Originally posted by amannionIf a human wrote it, and its source is pure human, than a human can change it.
Here's a thought Kelly ...
What if, just what if, a religious text - one that provides absolute morality for its believers - were written by humans? Does this fact negate the moral absolutes? Must it come from a god to be absolute? And if it must, how can you prove that it has?
The reality is we live in a world where there are few if any moral absolutes ...[text shortened]... e sky, and I'm guessing they still will be, long after the easter bunnies are gone.
Something absolute isn't something given to whims or debate, since whims and
debate can sway someone from thinking one way today and another tomorrow.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayOkay then, there are no moral absolutes.
If a human wrote it, and its source is pure human, than a human can change it.
Something absolute isn't something given to whims or debate, since whims and
debate can sway someone from thinking one way today and another tomorrow.
Kelly
And yet, still we have morality ... go figure.
Originally posted by epiphinehasPerhaps because God's mind is not just some mind. I mean, there has to be something to that; on most every occasion I can think of in the relevant literature it is recognized that God's existence established objective morality and meaning…
[b]At bottom, you still think "objective" meaning hinges on the existence of God, right?
I do.
Whereas at the same time you allow that other forms of meaning could exist apart from the existence of God but that these could not suffice for "objective" meaning, right?
Yes, because morality is henceforth (in a post-theistic world) relati ...[text shortened]... This is where atheism fails. And precisely where Christianity succeeds.[/b]
This really should not be so difficult. Please just give me some actual reasons why you think what you have outlined constitutes an 'objective' account of meaning. I have already given you some actual reasons why I think what you have outlined only seems to suggest subjectivity. As I have previously made clear, I am already committed to the stance that certain things may have both subjective and objective dimensions. So I am certainly open to the idea that your account may have objective dimension in addition to what I see as its subjective dimension. But you need to give me something to work with here.
You bring up Camus and Sartre and others here, for whatever reason. Let's focus on Sartre, for example, for a moment because it will also help to expose again how your arguments are lacking in yet another way. I have sitting right here in front of me an excerpt from one of Sartre's essays on Existentialism as a Humanism. In it, he states "Existentialism isn't so atheistic that it wears itself out showing that God doesn't exist. Rather, it declares that even if God did exist, that would change nothing. There you've got our point of view. Not that we believe that God exists, but we think the problem of His existence is not the issue." So, you see, even if as you claim Sartre thought that the death of God meant the death of "objective" meaning, he's obviously not too worried about such a loss. Point here being, not only have you not explained why I should think your account of meaning constitutes an 'objective' one; but you also have not explained why the atheist should care if meaning in life simply fails to be 'objective' in the sense you intend. You haven't explained why, for example, the supposedly non-objective meaning that you already concede atheists create for themselves carries any less clout or relevancy than your supposedly objective meaning would.
As I understand it, God establishes moral absolutes by divine decree. His decree is absolute because it is an extension of his own absolute nature. It, his decree, arises from him and thereby has its reality in him. In other words, God himself is the 'object' in question; i.e., being a source of absolutes, moral or otherwise, is his prescribed nature. It is for this reason, IMO, God's 'death' is considered the death of absolute morality.
This all seems to explain precisely nothing. You still have not given me even one substantive consideration that would offer me (or anyone) any good reason to metaphysically privilege God's mind above the minds of other agents. I may as well just say: "As I understand it, my next door neighbor establishes moral absolutes by neighborly decree. His decree is absolute because it is an extension of his own absolute nature. It, his decree, arises from him and thereby has its reality in him…It is for this reason that if or when my next door neighbor bites the dust, it would mean the death of absolute morality".
Further, the line of thinking that God somehow establishes morals merely through fiat encounters major problems (e.g., the Euthyphro Dilemma).
I think it does; she is asserting a contradiction: holding both (1) that life has no inherent meaning, and (2) that her life is meaningful. If (1) is true, how can (2) be true? If we assume that the universe is entirely devoid of meaning, then her life cannot have meaning in so far as it is a part of the universe.
