Atheism, neurobiology, and pleasure

[bandit4god]

He (B4G) doesn't seem to care for me very much. Just as well.

I care for you deeply, Attila.  I would give my life for yours, no exaggeration!  If you ever need anything at all, please send me a personal message and I will do all I can to help.  I had a ton of work to do last night, which is why I signed off.  

Oodles of posts to respond to, so let me try to group them thematically.

Theme 1:  "You are mistakenly equating atheism with hedonism or epicurianism"
Under the umbrella of atheism, I've proposed there are two orientations to "value" or "being of considerable significance, import, worth, or quality".
- Subjective:  value and its calculation thereof is different for each person
- Objective:  one or more things have value in an absolute sense for all people

For the subjective-value atheist, all statements of value can be traced back to pleasure.  Consider the following example of a dutiful recycler:
"I recycle my trash"
   "Why do you value that?"
"It helps the environment"
   "Why do you value that?"
"It makes the world a better place to live for this and future generations"
   "Why do you value that?"
"I feel like I'm doing my part"
   "Why do you value that?"
"Feeling like I'm doing my part makes me feel good"

For the objective-value atheist, some statements of value can be traced to pleasure while others can be traced to linkage with something of objective value.
"I recycle my trash"
   "Why do you value that?"
"It helps the environment"
   "Why do you value that?"
"It makes the world a better place to live for this and future generations"
   "Why do you value that?"
"It's my duty to make the world a better place"
   "Why do you value that?"
"Duty to the world is something of objective/absolute value"
   "So it makes you feel good to do your duty?"
"No, I hate it. I get no pleasure from it before, during, or after.  But through use of my reason, I know it has value."

Where does theism fit in this?  Depends on the theist.  Many Evangelical Christians contend that the old, subjective-value hardware is replaced with new, God-value hardware upon becoming a Christian.  In this way, a born-again Christian is able to make decisions (but doesn't always, not by a long shot!) that are both of value to the Christian (pleasure) AND of objective value to God.

Theme 2:  "I don't see why 'loving others, helping the poor, caring for the sick, visiting the prisoner, etc' are valuable exclusively to theists."
Theists see these things as having objective value--that is, having considerable significance, import, worth, or quality in an absolute sense.  I'm coming to learn that some atheists may believe the same, though I'm still not sure what objective taxonomy of value they are referring to when they believe that.

For the subjective-value atheist, these things are (consciously or not) a path to pleasure.
"I give to the poor"
   "Why do you value that?"
"It makes me feel good"

Theme 3:  "So being a theist is the only thing that prevents you from pursuing only pleasure?"
Short answer is yes.  I am capable of producing no objective value on my own--I'm an insignificant grain of sand in the dune of humankind, let alone in the universe!  So rationally, I would turn my perspective on value inward, resolving to dicover how to maximize my dopamine production which not eroding my dopamine receptors.

But the alternative, modeling my life after the One who produced the most value of any person who ever lived, gives me a way to produce real, objective value.

[Tank]

{snip}
I totally agree again Attila, some of us don't need a make-believe sky daddy in order to behave well towards our fellow humans.

I agree as well. I've met many nice atheists on forums and in real life. That doesn't mean all atheists are nice, some are really, really, really nasty. So atheists are just like everybody else, vast majority are nice people and some are complete arseholes. No God required, as usual.

[Attila]

I care for you deeply, Attila.  I would give my life for yours, no exaggeration!  If you ever need anything at all, please send me a personal message and I will do all I can to help.  I had a ton of work to do last night, which is why I signed off. 

Thanks for the kind words, Bandit and the even kinder offer. Appearances notwithstanding, I'm actually doing rather well. Growing old is not as bad as I thought it would be in spite of the aches and pains and the odd (=occasional) heart operation.
But enough of this. I'll let you get back to your serious work. 

[Sandra Craft]

I totally agree again Attila, some of us don't need a make-believe sky daddy in order to behave well towards our fellow humans.

If I remember right, this was turning up in another thread about human nature.  From what I've read, a tendency to care about other people, other creatures and the future is built into our nature -- most humans can't not care, and the individuals who don't are a tiny minority.  People can dress up caring as part of a religion, but that's just their personal preference -- it can also be dressed up as part of politics or philosophy or what have you.  Atheist or theist, we care because it's part of our animal nature.  

