Ask an Atheist

[TagliatelliMonster]

I mean it happened to me as I described, and if it happened to you, what would an Atheist call such an event?

Sounds like a pointless question, as an atheist would not be praying.
Kind of like asking a non-soccer player about scoring a penalty. It's just not applicable, because if you don't play soccer, you won't be taking any penalties either.

If you ask someone who doesn't own a car about the road he takes to drive to work, he'll just reply "I don't drive, I take the train".

Obviously I can't call it chance, becasue that's not what happened.

How would you know that?

You don't just pray for a disabled person and have the answers fall from sky.
Not normally.
If you did, then you'd be very powerful, and people would
come from miles around just to touch you.

If history has shown us anything, it most certainly is that people don't need special powers in order to be worshipped/revered for their supposed special powers.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why should I not pursue my own interests at the expense of others?

In reality, you actually do that every minute of every day.

Consider for example, applying for a job. If you get it, all the other candidates won't get it.
ie: you're pursueing your own interest at the expense of the other candidates.

If you go to the store and buy the last sandwich, the people coming after you no longer will have a sandwich to buy.

The only thing you can do is try and reduce it to a minimum. And you should do that, for the benefit of others and society as a whole, which in turn is in your benefit as well.

You want to live in a prosperous, peacefull and free society where you can live your life as you see fit, right? That can only happen if you, along with the other citizens, realise that your choices and actions reflect on those around you and that you recognise that impact.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What do you think of what may be termed supernatural or spiritual occurences? Apart from those that have been obviously exposed as fake, like the sham seance organisers, who have used special affects to produce 'phenomena', and apart from those who have mental illnesses?
Have you, yourself, ever experienced anything which seems 'supernatural', paranormal' or 'otherworldly'? Something which, on the face of it, seems unexplainable or a bit 'weird'.

If something is unexplainable, it just means that it is unexplainable.

Not that it is "supernatural" - because that would be explaining it.

Also, you can't explain the unexplained, with the inexplicable.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yeah sure, why not.
I think I would have to say Christmas. All major holidays are a reason to spend time with family so I can't single any holiday out for that. I think I like it because when I see all the lights and hear the collective planning rush it reminds me of how when thing look dark we band together. I mean Christmas comes right before the heavy blast of the long cold dark winter and the lights and the atmosphere just makes me feel like we're all together.

Christmass is totally awesome!

Decorated trees, twinkling lights everywhere, presents everywhere, going "the extra mile" with the food, themed feel-good movies, gatherings with family members you haven't seen in a long time,... and big bonus points if it's snowing as well!

Hands down, best time of the year.

 

[AV1611VET]

ie: you're pursueing your own interest at the expense of the other candidates.

Isn't that called "survival of the fittest"?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Do you believe that our mammalian heritage has equipped us with a sense of morality that is, in some objective sense, correct?

TFA obviously can answer for himself, but I'm butting in, because I have some strong opinions.

No, someone was alluding to the is/ought problem, which is relevant -- Just because our moral intuitions *are* this way doesn't mean they *ought* to be this way.

Or had we evolved differently, could our moral intuitions have been the polar opposite, and what would that mean? If they were truly randomly selected

No, they could not have been the polar opposite. Also, you are not quite right about how evolution works. The principle Darwin came up with was not 'random selection', but 'natural selection'. Assuming our moral intuitions are subject to evolution, selection would favor those moral intuitions that allow one to produce more offspring. So evolution would never favor the moral intuition that "procreation is immoral".

As an interesting (to me) example, when a male lion takes over a pride, he typically kills the cubs. An evolutionary explanation for this is that he's eliminating his rival's genes, and if the females are no longer nursing, they will be fertile sooner, so that he can pass on more of his own genes. I don't know that lions think in terms of morality, but this is a behavior that evolution favors.

When we turn to humans, I don't think anyone is going to publicly state as a moral law that "Men ought to kill one's stepchildren, so that they can produce their own children with their wives."

