Philosophy Now Forum

Lacewing wrote:

uwot wrote:I am not committed to believing that god does not exist. I just don't believe it does.

This is how it is for me too.

Agnostics, then. Not Atheists, or even "atheists." Maybe (like Dawkins says he is), "firm" in it, but still open to new information.

That I can understand. Atheism...that's beyond understanding -- at least from any rational perspective. But agnosticism makes some sense. At least it's not necessarily gratuitous.

Immanuel Can wrote:
However, I doubt that's your thought about Mr. Dawkins' motives.

My understanding of what Dawkins is saying is that he thinks religion has a tendency to stifle social, educational and, yes, maybe even moral progress. I think that to some extent he is right, more so in some parts of the world than others. I don't particularly like Dawkins and don't have anything like an extensive knowledge of his views on God and religion.

But you'll have to explain to me how an Atheist can be morally inclined or compelled by his Atheism to care about anyone.

I don't think there is a God so I'm assuming that when you say "Atheist' you mean me. The only thing "Atheism" compels me to do is disregard the notion of God. Where my sense of morality originally comes from is irrelevant, what matters is the fact that I have one. As you reference God to know what is right or wrong, I refer to my conscience. We are both free to comply with or disobey what we are being instructed to do. I would say that I use my sense of empathy to evaluate a situation or a set of circumstances in terms of the moral status of it, which is just an awareness of how I would feel if I was a victim of that particular situation. My personal view is that this is how most people arrive at their moral judgements, theists and atheists alike. If I wanted to be uncharitable to "theists", as you seem to want to be to "atheists", I could say that "theists" are less moral because they have no morality of their own, they are simply acting on what they believe to be God's imperative. Which, of course, for most people, is not true.

Harbal wrote:

But you'll have to explain to me how an Atheist can be morally inclined or compelled by his Atheism to care about anyone.

I don't think there is a God so I'm assuming that when you say "Atheist' you mean me.

No, not unless you think that label fits. I was thinking of Dawkins and whomever cares to identify with him as an "Atheist," as mentioned in the OP. But it depends on whether you're closing the question arbitrarily or not.

I'll give you Dawkins' scheme of things.

For him, an "Atheist" says there IS no God. An "agnostic" encompasses a range. (Dawkins says "a seven-point scale") "Firm agnostics," perhaps a "6," are very much convinced there is no God, but when pressed admit a slim chance there still could be. "Soft agnostics," perhaps a "2," are very nearly convinced there is a God, but just don't have quite enough conviction to believe it.

Dawkins says he's a "6". But he freely admits that total Atheism (equivalent, presumably, to "7") is not rational and cannot be defended.

So you can place yourself as you see best. Your choice, not mine. I wouldn't know you well enough to venture a guess.

Immanuel Can wrote:
So you can place yourself as you see best. Your choice, not mine. I wouldn't know you well enough to venture a guess.

I may not be able to stop you coming up with a set of categories but I can refuse to step into any of them. It's simple: I do not think there is a God, I think that morality comes from within and that theism or atheism plays very little part in it.

Harbal wrote:I may not be able to stop you coming up with a set of categories but I can refuse to step into any of them.

Right on! All of these definitions and categories are subject to interpretation... and I prefer to simply say IF I MUST that I'm a non-theist. What matters (to my mind) is simply who we are as humans. Labels don't ensure anything. So the question becomes, "What are you doing with what you've got?" Rather than the costuming of "who are you", "how do you identify yourself", and "what do you think you know"?

Harbal wrote:I may not be able to stop you coming up with a set of categories...

I didn't. Dawkins did. I gave you his scheme, not mine. You can dismiss him if you wish, of course.

...I think that morality comes from within and that theism or atheism plays very little part in it.

If, as you say, "morality comes from within," from where does "immorality" come?

Immanuel Can wrote:

Lacewing wrote:

uwot wrote:I am not committed to believing that god does not exist. I just don't believe it does.

This is how it is for me too.

Agnostics, then. Not Atheists, or even "atheists."

No Mr Can, atheists. Clearly you will not take my word for it, but that is not what agnostic means. Like I said, learn some humility and look the word up.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Harbal wrote:I may not be able to stop you coming up with a set of categories...

I didn't. Dawkins did. I gave you his scheme, not mine. You can dismiss him if you wish, of course.

I thought I already had done.

If, as you say, "morality comes from within," from where does "immorality" come?

That question doesn't make sense to me. Are you asking where does someone's tendency to behave badly come from?

Harbal wrote:

If, as you say, "morality comes from within," from where does "immorality" come?

That question doesn't make sense to me. Are you asking where does someone's tendency to behave badly come from?

Well, you say there's such a thing as "morality," by which I suppose I should assume you mean something like "good behaviour" or perhaps "good values" -- you'll have to clear that up for me, if I've got you wrong there -- and you say it comes from "within" people.

