An atheist morality

[nellikin]

Continuing on from the general discussion about reviewing Ratz rules recently, and the tangent about whether atheism was a worldview or not (see http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... &start=160).

...atheism is not a worldview, because it does not teach us what is right or wrong, how to make value judgements, which ethics we accept etc...

Accepting the existence of a god thingy despite any lack of evidence is wrong. Ultimately, that is a value judgment, and it is made on the basis of empiricist dogma. We also refuse to accept ethics if their sole foundation is anchored in 'holy books'.

Saying that accepting something without evidence is wrong is not a value judgement. A value judgement doesn't dictate what is right or wrong in the sense of facts, it dictates what is right or wrong in a "good" vs. "bad" sense. If you told me the sky was purple today (it is actually blue as I look out the window), and I said you are wrong I'm not making a value judgement. I'm not saying you are good or bad, merely wrong. There is no value judgement in contracting something which is factually proofable. There is only a value judgement if you imply that an incorrect assertion makes you "bad" or a correct one "good".

In this sense, atheism is not a worldview, because it does not teach us what is right or wrong, how to make value judgements, which ethics we accept etc... In fact, atheists range the entire political spectrum and do not use their lack of belief to justify certain viewpoints, as a rule (though I personally do and have a very strong atheist ethics). As such, in a philosophical sense, atheism is not a worldview, but merely a part of the range of ideas humans can have to interpret/understand their world...

The bolded part seems to contradict the rest of what you said ... atheist ethics (which I am all for, btw) ...

I don't think my identification of my atheist ethics contradicts the fact that atheism in general isn't a worldview. This is because atheism doesn't have a set of absolute values which are dictated to us atheists. I have developed my own set of morals (and learned them from family, friends, society etc.) which I believe are rational and reasonable, and derived from/compatible with my atheistic views, but in the end I can accept that I'm not an absolute authority and there are other intelligent, rational people out there who have ethics that they too can "derive" from their atheism. I know of right-winged atheists who can completely reconcile their political views with their atheism.

My personal atheist morality, which I believe derives strongly from my complete conviction that there is no god, no afterlife, no supernatural, no bloody woo of any kind can be summed up as follows:

Firstly - hedonism.

There is no god/afterlife/woo-shit to be afraid of. We have nothing to lose or gain, except in this life, so we should make the most of it and enjoy it. Don't try to punish yourself for stuff-ups you may have made: learn from them, move on, enjoy life and don't fear eternal damnation in the hereafter!

Secondly - egalitarianism.

There is no god who selected a special race/gender for his/her own plan to dominate the world. We evolved from randomly developed organic compunds, which are truly ancient. Due to geographic differences, different human societies developed different skills and lifestyles. No one race - nor gender! - is superior to another and has the right to impose a lifestyle on others. Every human has the right to be treated with respect and dignity, regardless of heritage. Dogmatic repression of entire groups of people (e.g. women) is abhorrent.

Thirdly - environmentalism.

There is no god to supply us with endless resources/goods/products to meet our needs. There is no god who enabled us - as his chosen species - to plunder the earth as we wish. We evolved as part of an intricate biosphere - planet earth - which we are not only a part of but completely dependant upon to supply all the resources we and all other species on earth need for survival. We are not a chosen species but merely an intelligently evolved one. Due to our complete dependance on this earth, and the enormously intricate machinations of nature (which we kinda-sorta-understand in a general sort of way), we are complete idiots to treat this earth as an infinite providor of all we need. If we wish to have a future on earth, living in an environmentally sustainable way is our only option.

Anyway, that kinda somes up my atheist morality/ethics. Sorry for rattling on in a dogmatic way (hehe). Maybe other people have other views they have derived from their atheism and would wish to share with us?

[Blondie]

TLDR

How can one derive anything from a perfect vacuum?

Morals cannot be derived from atheism as atheism provides no foundation for a system of beliefs or a code of ethics. It has been repeated ad naseum that atheism is simply the lack of belief in God or gods. You may take the Hegelian interpretation if you like of thesis and anti-thesis wherein the existence of a God or gods is the proposition forwarded by the thesis and the atheism is the corresponding anti-thesis, however you'd first have to formulate a cogent thesis forwarding that proposition - something which has, thus far, proved impossible to do. Until such time as you do formulate a cogent thesis and work out its corresponding anti-thesis in depth you have no basis in "atheism" on which you can build any system of ethics or beliefs.

Your system of ethics is derived not from your atheism, but, perhaps, because of it.

[Animavore]

How can one derive anything from a perfect vacuum?

Virtual particles

[Blondie]

How can one derive anything from a perfect vacuum?

Virtual particles

Smart ass.

[Hermit]

Saying that accepting something without evidence is wrong is not a value judgement.

I happen to be of the opinion that accepting something without evidence is indeed wrong, but I am under no illusion that it is bereft of value judgment. I value beliefs grounded on empirically based evidence more than beliefs based on faith, intuition, the reading of tea leaves or any other method. The reason I prefer the former to the latter, however, is not self evident. It is because I think it works better for us, and that in turn is another value judgment.

