• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Secular Humanist vs the Nihilist/Atheism vs Theism

Usehername

On a mission
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
3,794
Note: this entire post is copy-pasted from the YouTube description

[YOUTUBE="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swfItnTUFvY"]Atheists and morals[/YOUTUBE]

When theists say that atheism cannot exist with morality, secular humanists are quick to say that it is a misconception about atheism. But their objection is misplaced. This isn't so much a misconception about atheism as it is about atheists.

Yes, there are some theists who do indeed try to assert that atheists can't be moral, and secular humanists are right to object, because such a claim is not true. Atheists can in fact be ethical.

However, while it is true that atheists can be moral, it is NOT true that one can be logically consistent and be an atheist and a moral realist at the same time. This latter claim is the true argument, not the former.

Now, as to why one cannot be an atheist and be a moral realist at the same time, there are two very similar reasons why this is so, the first coming from David Hume, one of the greatest philosophers to ever live, and the second coming from J.L. Mackie.

First the Humean argument. David Hume famously pointed out that one cannot extract an ought-statement from an is-statement. You cannot get an ought from an is, or in more technical terms, one cannot derive a prescriptive fact from a descriptive fact.

Batman, because he failed to point to a metaphysical, transcendent and ontological foundation, cannot make the case that the joker ought to prefer choice A over choice B. The joker, realizing this, throws Batman's assertion back in his face. The joker laughs in his face, and points out that the secular humanist's rules are a "bad joke." And that the only sensible way to live in his world is without rules. To be a nihilist like himself.

Even with all of his strength, Batman cannot make his humanistic assertion true. In an atheistic worldview, it simply doesn't follow logically.

On an atheistic worldview, the only transcendental facts are descriptive facts. By transcendental I mean facts which are true regardless of what anyone thinks.

Now this being said, there can therefore be no prescriptive facts on an atheistic worldview. Therefore, if atheists are to be consistent, they have to move beyond their short-sighted secular humanism and move into the realm of moral nihilism and sit alongside Ledger's joker.

Now perhaps morality is just a property. Perhaps certain actions, like shoving a pencil into someone's head, has the property of being wrong, and other actions, like saving people from a hospital rigged to blow, has the property of being right.

Forgetting for the moment that morality is not descriptive, but rather is a series of statements of certain actions one ought to do or ought not do, we can turn to J.L. Mackie's take on this.

To say that naturalistic, material objects can stand in a moral relation to one another is absurd. What does it even mean for one object to stand in a moral relationship with another object? It is meaningless.

The ethical skeptic watching this video might feel tempted to ask "Why does God solve the is-ought gap?" and feel as if he won the day. The problem is, that God's commands are not themselves descriptive, but are prescriptive.

Therefore, as an atheist, you must either remain silent like Batman, or speak with cynical greatness like the Joker. Be permitted by Dostoevsky to drink up the sea with Nietzsche.
 

Bachelor Blumfeld

New member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
9
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
This entire post presumes secular ethics must adhere to Hume's ideas on ethics. This is as absurd to say as it would be to presume atheism must consign itself to Hume's ideas on causality, infinity, or truth. The post implicitly proclaims that there is an analytic quality to atheism to rescind metaphysics entirely. Which is to say that atheists are pretty much logical positivists.

While it is true that most atheists do purport something similar to logical positivism (mostly due to their ignorance of philosophy), this does not mean that atheism inherently denies metaphysics. One does not have to espouse an ontological belief in "God" to still maintain an ethic (or any metaphysical belief). A cursory reading of Kant will display the fallaciousness of any other claim.
 

Usehername

On a mission
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
3,794
This entire post presumes secular ethics must adhere to Hume's ideas on ethics. This is as absurd to say as it would be to presume atheism must consign itself to Hume's ideas on causality, infinity, or truth. The post implicitly proclaims that there is an analytic quality to atheism to rescind metaphysics entirely. Which is to say that atheists are pretty much logical positivists.