Having a capacity for empathy and a conscience doesn't seem to be a specifically human trait, it's one that can be found to some degree in a number of different animals and not just other primates.  My guess is that it's linked to intelligence, since the more intelligent a species is in general, the more likely the behaviors that indicate empathy and caring become.

[xSilverPhinx]

A bit of trivia: animal behaviorists ran an experiment with chimps in which, if one member of a group accepted food, that would cause the suffering of another member. Guess what happened? The chimp chose not to take the food, so as not to harm the other. Simplistically selfish nature?

Does the chimp have god in his heart? 

If you're interested, research mirror neurons, which do play a role in creating empathy, since it causes the brain to simulate what another brain might be doing or feeling. It's putting yourself in another's shoes.

As for objective values, the consequences ones actions on a larger group is objective. If you harm another person, the extent of that action isn't contained just in your subjectivity, and most  people, after giving it a moment of thought, will realise that actions have consequences beyond their subjective world (even though some take a bit longer to realise this, or just don't care).

For some, it's an objective law giver and judger or actions and thoughts, for others, it's the consequences on another who they don't want to see harmed. Whatever.

Though I do find it disturbing that you (and certain other religious people) say, that if it weren't for your theistic values, you'd be out there harming others with no restraint. Says quite a bit about you...

(I've located one such person, and he really does disturb me)

[Sandra Craft]

Out of all that baggage of words, here's where I think you're making mistakes:

Under the umbrella of atheism, I've proposed there are two orientations to "value" or "being of considerable significance, import, worth, or quality".

You've chosen to ignore it, but it's already been pointed out that "atheist" has no inherent value, it's merely a descriptive term like "blue-eyed".

I am capable of producing no objective value on my own

Objective or subjective, you and every other human being are the only ones who do "produce values".  We've been doing it since we crawled out of the primodial ooze.  Some people may call a set of values religion and claim an all-powerful being is behind it to make it sound more compelling, but we're the ones doing it.

[Too Few Lions]

Theme 1:  "You are mistakenly equating atheism with hedonism or epicurianism"
Under the umbrella of atheism, I've proposed there are two orientations to "value" or "being of considerable significance, import, worth, or quality".
- Subjective:  value and its calculation thereof is different for each person
- Objective:  one or more things have value in an absolute sense for all people
For the subjective-value atheist, all statements of value can be traced back to pleasure.  Consider the following example of a dutiful recycler:

A wholly wrong assumption. Not all people are driven by pleasure, and not everything people do is related to pleasure / making themselves feel good . Work is the prime example. I work in my job because I need to put a roof over my head, food on the table and pay my bills. I get absolutely no pleasure from it!

"I recycle my trash"
    "Why do you value that?"
"It helps the environment"
    "Why do you value that?"
"It makes the world a better place to live for this and future generations"
    "Why do you value that?"
"I feel like I'm doing my part"
    "Why do you value that?"
"Feeling like I'm doing my part makes me feel good"

For the objective-value atheist, some statements of value can be traced to pleasure while others can be traced to linkage with something of objective value.
"I recycle my trash"
    "Why do you value that?"
"It helps the environment"
    "Why do you value that?"
"It makes the world a better place to live for this and future generations"
    "Why do you value that?"
"It's my duty to make the world a better place"
    "Why do you value that?"
"Duty to the world is something of objective/absolute value"
    "So it makes you feel good to do your duty?"
"No, I hate it. I get no pleasure from it before, during, or after.  But through use of my reason, I know it has value."

I think you're wrong again. I recycle but I don't fall into either of the above divisions. I do it because I can see that it's a sensible logical thing to do. It doesn't make me feel good or give me pleasure, nor do I ascribe any absolute objective value to it. I'm not planning on having any children and I won't be here in 100 years time so the future state of the environment won't affect me. It just seems a sensible thing to do, and it's not much effort on my part.

For the subjective-value atheist, these things are (consciously or not) a path to pleasure.
"I give to the poor"
    "Why do you value that?"
"It makes me feel good"

I think you're wholly wrong in that assumption. Some people are just caring by nature. They don't do it to make themselves feel good. Just because you're not naturally so caring, it doesn't mean others aren't.