[Atheist-Lite]

Saying that accepting something without evidence is wrong is not a value judgement.

I happen to be of the opinion that accepting something without evidence is indeed wrong, but I am under no illusion that it is bereft of value judgment. I value beliefs grounded on empirically based evidence more than beliefs based on faith, intuition, the reading of tea leaves or any other method. The reason I prefer the former to the latter, however, is not self evident. It is because I think it works better for us, and that in turn is another value judgment.

But does it work better or simply more efficiently? There is no doubt a pre-industrial/enlightenment worldview, a theistic one, could never have developed the technology we have today. Yet what has this been used for except to push the global environment towards it's ecological tipping points? Perhaps being deluded is a protection mechanism since too much reality is obviously harmful for both humans and other species?

[Trolldor]

No.

The denial of the impacts of man-induced climate change - which have been reported since the 70's and perhaps earlier - is a reflection of delusion.

An evidenced-based world view is not a value judgement unless you apply subjective characteristics to it.

[Atheist-Lite]

No.

The denial of the impacts of man-induced climate change - which have been reported since the 70's and perhaps earlier - is a reflection of delusion.

An evidenced-based world view is not a value judgement unless you apply subjective characteristics to it.

Subjectivity is inevitable. Any worldview is held by beings running on emotions, neurons firing scatterlike, hormones etc. There are no objective facts outside of human experience. It stands to reason that objectivity is useful but it has feet of clay and any usage is governed by the 'whims' of silly apes.

[Hermit]

Saying that accepting something without evidence is wrong is not a value judgement.

I happen to be of the opinion that accepting something without evidence is indeed wrong, but I am under no illusion that it is bereft of value judgment. I value beliefs grounded on empirically based evidence more than beliefs based on faith, intuition, the reading of tea leaves or any other method. The reason I prefer the former to the latter, however, is not self evident. It is because I think it works better for us, and that in turn is another value judgment.

But does it work better or simply more efficiently?

In the context of this discussion it doesn't matter. We can't get away from the fact that everything we think (and as a consequence of those thoughts say and do) is ultimately a result of value judgments.

[HomerJay]

It's not an Atheist Morality, it's an atheistic or secular morality.

Value judgements don't just relate to moral judgements, they can for example be judgements about the usefulness or relevance of evidence.

[Trolldor]

No.

The denial of the impacts of man-induced climate change - which have been reported since the 70's and perhaps earlier - is a reflection of delusion.

An evidenced-based world view is not a value judgement unless you apply subjective characteristics to it.

Subjectivity is inevitable. Any worldview is held by beings running on emotions, neurons firing scatterlike, hormones etc. There are no objective facts outside of human experience. It stands to reason that objectivity is useful but it has feet of clay and any usage is governed by the 'whims' of silly apes.

Subjectivity is hardly 'inevitable'.

Tell me, what is the subjectivity that plays in the Earth orbiting the Sun?


Edit: Mindfucked myself while typing.


Edit 2: And again.

[charlou]

Edit: Mindfucked myself while typing.


Edit 2: And again.

I like it when that happens.

[jcmmanuel]

...In fact, atheists range the entire political spectrum and do not use their lack of belief to justify certain viewpoints, as a rule (though I personally do and have a very strong atheist ethics).

I agree that atheists may have strong ethics, but I would not call them atheistic, no more than I would usually call my ethics 'Christian', because our best ethics are by all means a human trait.

As such, in a philosophical sense, atheism is not a worldview, but merely a part of the range of ideas humans can have to interpret/understand their world...

I think if theism is a worldview, then atheism is one too, inevitably so. It is, however, also true that parts of what we believe are simply our state of mind, or our mindset. A worldview is the name of the understanding of our world in a complex way, because it is related to a lot of different observations, experiences, beliefs - and this happens to all of us, including theists / atheists.

I always find it strange when an atheist attempts to have atheism be observed as 'not a worldview'. If it isn't, then the 2 immediate effects of that may be a) atheism may represent very little, and/or b) your worldview must be something else, but then atheism may not be important. And I would support that idea, in a positive way (but still, atheism is important as a radical worldview for many others). On the other hand, I would still say that atheism is at least part of a worldview, or maybe it is a 'thin' worldview (a minimalized one). I think atheism is ultimately a way of simplifying the toughest questions of life (and religion seems to be the opposite of that).

I don't think my identification of my atheist ethics contradicts the fact that atheism in general isn't a worldview. This is because atheism doesn't have a set of absolute values which are dictated to us atheists.

But worldviews don't necessarily dictate things. My being Christian does not dictate me to close my mind either. I'm open to doubts or questioning every part of it. This may be true for an atheist too of course (and this would in both cases be the opposite of fundamentalism, not the opposite of theism or atheism).

...there are other intelligent, rational people out there who have ethics that they too can "derive" from their atheism. I know of right-winged atheists who can completely reconcile their political views with their atheism.

