But overall if you don't know you really dont know it really is a place of lack of knowledge from which few conclusions can be drawn. In my opinion. You start acting on faith from that basis. — Andrew4Handel

Call it faith if you must. Again, it's not what you say that counts so much as what you do.

.

I went to an event last night that had eighty folk in one small room enjoying an excellent musical performance. No one hurt anyone else, folk moved so as to allow entry and egress, applauded the performance, ordered and paid for food and drink - all done without the threat of violence from some authority figure. — Banno

Because you don't live in Ukraine. You I assume live in a country with a vigilant army and police force keeping you safe and where the general population have submitted to the system. Meanwhile a lot of aspects that enabled this culture involved exploitation, colonialism, slavery past and present. It seems more like complacency to me. The system works for you not everyone.

You are not being forced to defend a lot of your values, They have already been fought for.

What's the alternative to nihilism you can identify in the world today that does not come with any harms or problems? — Tom Storm

Agnosticism to me would entail only acting on facts and when facts are not available acting with caution.

I am not saying there is a solution but I prefer this way of thinking to current models. In the end it could all descend into meaninglessness.

I am not saying there is a solution but I prefer this way of thinking to current models. In the end it could all descend into meaninglessness. — Andrew4Handel

Fair enough. My own view is that life is a bucket of shit - more for some than for others. Don't overthink things. Actions matter more than theorising. Do what you can to prevent suffering.

Because you don't live in Ukraine. — Andrew4Handel

Sure.

I received a cup yesterday from Kiev, a present purchased by my daughter, delivered from the other side of the world without the use of a gun. Life goes on.

Putin is not inundated with volunteers to support his war. He pays mercenaries and conscripts young men under threat of jail.

If that room last night had, instead of eighty people, been eighty dogs, cats, monkeys or just about any other animal, the result would have been pandemonium.

To be sure, people do evil things. But this is the exception, and we pay it considerable attention. Overwhelmingly, people do cooperate. (those who don't are in the main disenfranchised males).

Anyway, this is well off-topic; what about a response to ?

So no ethical theory convinced you. Note that whether or not you were convinced is different to whether or not the theories were true or false. You might be, indeed presumably were, unconvinced because the theories were false. If so then they do indeed have a truth value. — Banno

The course book I read pointed out the problem with all the theories. And they all competed with each other so you would have to select one from several going and hope other people also did.

What did not convince me is whether they had truth value or were enforceable or whether they crossed the is-ought divide.

It's not, I hope, at all difficult to present ethical statements on which we would agree. So for example i doubt that you would agree with kicking puppies for pleasure. And that is to say, we agree that "One ought not kick puppies for pleasure" is true. — Banno

Some people kick puppies for pleasure so they don't share your intuition, If I have no desire to do something personally I don't ned a moral law about it. If it was legal and praiseworthy to kick puppies I still wouldn't have a preference for it. The idea we need morals to stop us doing something implies we have preference for that thing as part of our character.

We do have expectations for the behaviour of ourselves and of others. So if moral nihilism is the view that moral statements do not have a truth value, then it does not seem to be the default position. — Banno

We are not encouraged to question social expectations. It is indoctrination it seems. But people don't live up to our expectations and really we have no reason to expect anything off them (unless they are our primary care giver)

Overwhelmingly, people do cooperate. — Banno

But then we need to have some kind of shared goals. People cooperate for different reasons with different belief systems. People want different things for their children and from their children's schools.

If atheism is a simple lack of belief what is the average goal of an atheist? Their hope for the future? Aspirations? Motivations? Motivations for continuing/propagating life?

I feel that some atheist believe that almost everything has been explained and that the lack of explanation for consciousness is not a big gap in our knowledge its just a byproduct the brain.
And that we shouldn't expect an afterlife and just make do with what we've got and not have wild ideas. My opinions come from the discourse I have seen and been involved in.

If that room last night had, instead of eighty people, been eighty dogs, cats, monkeys or just about any other animal, the result would have been pandemonium.

To be sure, people do evil things. But this is the exception, and we pay it considerable attention. Overwhelmingly, people do cooperate. (those who don't are in the main disenfranchised males). — Banno

Nice, a funny and acute observation.

Cheers.

The course book I read pointed out the problem with all the theories. And they all competed with each other so you would have to select one from several going and hope other people also did. — Andrew4Handel

Sure. Ethics is not easy. That doesn't mean that it never leads to any conclusions.

Some people kick puppies for pleasure so they don't share your intuition, If I have no desire to do something personally I don't ned a moral law about it. If it was legal and praiseworthy to kick puppies I still wouldn't have a preference for it. The idea we need morals to stop us doing something implies we have preference for that thing as part of our character. — Andrew4Handel

I want to be clear about what is being claimed here. Sure, some people kick puppies for pleasure. But we agree that "One ought not kick puppies for pleasure" is a true statement.