While it is true that most atheists do purport something similar to logical positivism (mostly due to their ignorance of philosophy), this does not mean that atheism inherently denies metaphysics. One does not have to espouse an ontological belief in "God" to still maintain an ethic (or any metaphysical belief). A cursory reading of Kant will display the fallaciousness of any other claim.

Hi BB, thanks for replying--I am unschooled in philosophy and needed a knowledgeable POV.

One thing: he's not asserting that an ontological belief in a supernatural being is necessary for ethics; he made that clear.

I wish I remembered what came before in the movie--was it the ferry bombs? He's saying that because the secular humanist does not appeal to a proscriptive set of morals, but rather a descriptive set derived from oneself, Batman is stuck in a situation where he can't explain the morally correct thing to do, in which case the conclusion that nihilism or throwing one's hands up and saying IDK are one's options. (I think? Anyone else weighing in? I need to rewatch the movie.)
 

Bachelor Blumfeld

New member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
9
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Hi BB, thanks for replying--I am unschooled in philosophy and needed a knowledgeable POV.

First of all thanks, but I really wouldn't consider myself knowledgeable on philosophy, as I'm more interested in literature. It's self-taught, and controlling my wanton flights of fancy on this subject is difficult:blush:


One thing: he's not asserting that an ontological belief in a supernatural being is necessary for ethics; he made that clear.

I think we're confusing the word ethics...

However, while it is true that atheists can be moral, it is NOT true that one can be logically consistent and be an atheist and a moral realist at the same time. This latter claim is the true argument, not the former.

First the Humean argument. David Hume famously pointed out that one cannot extract an ought-statement from an is-statement. You cannot get an ought from an is, or in more technical terms, one cannot derive a prescriptive fact from a descriptive fact.

My argument against the author was that s/he was asserting that an atheist could not purport a metaphysical ethic. I comprehend that the author wasn't stating that atheists couldn't conjure up an inter subjective ethic deriving from descriptive facts. I was simply bewildered that the author seemed to implicitly state that a denial of metaphysics was an analytic part of atheism.


I wish I remembered what came before in the movie--was it the ferry bombs? He's saying that because the secular humanist does not appeal to a proscriptive set of morals, but rather a descriptive set derived from oneself, Batman is stuck in a situation where he can't explain the morally correct thing to do, in which case the conclusion that nihilism or throwing one's hands up and saying IDK are one's options. (I think? Anyone else weighing in? I need to rewatch the movie.)

Re to the bold part: And I'm proclaiming that while typically that holds veracity, that there is nothing inherent within secular humanism that precludes them from deriving their ethics from a metaphysical source, which would be prescriptive.

Just to let you know, I'm no fan of secular humanism, since a great many of them appeal to scientism, and are rather callous to religious folk.

Hope this reply didn't come off as too abrasive...
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Blank

.
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,201
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
The interesting thing about Nihilism is that it states that there is no objective meaning to anything.

In the case of the Joker, his reason for existence was to point out absurdity and to perpetuate it. In the case of Batman, his case for existence was to take his society's moral code and apply it to everybody. Objectively speaking, each character is imposing his will forcefully onto other people. This is not to say that both the Batman and the Joker are doing wrong, it is just a statement of fact.

Objectively speaking, there is no intrinsic "value" to the universe; however, human beings as they are have the power to ascribe relative meaning and connotation to the universe. If you were to look at one galaxy swallowing up another galaxy, chances are, you may not look at the event as being bad or barbaric; however, if you were to witness a crocodile eating your pet bunny rabbit, you would be much more likely to view the event as being bad because you lost an object in which you placed value.

Humans are able to empathize with not only animals (like our pet bunnies,) but with other humans as well. Most humans do not like being hit and have learned that if they hit another person, chances are, they will be hit back. Most of humanity's morals are based on this kind of thinking. When a large enough group of people have similar morals, they are able to enforce their will onto other people in an attempt to assimilate them into the "correct" way of viewing the world. When a person violates a group's moral code, there are ramifications varying from social ostracization to physical punishment, in which case, Batman is trying to uphold the status quo by having the voice of the majority override the voice of the minority. The Joker is saying that this kind of thinking or reasoning is wrong and should be abolished, thus the conflict.

