Happy Atheist Forum

Hello everyone, I've been lurking here for a couple of months so pardon the first post being this.  Even though I'm a stranger to you all, from my end I've listened to you all long enough I already have that creepy internet "wow I know these people" feeling.

Anyway, on to the question cus I think a two line substance-less intro was plenty fine.  :headbang:

-Ihateusernames
PS: I hate choosing a "new user name!" when registering anywhere online, if you couldn't tell

Hi, I'm glad you decided to move out of lurking mode.

Are you just looking for books about atheism or are you specifically looking for books about atheistic morality?

books, webpages, scholarly papers etc... related specifically to atheistic morality yep! : )  

Sorry for not being more clear!

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"books, webpages, scholarly papers etc... related specifically to atheistic morality yep! : )  

Sorry for not being more clear!

Hmm....the only thing I can think of right off hand is http://www.ethicalatheist.com/ (http://www.ethicalatheist.com/)  (they have a forum too, but please don't leave us   )  I guess anything about Secular Humanism would also be a good resource.

Most of the 'atheist' morality stuff I've read has been more about if morality can come from nature of if a god must provide morality.  Aside from that my reading about morality has just been the various moral views...while many of them don't require a god they are not necessarily written with the intention of being for atheists.  Maybe you could pick up a book on Philosophy of Ethics?  I found it very interesting and I'm pretty sure taking that course has affected my own moral viewpoint.

For whatever reason, we didn't touch upon nihilism in my ethics course (which was taught by an atheist, I only know he was an atheist because the prof was basically my husband's mentor)....but my understanding is that nihilism is the view that there is not objective value and some extend this to cover no morality.  I think that a basis for morality can be found through studies on the evolution of morality and that on a very basic level it can be seen as objective.  So, maybe studying some studies on morality might also help you.  I use to have a really cool link about evolution and morality but it was on my laptop that died and I haven't been able to refind it.

I keep veering that way as well, I have learnt to live with it.

Objectivism

Ayn Rand's your gal.  http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro

Just be careful to avoid Rand's economic theories, which do not have root in empirical evidence.

John Stuart Mill had some interesting Liberal ideas.

Quote from: "John Stuart Mill"The object of this Essay is to assert one very simple principle, as entitled to govern absolutely the dealings of society with the individual in the way of compulsion and control, whether the means used be physical force in the form of legal penalties, or the moral coercion of public opinion. That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

On Liberty (http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645o/)

He published it in 1859 so the language might seem a unusual by today's norms.

Quote from: "Will"Just be careful to avoid Rand's economic theories, which do not have root in empirical evidence.

My employer is enamored with her economic theories, something which I try to avoid discussing with him nowadays... (I'd go so far as calling him a "Rand fundamentalist".. pretty crazy if you ask me!)

Hello, Ihateusernames. Welcome to the forum.  

As to your question, it's important to understand that an unfettered reason will always end up split into two dialectical illusions; the first being that there must be a god to set up absolute moral standards, and the second being that there are no moral standards whatsoever. Those enamoured of reason in this way are in a bind, because reason can not justify a god, and nihilism leads to despair.

But the problem is the unfettered use of reason, ungrounded in any objectivity. So, I doubt you will find any satisfactory arguments that will deter you from nihilism, simply because all the arguments you will trust must be grounded absolutely in reason, and all of those arguments lead to the same problem.

I think a tentative solution might be to come down from the ivory tower of scholarly reason and simply observe your environment, observe your problems, observe others, observer your ideas/feelings/yearnings. Just observe, and then, when all is said and done, act in the way that feels moral to you. You may think that such a tactic is faulty, as it is not grounded in reason. I understand. Many who are enamoured of reason would say that. But the idea isn't to continue trusting reason, but to trust in something more objective: in this case, your own personal experience.

You see, your dillema is stemming precisely from your committment to unfettered reason, without being tempered by anything that can be objective. But experience is objective. We all experience the universe the same. The idea then, is to get away from relying completely on experience, and relying a little more on experience.

I still don't see how reason can only lead to god exists and controls morality or there is not god and nihilism is true.

Rene...please define what you mean by reason.  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/REASON (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/REASON)  From my understanding of the word, you are not being reasonable if you don't involved objective reality in your reasoning process.

I think what Renegnicat is getting at is this. There is a tradition in rationalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism) of disregarding the human experience. The rationalist view is that all knowledge can be found deductively from a set of basic axioms, taking a completely detached stance from our senses and experiences. Descartes is a good example of a rationalist. Much of his Meditations on First Philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meditations_on_First_Philosophy) are his trying to rationalize god back into the picture after his claimed experiment in nihilism. He rejects everything (he says). That's the nihilism part. I agree with him. Take humanity out of the picture and there is nothing to judge value or interpret meaning. Nihilism is the honest conclusion. No humans means no meaning or value. But Descartes didn't stop there. He rationalized a way to bring god back into the picture. Plato got up to similar chicanery with his realm of ideal forms.