I'm just asking from where the inverse comes. Call it "bad behaviour" if you prefer that term, but I used the inverse of the term you chose, "immorality."

Any thoughts on the answer?

Immanuel Can wrote:
Well, you say there's such a thing as "morality," by which I suppose I should assume you mean something like "good behaviour" or perhaps "good values" -- you'll have to clear that up for me, if I've got you wrong there -- and you say it comes from "within" people.

I'm just asking from where the inverse comes. Call it "bad behaviour" if you prefer that term, but I used the inverse of the term you chose, "immorality."

Any thoughts on the answer?

My beliefs are firmly rooted in the mundane, I'm afraid. I think Human Beings are probably pre wired to have altruistic feelings towards members of their own close group (courtesy of Darwin). I think that any inclination to spread this altruistic feeling, or morality, further afield, towards people beyond their own physical acquaintance, is learned, rather than innate. Those who behave badly/immorally to an extreme extent, I would guess, have a genetic fault, psychological malfunction or mental condition which precludes them from having these aforementioned altruistic/moral compulsions. Your question would probably be better directed towards a mental health professional.

Harbal wrote: My beliefs are firmly rooted in the mundane, I'm afraid. I think Human Beings are probably pre wired to have altruistic feelings towards members of their own close group (courtesy of Darwin). I think that any inclination to spread this altruistic feeling, or morality, further afield, towards people beyond their own physical acquaintance, is learned, rather than innate. Those who behave badly/immorally to an extreme extent, I would guess, have a genetic fault, psychological malfunction or mental condition which precludes them from having these aforementioned altruistic/moral compulsions. Your question would probably be better directed towards a mental health professional.

Is it "good" to have altruistic, moral compulsions? Is it "bad" instead to...say, practice "survival of the fittest" type morals, and let the weak and elderly die? And how do we know which of these is genuinely "Darwinian" and "adaptive"? Darwin plugged more for the latter than the former, it seems to me. But even if we claim altruism is "good," how do we know that?

Absent a meta-scheme of morality that covers both and tells us what he moral value of each of the two alternatives is, which one is "good" and which is "bad"?

What's with the obsession, Mr. Can, to label everything as good or bad? Why does anything have to be one or the other?

Lacewing wrote:What's with the obsession, Mr. Can, to label everything as good or bad? Why does anything have to be one or the other?

It's not just IC, but most of humanity will try to label acts as good or bad, and I'm not sure that IC does that or is just presenting that as one view that is obvious in the world. There are very few people in this world who can overlook the labels, or will allow that an individual act can be either, or both.

Lacewing wrote:What's with the obsession, Mr. Can, to label everything as good or bad? Why does anything have to be one or the other?

Is it "bad" to be obsessed?

Seriously, that's what ethics does...it tries to define the moral status of various acts. Not of all acts, of course: some are morally neutral. But I'm willing to bet you have strong, polarized feelings about, say, theft, rape, infanticide, and racism, or charity, mercy, generosity and hospitality. There's nothing at all strange about wanting to define these things morally, nor about trying to solve some of the controversial cases. That's also what ethics does.

Why does ethics do that? Because ethics seek a foundation for individual action, interpersonal relations, social conventions, political institutions and human rights.

If there's something "obsessive" about seeking answers in those areas, then it's an "obsession" shared by most of the human race, most of the time.

If Atheism is to be commendable, then one of the things in which it needs to prove its utility -- or at least its adequacy -- is in respect to ethics. For absent ethics, none of these things can operate.

If Atheism were to denude the world of these values, then that would be a significant argument against adopting it as a belief.

Immanuel Can wrote:
Is it "good" to have altruistic, moral compulsions?

In terms of an evolutionarily successful development, apparently yes. Despite any cold, pragmatic biological reasons for their presence, we can only experience altruistic "compulsions" as feelings, ie, emotionally. If we are sensible about it, we will suspend our knowledge of the origins of the feelings and go with our emotional motivation and consider it a good thing.

Is it "bad" instead to...say, practice "survival of the fittest"

We don't practice "survival of the fittest" we are a product of it.

and let the weak and elderly die?

I only have personal experience of the case in my own country where there is a national health service which allocates considerable resources at great financial expense to keeping the weak and old breathing. As far as I'm aware, the NHS is not a religious institution.

And how do we know which of these is genuinely "Darwinian" and "adaptive"?

Does it matter?

Darwin plugged more for the latter than the former, it seems to me.

Natural selection is what it is, regardless of what Darwin "plugged for".

But even if we claim altruism is "good," how do we know that?

Because, hopefully most of us, find it emotionally satisfying.

Absent a meta-scheme of morality that covers both and tells us what he moral value of each of the two alternatives is, which one is "good" and which is "bad"?

I don't know what you mean by this. Perhaps if you rephrase it, absenting any attempt to sound clever and paying more attention to your spelling, I would be more able to give you an answer.