For quite some time I have been thinking about questions regarding meaning, purpose, and value. Ever since I became an atheist back in 2009 I've been operating under the assumption that we have to make our own meaning. It wasn't until this year however that the implications of this really unpacked themselves for me.
During much discussion amongst friends, and in a group that I'm part of at my university, on the topic of morality I came to realise that I am a moral nihilist. I don't think moral facts exist. Morality to me is a useful fiction that allows society to function as a cohesive unit. I even gave a presentation to the group (we regularly hold academic lectures after class time at university, usually from guest speakers, though I gave this talk) on the topic of morality and the is/ought problem. The video of the presentation will be uploaded to youtube soon, and I'll post it here when it is. The crux of my presentation was that morality simply cannot be objective, and to suggest that it is seems like a category error. Morality isn't the kind of thing that can be objective, moral propositions aren't the kind of things that can be true or false, they are something else.
That aside, acknowledging my moral nihilism caused me to look further into nihilism. I realised that I had never really understood what nihilism actually was. I fell for the common misconception that nihilists were people who didn't believe in, or care about anything. This simply isn't the case, it's a caricature of the position. Nihilism is, and always has been the rejection of any inherent meaning, purpose, or value in life or the universe. At this stage I'm uncertain whether I'm willing to go so far as to reject the possibility of knowledge, though I am willing to concede that all of our knowledge of the physical universe is at a base level, drawing off assumptions and intuitions. Take for example the idea that we can trust our perceptions, and that the data we collect about the physical world is real. These cannot be proven, they are simply brute assumptions we have to accept on an intuitive level, though they seem to be useful.
My actual moral positions have not changed as a result of this revelation however. With the possible exception of a heightened sense of (subjective!) value for meaningful self-determination. My nihilism didn't arise out of pessimism, though I certainly express a considerable amount of pessimism at the idea of human progress, but that can wait till another time.
Think about it. I certainly will.
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Friday, June 14, 2013
Objective Morality
is Bullshit.
While I think the quest for an objective metric of morality is often well intentioned it is extremely misguided. This is particularly the case for quests for scientific metrics of morality. Science is by nature, in the business of figuring out how things work. This helps us hugely in informing our ethical systems, though giving us a better understanding of things like sentience, and its possible implications for other species and so on. What it does not do is provide us with moral imperatives.
Moral imperatives are wholly subjectively derived. I would go so far as to say they are inter-subjectively derived but no further. What I mean by this is that we construct our ethical beliefs based on what subjective effects actions have on other ethical beings (by this I mean being capable of ethical thought). We may be able to detect through brain activity what effect some actions may potentially have, but this does not tell us what is good, only what *IS*. We must then appeal to our ethical construct, which has been inter-subjectively defined. This is what I mean by science informing morality, but not constructing it.
More on this in the future.
While I think the quest for an objective metric of morality is often well intentioned it is extremely misguided. This is particularly the case for quests for scientific metrics of morality. Science is by nature, in the business of figuring out how things work. This helps us hugely in informing our ethical systems, though giving us a better understanding of things like sentience, and its possible implications for other species and so on. What it does not do is provide us with moral imperatives.
Moral imperatives are wholly subjectively derived. I would go so far as to say they are inter-subjectively derived but no further. What I mean by this is that we construct our ethical beliefs based on what subjective effects actions have on other ethical beings (by this I mean being capable of ethical thought). We may be able to detect through brain activity what effect some actions may potentially have, but this does not tell us what is good, only what *IS*. We must then appeal to our ethical construct, which has been inter-subjectively defined. This is what I mean by science informing morality, but not constructing it.
More on this in the future.
Friday, October 14, 2011
Faith and Intuition
Many Christians laud faith as a virtue, and value intuition and gut feelings as confirmation of their beliefs. I reject all of this as unreliable, and it is my goal to elucidate why.
I will start by defining what I mean by faith, and then respond to some theistic uses of it. I accept the definition of faith in the letter to the Hebrews in the New Testament. "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." Hebrews 11:1. So the atheistic definition that 'faith is belief without evidence' is accurate to the definition found in Hebrews. If Christians wish to dispute this they should take it up with the New Testament canon and the anonymous author of the epistle, not with us.
