I want to take this opportunity to spark some discussion on values unique to or characteristic of atheists. The values we should discuss include but are not exclusive to moral values. The pursuit of objective truth could be considered a value. Are such values possible, or is the very notion of "values" a dogmatic afront to atheist thought? Are there any values universal to all atheists across the board, and are there values held by some atheists which are not held by others? Is a taxology of atheism possible, based on comparing and contrasting the values of different, influential atheist thinkers? I have a few thoughts to get things started: (1) Moral Objectivism. Ethical objectivism, from what one reads online today, appears to be a value universal of atheists. But this is just not so. The dogmatic followers of Ayn Rand and her (poor) philosophy are very numerous online, and it is an easy mistake to assume that all atheists are objectivists. In reality, atheism has a long tradition of moral skepticism, from Hume during the Enlightenment to J. L. Mackie today. (2) Materialism. While I am an atheist and a materialist, I recognise that many atheists are not. However, materialism and atheism have gone hand-in-hand since the advent of French Materialism in the Enlightenment. All of the Young Hegelians, which include Marx (unfortunately), were atheists and materialists. Today, materialism is heatedly debated in the philosophy of mind. Perhaps materialist philosophy has come to something of a full circle, since the French Materialists asserted their atheism in the form of arguments against the immortality of the soul - i.e. the mind is a brain. (3) Scientism. "Scientism" is a generally new "-ism" in the history of philosophy. Generally, it may be regarded as the idea that philosophy should strive at continuity with the natural sciences. Substitute the term "positivism" for "scientism" if one is so inclined. Atheists do generally seem to be optimists regarding science, with a few exceptions, most notably Nietzsche. (4) Determinism. Determinism is the belief that all events, past, present, and future, are determined by the laws of nature, manifested in the causal chain. In short, there is no free will, and all of our actions are determined by our nature. Determinism was thought to be something of a direct consequence of the mechanistic, Newtonian physics of the Enlightenment. Marx was a determinist of another stripe, a historical determinist. However, determinism has been almost totally surplanted since the dawn of general relativity. There is precious little evidence supporting determinism to be found in science, say what you will about psychology. (5) Skepticism. Where would atheist thought be today without skepticism? Indeed, it would probably have never got off the ground at all. Skepticism dates back to ancient, Greek philosophers such as Pyrrho and through Roman times with Sextus Empiricus. But the climax of skeptical philosophy is marked by David Hume's "Enquiry." Of particular relevance to our present purposes within the Humean canon is the "Dialogues," in which Hume presents his case for atheism (mostly) in the guise of the character of Philo. In "The Life of Jesus," Strauss rejects the supernatural events recorded in the New Testament prima facie and focuses instead on giving an account of the life of the human Jesus. Strauss concludes that Jesus the man has been mythologized to such an extent that the actual existence of Jesus of Nazareth, as a historical figure, is questionable. It is the spirit of skeptical inquiry that drives atheism. Atheism is critique, more negative than positive. And so it should not be surprising that skepticism appeals to atheists universally and over scientism. If there can be said to be an atheist value, skepticism is it.
As an agnostic ,the value I see in discussing the values between atheism and deism,is that they are the same=atheists BELIEVE there is no deity---deists BELIEVE there is.Hence=they are both BELIEVERS.Sorry,if this is rather specious.
Objectivists, with a capital O, are the most dogmatically religious thinkers of the non-theist crowd. They hold that ethics is founded on an ultimate value; that ultimate value being life (how life is a value I'm not sure). I read through a formal debate on IIDB where an Objectivist spent thousands of words attempting to show this true in the face of countless devastating counter-examples. The best they could come up with was: the foundational value of ethics is life because it is (repeated over and over). Not a stunning argument. Even if I grant that to an Objectivist this "ultimate value", then none of the rest of her philosophy follows. If "continuing my life" is the impetus for my ethical decisions and pooling and sharing my resources with my neighbors is the only way to do that, then I must embrace socialsim. Ms. Rand was an unquestioning advocate of true laissez-faire capitalism and would dogmatically reject that out of hand simply because it didn't jive with her preset world view; she never let facts of the matter get in her way! And the whole idea that man was not a social creature but a lone wolf just seemed unbelievable. I'm an optimist when it comes to science, but I don't believe science has much to offer ethically. Maybe some insights from the soft sciences like Sociallogy and Psychology, but that's about it. I find determinism to be a lot like solipsism--it being true of false is irrelevant. If I'm determined, then all of my pondering about being determined and it's implications on ethics are also determined. There's no way out of the determined circle, so it's irrelevant. If determinism is false, then I'm not determined and free to choose my actions. Either way, I have the sensation of choosing with no avenue to discover whether or not that sensation is true of false.
