Bible Humper

Why indeed? A good question, in my opinion!

I was never defending the idea that we should be moral, I was only informing you that being a nihilist doesn't have the effect of awakening sudden homicidal urges.

That isn't to say that nihilism doesn't have a dramatic effect on how your perceive everything, it just isn't quite as dramatic as you thought.

It is not possible to completely exorcise every last vestige of our herd instincts, but much of it does fall away on it's own.


It does take a certain boldness, I guess. When I became a nihilist it was like having the floor beneath my feet taken out from under me.

"You mean, I'm not immortal?" When I really started to explore what it meant, I was devastated. Predictably, my focus at this time was on the perceived loss, there being no survival of consciousness after all, which changes everything.

This passed, though, and once I was at the point where I took it for granted that there is nothing to look forward to beyond life, I began to savor it like never before!

You have mistaken nihilism for a great burden, when in actual fact it is the shrugging off of every last burden!

I have honestly never met anyone who was even close to as joyous as I am, my parents can hardly believe that this fireball was that guy who used to mope around moaning about "the absurdity of it all".

Wait a sec, it isn't intolerable to live contrary to one of your social instincts, or even most, it is just that some are much more difficult than others to overcome and you can't make up your own!

The worldview isn't what is "faulty" here, it is rather that what we identify as "us" is fundamentally entangled in the strings of our puppeteer, the blind watchmaker.

An excellent example of this is my own experience with my mother. While I lived at home I wasn't ever close to her, the best descriptor of our relationship would have been "apathetic". After I left, I figured that I would probably not bother with her again, but surprisingly enough, at least to me at the time, I started to miss her, and now I visit her every now and then.

When I realised that I missed her, though, I identified the emotion for what it was, the blind watchmaker twitching my strings. I have no illusions about it being anything more than this, but if I am away from her for long enough I will still grow depressed about it.

The biggest difference between how I think, and how everyone I know thinks, is that the others would have just went along with it, accepting such instincts unquestioningly as objectively good. I actually turn the same piercing eye that demysified the rest of the world for me towards my own brain and behavior.

I wouldn't say "hopelessly", not by a long shot. You first overestimated the effects of the demystification of our social instincts, now you seem to go the other way!

Well, I have been convinced otherwise! I do agree that there is a huge rift between what we know and how we live. I most certainly include myself in that statement.

Right, if we were solitary carnivores who only came together to mate, we would no doubt care little, if at all, for the fate of the other members of the species. If we had been gentle herbivores rather than omnivore primates, we would no doubt be much more caring towards the other members of the species.

In theory, yes. If you were born without a conscience, you wouldn't even know to miss it!

[ October 19, 2002: Message edited by: Bible Humper ]</p>

Nataraja

I don't see any reason at all to be a dick just because I don't have a cloud monster telling me he's going to fire a lightening bolt up my ass if I act naughty. I respect life and I don't see any reason I should not. I respect people and I don't see any reason I should not. I don't really care much about the advantages I have over other people because it really doesn't come to crap in the end anyway. It's more fun to drink a good beer and make friends and take care of little animals because they're so cute, I love my snake. I've just got this impulse to take care of things and make people happy. It makes me happy to get along with people, so why quit over some stupid "selective advantage" which is really meaningless anyway? People like me as I am and I get great sex, I get great sex, oh-baby-oh-baby-yeah. I love music. And sex. Mostly sex, but music too, especially while having sex.

Atheists can be quite moral, mostly because they don't think much about their "chosen status" in the universe because they know they have none and it's more fun to have lots of sex and listen to music and drink beer. And play with your cat, when the little bitch comes in for a change and DOESN'T ignore you, but hey. As long as she stays away from the snake. It's good to have friends, they can take care of the cat when you have to go somewhere on business or to a party or something. I think it's really good practice not to piss people off and do little favors for them sometimes.

galiel

Nataraja, that is truly a classic post. I think the first sentence in particular would make a great email .sig

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Bobby B.

On one level I agree, but on another I don't, and that is because of our brain and intelligence. We are a rarity in that we can even attempt to make "sense" of our universe. I don't think this is god-given, but every intelligence(you could almost stretch this to the great apes and dolphins) has a unique and fragile perspective on this universe (Even creationists!). As such, I do think we are of more "worth" than a bacteria. I couldn't imagine anything sadder than a universe completely devoid of intelligence.

These thoughts can't be backed up with fact, but are probably the closest thing I have to some sort of religious/philosophical belief.

Bobby B.

Bobby B.

Late entry, but will have a go anyway on the topic of Atheists and morality.

You are all correct and you are all wrong (in my humble opinion). Morality derives from something else entirely. As humans, with intelligence, we can actually "empathise" with others. We can understand the "pain" we inflict on others. It doesn't matter what the society is that we are brought up in, we all have some "empathy" for others.

Now that being said, we as individuals are all buried within our own shells, so the amount of that empathy varies from individual to individual and from culture to culture. (I don't think I need to get into that here.) We can never "truly" be completely empathic, thus we can never be truly moral. We can also selectively extend that empathy to others based on culture, class, bias, culture, etc. (For example: the "Robin Hood" syndrome where you have more empathy for a poor person than a rich one.) Conversely we can "withhold" that empathy, and become a hitman or a televangelist. (OT expression was "God hardened their hearts")

By this reasoning, to me the one bit of wisdom in the bible that truly means anything and is able to stand on it's own is the maxim, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Of course this is really very simplistic and does not take into account numerous other factors such as psychiatric disorders, childhood abuse, brainwashing, religious fervor, etc.