When dialoguing with Christians, I am often scolded for not giving faith a chance and that I'm dogmatically accepting scientific naturalism. I would like to point out that I did give faith a chance, I was raised on faith. I consciously followed the Christian faith and bought into its conclusions for years. I read apologetics and debated online with atheists for about 4 years before jumping ship. I also do not dogmatically accept anything. If it became apparent that scientific naturalism was not producing intellectual progress or contributing to the wealth of knowledge that furthers the advancement of our species, I would abandon it just as I abandoned by former religion. The thing is though, that scientific naturalism is making progress, and we are constantly finding out more and more about the world we live in by scientific methods.
The other common thing that I hear from the Christians that I discuss/debate with is that they think faith is a path to knowledge. This is usually coupled with the two statements in the previous paragraph. When I have asked how faith is a path to knowledge, I am only ever met with distractions and diversions. I don't see the connection between faith as defined in Hebrews and knowledge. How can you learn something from having confidence in what you hope for, or from having assurance about what you don't see? In every aspect of my life I learn things by examining the world around me, or by listening, reading or doing things. I have never learned anything by believing something a priori, without evidence. In fact I contend that doing so is the antithesis of learning, and only takes away from potential knowledge, rather than contributing to it as my theist friends insist. On top of the dodging of this question, I have never received an acceptable answer when I ask what knowledge faith has given them. If as they say faith is an alternative path to knowledge than the rational methods I apply, then surely they could point to an example of knowledge that has been revealed by faith? It seems like a reasonable question to me.
When the issue of morality arises I am met constantly with the view that God instils moral values into our intuitions, or something akin to it. No amount of sociological, evolutionary or neuro-scientific reasoning seems to be able to convince them that intuitions are not reliable ways to know anything. Moral ideas are largely the product of cultural conditioning, and many intuitions come from our evolutionary heritage and are explicable by natural, hormonal or neural means. We have learned so much about how our brain works and the natural world we live in, and as a result we can correct for errors in our cognition and intuition. Similarly, we can correct moral beliefs that are conditioned into us from cultural or evolutionary heritage. Pointing to moral intuition is not a cogent argument for the existence of God, as our moral intuitions are constantly changing as a result of cultural change. Our intuitions and gut feelings are useful tools in every day life, as we often can not afford the time to sit and think rationally about every decision we make, but we must also realise that they are often error-prone and sometimes flat out wrong. If you think God exists because you have a gut feeling that something exists out there it is my opinion that this is but another example of cognitive failure.
I will start by defining what I mean by faith, and then respond to some theistic uses of it. I accept the definition of faith in the letter to the Hebrews in the New Testament. "Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." Hebrews 11:1. So the atheistic definition that 'faith is belief without evidence' is accurate to the definition found in Hebrews. If Christians wish to dispute this they should take it up with the New Testament canon and the anonymous author of the epistle, not with us.
When dialoguing with Christians, I am often scolded for not giving faith a chance and that I'm dogmatically accepting scientific naturalism. I would like to point out that I did give faith a chance, I was raised on faith. I consciously followed the Christian faith and bought into its conclusions for years. I read apologetics and debated online with atheists for about 4 years before jumping ship. I also do not dogmatically accept anything. If it became apparent that scientific naturalism was not producing intellectual progress or contributing to the wealth of knowledge that furthers the advancement of our species, I would abandon it just as I abandoned by former religion. The thing is though, that scientific naturalism is making progress, and we are constantly finding out more and more about the world we live in by scientific methods.
The other common thing that I hear from the Christians that I discuss/debate with is that they think faith is a path to knowledge. This is usually coupled with the two statements in the previous paragraph. When I have asked how faith is a path to knowledge, I am only ever met with distractions and diversions. I don't see the connection between faith as defined in Hebrews and knowledge. How can you learn something from having confidence in what you hope for, or from having assurance about what you don't see? In every aspect of my life I learn things by examining the world around me, or by listening, reading or doing things. I have never learned anything by believing something a priori, without evidence. In fact I contend that doing so is the antithesis of learning, and only takes away from potential knowledge, rather than contributing to it as my theist friends insist. On top of the dodging of this question, I have never received an acceptable answer when I ask what knowledge faith has given them. If as they say faith is an alternative path to knowledge than the rational methods I apply, then surely they could point to an example of knowledge that has been revealed by faith? It seems like a reasonable question to me.