So I think the point is that rationalism alone is not an effective way for a human to find value and meaning. I don't think that means you shouldn't use reason though. Reason is one of those good ideas that becomes a bad idea if you use it to exclusion of all else. Combine it with a bit of empiricism and you get science and it becomes a much more powerful tool. It's still not a tool that gets you out of nihilism. I believe some psychologists call it "the hard problem."

My solution: the way I see it, I create the value and the meaning. Take me away and the value and the meaning go away, which is consistent with nihilism and doesn't lead to despair. The meaning and value can be anything I want in principle. But my physiology and psychological workings will tend to make me prefer some over others, just like everyone else.

Did I get it right Renegnicat?

=)

NoNONOO!!!

JK yeh u got it.  

Quote from: "Whitney"I still don't see how reason can only lead to god exists and controls morality or there is not god and nihilism is true.

Rene...please define what you mean by reason.  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/REASON (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/REASON)  From my understanding of the word, you are not being reasonable if you don't involved objective reality in your reasoning process.

Whitney, this is exactly why I started this thread.  I wanted to know if there IS a way that there could be morality greater than 'I say/you say' lacking a god.  please explain where this middle ground you talk about in your questioning of the god morality or nihilism debate! : )

Ihateusernames, the middle ground is direct experience. The two poles are accepting phantasmal absolutes as real or, alternatively, rejection of everything as phantasmal.

But the middle ground is direct experience.

Quote from: "Renegnicat"Ihateusernames, the middle ground is direct experience. The two poles are accepting phantasmal absolutes as real or, alternatively, rejection of everything as phantasmal.

But the middle ground is direct experience.

So, say I kill someone and it's extremely fun.  Direct experience tells me killing is fun, and furthermore reason tells me there is no good or evil or absolutes.  Does that then make murder moral for me?

(sorry for anyone reading this and the other thread... and noticing the same question for Renegnicat over and over... and over, but I figure if I ask him enough he might eventually answer. )

You need only recognize two things:

1. It's extremely fun for you.
2. It's extremely painful for them.

Now read the other thread. I hope that helps.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"So, say I kill someone and it's extremely fun.  Direct experience tells me killing is fun, and furthermore reason tells me there is no good or evil or absolutes.  Does that then make murder moral for me?

I live in a society that frowns on killing people and I wouldn't find it fun. In some societies, for example tribal societies, killing those out of group is / was acceptable, maybe even moral. For me, the degree to which I comply with my society and the degree to which I diverge from it is important. Rationalism can lead to a false dichotomy between god and nihilism. Nihilism is valid if you accept the premise that there are no humans. It is unsound though because there are humans and they have values and interpret meaning. That appears to be how brains work. Those values and meanings are every bit as real whether they are about god or football.

Simple ignorance of the issue or blind conformity to society is enough to avoid the question of god / nihilism. If you're a thinker it gets more complicated. In my world, the rules of society are a benchmark that I deviate from (slightly) by creating / adjusting its values. It's not a case of follow society's rules, be a murderer or believe in god. There all kinds of interesting ways I can deviate from society by varying amounts and in different directions. If I have a goal in life, it is to deviate in the most interesting ways I can find. Murder, religion and nihilism do not interest me.

Quote from: "AlP"I live in a society that frowns on killing people and I wouldn't find it fun. In some societies, for example tribal societies, killing those out of group is / was acceptable, maybe even moral.

Apply this to the holocaust, and does it mean that it was moral for the Germans do to what they did? ... I find it hard to believe many people would actually answer this question yes.

Quote from: "AlP"For me, the degree to which I comply with my society and the degree to which I diverge from it is important. Rationalism can lead to a false dichotomy between god and nihilism. Nihilism is valid if you accept the premise that there are no humans. It is unsound though because there are humans and they have values and interpret meaning. That appears to be how brains work. Those values and meanings are every bit as real whether they are about god or football.

Ethical Nihilism doesn't require there to be "no humans", Just no objective meaning to human life. A person having an opinion (values and interpretation) doesn't speak at all to the question of objective morality (aka that god vs nihilism thing).

Anyway, I keep hearing this over and over, that there is a "false dichotomy between god and nihilism" and yet I can't seem to find anything that substantiates this claim.  How exactly is it a false dichotomy?  The entire point of this thread was to explore this "middle ground."

Quote from: "AlP"Simple ignorance of the issue or blind conformity to society is enough to avoid the question of god / nihilism. If you're a thinker it gets more complicated. In my world, the rules of society are a benchmark that I deviate from (slightly) by creating / adjusting its values. It's not a case of follow society's rules, be a murderer or believe in god. There all kinds of interesting ways I can deviate from society by varying amounts and in different directions. If I have a goal in life, it is to deviate in the most interesting ways I can find. Murder, religion and nihilism do not interest me.