Therefore there are true moral statements.

And further, it is not the case that you and I think that if someone wants to kick puppies, that's fine. We expect other people to agree with us that one ought not to kick puppies.

Therefore the truth or falsity of moral statements is not relative to the individual.

But people don't live up to our expectations — Andrew4Handel

I disagree, and I've presented examples to support my case - the puppies, the concert, the cup, Putin's war and so on. In each case cooperation is the norm, violence and coercion the exception.

To be sure, there are folk who live each day by threatening and being threatened. I hope this is not you, and if it is, then again, that is exceptional, and regrettable.

I'm guessing you do not live in a bunker surrounded by weapons; that you can wander down to your local shop and swap money for a coffee. That you do not live in the expectation of an invasion by your neighbour.

People do live up to our expectations.

Of course, it's not all wine and roses. There are exceptions, but overwhelmingly...
________________

But then we need to have some kind of shared goals. — Andrew4Handel

Sure... well, more accurately, we need activities that at least do not conflict, and preferably which are of mutual benefit.

That's not hard. But also, there are plenty of carers, doctors, nurses, teachers, and others who don't treat human interactions in purely transactional terms. They look after other people without consideration of what is in it for them. It's an attitude that receives little attention, but which is fundamental to humanity.

And again, notice that it is what people do, rather than the reasons they have for what they do, that is salient.

If atheism is a simple lack of belief what is the average goal of an atheist? Their hope for the future? Aspirations? Motivations? Motivations for continuing/propagating life? — Andrew4Handel

Atheism is not monolithic, of course, so goals vary. But like most folk, atheists do what is appropriate not because they are convinced by profound ethical considerations, but simply because it is the right thing to do.

What I would want a morality to do is to convince someone not to shoot me in the head — Andrew4Handel

Of course, you don't genuinely expect to be able to ward of your assailant by engaging in a philosophical discourse...

You'd be better off doing personal defence training if that is your need.

Yes. I'm also not interested in air conditioning or folk dancing. Unlike you perhaps, I am not overcome with the need to make meaning or find 'ultimate realty'. I am content and mostly satisfied by life as it appears and frankly whatever ontological beliefs we hold, the moment we leave home we are all naïve realists. :wink: — Tom Storm

Pardon my probing for meaning : How do you characterize your "indifference" to philosophical Ontological origins*1? Is it aggressive Atheism, or apathetic Agnosticism, or mundane Traditionalism*2, or some other pre-Philosophy understanding of the natural world*3? Or just Anti-Religion, as the parallel to politics for the cultural powers-that-be to dominate the common people? Or perhaps merely Anti-Ontology as a feckless waste of time in a heartless/mindless/pointless material world? :joke:

*1. Ontology :
In metaphysics, ontology is the philosophical study of being, as well as related concepts such as existence, becoming, and reality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology
Note -- the search for "ultimate reality"

*2. In pre-science Traditional cultures, for most people, the existence of gods or natural forces is not a well-reasoned philosophical worldview, but merely going along with the majority, and taking the conventional doctrines of sages for granted. In National Geographic, primitive cultures don't practice formal creedal religions, but mere follow ancient un-written assumptions & practices (natural magic) that seem pragmatic to them. Their gods & spirits are equivalent to what moderns call Natural Laws and Forces. And they tend to be satisfied with metaphorical myths & analogies that seem (to non-philosophers) to be plausible explanations for ultimate origins.

*3. Primitive gods :
Before we go further we must get clear the difference between magic and religion, for there has always been a good deal of confusion. Magic then or art-magic resembles religion in dealing with unseen powers, so that it is entirely distinct from what is called sympathetic magic. This last is not properly magic at all, but the science of the savage, by which he tries to bring rain, make the crops grow, or do other things which he believes he can do himself. This may be crude science; but there can be no question of either magic or religion till he comes to things which he believes can only be done by the unseen powers. Magic may also be like religion in outward form, and sometimes even becomes religion when our relation to the unseen powers is differently conceived. The distinction is in this relation; and it is absolute. In magic we do not trust the unseen powers we are dealing with: in religion we do.
https://www.giffordlectures.org/books/knowledge-god-and-its-historical-development-volume-1/lecture-10-primitive-religion-1

If atheism is a simple lack of belief what is the average goal of an atheist? Their hope for the future? Aspirations? Motivations? Motivations for continuing/propagating life? — Andrew4Handel

So I am an atheist (and I know from experience that atheists hold different values and beliefs, aside from this one small matter of belief in deities). Just as Christians, say, are likely to have radically different answers to the same questions. Humans do not fall into rigid categories merely based on a belief they hold.