When the issue of morality arises I am met constantly with the view that God instils moral values into our intuitions, or something akin to it. No amount of sociological, evolutionary or neuro-scientific reasoning seems to be able to convince them that intuitions are not reliable ways to know anything. Moral ideas are largely the product of cultural conditioning, and many intuitions come from our evolutionary heritage and are explicable by natural, hormonal or neural means. We have learned so much about how our brain works and the natural world we live in, and as a result we can correct for errors in our cognition and intuition. Similarly, we can correct moral beliefs that are conditioned into us from cultural or evolutionary heritage. Pointing to moral intuition is not a cogent argument for the existence of God, as our moral intuitions are constantly changing as a result of cultural change. Our intuitions and gut feelings are useful tools in every day life, as we often can not afford the time to sit and think rationally about every decision we make, but we must also realise that they are often error-prone and sometimes flat out wrong. If you think God exists because you have a gut feeling that something exists out there it is my opinion that this is but another example of cognitive failure.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Exploring Moral Philosophy
I have decided to dip my feet into the waters of Moral Philosophy. What I've read already that could be classified as such only really addresses the issue on a surface level, or gives only a cursory glance to other opposing views. I'll be starting with 'Utilitarianism' by John Stuart Mill, then I may read 'Practical Ethics' by Peter Singer and then 'A Treatise on Human Nature' by David Hume. If anyone has any other suggestions that explore these issues from another perspective I'd be interested to take a look. I tried reading Kant recently and I'd prefer something that isn't quite so laborious to read.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
Christian Morality
Was Jesus a moral teacher? The maker of this short film doesn't think so, and I for the most part agree with him.
Saturday, June 5, 2010
So Stupid I Almost Couldn't Believe it.
Just when I thought humanity couldn't offer anything more idiotic than Reptilian conspiracy theorists and Flat Earthers, I was linked to an article by Creation Ministries International titled "Atheism: A religion"
The opening sentence is where the first failure is detected. They are asserting something that is demonstrably false. This is what they wrote.
In the first few paragraphs of their article it's quite easy to see that they are hell-bent on labelling atheism as a religion. They discuss a bit about the troubles with defining religions, and I skim read that part as it wasn't very interesting and was only providing a bit of background to their stupidity. They then have several sub-headings which are the supposed definitive characteristics of a religion with which they try to use to label atheism a religion. They are: narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material.
Narrative
Experiential
This part really has nothing to do with the rest of the article it seems. They go off on some tangent about the meaning of life, and quote from The Humanist Manifesto as if it's the Bible of atheism or something. They fail to mention in this part, possibly intentionally (the devious little bastards) that most, if not all credible atheists with any kind of influence object to darwinism as a social construct, so any attempt to misconstrue acceptance of evolution as scientific fact as some kind of twisted narcissistic fantasy is merely shit-slinging on their part.
Social
In this part they are simply trying to say that Evolution is a religion, and they quote Michael Ruse as their final proof that evolution is a religion. What they don't understand is that there is a difference between functioning as a replacement for a set of beliefs and actually being a religion. The people that Ruse is describing in their quote of him are certainly a minority among evolutionary biologists, and Ruse does not regard evolution as a scientific fact or the study of it as a religion, as is demonstrated in this quote from Michael Ruse.
They really don't have a leg to stand on here, so they're desperately grasping atstraws nothing. They mention the Humanist manifesto again as if that is some kind of proof that atheism is a religion. CMI think that because a group of people got together and wrote a document outlining why humans should be good to each other that atheism is a religion? If you're having trouble seeing the connection between the two then don't worry, I can't see any connection either. I'm ruling this out as a blatant non-sequitur. In fact most of what they've said so far has basically been irrelevant to what they're trying to prove.
Ethical
This is where they get outright nasty. They dropped the H bomb on us. They blame evolution for what Hitler did. They basically are saying that evolutionists cannot be moral without taking their morals from other religions. I really don't have the patience to try and write out a serious response to these allegations, because they're so fallacious and childish, that I'm just going to resort to using two words as a rebuttal.
Fuck you.
Ritual
Since there are no rituals at all in atheism, they just make shit up. Claiming that because some atheists celebrate birthdays, secular holidays, the 150th anniversary of a seminal scientific work, that makes atheism a religion. Sorry CMI, that doesn't fly. You fail.
Material
Just as I have, as they went down their list of definitive characteristics of religions trying to prove that atheism was one, they ran out of things to say. Their last point on the material aspect of atheism is wild speculation mixed with some more shit-slinging. Their article carries about the same intellectual weight as a monkey in a cage throwing its feces around. The article never deserved a response to begin with, and I almost feel ashamed that I even attempted to reply to it.