Theme 3:  "So being a theist is the only thing that prevents you from pursuing only pleasure?"
Short answer is yes.  I am capable of producing no objective value on my own--I'm an insignificant grain of sand in the dune of humankind, let alone in the universe!  So rationally, I would turn my perspective on value inward, resolving to dicover how to maximize my dopamine production which not eroding my dopamine receptors.
But the alternative, modeling my life after the One who produced the most value of any person who ever lived, gives me a way to produce real, objective value.

But all of the above is subjective! In my eyes you're modelling yourself around a mythical figure who never existed, and a religion that has produced more death and human suffering than possibly any other ideology in human history. Maybe you value what you feel you gain from your religion so much because you're not naturally that way inclined.

I also think we could turn your argument back on you and say that you only believe in your god, religion and 'modeling your life after the one who produced the most value of any person who ever lived', and believe there are 'real, objective values' because doing so makes you feel good and gives you pleasure!

[bandit4god]

A bit of trivia: animal behaviorists ran an experiment with chimps in which, if one member of a group accepted food, that would cause the suffering of another member. Guess what happened? The chimp chose not to take the food, so as not to harm the other. Simplistically selfish nature?

Does the chimp have god in his heart?  

If you're interested, research mirror neurons, which do play a role in creating empathy, since it causes the brain to simulate what another brain might be doing or feeling. It's putting yourself in another's shoes.

This is simply the same as saying, "The brain experiences stress when directly observing another suffer and pleasure when directly observing another have pleasure".  In what way is this germane to the consideration of value?

Objective or subjective, you and every other human being are the only ones who do "produce values".  We've been doing it since we crawled out of the primodial ooze.  Some people may call a set of values religion and claim an all-powerful being is behind it to make it sound more compelling, but we're the ones doing it.

I've noticed several folks have used the term "values" a few times.  Let's not confuse a loaded term like "values" (with a contextual meaning of "maxims", "dictates", or "principles") with the way I'm using value--considerable significance, import, worth, or quality.

I think you're wrong again. I recycle but I don't fall into either of the above divisions. I do it because I can see that it's a sensible logical thing to do. It doesn't make me feel good or give me pleasure, nor do I ascribe any absolute objective value to it. I'm not planning on having any children and I won't be here in 100 years time so the future state of the environment won't affect me. It just seems a sensible thing to do, and it's not much effort on my part.

Why do you value sensibility?  

Some people are just caring by nature.

What does this practically mean if not, "the reward center of their brain is activated by caring"?

I also think we could turn your argument back on you and say that you only believe in your god, religion and 'modeling your life after the one who produced the most value of any person who ever lived', and believe there are 'real, objective values' because doing so makes you feel good and gives you pleasure!

Yes, you could.  The only argument I'd have against it is trying to persuade you that before I was Christian, I was subjectively defining value and living accordingly; after becoming a Christian, I have been able to produce objective value and realize a joy that goes beyond biological.

For this reason, I'm thinking hard about the usefulness of my being a part of this forum.  If we were in closer proximity, I could convince you through acts of love and expressions of joy that I'm a very different b4g than I was before.  Over time, you'd see my actions as definitively different and unnatural from the way I used to naturally act and become convinced that my transformation was much more than mental and not motivated by any expectation of reward.  In this forum, however, I have only words.  Words can offer some love, but nothing compared to actions... so we'll always encounter this impasse, I'm afraid, where all I can do is assert that I am able to produce an objective value and derive joy from it that is neither biologically-derived nor my subjective creation.

[xSilverPhinx]

You're making it sound as if how you experience your values is not biologically based. You might want to clarify that, it's causing confusion, for me at least.

This is simply the same as saying, "The brain experiences stress when directly observing another suffer and pleasure when directly observing another have pleasure".  In what way is this germane to the consideration of value?

It ties to the objective value (not wanting another to suffer, even if that means a personal loss such as not eating) based on how the brain works and the subjective experience it causes. I doubt a chimp would think rationally about why it does this or project their feelings onto an objective being. Some just do it, without the need for philosophical debates on why it would be objectively valuable to want to minimize another of its kin's suffering over its own selfish desires. Does value only exist for beings able to think more or less rationally?