So to me, morality is based on each individuals ability to empathize with others. Wait, let me rephrase that, I like to think it is the source of my morality as an individual.

Jeremy Pallant

Off topic, but Bobby? You are the first person I've seen on this forum, apart from myself, who lives in Tucson. Welcome!

kingjames1

Well, yes you are right, in a sense - all thinking is circular. This point has been demonstrated by various philosophers.

The particular circle in question is the so-called hermeneutical spiral or circle. Get used to it - you have one too (if you have any coherent 'text' or mythology or philosophy, or whatever you want to call it). The question isn't whether or not our thought is ultimately circular, but whether our circle collapses into self-referential absurdity or not.

I don't know that I would agree to your labels in summarizing the biblical texts you listed (e.g. "cruelty to women"), but the answer is yes.

This is not genocide, strictly speaking (e.g. Rahab's escape from the 'ban', and even being honored among the Israelites), but it is holy war, initiated by Yahweh, who is indeed the "man of war" striking down the wicked nations through his chosen people Israel in their entering into Canaan. Religious xenophobia, as you derisively label it, is indeed a good thing in this religio-historical context; unfortunately, Israel was not xenophobic enough, and absorbed the syncretism of their surrounding cultures (according to which many sacrificed their own children to Molech and other Canaanite deities).

I'm sorry you don't like this...what is your basis for questioning its 'goodness', may I ask?


J.

[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: kingjames1 ]</p>

kingjames1

Nobody is questioning whether atheists can act morally - let us clear the air of that confusion!

The question is NOT do you have reason why you should not be moral, but whether you have any justifiable reason why you should be moral. The answer seems to be no. Perhaps if you assume an essentially hedonistic, utilitarian approach, there may be times that acting morally will work to your advantage - other times, however, it will not. Morality then is NOT something one "should do" but merely a social convention that may or may not work to one's advantage. Hence, my personal ethic, in this case, would be: "be 'moral' when it is to my personal advantage." This, however, is not the traditional understanding of morality, which is understood as binding irrespective of my personal advantage or loss (e.g. admitting to a mistake that may cost me my job).

Hence, one's ethic in this case is NOT "I respect of all life," as you confess, - it is, more presicely, "respect all life when it suits my purposes."

I perceive no basis for an atheist to "respect all life."

But I'm very glad you try to do it anyway!

J.

kingjames1

So the question is this (a moral question!): should we pursue 'justice', 'peace', 'love', 'fideltiy', etc.? Or, recognizing these concepts as socio-linguistic constructs reflecting arbitrarily developed social instincts, should we merely pursue these so-called 'noble endeavors' when it suits our own purposes? That is, are you a hedonist (and that includes the more sophisticated Epicurean kind)? What more is there for you to live for than yourself?

Should you love your mother? Are you capitulating to the blind-watchmaker if you do, persuaded under the influence of the chemical secretions of your glands? Or are you genuinely loving a person of inestimable value - that is, are you pursuing what is truly good in pursuing and caring for her? Ultimately, do you love her because it suits your needs (e.g. the satisfaction of the 'biochemical pressures' created within due to social instinct) or because it is both (mutually) fulfilling and 'right' (objectively - it is just plain right, as they say) to do so?

Which interpretation makes more sense to both the mind and the heart?

kingjames1

Bobby, I appreciate your perspective here, and your sensitivity to the uniqueness and astonishing nature of human intelligence! It seems to be most profound that there exists self-conscious animals, capable of understanding their environment, whether immediate or six-thousand light years away...

However, as you yourself recognize, there is no basis for such 'special' treatment for the more intelligent species in an atheistic, naturalist framework (contra the ethics of Peter Singer - who perhaps is being less than consistent for cultural reasons).

There is no difference between bacteria and humanity morally speaking because there is no objective or divine basis for ethics or moral distinctions in the first place. One cannot say that any species is better or more valuable (absolutely speaking) than any other. There is no 'good' by which to measure 'better'. Perhaps there are more or less functional species, but this then cannot be confused with a moral evaluation, e.g. the longer neck giraffes are 'better' than those with shorter necks.

W/regard to your previous post, why should 'empathy' serve as a basis for our ethics? Just because I am capable of empathizing doesn't mean that I should (I'm capable of a lot of things, things that have traditionally been understood as immoral). Why 'should' we empathize with our fellow creatures? This begs the question: why 'should' we do anything at all?

Actually, if we want to honestly come to grips with the reality of the 'constructedness' of ethics, it seems prudent to reduce ethics to functionality, i.e. a form of utilitarianism. What is our goal? What algorithims, procedures, behaviors, etc. will advance that goal most efficiently? Whatever that is, that, it would seem, should be our ethic.

(...but why be 'honest' or 'prudent'?)

And the question for the utilitarian is this: what ought our goals be? What guides us in making goals for ourselves?

Just some thoughts...

[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: kingjames1 ]</p>