Conclusion
This article by CMI has shown me what I already knew to be true, that creationists are not interested in any kind of real discussion. They are completely disingenuous, devious, deceitful, deranged, delusion, dangerous quacks. It has gotten to the point that I am unable to laugh at their ignorance anymore, but rather stare in horror and immediately cover my face with my palm.
The opening sentence is where the first failure is detected. They are asserting something that is demonstrably false. This is what they wrote.
You would be hard pressed to find someone who actually holds this position. This is generally termed Strong Atheism, in constrast to Weak Atheism, also known as Agnostic Atheism. I've done a post about this before so I won't go too much into detail there. I also can not find any information about the author of this passage from this 'Encyclopedia' his name is Craig Edward.
"Atheism is the belief that there is no god. According to the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
“Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It proposes positive belief rather than mere suspension of disbelief.”"
In the first few paragraphs of their article it's quite easy to see that they are hell-bent on labelling atheism as a religion. They discuss a bit about the troubles with defining religions, and I skim read that part as it wasn't very interesting and was only providing a bit of background to their stupidity. They then have several sub-headings which are the supposed definitive characteristics of a religion with which they try to use to label atheism a religion. They are: narrative, experiential, social, ethical, doctrinal, ritual and material.
Narrative
Really. Are you fucking kidding me? They are using evolution as an example of 'narrative' in atheism? To start off with, evolution has nothing to do with atheism. Sure, most people who are atheists also accept evolution, because it is a scientific fact. Yes, FACT. Evolution happened, and still happens, we have observed evolution happening, and have evidence that it has happened in the past, MOUNTAINS OF FUCKING EVIDENCE. Then, their use of the term evolution is even more retarded. Evolution is not an explanation of where everything came from. Evolution is not related to the big bang. Evolution is not related to abiogenesis, Evolution does not account for the formation of stars, galaxies or anything else except the diversification of life. This feels like something straight from a Kent Hovind video, the convicted fraudster-creationist."Evolution is an explanation of where everything came from"
Experiential
This part really has nothing to do with the rest of the article it seems. They go off on some tangent about the meaning of life, and quote from The Humanist Manifesto as if it's the Bible of atheism or something. They fail to mention in this part, possibly intentionally (the devious little bastards) that most, if not all credible atheists with any kind of influence object to darwinism as a social construct, so any attempt to misconstrue acceptance of evolution as scientific fact as some kind of twisted narcissistic fantasy is merely shit-slinging on their part.
"On the other hand, Atheism requires “faith” (using their own definition) that the laws of chemistry, physics and biology were once violated and life arose from non-life via chemical evolution."This occurrence is not called chemical evolution, and if these ignorant bible bashers had ever read a science book they would know this. It's called Abiogenesis, and I suggest anyone trying to argue against it to learn a little bit about it before trying to dismiss it as easily as these people would like to. This is literally the only time the origin of life is mentioned in their article. Abiogenesis does not violate a single scientific law.
Social
In this part they are simply trying to say that Evolution is a religion, and they quote Michael Ruse as their final proof that evolution is a religion. What they don't understand is that there is a difference between functioning as a replacement for a set of beliefs and actually being a religion. The people that Ruse is describing in their quote of him are certainly a minority among evolutionary biologists, and Ruse does not regard evolution as a scientific fact or the study of it as a religion, as is demonstrated in this quote from Michael Ruse.
Doctrinal
"Today's professional evolutionism is no more a secular religion than is industrial chemistry."
They really don't have a leg to stand on here, so they're desperately grasping at
Ethical
This is where they get outright nasty. They dropped the H bomb on us. They blame evolution for what Hitler did. They basically are saying that evolutionists cannot be moral without taking their morals from other religions. I really don't have the patience to try and write out a serious response to these allegations, because they're so fallacious and childish, that I'm just going to resort to using two words as a rebuttal.
Fuck you.
Ritual
Since there are no rituals at all in atheism, they just make shit up. Claiming that because some atheists celebrate birthdays, secular holidays, the 150th anniversary of a seminal scientific work, that makes atheism a religion. Sorry CMI, that doesn't fly. You fail.