The questions you pose are, I suspect, somewhat unnatural. People live and do things and hold values without holding a shopping list of explicit value statements you seem to be fishing for.

Me

Average goal for the atheist? I have no idea what this question means, but I can tell you my plans for this year.

Hope for the future? I hope humans get their act together - minimise suffering and take some substantive action to address inequality.

Aspirations. I'm looking to buy a new house. Someone close to me is dying of cancer - I will help support them.

Motivations I am content and generally positive and fortunate. I wish others were too. I tend to take each day as it comes and make minimal plans.

Pardon my probing for meaning : How do you characterize your "indifference" to philosophical Ontological origins*1? Is it aggressive Atheism, or apathetic Agnosticism, or mundane Traditionalism*2, or some other pre-Philosophy understanding of the natural world*3? Or just Anti-Religion, as the parallel to politics for the cultural powers-that-be to dominate the common people? Or perhaps merely Anti-Ontology as a feckless waste of time in a heartless/mindless/pointless material world? :joke: — Gnomon

You're welcome to probe. Not that I have much to say. I don't think humans have access to reality as it is in itself - the best we do is generate provisional narratives that, to a greater or lesser extent, help us to make interventions in the world. These stories tend to be subject to revision and never arrive at absolute truth. I also hold that my experience of the world does not have need for most metanarratives; I am a fan of uncertainty. I am also a fan of minimalism and think that people overcook things and want certainty and dominion where knowledge is absent and where they have no expertise.

I don't think humans have access to reality as it is in itself - the best we do is generate provisional narratives that, to a greater or lesser extent, help us to make interventions in the world These stories tend to be subject to revision and never arrive at absolute truth. I also hold that my experience of the world does not have need for most metanarratives; I am a fan of uncertainty. I am also a fan of minimalism and think that people overcook things and want certainty and dominion where knowledge is absent and where they have no expertise. — Tom Storm

:clap: :fire:

Not bad for some who doesn't take philosophy too seriously. If I could, I'd drink two double whiskeys to that, mate! :cool:

Thanks. If I could, I'd have that drink with you. :up:

I am saying atheism seems to lead to moral nihilism and other forms of nihilism. If someone is consistent about not believing things without evidence or not believing things involving supernatural claims. — Andrew4Handel

I have become agnostic based on my evaluations of theory, evidence, probability, limitations of knowledge etc. — Andrew4Handel

I'm still not understanding you. In your OP you identified yourself as agnostic. Does agnosticism also lead to moral nihilism? If not, could/would you please explain the difference.

At this point, I'm just trying to figure out what the heck Andrew is trying to say.

Andrew seems to me to be saying 'being an agnostic hasn't morally worked out for him ... and somehow that's atheism's fault.' :shade:

@Andrew4Handel

If you're a theist, pray.
If you're an atheist, don't pray.
If you're an agnostic, neither pray nor don't pray. What exactly is that? Tertium non datur.

False trichotomy. :meh:

False trichotomy. — 180 Proof

:ok:

Andrew seems to me to be saying 'being an agnostic hasn't morally worked out for him ... and somehow that's atheism's fault.' — 180 Proof

Nope. Leaving religion turned me into a nihilist. Now I am agnostic I have recovered some hope.

In this thread I have been exploring whether atheism is just a lack of belief or has any entailments and what facets of society can be maintained coherently on an atheist worldview.

I have Quoted prominent atheist Dawkins previously:

" The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

"(..) safe inside gigantic lumbering robots, sealed off from the outside world, communicating with it by tortuous indirect routes, manipulating it by remote control.

They are in you and in me; they created us, body and mind; andtheir preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence. They have come a long way, those replicators. Now they go by the name of genes, and we are their survival machines.”"

My views on atheism are derived from atheists. They have written books and set up societies disseminating their opinions.

My views on atheism are derived from atheists. — Andrew4Handel

:roll:

For very strong, sound arguments in favor of atheism, read (contemporary) philosophical atheists like e.g.

André Comte-Sponville 
Theodore Drange
Paul Draper
Michael Martin
Kai Nielson
Michel Onfray
J. L. Schellenberg
Victor Stenger
Rebecca Goldstein

and avoid the merely irreligious polemics of "New Atheist" like R. Dawkins, S. Harris, C. Hitchens et al which traffic in much weaker, or less thoughtful, arguments.

Also, you may find it helps to dispel your disregard of atheism, Andrew, to watch the three-part BBC series A Rough History of Disbelief (by Jonathan Miller from the early oughts) that illustrates my (Nietzsche's) point that religious belief, not principled atheism, is manifest – an expression of – nihilism.

