"Wow, you sure live in a bubble."


Or let's come at this a different way.  If I became an atheist tomorrow, I'd reasonably conclude as part of my new worldview that there is no objective value (though I'm interested in reading Sam Harris at Recusant's recommendation to see the flip side of this).  So what then would be valuable to this one person?  That which causes me the most pleasure (not necessarily the baser kinds, but not ruling that out).

True, there would be a certain theist "residue" that would be screaming that it's valuable to love others, help the poor, care for the sick, visit the prisoner, etc--but as a new atheist that does not believe in the objective value of such activities, I would tamp down this urge and make every effort to follow the path of reason.

Thereafter, I'd use my reason to leverage the latest scientific findings and knowledge of my own preferences to develop a plan to maximize the dopamine production in my lifetime.  What about this approach is non-rational?

[Whitney]

and why do you think not having objective value is an atheistic stance?  It's not like all Christians believe in the exact same set of values let alone all theists.

I think the reason objective vs subjective value is never really discussed (outside of philosophy of aesthetics) is because value is inherently subjective.

[Asmodean]

I think the reason objective vs subjective value is never really discussed (outside of philosophy of aesthetics) is because value is inherently subjective.

Yes. Otherwise, we wouldn't even be able to buy and sell stuff.

[bandit4god]

and why do you think not having objective value is an atheistic stance?  It's not like all Christians believe in the exact same set of values let alone all theists.

I think the reason objective vs subjective value is never really discussed (outside of philosophy of aesthetics) is because value is inherently subjective.

Neither "all Christians" nor "all theists" qualify as a conscious agent that can believe anything.  I was only speaking for the rational point of view I would take if I resolved to be an atheist...

...a point of view you seem to agree with.  Though I hear atheists very commonly--more commonly than I would expect--make bold, sweeping value assertions such as the following:

"I want to do that which will benefit my species"

"We should promote a sustainable environment for future generations"

"The progress of science is essential to a prosperous future"

Subjective?  Really?  If one with an atheist, subjective-value worldview is reasoning clearly, why wouldn't that translate to attempting to maximize the dopamine production of his/her life?