Material
Just as I have, as they went down their list of definitive characteristics of religions trying to prove that atheism was one, they ran out of things to say. Their last point on the material aspect of atheism is wild speculation mixed with some more shit-slinging. Their article carries about the same intellectual weight as a monkey in a cage throwing its feces around. The article never deserved a response to begin with, and I almost feel ashamed that I even attempted to reply to it.
Conclusion
This article by CMI has shown me what I already knew to be true, that creationists are not interested in any kind of real discussion. They are completely disingenuous, devious, deceitful, deranged, delusion, dangerous quacks. It has gotten to the point that I am unable to laugh at their ignorance anymore, but rather stare in horror and immediately cover my face with my palm.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Morality
It was suggested to me that I should do a post about morality, so here goes.
I'll start off with a definition of the word moral.
Does absolute morality come from God?
In order for some absolute moral 'code' to come from some god, we must have some instruction from the said deity. Christians claim the bible, Muslims the Quran etc.. Leaving the issue of inspiration completely aside for the sake of argument we have some serious issues with using an outside source as a moral code. The first problem I see, is that no matter how comprehensive a holy book is on moral issues, it is never going to cover every moral dilemma. For example, the Bible says nothing about climate change; stem cell research; genetic engineering; pollution and many many other modern issues. The same applies to the Quran, nothing vaguely related to any of the previously mentioned issues arises in this holy book either. So if we can not derive morality on these issues from holy books, where do we get it from?
If I was to ask most religious people where they get their morality from, they would promptly reply 'God' or 'The Bible'. If I was to pose the question 'If god told you to kill your child would you do it?' and you replied 'no, god wouldn't ask for that', then you are not deriving your morality from god, but from some other source which you are not aware of. On the other hand, if you were to respond saying 'yes', then I believe you are amoral, and would kindly ask you to stay away from me.
So what is this elusive outside source of morality? It is quite simple. Most of our moral standards come from our culture, our interactions with others, from our upbringing, from our understanding of reciprocation. A lot of our morality derives from what is known today as the 'golden rule', "do to others as you would have them do to you". And no, Jesus didn't invent this concept. The golden rule arose (most likely independently) in most cultures across the globe, most of which predate Christianity, and either predate or were contemporary to Judaism.
So as to the claim of some religious people that you can't be moral without god, you are wrong. In fact the mere idea that you claim to be morally superior because you have a deity dictating to you what is right and wrong shows your complete lack of personal morals. If you were truly a moral person you wouldn't need an imaginary friend telling you that killing is wrong for you to realise this.
I'll start off with a definition of the word moral.
-AdjectiveNow that we know what we're discussing, how do we decide what is moral and what isn't? Religious groups often claim moral superiority, saying that absolute morality comes directly from their said deity. This is the first issue regarding morality that I will be addressing.
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
Does absolute morality come from God?
In order for some absolute moral 'code' to come from some god, we must have some instruction from the said deity. Christians claim the bible, Muslims the Quran etc.. Leaving the issue of inspiration completely aside for the sake of argument we have some serious issues with using an outside source as a moral code. The first problem I see, is that no matter how comprehensive a holy book is on moral issues, it is never going to cover every moral dilemma. For example, the Bible says nothing about climate change; stem cell research; genetic engineering; pollution and many many other modern issues. The same applies to the Quran, nothing vaguely related to any of the previously mentioned issues arises in this holy book either. So if we can not derive morality on these issues from holy books, where do we get it from?
If I was to ask most religious people where they get their morality from, they would promptly reply 'God' or 'The Bible'. If I was to pose the question 'If god told you to kill your child would you do it?' and you replied 'no, god wouldn't ask for that', then you are not deriving your morality from god, but from some other source which you are not aware of. On the other hand, if you were to respond saying 'yes', then I believe you are amoral, and would kindly ask you to stay away from me.
So what is this elusive outside source of morality? It is quite simple. Most of our moral standards come from our culture, our interactions with others, from our upbringing, from our understanding of reciprocation. A lot of our morality derives from what is known today as the 'golden rule', "do to others as you would have them do to you". And no, Jesus didn't invent this concept. The golden rule arose (most likely independently) in most cultures across the globe, most of which predate Christianity, and either predate or were contemporary to Judaism.
So as to the claim of some religious people that you can't be moral without god, you are wrong. In fact the mere idea that you claim to be morally superior because you have a deity dictating to you what is right and wrong shows your complete lack of personal morals. If you were truly a moral person you wouldn't need an imaginary friend telling you that killing is wrong for you to realise this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)