Also, doing good because it makes one feel good is also a selfish act, but which has good demonstrable objective consequences. Give all your belongings to the poor, and work for your bare minimum so that you can help someone you don't even know and then we'll talk about it not being selfish or without any reward in mind...

(Not that doing good things for biologically selfish reasons is a bad thing, that's not what I'm saying-selfishness can be very powerful if used correctly )

Answer honestly, if you knew (say the religious figure you emulate came down himself and told you) that you would go to hell, even after the life you've led thus far and that nothing you could do would change that, would you still value your values?

[bandit4god]

You're making it sound as if how you experience your values is not biologically based. You might want to clarify that, it's causing confusion, for me at least.

This is simply the same as saying, "The brain experiences stress when directly observing another suffer and pleasure when directly observing another have pleasure".  In what way is this germane to the consideration of value?

It ties to the objective value (not wanting another to suffer, even if that means a personal loss such as not eating) based on how the brain works and the subjective experience it causes. I doubt a chimp would think rationally about why it does this or project their feelings onto an objective being. Some just do it, without the need for philosophical debates on why it would be objectively valuable to want to minimize another of its kin's suffering over its own selfish desires. Does value only exist for beings able to think more or less rationally?

Also, doing good because it makes one feel good is also a selfish act, but which has good demonstrable objective consequences. Give all your belongings to the poor, and work for your bare minimum so that you can help someone you don't even know and then we'll talk about it not being selfish or without any reward in mind...

(Not that doing good things for biologically selfish reasons is a bad thing, that's not what I'm saying-selfishness can be very powerful if used correctly )

Answer honestly, if you knew (say the religious figure you emulate came down himself and told you) that you would go to hell, even after the life you've led thus far and that nothing you could do would change that, would you still value your values?

Love this post.  Now you're thinking, gang!

However, I'm seeing the term "values" crop up again.  If, by this, you mean "that which is valuable" (objective) or "that which one considers valuable" (subjective), we can proceed.  Usually "values" is used to mean "maxims" or "principles", which would be something different.

You're making it sound as if how you experience your values is not biologically based. You might want to clarify that, it's causing confusion, for me at least.

The joy I experience is not biologically based--there is no dopamine production involved, no strictly physical "feeling" such as I get when I eat, have sex, or learn something cool.  It can only be described as a deep, profound connectedness, some sort of meta-feeling in the conscious self that is at once awe, peace, bliss... I know it sounds incredibly cooky, but words just aren't fit for purpose in this case.

It ties to the objective value (not wanting another to suffer, even if that means a personal loss such as not eating) based on how the brain works and the subjective experience it causes. I doubt a chimp would think rationally about why it does this or project their feelings onto an objective being. Some just do it, without the need for philosophical debates on why it would be objectively valuable to want to minimize another of its kin's suffering over its own selfish desires. Does value only exist for beings able to think more or less rationally?

The bolded portion above is giving a lot of credit to the monkey... again, aren't we simply saying that observing stress causes stress (which Mr. Monkey wants to avoid) and observing pleasure causes pleasure (which Mr. Monkey wants to do, unless he's learned he can get more pleasure by doing something else).

Also, doing good because it makes one feel good is also a selfish act, but which has good demonstrable objective consequences. Give all your belongings to the poor, and work for your bare minimum so that you can help someone you don't even know and then we'll talk about it not being selfish or without any reward in mind...

Would you become a theist if I did?  If so, send me a personal message and we should talk.

Answer honestly, if you knew (say the religious figure you emulate came down himself and told you) that you would go to hell, even after the life you've led thus far and that nothing you could do would change that, would you still value your values?

One of my favorite questions.  This is the case of Job, is it not?  In this ultimate experiment of theism, Job was put through hell to determine if belief in God and obedience to Him is mercenary.  I hope my response would be the same as his:

  At this, Job got up and tore his robe and shaved his head. Then he fell to the ground in worship and said:

  "Naked I came from my mother's womb,
  and naked I will depart.
  The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away;
  may the name of the LORD be praised."

  In all this, Job did not sin by charging God with wrongdoing.