And yet we know as a fact that stepfathers are about 100 times more likely to kill their stepchildren, than fathers are to kill their children.

Now, if one were an idiot (and some evolutionary psychologists flirt with this idiocy) one could say that this behavior in humans has an obvious evolutionary rationale. And that, since it is natural, it is moral.

Fortunately, back in question one, I agreed that just because something *is* that way, doesn't mean it *ought* to be that way. Even if this behavior is produced by evolution doesn't mean we should accept it as moral.

, could it be possible even in principle to use intellect to refine them? In other words, can we use our intellect to determine which of our evolutionary instincts are "good" and which are "bad" if the very concept of right and wrong is based solely in those instincts?

Yes, exactly. I don't know that all morality is necessarily entirely generated by evolution, but to the extent that it is, or whether it is or it isn't, we're not stuck with those intuitions and instincts, we can refine them.

(Don't worry. I'm a theistic evolutionist--

Phew! That's a relief.

 

[Tayla]

I would like to answer any questions you have regarding atheism as I understand it.

The only question for a Christian to ask an atheist is whether their assumption of materialism allows for the possibility of a spiritual realm having souls, consciousness, God, etc. If the answer is "no", then no other questions need to be asked. The discussion is dead.

 

[Strathos]

So evolution would never favor the moral intuition that "procreation is immoral".

Not even when it leads to overpopulation?

 

[Silmarien]

No, someone was alluding to the is/ought problem, which is relevant -- Just because our moral intuitions *are* this way doesn't mean they *ought* to be this way.

It is very relevant, I agree. That is why I asked the question, though in a way that sidestepped the terminology.

No, they could not have been the polar opposite. Also, you are not quite right about how evolution works. The principle Darwin came up with was not 'random selection', but 'natural selection'. Assuming our moral intuitions are subject to evolution, selection would favor those moral intuitions that allow one to produce more offspring. So evolution would never favor the moral intuition that "procreation is immoral".

Mmm, sloppy wording on my part, yes, but evolution has moved past the point where everything is a matter of survival of the fittest. There is now the argument that cooperation is a necessary element in the development of higher forms of life at all, there is a slowly growing trend towards Neo-Aristotelianism in the philosophy of biology, even in secular circles, whereby what we see going on in evolution is only coherent in terms of final causality. Here's an article explaining the issue.

I use the word "random," because from a Neo-Aristotelian perspective, if you toss out the concept of immanent teleology, everything does in fact become random. And if you include it, then there are some very interesting conversations to be had with Thomists and other classical theists. (Unfortunately, nobody knows we exist!)

As an interesting (to me) example, when a male lion takes over a pride, he typically kills the cubs. An evolutionary explanation for this is that he's eliminating his rival's genes, and if the females are no longer nursing, they will be fertile sooner, so that he can pass on more of his own genes. I don't know that lions think in terms of morality, but this is a behavior that evolution favors.

Have you come across the story of the hawk raised by eagles? Super intriguing.

Fortunately, back in question one, I agreed that just because something *is* that way, doesn't mean it *ought* to be that way. Even if this behavior is produced by evolution doesn't mean we should accept it as moral.

I agree. I think it's very interesting that we can turn an "is" into an "ought." I suspect a connection between morality and rationality, though that ultimately only begs the question of how to account for rationality.

How do you address it? ("Is" vs. "ought." Not rationality. That's too big a question.)

Phew! That's a relief.

Not sure if you're being facetious or not, but if people see someone arguing teleology, they usually assume Intelligent Design. Which is not just pseudoscience but also theologically incoherent.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Not even when it leads to overpopulation?

The environment has a way of fixing that.

I'm not an expert, but possibly evolution could push a species to lowering average litter size or something, but you'd think they'd still be outcompeted by the ones that had higher litter size. When 90% of them starve to death, the outcompeters will start outcompeting again (assuming they starve at similar rates since they're all part of one population of this species).

