Concepts, what follows from those concepts, and the various philosophies of people who sincerely or ignorantly say they believe in certain concepts are not at all the same thing. There are some worldviews that are not commonly understood in a way that conflicts with these distinctions, but atheism is a regular exception. Many theists conflate the varying beliefs and motivations of different adherents of atheism with the philosophical concept and ramifications of atheism itself. In response, many atheists sometimes rightly affirm that atheism is simply a belief that God does not exist, only to turn around and pretend like there are not specific logical ideas that necessarily follow from the concept of God's nonexistence.
Individual atheists (as opposed to agnostics) can have wildly differing general worldviews and still be atheists as long as they simply believe that no deities of any kind exist. There is nothing else that makes someone an atheist other than this particular belief. Nevertheless, there are certain logical conclusions that inherently follow from the idea of atheism whether they are acknowledged or even understood by individual atheists or not. The differences between the worldviews of particular atheists are often ignored by casual theists, and the logical ramifications of atheism are often ignored by atheists.
What atheism does not mean is that truth itself does not exist or that metaphysical relativism is true. For any worldview to be true or even logically possible, it must not contradict or otherwise deny the laws of logic. If atheism was true, it would be true that no deity exists, which makes all claims that nothing can be true without a deity as a reference point blatantly false! Logic is still necessarily true and self-evident even on an atheistic worldview. To deny this is to misrepresent the nature of reason and to straw man atheism.
However, it is true that atheism is philosophically incompatible with the existence of objective values. Apart from the existence of a deity with a moral nature, there is no metaphysical anchor for morality, beauty, or meaning--not that any of these things can be proven to exist by appealing to emotions and preferences as many theists think. If God has a moral nature, any objective moral obligations that exist are objective in that they are obligatory regardless of what any non-deity wants or is aware of, not in the sense that morality exists apart from any mind (this is not true of God's mind).
An atheist might not realize or believe that moral and aesthetic nihilism follow from atheism, but it is logically true that all aspects of reality are purely amoral within consistent atheistic philosophy. What specific atheists think about this is irrelevant. Finally, atheism is demonstrably false--not because it is logically impossible for objective values to exist, but because it is logically necessary for an uncaused cause to exist given that there are things that can be proven to exist which cannot have existed forever [1]. My own mind might be the uncaused cause, or perhaps a dozen or any number more than a single uncaused cause exists, but the existence of at least one deity of this sort is fully provable due to its logical necessity.
If God has a moral nature, any objective moral obligations that exist are objective in that they are obligatory
ReplyDeleteWhat does "obligatory" mean?
Something that is obligatory is what someone should do regardless of preferences, circumstances, or consequences. All personal factors are irrelevant if anything is obligatory (or if it isn't), so conscience and consensus have no significance.
DeleteWhat does "should" mean?
ReplyDeleteWhat I mean by "should" is that someone is in the wrong if they fail to do something that they "should" do. If they do that which they should do, they have landed on the objective right side of justice and have done what is owed to some other being (whether God, other humans, or animals). Whether or not there actually is something that is morally right or wrong, the concept can still be understood, as concepts can be objectively grasped and distinguished apart from language. All that can define words are other words, unfortunately, but even words that have more ambiguity can be explained somewhat.
DeleteWhat does "justice" mean?
ReplyDeleteJustice is treating people as they deserve in accordance with their actions and intentions. If such a thing as morality exists, all moral obligations reduce down to a matter of justice, as anything else would by necessity be unjust, amoral, or non-obligatory even if it is good (supererogatory is a word sometimes used to describe that last category).
DeleteWhat does "deserve" mean?
ReplyDeleteSomething is deserved if it is merited/justified by a particular act--for example, if the Bible says that kidnappers deserve death (Exodus 21:16) and the Bible is true, then all kidnappers deserve to be executed regardless of what anyone wants to be true.