By no means was I trying to make it sound that if you embrace nihilism you might as well go out and murder someone, however we must also admit that there are people in this world that take pleasure in murdering others.  if it is acceptable (as you are saying) to slightly deviate from social mores, what makes it unacceptable to greatly deviate from the norms (with things such as murder?)

Honestly, as far as I can tell you are just accepting ethical nihilism and choosing to live like there are absolute morals even though there aren't.  I don't really see your post as a middle ground between Nihilism and god, maybe a middle ground between Nihilism and despair, but not between god and Nihilism.

Oh, fer crying out loud, if you really have no problem with nihilism than go ahead and kill yourself or your mom or your dog or whoever the hell you want allready. Jesus H. Tittyfuck Christ Monkeyballs, what a whiner...

Quote from: "Renegnicat"Oh, fer crying out loud, if you really have no problem with nihilism than go ahead and kill yourself or your mom or your dog or whoever the hell you want [already[. Jesus H. Tittyfuck Christ Monkeyballs, what a whiner...

Hah... oh lordy lord, someone discussing philosophy in the philosophy forum that has a different opinion than you and has generally treated your disparaging comments with decorum (at least I feel I did!) HOW DARE HE, eh?... ;)

PPS: You are rather silly in your statements.  I obviously have problem with Nihilism, if you couldn't tell I'm trying to figure a way OUT of nihilism, but I can't negating a theistic worldview.  After that post I realize just how little you are listening and how much you are blathering to hear your own voice.  Ugh, well like good ol' Thomas said "I have not failed [in discourse]. I've just found [strike:1k98kidg]10,000 ways[/strike:1k98kidg][one person] that won't [strike:1k98kidg]work[/strike:1k98kidg][think]. "

Ahhh I love butchering people's quotes for my own needs!  

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"

Quote from: "AlP"I live in a society that frowns on killing people and I wouldn't find it fun. In some societies, for example tribal societies, killing those out of group is / was acceptable, maybe even moral.

Apply this to the holocaust, and does it mean that it was moral for the Germans do to what they did? ... I find it hard to believe many people would actually answer this question yes.

Yes this is a very difficult issue if you can't fall back on an absolute system that tells you what you should and should not do. I imagine some of those who perpetrated the holocaust thought that what they were doing was at least right if not moral. And quite possibly some of them absolutely thought it was moral. And that's not the only example. Another example would be the the stoning of a woman accused of adultery on religious grounds. There's no end to the horrible things people have done on the basis of their morality.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"Anyway, I keep hearing this over and over, that there is a "false dichotomy between god and nihilism" and yet I can't seem to find anything that substantiates this claim.  How exactly is it a false dichotomy?  The entire point of this thread was to explore this "middle ground."

I will try to explain what I mean in a different way. Nihilism is correct in the sense that there are no meanings or values. There aren't because this is a fallacy called reification error. They aren't real things. They're abstract concepts. What's actually going on is that people are interpreting things and judging things. That is easily observable and objective. People do both those things all the time. In my mind, the error is in turning those two behaviors into real things called meanings and values. The nihilist says these things don't exist. What they should say is that meanings and values are an example of reification error and that it is the actions of interpreting and judging that exist, or perhaps more accurately happen.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"

Quote from: "AlP"Simple ignorance of the issue or blind conformity to society is enough to avoid the question of god / nihilism. If you're a thinker it gets more complicated. In my world, the rules of society are a benchmark that I deviate from (slightly) by creating / adjusting its values. It's not a case of follow society's rules, be a murderer or believe in god. There all kinds of interesting ways I can deviate from society by varying amounts and in different directions. If I have a goal in life, it is to deviate in the most interesting ways I can find. Murder, religion and nihilism do not interest me.

By no means was I trying to make it sound that if you embrace nihilism you might as well go out and murder someone, however we must also admit that there are people in this world that take pleasure in murdering others.  if it is acceptable (as you are saying) to slightly deviate from social mores, what makes it unacceptable to greatly deviate from the norms (with things such as murder?)

It is unacceptable to me probably primarily due to the society I live in and my upbringing. There's also the fact that we have evolved in a way that at least gives us the possibility of behaving that way, if our society encourages it. I would also like to think that there is an element of personal choice in it. I like to deviate from social norms. To not do so would be passive nihilism. But there's a limit. You can't put a number on just how far I will deviate but there is a limit. It's not a limit derived from some absolute system of morality. It's just the way I've been programmed by my upbringing and my society.

Quote from: "Ihateusernames"Honestly, as far as I can tell you are just accepting ethical nihilism and choosing to live like there are absolute morals even though there aren't.  I don't really see your post as a middle ground between Nihilism and god, maybe a middle ground between Nihilism and despair, but not between god and Nihilism.

I'm existentialist.