So if Joe has done something immoral and Paul has done something moral, how are they held ultimately accountable and what will happen?

I'm not asking this as a challenge, I'm merely curious to what you mean by accountable. I usually take it to mean the potential for some kind of check and balance, a consequence.

Feel free to answer in the hypothetical, I'm not asking you to explain how god(s) work.

The approach I and others sketched that is commonly taken by atheists is not remotely like either of these. When I talk about things like gay marriage being morally obligatory I'm not concerned at all about existential questions or living out a hedonistic fantasy. I'm making fairly objective arguments about the consequences of this policy on human happiness and flourishing, and since in society we broadly accepted these values I don't need to worry about it. Sure, human happiness and flourishing might be contingent, local, and transient. But I ask again- so what? Why should I care that it isn't cosmic and immutable? How does this affect me in my day to day life - because your dichotomy here just doesn't represent the standard atheist in any way.

Well, I've been an atheist for some 20+ years and I've certainly never had existential angst or a need to suppress it.

There is a big, brutal and beautiful universe out there and thinking about being part of that fills me with wonder and curiosity, not hopelessness.

I feel no longing for magical "gods", when I can look up in the sky and see a literal nuclear explosion of gargantuan proportions filling our earth with energy. Modern conception of the cosmos are on an epic scale the early authors of religion couldn't even begin to fathom, and it shows. A lot of religion and theological argument is about closing doors, not opening them. Oh sure, it'll hide behind beautiful slogans of truth and journeys, but there is always that subtle hint that the universe and how we see it should damn well learn its place.... or else.

But even if I did, I certainly don't see how the idea of a god making morals could alleviate it. If anything, if such a creature is the final arbiter of all meaning, then our human minds are of less value, not more. We're reduced to blind mice begging to find some piece of cheese the grand designer was nice enough to leave for us.

A more important question is if they aren't held accountable and nothing happens, then what's the point of morality? If there is no accountability and no consequences, you can live as if it doesn't exist.

I lold at this. Surely you mean something else.

The rest of your post is another appeal to subjectivity.

I appreciate this post and your honesty.

I think you mentioned nazis once, earlier in the thread. I'd point out that ultimately it wasn't some innate power of an absolute moral truth that stopped the nazis; it was war, and then later trials for some accused of crimes. This relates to what I said about morality being social. Enforcement of moral norms is social.

And not just in the case of nazis. This is also how religious people practice morality. For example, the new testament contains guidelines for the enforcement of morality within the community of Christians. That enforcement is purely through social pressure and ultimately exclusion from the community (see also 1 Cor. 5).

So, I think the contention that the enforcement of moral standards must either be metaphysical or else nonexistent is both theoretically wrong but also clearly wrong in practice, even among people who believe their moral codes to be metaphysically grounded.

Well, to me morals is the justifier. If we measure morals by consequence, then get into the iffy territory where an act is not immoral if you don't get caught or even might makes right. I'm not saying you can't put these into logical equations and come out with some moral algorithm that seemingly makes sense, but I'm simply not seeing morals as some sort of consequence-only means of judging actions. It might have started as something like that, but it's more now.

So I see checks & balances as the result of morals, not the cause of morals. The law doesn't justify morals, morals justify the law - so to speak.


I'm guessing this was a reply to uke?

Np.

It was a question, one you have thus far failed to address. Suppose no god exists. Suppose the deity-bequeathed cosmic objectivity you appeal to doesn't exist. Then what? Well, you suggested a dichotomy between existential despair and selfish hedonism that it has been explained to you simply doesn't represent a standard atheist experience. Yes, the approaches people like me take are local, transient and contingent on the human condition. But so what? That doesn't diminish my arguments that the policy of gay marriage increases human happiness and flourishing, it doesn't make them less persuasive to other normal people who also aim to increase human happiness and flourishing, presumably like yourself. I can't think of a single thing I would do or say differently if I knew that my beliefs of what was morally right and wrong were actually backed by some deity. Can you?