Originally Posted by Common Sense (1) Moral Objectivism. Ethical objectivism, from what one reads online today, appears to be a value universal of atheists. But this is just not so. The dogmatic followers of Ayn Rand and her (poor) philosophy are very numerous online, and it is an easy mistake to assume that all atheists are objectivists. In reality, atheism has a long tradition of moral skepticism, from Hume during the Enlightenment to J. L. Mackie today. sence i am an atheist i feel that the concept "evil" is religious, i pretty much go by basic values past down in my concept of soceity, so most question that are torn by religion, like abortion, homosexuilty, i dont veiw them as evil or wrong, sence there is no god in my mind humanity people cant "play god" but our want to creatate these new tools will definitly cause our down fall with out the involment of a god or religious meaning. as far as ethics go i feel that humans as a whole will or have broke every ethic set up by any other culture, i think the change in ethics mostly it just humanitys instenck to keep leaving in its enviroment with out everyone killing everyone, our ideas are the reason why we fight each other, our idea of wealth and power, and ethics, there is a basic set of rules passed on thorugh generations that you should not kill, rape, steal... in the majority of humans so that way the human race could survive, reilgion defnitly help set up that basic code but religion is only needed as a tempory guide, so the very basic ethical code in your soceity, the core of moral and ethical action is what you should live by Quote: (3) Scientism. "Scientism" is a generally new "-ism" in the history of philosophy. Generally, it may be regarded as the idea that philosophy should strive at continuity with the natural sciences. Substitute the term "positivism" for "scientism" if one is so inclined. Atheists do generally seem to be optimists regarding science, with a few exceptions, most notably Nietzsche. im pretty much all for science because it is the basis for why we are human Quote: (4) Determinism. Determinism is the belief that all events, past, present, and future, are determined by the laws of nature, manifested in the causal chain. In short, there is no free will, and all of our actions are determined by our nature. Determinism was thought to be something of a direct consequence of the mechanistic, Newtonian physics of the Enlightenment. Marx was a determinist of another stripe, a historical determinist. However, determinism has been almost totally surplanted since the dawn of general relativity. There is precious little evidence supporting determinism to be found in science, say what you will about psychology. this is like that math question with the remander of .33333333333 or pie, this question will just go on forever in a circle i dont think this question is anything but a way for humanity to torture its slef.
I'm a whole-hearted materialist. Immaterialism is just incoherent and epistemically sloppy--it just makes unverifiable shit up and asserts it true (see mysticism). Materialsim pretty much makes me a subjectivist. I don't believe 'good' and 'bad' are inherent values or qualities of actions. Values are projected onto actions by a subject. For some reason, subjectivism is often equated with radical relativism--if ethical values aren't objective then ethical judgments are impossible. I've never understood this charge. Subjectivism merely states that values are derived from subjects not from objects making ethical judgment quite possible and real, however, not absolute. Societies exist because of inter-subjectivism. While values are unique to the individual, they are not unique in themselves. Humans all have the same biological needs and many of the same psychological needs; values are indicitive of our needs--we value what we need (or want, if there is a subjective difference). As humans, we value most of the same things--there is more overlap in what we value than there is difference.
I'm a good person, shoot, I'm a great person. You taking my word for it? If humans need gods to give us values than why did Homo habilis bother to hunt, & scavenge food for his children? .....Nevermind. I got off my knees young.
Common sense There is no difference between athiest values. And agnostic values. Neither path has 'a higher source' to draw appon. We must rely on our 'feeble' human intellect to solve moral and ethical questions. The questions of reality we are solving faster than people can keep up. Most still have no idea of what entropy and newtonian mechanics is let alone relativity and Qmechanics. Occam places 100% of his backing to the human mind to solve all these problems. and none to a higher power. God.as described by religion.looks good on paper. But dos'nt pan out well in reality. Too much contradiction and very little omnipotence. Occam
You are all wrong. Have none of you been paying attention to the Word of God? Atheists, agnostics, and non-believers are heathens and do not have morals!! Starting to make sense now?
Hiky Of course.. no one without a religion has morals. This is obvious. How could we? How could we have morals without some fool saying god said these are your morals? Do you think morality is to be THOUGHT about...lol.. what a joke.Only god can dispense morality..like a wall machine dispenses condoms. Occam
PS Occam was 'hit on' by mormons in the street today. What pure fun it was. Had the poor boy saying he was sorry after 5 minutes. Sorry for presuming that we 'marks' were stupid and had no path. He didnt like that. The understanding that what he was doing was presuming non mormons had wasted all their thinking for x years untill this little twerp showed up. MAn occam loves the black suits and quiet desperation they exude. And the yank accents...this guy was a NOOB All squeeky clean and straight out of salt lake. He just went blank at the word agnostic..LOL He failed to realise that occam and a friend had just spent 2 hours and 2 coffees argueing religion and it's place in society. The owner of the coffee shop got involved too.. a born again. And things got real interesting. Occam latter thank him. [the owner] for providing such choice entertainment for his customers. then HE started to worry lol Occam loves humans...we are so entertaining. Occam