My guess, Andrew, is that losing your religion, yet oblivious to the nihilation – philosophical suicide – of religious belief, left you with nothing to hold on to but the feeling of naked nihil itself. If being agnostic (ignostic, apatheistic or whatever) works for you, then good for you – stick with it; likewise, atheism works for many who live principled ethical lives as best they can, and just because it didn't work for you, doesn't mean atheism can't work for those who understand their disbelief apparently better than did (do).

Leaving religion turned me into a nihilist. — Andrew4Handel

I feel sorry for you that that the act of abandoning religion left you unable to find joy/meaning in your life. But that is on you. While I cannot point to any peer reviewed studies, I feel confident saying that the overwhelming majority of atheists lead meaningful productive lives and are not nihilists. Just for example, I suggest you re-read Tom Storm's post above

Now I am agnostic I have recovered some hope. — Andrew4Handel

And here I'm still not getting your point. Why does being not sure if a God or Gods exists give you hope - while believing that no God (or Gods) exist make you a nihilist? Does the possibility of a God (or Gods) existing give you hope? If yes, then it seems like you are seeking for a religion. But maybe I'm misunderstanding you.

I feel sorry for you that that the act of abandoning religion left you unable to find joy/meaning in your life. But that is on you. — EricH

Boom! :100:

I feel confident saying that the overwhelming majority of atheists lead meaningful productive lives and are not nihilists. — EricH

Well the majority of atheists are middle class people living in the wealthy west. Atheism has less ramifications here and there are a lot of distractions. But you are not a starving child living in a slum I assume.
Lots of people including children have died prematurely in poverty and war without the chance to have a meaningful life.

I would question whether anyone's life is meaningful. I think meaning is objective but this is up for debate. If meaning is subjective you could find paint drying meaningful but that would hardly be profound. If there is no innate purpose or teleology for us or our species then we are not going anywhere. There are no values beyond subjective feelings towards events and wishes.

However how happy one is is obviously not proof that ones beliefs are true or valid.

I think atheists that are not nihilists haven't grasped the ramifications of their position. My agnosticism is wider than agnosticism about gods but also concerns other positions atheists have closely aligned with atheism like physicalism, scientism, eliminativism, no afterlife, reductionism and so on.

There are no values beyond subjective feelings towards events and wishes. — Andrew4Handel

If what you mean is that values are our responses to things in the world, then of course they are.

You seem to conclude that somehow therefore they do not matter or are of no significance.

But that just does not follow.

What could be more important than what you value?

What could be more important than what you value? — Banno

Facts I would say.

Facts restrict desires or the outcomes of desires.

Some restrictions maybe down to limitations of our knowledge and imagination but other limitations are external/physical.

So you value facts more than values? How's that?

Try this. Look at the direction of fit of a couple of sentences. Say the kettle is boiling... you can produce a sentence that sets out how things are: "The kettle is boiling". You make a sentence that fits how things are; you state a fact. The sentence is made to fit the world.

But suppose instead the kettle is cold, and you want it to boil. "The kettle is boiling" is not a fact, but it is a situation you value. In this case you can change the world so as to fit the facts, by putting the kettle on the heat. The world is made to fit the sentence.

When we set out a fact, we make our sentences fit the way the world is. When we set out a value, we say how we want the world to fit our sentences.

It remains that we can and do change how things are, and that we do so either in accord or discord with what we value.

It would be an error to think that what you value has no import.

But this is what you seem to conclude from your considerations of atheism.

And again, there seems to me to be a further issue that you have not considered, which is, even if god did exist and make his values clear to us, it remains open for us to reject his advice. That is, even if one grants theism, the choice of what to do remains with each of us. God does not solve the problem of what one ought to do.

↪Andrew4Handel

So you value facts more than values? How's that? — Banno

:clap: :lol: :up:

So you value facts more than values? How's that? — Banno

No. Facts trump values because they impose themselves. I can't change the laws of physics based on my desires and values.

When we set out a fact, we make our sentences fit the way the world is. When we set out a value, we say how we want the world to fit our sentences. — Banno

It is certainly impressive that we can influence the external world. That may even be considered a philosophical puzzle. But its value is subjective to our desires.

Our desire for meat has lead us to create many abattoirs that can slaughter billions of animals a year. That can seem somewhat macabre and not in the best interest of the animals.

There is a conflict of values.

The values invoked by religion were transcendent eternal values and this life a temporary stop over. Life felt eternal because you believed you had an immortal spirit/soul. No one would be left behind because even those with the most short miserable lives would go onto something better.