Who says there's a point to morality in the first place? Why could it not just be another feature of the universe, like gravity?

How are you using the words "accountability" and "consequences." If I jump off a cliff, the "consequence" is that I'll fall to my death. Is that also a form of "accountability" in your mind? What standard am I being held accountable to? (Also, how do these definitions fit with your ideas of "reward" and "punishment" that you had replied to?)

I think it's a good point that moral ideas which can be elaborated upon through normal reasoning processes and arguments have an advantage over appeals to a transcendental authority, in that they can persuade people who don't share the same beliefs about that authority. Or at least it's a definite advantage in a multi-cultural society.

I almost touched on that when I mentioned a hypothetical Christian trying to persuade a hypothetical Hindu, but didn't actually quite say it.

No I'm not, and I'd like a response to the proof I offered against your thesis and to my claim that under your criteria faith-based Christians are also moral nihilists. I mean, if faith is an allowable move here, then this is trivially easy. Atheists can accept objective morality on the basis of faith - hence atheism doesn't imply moral nihilism.

This is because in Kantianism it isn't the goals that are evaluated as right or wrong (and binding), but rather the methods you use to accomplish those goals. Imagine you are taking an art class, and the instructor says, you can draw whatever picture you want, but you have to use charcoal. She is giving you free choice as to what you draw, but limiting the means you use to draw it. If you turn in a nice drawing, but in graphite, she can mark you down for not following the rules. But if you turn in a landscape, and she marks you down for not doing a portrait, you can complain.

If Kantianism is true, you should follow its precepts because doing so is a pre-condition for autonomy. That is, in order to rationally will anything at all, you have to follow the precepts of Kantian morality.

You really shouldn't grant so much. Your objection loses all its force if Kantian morality is true. Moral nihilism isn't much of a problem if it is compatible with Kantian morality, which is universally binding on all rational beings.

The point of holding it is because it will lead to a better life for you and others. No one is going to make you accept them, although your life might be much worse if you don't.

Morality isn't meaningless in a world in which morality is not a requirement of reason. It has something like the meaning I, and 3 or 4 other people in this thread have described (and you have ignored by saying that it is still subjectivity, which, yeah....?).

Greetings,

It has been a while since I frequented this forum several years ago. This thread piqued my interest as I read through it so I thought I would grace you with my presence and wisdom.

Being from an Evangelical Christian background I understand DODN's point of view. I felt very similar sentiments and perhaps even argued in favour of them here in RGT. I think the origin of this controversy is that Christianity offers such a clear cut worldview. The Christian worldview and especially the Evangelical perspective often propels individuals toward a black and white way of thinking (this is not an indictment of Christianity simply an observation. The black and white understanding of the world also comes with tremendous consolation to the individual Christian as he feels "all is well" and "the world is in order".

I have since moved from an Evangelical belief to more of an Agnostic-ish belief. In the athestic/agnostic worldview there really is no replacement for God in the human psyche.

An example could be sailors at sea with a compass. The atheists have concluded that the compass should not be relied upon for directions. On the other hand the Christians insist the compass points to true north and the vessel should continue to plot its course based on the divine instrument.

I can understand DODN's point of view in that everyone who has abandoned the compass is simply adrift, lost at sea. In this case, everyone on the ship may have an idea of which direction to sail in next. However, because they have abandoned the compass everyone's idea is equally good or bad (moral relativism).

Ultimately, I think DODN is foisting his worldview onto other people. If objective morality does not exist then that necessarily means everyone is destined for a life of futility and meaninglessness. From his perspective this is true because there is no replacement for God in an atheistic worldview.

As someone transitioning from Christianity to Agnosticism and even Atheism depending on the day I do feel some level of existential angst. I don't know if this is just a normal part of being human or the vestige of my Christian background.

Nice to see you again, lemonzest

As I said earlier ITT, I'm sympathetic to his conclusion. But the fundamental error is not that he is reaching a particular conclusion, but that his way of arguing the point basically fails.