I agree. I also know at least 2 atheists who believe in some sort of creator for instance. Not that they would think of this creator as the biblical god of course. So the picture is more nuanced than many think. There is no such thing like 'the' atheist or 'the' theist.

My personal atheist morality, which I believe derives strongly from my complete conviction that there is no god, no afterlife, no supernatural, no bloody woo of any kind

Afterlife is not the point, supernatural isn't either (since quantum physics making a difference between natural and supernatural makes less sense anyway), but I highly doubt if the idea of a god would not have brought to you the ethics you now believe in, given the fact that god was on 99,99 per cent of the minds of people in the past. And the meaning of this god was that he (or she or 'it') either created or connected us in one way or another. You cannot deny that this was in people's mind in the past for thousands of years, and that is why even Nietzsche did not even try to deny it, nor other brilliant analysts (Max Weber et al). You cannot defeat your own history. (I'm not saying you want to - I'm just saying you cannot do it even if you would want it). That is the problem with Hitchens' book too. It's easy to fish in the big lake of the past and point out the dead fish. But the 'religious lake' of the past is so vast that most dead fish must be found there. Yet there's all these living fish too. Religion did not make all those people step out of life - it was part of their lives. And it is this way that mankind developed our moral values, our Human Rights declarations and so on.

There is no god/afterlife/woo-shit to be afraid of. ... enjoy life and don't fear eternal damnation in the hereafter!

Sounds a bit too simplistic to me. Afterlife is not necessarily something to be afraid of, neither does the idea of afterlife make people flee from the current life as we live it - quite the contrary for many believers. Again: these things are usually more nuanced than we tend to think or we tend to say in one-shot arguments during discussions like these.

Secondly - egalitarianism. There is no god who selected a special race/gender for his/her own plan to dominate the world.

If this is your way to defend ethics from an atheist point of view, I can understand. Yet, again, be careful that atheism isn't just throwing mud to theists in order to look more beautiful to the world. Egalitarianism would have been your better argument here, as atheist. But contrasting that with theism would require stronger arguments to 'invalidate' a reasonable theistic point of view - we have brains too, you know? At least some of us;-) When I believe we are created in Imagio Dei (to the image of God), there's no place for racism in there. If racism creeps in, it usually is not because of atheism or theism, but because of power mongering, because of politics. The whole 'contrast it with theism' approach makes your arguments weaker than they would have been if you would try to defend your atheist position without too strong a focus on 'anti'-theism.

We evolved from randomly developed organic compunds, which are truly ancient.

Not really. Evolution theory as we know it today has long passed the stage of 'random'. Evolution is not random, it is far more sophisticated in terms of its selection criteria. Evolutionary change is restricted by laws of chemistry and physics and by the way (molecular) biology really works. Natural selection is not random, it selects for successful phenotypes, something that actually works. We cannot yet explain it, but we know it isn't random.

Every human has the right to be treated with respect and dignity, regardless of heritage.

I like that very much. This is where atheists and theists may actually meet.

...environmentalism. There is no god to supply us with endless resources/goods/products to meet our needs

Actually this sounds more like classical liberalism (the belief that our needs are endless and our resoures limited). It isn't particularly a religious thing, not even Christian - but certainly not so in other world religions either. Again: the problem with atheism may often be the wish to prove theism as being the worse model. I don't think this is easy to argue.

There is no god who enabled us - as his chosen species - to plunder the earth as we wish.

Plundering is not how the Jews formulated it. It was more a matter of being a good housekeeper. It can't be wrong to acknowledge mankind's capacity to manage things, much more than animals do, isn't it? This is, in my opinion, understanding our responsibility as humans. That is what I read from the Jewish formulation in Genesis. If you want to argue that they were talking about plundering, you have the meaning of those Hebrew terms against you, as far as I can see.

Sorry for rattling on in a dogmatic way (hehe). Maybe other people have other views they have derived from their atheism and would wish to share with us?

Good point - atheists can be dogmatic too. Of course, theists are usually better at it (unfortunately).

I'm sorry if you expected only atheist replies. But let's be serious: even while I'm a convinced Christian, I think I could easily share 95 per cent of essential thoughts with atheists. I have at least as much agnosticism in my bones as most atheists. Dogmatism tends to look at ideas as very monolithic, while in reality we are all in the same boat - we just don't realize it. But apart from that, I'm not attracted to atheism as such - this is not what I would call the best way to understand my world. In that, we differ.

Kind regards.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Oh, goodie.

[Hermit]

I think if theism is a worldview, then atheism is one too, inevitably so.

Theism, as such, is not a world view, though, nor is atheism one. The only thing theists have in common with each other, is a belief in a god thingy, and the atheists' common denominator is no more than the lack of belief in one. You simply cannot lump adherents of the Westboro Baptist sect in with Unitarians on the one hand, nor humanists with communists. The spectra of both theists and atheists are simply too wide and varied to meaningfully speak of a theist or an atheist worldview beyond a belief / lack of belief in a supernatural entity.