First off, in my last post you will note that I had granted you, just for the sake of argument, that she, as an atheist, is thereby committed to her own mortality; to the non-existence of moral absolutes; and to the impermanence of things. Now, it was your job from there to explain exactly how it follows that she is, in virtue of these commitments, also committed to her life's having no meaning. That is, you were supposed to present some actual argument for that inference. Here, you have presented no such argument at all: you have merely stipulated that she is committed to the proposition that "life has no inherent meaning". That's called begging the question. You even go on to say "if we assume that the universe is entirely devoid of meaning…." Well, we didn't assume that. It would be rather unproductive if we did, since that is in context just question-begging. Secondly, and probably not that importantly, (1) and (2) as you have stated them are not necessarily contradictory. "Inherent" (or intrinsic) meaning or value can be differentiated from, say, instrumental meaning or value.
Are you saying that ignorance of inconsistency makes the atheist somehow consistent?
No, that is not even remotely what I was trying to say. My point there was basically that regarding the considerations you listed (like whether or not one is immortal; or whether or not moral absolutes exist; or whether or not things are permanent); these considerations typically are not even relevant to meaning ascription in life. If, for example, I am trying to figure out how best to flourish in some aspect of my work or personal life, it is simply not even a relevant consideration whether or not I will live forever and ever and ever and ever and ever.
Of course they (i.e, God and immortality) are relevant to the regular exercises and practices surrounding agency, because the fact is human beings cannot live as though morality were merely a matter of personal taste or social convention; we cannot live as though certain acts aren't genuinely right or wrong.
You bring up the term 'genuine' here. Yes I agree that, as a general rule, people have a certain need to think that their life has genuine content and that the things to which they resolve carry genuine content. But – again – this only brings us back to why your arguments until now are lacking. You still have not explained why your so-called objectivity is requisite for, or even just better suited toward, such genuineness. You haven't explained, for example, why your "objective" meaning carries more relevancy in this regard than the meaning you already concede atheists create for themselves. You haven't explained, for example, why the decrees of God carry more relevancy in this regard than, say, the decrees of my neighbor. Etc, etc.
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloNot sure whether you're cherry-picking every other word of Sarte's thoughts, or if you're just really, really poor at analyzing the salient thoughts. Either way, you couldn't be more wrong.
Perhaps because God's mind is not just some mind. I mean, there has to be something to that; on most every occasion I can think of in the relevant literature it is recognized that God's existence established objective morality and meaning…
This really should not be so difficult. Please just give me some actual reasons why you think what you ard than, say, the decrees of my neighbor. Etc, etc.[/b]
Sartre's atheism is significantly different from other forms of atheistic thought. Sartre is critical of certain
secular humanists who try to trivialize the human significance of the "death of God." For Sartre, the
nonexistence of God is of the greatest tragic import for humanity; for if God does not exist, then there is
no ultimate foundation for the ideas of value or meaning. Without God, there are no definable moral
boundaries, no apparent ground of universal purpose, nothing for man to cling to. "We are alone, with no
excuses."
Sartre quotes Dostoevsky's statement that "If God did not exist, then everything would be permissible."
The point of this statement, according to Sartre, is that, without God, there is no way to define the
distinction between the morally permissible and the morally impermissible. There are no fixed boundaries
within which my life might take on definable shape; there are no absolute guidelines to fall back on. If God
does not exist, then we can "find no values or commands to turn to which [might] legitimize our conduct;"
there are no excuses and no ultimate justifications for our lives. And it is in this sense that we experience
our freedom as "condemnation": it is a "dizzying" freedom, a freedom without absolute moral boundaries,
an unguided and inescapable "openness" toward being that can never be closed. Man's "openness"
points toward God, the transcendent absolute; but since there is no God, and since man (perhaps in spite
of himself) cannot become God, we are "condemned" to the unclosable openness of freedom. Only
death, therefore, can release us from the "condemnation" of freedom, of the human condition; but death is
no solution, according to Sartre, since the individual can have no experience of the "closedness" or the
"resolution" of death. Thus, "unhappy consciousness" is an ineradicable dimension of the human
2situation, and the acceptance of this situation is "good faith" (while its denial is self-deception or bad
faith).