I've argued in many places in RGT that I expect Christians who hold more narrow fundamentalist views will tend to "fall further" than those who don't because of the essential rigidity of their thinking. Because of all of the ways that pieces look like they are tightly constrained together, if one piece starts to falter then everything seems to crumble. In my view, this is a very unhealthy Christianity (and is a feature somewhat particular to American Evangelicalism).

An analogy I might use is that of a building. One might think that a building that is extremely rigid is safer than one that flexes. However, rigidity more easily leads to catastrophic failures whereas buildings that can sway in the wind (or during an earthquake) do a better job of absorbing the forces without breaking.

The bit about the compass doesn't really work bec it's a demonstrable thing in the world, yes? However, this part is so me also:

Some of you must think that I walk around in a funk all of the time but that's not the case. I've got all of this nicely compartmentalized, thank god. lol?

Although I have only skimmed this thread, it sure seems to me that some posts ought to invoke the work of people like Robert Axelrod, Jane Goodall, Charles Darwin and Amos Tversky, when making their points.

That lets me out.

Hey Man. Thanks! Seeing you reminded me of that indian philosopher fella that had the video where he talks about looking through the window....what was his name again? Great open minded thinker!

Raimon Panikkar. You're reminding me there's at least one more volume in his opera omnia that I intended to buy :P

I ended up not hitting publish on a prior post attacking DoOrDoNot's conception of atheism as an instance of the conjunction fallacy.

If you name drop too much it can make posts unnecessarily long. Brevity is key.

Yes, he is the one. I remember when I first watched that video about the window it blew my mind and really resonated with me. Thanks for all your measured and insightful input

I'll let others elaborate.

Yeah. And that is what I meant when I said he is foisting his worldview on other people. He isn't really arguing as much as just making an assertion. An atheist is a nihilist. If you don't accept this then you just haven't thought about it long enough.

I am also sympathetic to his ultimate point and maybe it would help to unpack what we mean by "nihilist". My guess is that he means your life is meaningless and futile which is true from a Christian perspective. If we take into account the afterlife and the possibility of a relationship with the Creator of the Universe...then yea the atheists life is trivial, futile, and meaningless.

Yes. And this absolutely applies to me. I was raised very conservative believing every word of the bible is literally true. I did spend some time as a more liberal Christian but then chose it was easier to dispense with Christian belief altogether.

I should add I am still open to Christianity and other belief systems. However, right now I don't really adhere to any specific set of religious beliefs. Maybe I am on a swinging pendulum and as I get older I will be a believer again...who knows.

I know one thing for sure. The archetype of Jesus Christ, an innocent man, dying for the same people that set out to kill him is a powerful narrative.

Here's another ethical dilemma I'm interested in.

According to Locke's theory, a deathrow inmate who has developed dementia and no longer has memory of the murder they committed, is now not morally responsible for that act.

A question of justice vs punishment.

Use whatever ethical tools are at your disposal and tell me whether this is true or not.

In the compass example lets say the atheists think the compass is broken. They don't deny it exists but that it no longer points to true north. Now the "Christians" on board say the compass is still accurate and continue to insist they use the compass as their guide.

The point of the analogy is not that God exists or doesn't exist. The point is that from an atheist point of view there is no replacement for the comfort, security and direction that God provides to the Christian. Without the compass the atheist is lost at sea, battered by the waves, with no idea which way to go.

Christianity has been described as a teddy bear to the anxious child. I don't use the teddy bear example in any way to demean or mock Christians but I do think there is truth to that example.

*enter existential angst*

Ok so lets talk about the existential angst as you mentioned that you also deal with this. In short, my answer to this question is simply to "eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die".

I don't believe in an afterlife. I think when you die the lights go out and thats it. I think one way to overcome the existential angst could be to live for some greater purpose or build a legacy. For me it is taking care of my family and making sure they are looked after even after I die. It certainly gives you something to work toward and a reason to get up everyday. Looking after your families' well being I am sure is also hardwired by evolutionary biology so that helps too. What do you think about it?