(At the other end, a mother can only take care of so many young, so there has to be a limit on the maximum litter size as well, so evolution is not a race toward more and more babies per litter.)

 

[essentialsaltes]

I agree. I think it's very interesting that we can turn an "is" into an "ought." I suspect a connection between morality and rationality, though that ultimately only begs the question of how to account for rationality.

How do you address it? ("Is" vs. "ought."

Well, as I said, I think it's a mistake to equate the two. And like Hume, I don't see that one can derive one from the other. They are separate realms.

Is talks about the way the world actually... um, is.

Ought talks about the way we each would like the world to be.

Our moral ideas can be informed by the way things are. But formally or informally, we base our oughts on some moral philosophy (even if it's just the philosophy of relying on your instinct), and yes, to a greater or lesser degree, with a greater or lesser degree of success, we use rational processes to determine what ought to be the case in any given situation.

Not sure if you're being facetious or not, but if people see someone arguing teleology...

Mostly not facetious. There is enough nonsense in the creation/evolution forums here; glad you're not going to add to it. As for teleology, that's a theistic variation on evolution. It's not something I share, but it doesn't bother me, and as far as I know it predicts nothing that is experimentally different from the predictions of evolution without teleology.

 

[Silmarien]

Mostly not facetious. There is enough nonsense in the creation/evolution forums here; glad you're not going to add to it. As for teleology, that's a theistic variation on evolution. It's not something I share, but it doesn't bother me, and as far as I know it predicts nothing that is experimentally different from the predictions of evolution without teleology.

Not exclusively, actually. Are you familiar with some of what Thomas Nagel has to say on the matter? There are definitely naturalistic approaches to teleology out there.

Whether teleology works without theism is another question entirely, though. But there are certainly people out there who are sympathetic to immanent teleology without exploring what metaphysical implications it might have.

 

[tansy]

If something is unexplainable, it just means that it is unexplainable.

Not that it is "supernatural" - because that would be explaining it.

Also, you can't explain the unexplained, with the inexplicable.

I did say unexplainable 'on the face of it'. And I wasn't necessarily implying that something apparently unexplainable is therefore supernatural...To me, the fact that an apple falls to the ground when dropped would be unexplainable, but for the scientists who have explained it.

 

[Cearbhall]

Why should I not pursue my own interests at the expense of others?

Because there are people who will stop you by whatever means necessary, and I think you'll find that life is much more prosperous for you in the long run if your time isn't consumed by such battles.

 

[quatona]

Why should I not pursue my own interests at the expense of others?

I could give you a couple of reasons (all of which sort of come down to "Because it´s stupid.") - but I would be interested to know:
How did you arrive at the idea that you shouldn´t do that, in the first place, and are apparently in need of a post hoc rationalization for it?

 

[Strathos]

Because there are people who will stop you by whatever means necessary, and I think you'll find that life is much more prosperous for you in the long run if your time isn't consumed by such battles.

Unless you're rich, that is. Then you get away with it.

 

[Cearbhall]

Unless you're rich, that is. Then you get away with it.

If that's your observation, then you can do your part in changing that.

 

[Strathos]

If that's your observation, then you can do your part in changing that.

Not much I can do without being rich myself.

 

[HereIStand]

I could give you a couple of reasons (all of which sort of come down to "Because it´s stupid.") - but I would be interested to know:
How did you arrive at the idea that you shouldn´t do that, in the first place, and are apparently in need of a post hoc rationalization for it?

If I don't believe in a God or an afterlife, then there are no consequences for my actions, assuming they are legal. Freud rightly puzzles over the Golden Rule in Civilization and Its Discontents. Rather than feeling humane love for a neighbor unknown to him, Freud pronounced "this stranger on the whole unworthy of love, but, to be honest I must confess he has more claim to my hostility, even to my hatred." In his mind "Love thy neighbor as thy neighbor loves thee" was a more sensible formulation.

 

[durangodawood]

Why should I not pursue my own interests at the expense of others?

Do you think that would truly make you happy?