EDIT: I guess I didn't really get to the whole theistic look on things, but I was more fascinated by the Batman reference. :D
 

murkrow

Branded with Satan
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
1,635
MBTI Type
INTJ
This entire post presumes secular ethics must adhere to Hume's ideas on ethics. This is as absurd to say as it would be to presume atheism must consign itself to Hume's ideas on causality, infinity, or truth. The post implicitly proclaims that there is an analytic quality to atheism to rescind metaphysics entirely. Which is to say that atheists are pretty much logical positivists.

While it is true that most atheists do purport something similar to logical positivism (mostly due to their ignorance of philosophy), this does not mean that atheism inherently denies metaphysics. One does not have to espouse an ontological belief in "God" to still maintain an ethic (or any metaphysical belief). A cursory reading of Kant will display the fallaciousness of any other claim.

I can't see how the author is relying on Hume's metaphysics.
I don't even see the point of invoking Hume in this situation, I think the author was looking for some brand name support.

The matter of ethics requiring an ontological structure is easily argued without any reliance on Hume: To define A as B, B must be defined.

To make any claims as to which life is good, a good life must be defined.

Ontological structures of ranking become necessary to make these definitions. I've yet to encounter an ontology that defensibly supports moral dogmatism.
 

Eruca

78% me
Joined
Nov 14, 2008
Messages
939
MBTI Type
INxx
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
The interesting thing about Nihilism is that it states that there is no objective meaning to anything.

In the case of the Joker, his reason for existence was to point out absurdity and to perpetuate it. In the case of Batman, his case for existence was to take his society's moral code and apply it to everybody. Objectively speaking, each character is imposing his will forcefully onto other people. This is not to say that both the Batman and the Joker are doing wrong, it is just a statement of fact.

Objectively speaking, there is no intrinsic "value" to the universe; however, human beings as they are have the power to ascribe relative meaning and connotation to the universe. If you were to look at one galaxy swallowing up another galaxy, chances are, you may not look at the event as being bad or barbaric; however, if you were to witness a crocodile eating your pet bunny rabbit, you would be much more likely to view the event as being bad because you lost an object in which you placed value.

Humans are able to empathize with not only animals (like our pet bunnies,) but with other humans as well. Most humans do not like being hit and have learned that if they hit another person, chances are, they will be hit back. Most of humanity's morals are based on this kind of thinking. When a large enough group of people have similar morals, they are able to enforce their will onto other people in an attempt to assimilate them into the "correct" way of viewing the world. When a person violates a group's moral code, there are ramifications varying from social ostracization to physical punishment, in which case, Batman is trying to uphold the status quo by having the voice of the majority override the voice of the minority. The Joker is saying that this kind of thinking or reasoning is wrong and should be abolished, thus the conflict.

EDIT: I guess I didn't really get to the whole theistic look on things, but I was more fascinated by the Batman reference. :D

This.

Plus, who said the joker was only refering to secular humanists when he said humanaty's morality was a bad joke? When I watched the film I interpretted joker's point to be that, as humans, our beliefs--secular or religious--wouldn't hold out when the "chips are down" either way. He indicated Gordan and the other policmen, I'm sure their would be theists in that bunch.
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
The hippo in the room is the fact that there has never been a civilization not based on a religion.

So before atheism, secular humanism or nihilism even get started, they need to explain, and explain away, this simple fact of life.

But so far none of them have succeeded in explaining this fact. And none bother to try to explain this fact. So they are dead in the water before they even start.

So atheism, secular humanism or nihilism are simply intellectual constructs without any empirical base.
 