On the basis of his "postulatory atheism," Sartre concludes that a full and "authentic" recognition of the
burden of human freedom and responsibility will lead to an ongoing experience of anguish, forlornness,
and despair.
http://www.bergen.edu/faculty/gcronk/sartrenotes.pdf
And, of course Sarte had no problem with a universe void of objective thought: he believed that anything remotely resembling objectivity only comes about from the bed of subjectivity.
As far as the relevancy of a life lived informed by either objectivity or subjectivity, look no further than Sarte's own conclusions about the only authentic atheism is one which is marked by anguish, forlornness and despair. Now, the argument could be made that that recognition only speaks against the one side without benefiting the other and that would be true. The Christian, however, is not relying on unending longevity to lend credence to his position. Instead, he is pointing to the worthiness of the object of his worship as the standard which gives his currency any value.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFrom the same link:
Not sure whether you're cherry-picking every other word of Sarte's thoughts, or if you're just really, really poor at analyzing the salient thoughts. Either way, you couldn't be more wrong.
[quote]
Sartre's atheism is significantly different from other forms of atheistic thought. Sartre is critical of certain
secular humanists who try to trivialize ...[text shortened]... ship as the standard which gives his currency any value.
Sartre argues that man's existential freedom is inescapable (as are the consequences of that freedom). It is man — and not God, nature, or society — who is the source of values (and Sartre means that each individual person is the source of his own values). Thus, man is inescapably responsible for himself and for his world. The ethical ideal of Sartre's philosophy is "a freedom which wills itself freedom" — the free choice of the human situation, the recognition of one's responsibility for oneself and for one's world.
Looks to me like LemonJello is on the money. You, however, decided to stop before the author of that article reached Sartre's conclusion.
3 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIs this like the time you tried to teach us all something about the philosophy of Schopenhauer?
Not sure whether you're cherry-picking every other word of Sarte's thoughts, or if you're just really, really poor at analyzing the salient thoughts. Either way, you couldn't be more wrong.
[quote]
Sartre's atheism is significantly different from other forms of atheistic thought. Sartre is critical of certain
secular humanists who try to trivialize ship as the standard which gives his currency any value.
At the end of the day, this is a discussion about epiphinehas' claim that atheism is not consistent with the taking of one's life to be actually meaningful. It's strange that he brings up Sartre because the simple fact is that Sartre's work does not support such a claim. It seems quite the opposite. If anything, Sartre works to the conclusion that the subject of God's existence is, at the end of the day, not relevant. And that is germane to my point in this context: epiphinehas has not given any actual argument why the atheist should even care if meaning in life simply fails to be 'objective' in the sense he intends.
You would do well to read Sartre's Existentialism is a Humanism. 'Anguish', 'forlornness', 'despair'; these are concepts that have specific meaning to Sartre. And, a conclusion that Sartre actually works to there is more or less a denial of what epiphinehas is claiming: that even if God did exist, that fact would have no relevancy.
Originally posted by LemonJelloIs this like the time you tried to teach us all something about the philosophy of Schopenhauer?
Is this like the time you tried to teach us all something about the philosophy of Schopenhauer?
At the end of the day, this is a discussion about epiphinehas' claim that atheism is not consistent with the taking of one's life to be actually meaningful. It's strange that he brings up Sartre because the simple fact is that Sartre's work does not support ...[text shortened]... inehas is claiming: that even if God did exist, that fact would have no relevancy.
Only if you don't listen.
'Anguish', 'forlornness', 'despair'; these are concepts that have specific meaning to Sartre.
Granted, Sartre uses the terms with a greater emphasis on the frankness/sober aspect of their usual, normal definitions, but--- at the end of the day--- his description of man as utterly alone, with only himself for himself is quite revealing. For him, it all comes down to taking responsibility for one's freedom without a net, one's only judge is oneself... although he does give concession for extrapolating one's behavior over the whole of humanity.
And, there is the missing part. Without God, without any outside, static standard of being, who gives a rat's ass how anyone behaves--- as long as I get mine in first? But really, even if I don't get mine in first, I can't cry foul because the only standard is man. If some other man gets his in first, well, that's man so it must be 'good.'