DeleteDo you really not understand the concept of justice or obligations aside from the epistemological and metaphysical points to make about them, or are you just that curious about the language, which is an arbitrary construct in the first place? Short of telepathy, the most clear way to explain most words are other words, as other people can't see exactly what one means by them without seeing directly into their minds. Words are a means to the very limited end of communication, but the concepts behind many words are accessible to anyone who reflects on them.
What I think is that morality is a social construct operating on biological instinct.
ReplyDeleteφημὶ γὰρ ἐγὼ εἶναι τὸ δίκαιον οὐκ ἄλλο τι ἢ τὸ τοῦ κρείττονος συμφέρον. http://data.perseus.org/citations/urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0059.tlg030.perseus-grc1:1.338c
What I have been trying to find out is how you yourself connect value to God. I was expecting some version of Euthyphro's dilemma. So far we seem to be meandering through some rather vague definitions. This doesn't help me. I crave precision.
How do you derive "ought" from "is"?
What the fuck is that link for? What I said has nothing to do with Platonic philosophy or even with the belief that morality exists. You may have assumed otherwise, but I have explained elsewhere on my site that there is evidence for Christian theism, which entails a specific set of objective moral obligations, and yet I am the kind of consistent rationalist that does not believe in that which cannot be established on a purely logical basis. Thus, I don't actually believe morality exists, but either moral nihilism or moral objectivism is true. There is no other possibility. Calling morality a social construct is just a way of saying "We have moral feelings that have nothing to do with obligations actually existing." In other words, it's just moral nihilism presented differently, and moral nihilism is inherently unprovable.
ReplyDeleteI did give you definitions that are perfectly effective within the context of the English language, and I see that you are not defining anything at all as you go along. Conceptual precision is what matters most, yet I did precisely define things for you. As for the other part of your comment, if you want me to provide links to other articles I've written here about the connection between God and morality, I can do that, or I can explain here. I will at least summarize this much: if morality exists, God exists, as otherwise there is nothing but moral feelings and preferences, but the existence of God does not necessitate the existence of morality. There is an uncaused cause regardless of what anyone thinks about the matter because one exists by logical necessity, but that is not the same as a deity with an explicitly moral nature.
Deriving an ought from an is would be like looking at suffering in the animal kingdom and mistakenly thinking that it logically follows from that observation that there should be no animal suffering. That is not what I have done at all. In fact, I despise the very notion that conscience or social agreement have anything to do with morality or anything else about reality beyond perceptions because they are just red herrings! However, if there is a deity with a moral nature (as the uncaused cause might ultimately be amoral), it is the only moral authority in existence. To look to anything else would be to look to meaningless preferences. Morality could therefore exist if grounded in the nature of a being like this because its intentions alone could define the purpose or meaning for humans. Social constructs are the philosophically invalid refuges of shallow people who want to appease themselves or others.
What does "justified" mean?
ReplyDeleteBack to this again, I see. In the sense that I used the word "justified" in my second to last comment before this, as I see nothing relating to my last comment, I mean that a particular thing (such as killing or hatred) becomes morally permissible in the pursuit of justice. Words are irrelevant to the actual concepts here. As I've said before, all words are merely arbitrary ways of conveying concepts, and nothing more. All you can ever get to define words are more words.
DeleteJustice is treating people as they deserve
ReplyDeleteSomething is deserved if it is merited/ justified
I used the word "justified" in my second to last comment before this, as I see nothing relating to my last comment, I mean that a particular thing (such as killing or hatred) becomes morally permissible in the pursuit of justice.
Circle.
That's literally how definitions work once you define enough words. It is impossible to define words without other words, many of which draw from other words that were already used. Words are not concepts; language has no significance except to communicate ideas that people are often capable of grasping on their own if they only tried. A concept is what it is by default, and I use whichever words are culturally fitting to communicate about concepts. You have done nothing except constantly point out what I myself have been affirming! There is no philosophical discovery or victory in merely focusing on words instead of concepts, as you clearly prefer to do. Language is inherently arbitrary by nature! You will never have perfect verbal/written communication with someone because only full telepathy is perfect communication.
Delete