Moiety

New member
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
5,996
MBTI Type
ISFJ
My argument against the author was that s/he was asserting that an atheist could not purport a metaphysical ethic. I comprehend that the author wasn't stating that atheists couldn't conjure up an inter subjective ethic deriving from descriptive facts. I was simply bewildered that the author seemed to implicitly state that a denial of metaphysics was an analytic part of atheism.

Well, were are they conjuring up their ethics from then? And isn't atheism usually based on precluding perspective facts in the first place? And aren't ethics a bunch of perspective facts put together?
 

Feops

New member
Joined
Feb 15, 2009
Messages
829
MBTI Type
INTx
Well, were are they conjuring up their ethics from then? And isn't atheism usually based on precluding perspective facts in the first place? And aren't ethics a bunch of perspective facts put together?

Yes, but there are facts that aren't based on perspective at work here. Many people equate cheating with breaking out and getting ahead somehow, but on the whole society relies on the enforcement of ethical behavior for the common good of everyone. Having personal and legal rights that we expect not to be broken establishes a basis of trust that we can use to conduct business and interact without fear of danger or unfair treatment. Law, the practical extension of ethics, is a cornerstone for a functional society.
 

murkrow

Branded with Satan
Joined
Jul 19, 2008
Messages
1,635
MBTI Type
INTJ
The hippo in the room is the fact that there has never been a civilization not based on a religion.

So before atheism, secular humanism or nihilism even get started, they need to explain, and explain away, this simple fact of life.

But so far none of them have succeeded in explaining this fact. And none bother to try to explain this fact. So they are dead in the water before they even start.

So atheism, secular humanism or nihilism are simply intellectual constructs without any empirical base.

And religions are empirically supported?

I agree that atheism and secular humanism have no empirical base, nihilism on the other hand is at least moderately supportable.

Operating on the following empirically tested premises: Existence exists, emotions are a result of the emotive body, values are the result of emotions

There is a higher truth than values-> values are not the higher life

I should say that I do not subscribe to this view and could argue counter to it, however I'd employ some sort of egoism which seems contrary to ethical intuitions in general as well as religion.
 

Bachelor Blumfeld

New member
Joined
Sep 14, 2009
Messages
9
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Well, were are they conjuring up their ethics from then?

From metaphysics. An example would be found in Kant's The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, and other places as well. Frankly, to elucidate further into this is something more arduous than I care to partake in (that is to say individuals like Kant and Hegel can say it far better than I can). In addition, I'd also like to be clear that I'm not necessarily a proponent of a normative ethic, I'm only claiming that a purely secular normative ethic is possible.

And isn't atheism usually based on precluding perspective facts in the first place?

Usually yes, but it's not inherent.

And aren't ethics a bunch of perspective facts put together?

I would think "put together" facts is more indicative of an inter subjective ethic derived from descriptive facts, than normative.
 

ajblaise

Minister of Propagandhi
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
7,914
MBTI Type
INTP
Secular humanism is great. No worldview is perfect, but if there was one, this would be it. This is roughly the direction Western society has been slowing moving towards, but it's most prevalent in Northern Europe. Also, it's not necessarily exclusive to an atheist or agnostic view; many religious people agree with at least some of the tenets of secular humanism, whether they know it or not.
.
What Is Secular Humanism?

Secular Humanism is a term which has come into use in the last thirty years to describe a world view with the following elements and principles:

* A conviction that dogmas, ideologies and traditions, whether religious, political or social, must be weighed and tested by each individual and not simply accepted on faith.
* Commitment to the use of critical reason, factual evidence, and scientific methods of inquiry, rather than faith and mysticism, in seeking solutions to human problems and answers to important human questions.
* A primary concern with fulfillment, growth, and creativity for both the individual and humankind in general.
* A constant search for objective truth, with the understanding that new knowledge and experience constantly alter our imperfect perception of it.
* A concern for this life and a commitment to making it meaningful through better understanding of ourselves, our history, our intellectual and artistic achievements, and the outlooks of those who differ from us.
* A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
* A conviction that with reason, an open marketplace of ideas, good will, and tolerance, progress can be made in building a better world for ourselves and our children.
Council for Secular Humanism

It's the ultimate rise of NTs over SJs!!
 