Without God any alleged value that is created (subjected to each man) is of equal value. Sartre's illusionary invention of value is just that: imagined good on the basis of one's feelings. While he goes to painstaking lengths to say the only bad thing is to pacify one's self with non-existent beings, the world he is imagining attempts to transfer the good from the real world while leaving the evil behind. Good and evil is a packaged deal. And if, indeed, the only evil possible is 'wrong thinking,' then he merely confirms what was said earlier: if all ideas toward life are valuable, then none are valuable... or, as has been tag-lined by a certain respected person to these parts: "Nothing Holy."
2 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHif all ideas toward life are valuable, then none are valuable..
[b]Is this like the time you tried to teach us all something about the philosophy of Schopenhauer?
Only if you don't listen.
'Anguish', 'forlornness', 'despair'; these are concepts that have specific meaning to Sartre.
Granted, Sartre uses the terms with a greater emphasis on the frankness/sober aspect of their usual, normal definitions, bu n tag-lined by a certain respected person to these parts: "Nothing Holy."[/b]
I disagree. Sartre gives unlimited value to freedom. For Sartre, the freedom of the individual is the starting point for all her moral deliberation. When, however, people just take for granted received opinion, Sartre considers that bad faith because they have essentially relinquished that freedom. To take one of LemonJello's example, imagine if everyone simply decided to follow the opinion of their neighbour. Everyone would simply be a conformist. Sure, that community may end up with a consistent standard of values but no one would question why they are valuable. For Sartre, even if there were a God, how could unquestioning obedience to His will be considered any different than group conformity? The person still relinquishes her freedom and commits bad faith. 'Lot's challenge to God not to kill Sodom if should he find one good man is perhaps the best example of biblical existentialism -- Lot does not hand over his freedom to God simply because He is God but continues to question.
Now this isn't quite the same thing as relativism or subjectivism.
First, Sartre does recognise something valuable which precedes any act of individual will -- freedom. He believes that the power to assign values presupposes the value of the freedom to do so in the first place. I suppose the reasoning is that, if the individual can assign value to objects in her life, then the freedom to do is at least instrumentally valuable,as the means of assigning values.
Second, Sartre's existentialism does not posit that all things are valuable. Simply because I think something is valuable does not make it so (which would be relativism.) I could simply be conditioned by religious upbringing, a chiding mother, societal convention or a whole host of other value-teaching institutions. For something to have value, at least to me, I must not commit bad faith by handing the decision over to my religion, mother or society. Possibly all our putative values are constituted from bad faith.
Third, simply because moral values must, according to Sartre, originate in the subject, the one who assigns values, this does not preclude objectivity. Perhaps when we finally reach freedom, when we have divested ourselves of all the values handed down to us, we may reach the same moral conclusions. We may discover some objective moral code in this freedom. Perhaps current disagreements on moral issues are all the result of bad faith. This is indeed the path of Christian existentialists. The individual cannot make an act of faith simply because first communion is approaching -- that's bad faith; she must do it freely and by her own reasons.
I can think of a simple test for the morality of atheists: Check statistics of Atheist suicides and check the statistic of atheists being admitted for extreme depression since you all think there is no moral center for atheists, they must suffer extreme pangs of angst.
Personally I think theists are the ones who are deluded into thinking there is a supernatural kind of morality written out in books that just by sheer co-incidence have been written by men.
Originally posted by sonhousesince you all think there is no moral center for atheists, they must suffer extreme pangs of angst.
I can think of a simple test for the morality of atheists: Check statistics of Atheist suicides and check the statistic of atheists being admitted for extreme depression since you all think there is no moral center for atheists, they must suffer extreme pangs of angst.
Personally I think theists are the ones who are deluded into thinking there is a supe ...[text shortened]... kind of morality written out in books that just by sheer co-incidence have been written by men.
Why? A meaningless life does not necessarily entail an angst-ridden one. Perhaps an atheist, eschewing any sense of purpose or value, lives an hedonistic lifestyle replete with endless gratification. I would agree such a life is meaningless but I would not immediately predict he would commit suicide.
Personally I think theists are the ones who are deluded into thinking there is a supernatural kind of morality written out in books that just by sheer co-incidence have been written by men.