[Too Few Lions]

I think you're wrong again. I recycle but I don't fall into either of the above divisions. I do it because I can see that it's a sensible logical thing to do. It doesn't make me feel good or give me pleasure, nor do I ascribe any absolute objective value to it. I'm not planning on having any children and I won't be here in 100 years time so the future state of the environment won't affect me. It just seems a sensible thing to do, and it's not much effort on my part.

Why do you value sensibility?  

because it seems sensible to  

Some people are just caring by nature.

What does this practically mean if not, "the reward center of their brain is activated by caring"?

I really don't think that comes into it. It seems to me some people are just naturally caring, just as some are violent or some are shy. I guess it's the way their brain's wired. I'm naturally shy, i get no pleasure from being shy, in fact I find it a total pain in the arse. I think some people are naturally caring in the same way.

I also think we could turn your argument back on you and say that you only believe in your god, religion and 'modeling your life after the one who produced the most value of any person who ever lived', and believe there are 'real, objective values' because doing so makes you feel good and gives you pleasure!

Yes, you could.  The only argument I'd have against it is trying to persuade you that before I was Christian, I was subjectively defining value and living accordingly; after becoming a Christian, I have been able to produce objective value and realize a joy that goes beyond biological.

For this reason, I'm thinking hard about the usefulness of my being a part of this forum.  If we were in closer proximity, I could convince you through acts of love and expressions of joy that I'm a very different b4g than I was before.  Over time, you'd see my actions as definitively different and unnatural from the way I used to naturally act and become convinced that my transformation was much more than mental and not motivated by any expectation of reward.  In this forum, however, I have only words.  Words can offer some love, but nothing compared to actions... so we'll always encounter this impasse, I'm afraid, where all I can do is assert that I am able to produce an objective value and derive joy from it that is neither biologically-derived nor my subjective creation.

Obviously I don't believe there is such a thing as 'objective value', so I think you're just kidding yourself.  What are these 'objective values' and how can you prove to me that they exist, and aren't just you assigning the word 'objective' to values I consider subjective.

I also still think your argument can be fully turned on you. The reward centres of your brain are now activated by your belief in god and everything that comes with that, which has replaced whatever you relied on before your conversion. There are plenty of ex-alcoholics and drug addicts that have gone on to get religion, and I think there's a good reason for that!

[Too Few Lions]

Would you become a theist if I did?  If so, send me a personal message and we should talk.

You've said this kind of thing a few times and it does have an unsavoury ring of proselytising

One of my favorite questions.  This is the case of Job, is it not?  In this ultimate experiment of theism, Job was put through hell to determine if belief in God and obedience to Him is mercenary.  I hope my response would be the same as his:

But Job is just a story, thankfully it never actually happened! And I'm sure it was written to try and promote the kind of blind allegiance to the faith that you're professing.

[Sandra Craft]

I've noticed several folks have used the term "values" a few times.  Let's not confuse a loaded term like "values" (with a contextual meaning of "maxims", "dictates", or "principles") with the way I'm using value--considerable significance, import, worth, or quality.

You're sidestepping the point -- value or values, subjective or objective, humans create them.

The joy I experience is not biologically based

How would you know?  Have you run tests on yourself at these times?  Because there are scientists who have run tests on people at such times and they did find a biological basis for the experience, even wrote a book about it (called Why God Won't Go Away, significantly enough).

It can only be described as a deep, profound connectedness, some sort of meta-feeling in the conscious self that is at once awe, peace, bliss... I know it sounds incredibly cooky, but words just aren't fit for purpose in this case.

It's not "kooky" at all, it's exactly the sort of experience the above mentioned scientists found a biological basis for.

[bandit4god]

The joy I experience is not biologically based

How would you know?  Have you run tests on yourself at these times?  Because there are scientists who have run tests on people at such times and they did find a biological basis for the experience, even wrote a book about it (called Why God Won't Go Away, significantly enough).

I'd be quite interested in reading the book, so thanks for the recommendation!  I'll note that observing biological changes is different that finding these experiences are biologically-based.  The interface between brain (physical-stuff) and consciousness (mind-stuff) is not clear, and the joy I'm describing is consciousness-based.

[Sandra Craft]

and the joy I'm describing is consciousness-based.

Again, how do you know?  Particularly is the interface is not clear?