Mole

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 20, 2008
Messages
20,284
This is roughly the direction Western society has been slowing moving towards, but it's most prevalent in Northern Europe.

C'mon, Demographics shows us that Europe is moving towards Eurabia.

No society can survive without a religion and the vacuum in Europe is being filled by Islam.

And unfortunately for Europe the only Social Science that makes reliable predictions is Demographics.
 

Usehername

On a mission
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
3,794
many religious people agree with at least some of the tenets of secular humanism, whether they know it or not.

I agree--my political votes are cast as a secular humanist (I don't believe on imposing religious standards onto the general public). Which doesn't mean I behave and uphold my own morals any differently than many other "no sex outside of marriage" Christians (why is that always the easiest way to define the kind of seriousness of my theology?), but it does mean I choose to not make everyone subscribe.
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
C'mon, Demographics shows us that Europe is moving towards Eurabia.

No society can survive without a religion and the vacuum in Europe is being filled by Islam.

And unfortunately for Europe the only Social Science that makes reliable predictions is Demographics.

Way to miss the point, as usual.
 

Venom

Babylon Candle
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
2,126
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
The hippo in the room is the fact that there has never been a civilization not based on a religion.

So before atheism, secular humanism or nihilism even get started, they need to explain, and explain away, this simple fact of life.

All this would explain is that human society depends on imposing value structures on the group. Without a common value structure, incentives for collective action must be exorbitantly high. Your point is explainable by saying, "civilizations have always created religions, as it is an advantageous adaptation of a human society to have one". This would do nothing to prove or disprove atheism, theism or nihilism.

I would not call myself a nihilist, an empiricist atheist or a rationalist atheist. I'm just pointing out the flawed argument...
 

ajblaise

Minister of Propagandhi
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
7,914
MBTI Type
INTP
The hippo in the room is the fact that there has never been a civilization not based on a religion.

However, these days, religion is more often found in places with poor social conditions; while secularism enjoys a healthy relationship with civilization. So the opposite is taking shape.

The most religious countries are places like the Congo, Indonesia, and Bangladesh. The least religious are countries like Denmark and Norway.

I agree--my political votes are cast as a secular humanist (I don't believe on imposing religious standards onto the general public). Which doesn't mean I behave and uphold my own morals any differently than many other "no sex outside of marriage" Christians (why is that always the easiest way to define the kind of seriousness of my theology?), but it does mean I choose to not make everyone subscribe.

Are you a part of one of the liberal christian theologies? Some of those sects seem to have little, if any, of the main critiques of religion applicable to them. I think they're positive, overall.
 

Forgetful Functor

New member
Joined
Apr 12, 2009
Messages
65
MBTI Type
iNtP
Who ever said that morality had to be rational? Look around you, human behavior is clearly dominated by irrationality.

Choosing to value truth and justice (real justice, social justice) in spite of the meaninglessness of it all is a heroic decision.

"The greatest mystery is not that we have been flung at random among the profusion of the earth and the galaxies, but that in this prison we can fashion images sufficiently powerful to deny our nothingness."
-- Andre Malraux

I was looking for a quote of Camus but I couldn't find it so I substituted another good thought by another frenchman.
 

Venom

Babylon Candle
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
2,126
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
On an atheistic worldview, the only transcendental facts are descriptive facts. By transcendental I mean facts which are true regardless of what anyone thinks.

Now this being said, there can therefore be no prescriptive facts on an atheistic world view. Therefore, if atheists are to be consistent, they have to move beyond their short-sighted secular humanism and move into the realm of moral nihilism and sit alongside Ledger's joker.

....
The ethical skeptic watching this video might feel tempted to ask "Why does God solve the is-ought gap?" and feel as if he won the day. The problem is, that God's commands are not themselves descriptive, but are prescriptive.