You're clearly not following the thread. The issue is not about the authority of the bible. In fact, that point, as far as I remember, has not arisen. Many Christians would not rely exclusively on biblical mandate either. Christian ethics extends far beyond scriptural exegesis.
Originally posted by Conrau KYes, Christian ethics, an oxymoron. Like what they did to the Aztecs, Mayans, and such, like what they did to the Australian aborigines, like what they did to the American Indians. You are right, Christian ethics extends far beyond scriptural exegesis.
[b]since you all think there is no moral center for atheists, they must suffer extreme pangs of angst.
Why? A meaningless life does not necessarily entail an angst-ridden one. Perhaps an atheist, eschewing any sense of purpose or value, lives an hedonistic lifestyle replete with endless gratification. I would agree such a life is meaningless but I w ...[text shortened]... xclusively on biblical mandate either. Christian ethics extends far beyond scriptural exegesis.[/b]
Originally posted by Conrau KI'll give you this: the position of existentialism is so fraught with absurdities, it is exceedingly difficult to argue on its behalf while keeping a straight face.
[b]if all ideas toward life are valuable, then none are valuable..
I disagree. Sartre gives unlimited value to freedom. For Sartre, the freedom of the individual is the starting point for all her moral deliberation. When, however, people just take for granted received opinion, Sartre considers that bad faith because they have essentiall ...[text shortened]... ommunion is approaching -- that's bad faith; she must do it freely and by her own reasons.[/b]
Unquestionably, Sartre held that life without God necessarily removed any form of objectivity, completely obliterating the distinctions between morally permissible and morally impermissible. Thus, my statement "if all ideas are valuable, then none are valuable." As stated, he attempted to bring good into this imaginary world ala "good faith" and "bad faith," (in essence, postulating a re-engineered Garden of Eden, although this time with fruit from a different tree) in a failed attempt to qualify the one valuable thing, i.e., acknowledging one's freedom.
Also as stated, it's a package deal, that good and evil thing. For him, responsibility becomes the new religion: the existentialist is responsible for teaching others. Of course, he offers no reason for this anchor accompanying new-found freedom, just as he cannot offer a justification for any other ought, such as:
"Every man ought to say to himself, 'Am I really the kind of man who has the right to act in such a way that humanity might guide itself by my actions?'"
Here, he has done nothing more than say on the one hand, there is no God, thus no Model of Ought, but there is man, thus a Model of Ought.
That being said, the folly that seemed like wisdom was the counterintuitive nature of the logical results of such thinking. Whereas man from his beginning is constantly striving for happiness, this discovery of Sartre's results in "unhappy consciousness." Who woulda thunk? All those stupid people who came before him, wasting their time seeking joy, when the truth of the matter could be found in that dull ache so easily found inside each one of them.
Originally posted by PalynkaWhen we talk about meaning, where talking about life and existence.
Sad that you can't realize life can have meaning beyond the nodding of a made up entity.
As for your rephrasing, it displays such ignorance of the basis of atheism or moral absolutism that it's not worth my time. I expected better from you, guess I was wrong.
Where not talking about you thinking you had a meaningful day, because you went to the soccer with your friends,and your team won....thats not meaning.
When it comes to existence, the atheist has no meaning to embrace because their very life was an accident and they should not be here. And when they die they cease to exist.......you cannot squeeze any meaning out of that belief.
At best you can only live one day to the next, searching for stuff to satisfy the material senses, until you drop dead.
Thats the existence of an animal because an animal cannot do anything to fore-fill the purpose of life, which is to be self realized in God consciousness.
A human being can perfect their life through loving God and returning to the spiritual home.
A person who does not endeavor for this, has no meaning in their life......Zero
another way to point out the absurdity of the op : paraphrasing it.
Is there a theist, alive or dead, within these forums or without, who has truly lived as if God does exist? In other words, is it possible for someone to live consistently in the 'light' of objective self-deception, without accidentally presupposing moral absolutes or pretending, even fleetingly, that their god has meaning ?
(yes i kept the "moral absolutes" part unchanged, because some atheist might state that religions have their own particular and partial vision of truth and ethics, which makes them anything but absolute)