The fact is that God prescribing morals solves nothing:
1. They could be arbitrarily prescribed: God could have made rape morally right and we wouldn't know the difference as far as 'prescription'.
2. If God is then prescribing based on some other criteria, then that other criteria exists separate from a God.
3. Therefore that criteria would not depend on God.


An extremely old Non-theistic (but not necessarily atheistic) expression of morality would be that of function. In that sense morality could be a descriptive interpretation.

As an a priori synthetic we could reason that all men seek happiness:
1. Why would a man seek unhappiness, if it didnt make him happy?
2. Why would he be moral, if it didnt make him happy?
3. Why would a man seek to be immoral, unless it made him happy?
4. Why would he fulfill a religion if it didnt in the end make him happy?
5. Why would a man desire his neighbor to be better off than him, unless it made the former man, HAPPY.

A. It simply "is" that happiness seeking is connected with absolute necessity to human beings of person hood. Man can do nothing else but desire to be happy. Thus its an irrelevant question to ask if we should aim to fulfill the function of being "happy seeking". Everyman already does fulfill this function.

B. All desire happiness, but not all achieve happiness due to restrictions of "what happens outside of our control". Achieving and desiring are not the same. Not all men achieve happiness and thus man's function may not be to achieve happiness. Man's function is to desire happiness. To desire, is inherently a teleological idea. "To desire", inherently implies that there is "a specific end in mind".

C. Thus man's function "is" happiness seeking, there is nothing that needs to be prescribed. Taking happiness "seeking" to its implied end, and happiness achievements are inherently built into man's function. Thus the original describing truth, actually implies a should (the more fully realized version of the same truth). People should seek happiness and strive for happiness achievements.

D. a. Moral laws are a game theory approximation that if everyone simply strove for their own happiness achievements without thought for others, they would actually impair their own possible happiness achievements. Thus people restrict their own desires so that they may actually, though counter-intuitively, maximize their happiness seeking achievements. Thus it is only a mere side effect that morality considers the group and how the group interacts (of note is that some people's happiness achievements depend on other's happiness).

D. b. This can all be easily summed up by the idea that immoral things can be viewed as "not treating a man as an end in themselves". In plain english, you are not respecting the "teleological end" contained in the "happiness seeking". In essence, its the denial of an agent's ability to seek their desired end. In other words, it's the denial of their free will. Murdering someone, doesnt treat them as a valued end in them self. Committing suicide, doesnt treat your own will as a valuable end in itself. This is not to be a "binding" metaphysical duty like Kant says. Its simply a "game theory-esque" quick and easy way to determine where everyone's "happiness seeking" is maximized.

E. Also of note, biologically, people are repulsed by actions that lower gene fitness. Humans are biologically engineered for pattern recognition (whether or not its even adaptive or maladaptive). When people recognize this pattern of "fitness lowing behavior" in themselves (violence, deception, selfishness etc), they can't help but feel contempt for themselves (the same content they'd biologically be driven to feel towards others who expressed this pattern).

F. The same problem with "God simply prescribing morals", the "its arbitrary" problem, is a threat here as well. In the Theistic arbitrary model, its possible to envision a world where rape and murder are prescribed as moral (ie it'd be ugly, but its fully envisionable). It is not however possible to envision a world where man did not seek happiness. Try to imagine a world where man seeks unhappiness. Why do anything, unless it made him unhappy. At first, this is tenable. Eventually it breaks down. For what is going on chemically when this seeker of unhappiness takes out the smelly trash? He would have to be doing it because he receives pleasure chemicals. The idea that he would be motivated to seek unhappiness by displeasure chemicals is absurd. Thus this version of describing human function is not arbitrary.



Cliff notes:
1. Its not arbitrary to seek happiness, because its all humans are capable of.
2. seeking happiness can be defined as prescriptive rather than just descriptive.
3. the reason this creates moral frameworks rather than anarchy: biology + game theory/economic considerations.
 
Top