Atheism, Truth, Morals

Imagine my surprise when I heard that atheism was based on a search for truth. We all know that’s false.

Let’s examine a couple recent examples.

Patrick claimed that I did not provide any links.

Moderation Issues (3)

You’ll note the complete absence of any links…

I provided links. Patrick lied.

KN claimed that Immanuel Kant was an atheist philosopher.

Slavery in the Bible

KN lied,

Patrick demands morals of others while denying that there are any objective moral obligations.

Why do atheists care about what is true and what is immoral?

Why do atheists attack the object of their ignorance?

622 thoughts on “Atheism, Truth, Morals

  1. Allan Miller:
    William J. Murray,

    I’m well aware of the difference. I’m not being entirely facetious.

    Well, then properly understanding and interpreting morality via conscience and reason includes using terms that can clarify. When I use the term “love”, I’m referring to something distinct from desire or attraction, more like agape.

  2. William J. Murray,

    How is it ‘self-evidently true’ that love for mankind (exclusive of atheists, obviously) is a moral good? It’s not definitionally true. Its denial does not create any contradiction. You’ve just introspected it, I presume. Which does not mean you are sensing an objective external basis for it, merely that you approve the sentiment (in principle).

  3. A little on topic Monday morning quiz.

    Who said this?:

    “The group that says morality is an ontologically “real” thing favors free speech even for its opponents (actually “especially for” its opponents, because “free speech only for those who agree with me” is an empty construct). The group that denies the essential reality of morality nevertheless pushes their subjective preferences in area after area with a vicious fascism and would seek to deny even the right to question those preferences, much less transgress them.”

    Hint: this person has been mentioned here.

    Warning: turn off your irony meter.

  4. Allan Miller asks:

    How is it ‘self-evidently true’ that love for mankind (exclusive of atheists, obviously) is a moral good?

    I said “love”, not “love for mankind”. Not sure what you mean by asking me “how” something is self-evidently true. The self-evident aspect of a true statement comes from one recognizing that it is true upon understanding the statement alone, without any further explanation.

  5. William J. Murray:
    A couple of self-evidently true moral statements: Cruelty is wrong. Love is good. Much of proper morality can be rationally developed simply by logically examining the consequences of those two self-evident truths.

    I think that is in a way true. As Sellars puts it:

    The only frame of mind which can provide direct support for moral commitment is what Josiah Royce called Loyalty, and what Christians call Love (Charity). This is a commitment deeper than any commitment to abstract principle. It is this commitment to the well-being of our fellow man which stands to the justification of moral principles as the purpose of acquiring the ability to explain and predict stands to the justification of scientific theories. . . . the ability to love others for their own sake is as essential to a full life as the need to feel ourselves loved and appreciated for our own sake — unconditionally, and not as something turned on or off depending on what we do. This fact provides, for those who acknowledge it, a means-end relationship around which can be built practical reasoning which justifies a course of action designed to strengthen our ability to respond to the needs of others. (W. Sellars, “Science and Ethics” (1960)

    That is, there is something to the idea that agape is built into the framework of practical reasoning. It is “self-evident” in the sense that anyone who has acquired a framework of practical reasoning at all will regard this principle as constitutive of that framework.

    Nevertheless, the fact is that there are alternative conceptual frameworks of practical reasoning, as there of theoretical reasoning. (Would a Viking warrior agree that “cruelty is bad”?) Is the “self-evidence” of agape really constitutive of morality as such? Or is it constitutive only of the morality specific to Christianity and the cultures it has influenced? (“Slave morality”, in Nietzsche’s memorable phrase.)

    It is well-known that competing scientific theories have incompatible constitutive principles, all of which appear “self-evident” to a competent user of that theory. (Compare how mass, space, and time are defined in Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics. To the Newtonian, it is “self-evident” that space and time are absolute.)

    I worry that there is something analogous in the case of moralities: different moral frameworks (not theories, but rather the whole framework of ethical practices, judgments, and feelings) rely on different constitutive principles, all of which are “self-evident” from within the perspective afforded by that framework.

    In the case of scientific theories, there are more or less agreed-upon criteria for adjudicating conflicts. General relativity yields predictions that cohere better with experimental and observational data than the predictions generated by Newtonian mechanics. We can therefore say that general relativity is a more precise model of space-time than Newtonian mechanics was. We can even reconstruct Newtonian mechanics as a special case of general relativity, even though doing so means rejecting the constitutive principles of Newtonian mechanics.

    I am not at all sure that there’s anything analogous in the case of moralities. I harbor a deep worry that something like ethical relativism might be true. I don’t want it to be, but I don’t have an argument strong enough to defeat the Nietzschean skeptical challenge.

  6. William J. Murray,

    I said “love”, not “love for mankind”

    That is my interpretation of ‘agape’. Assuming you didn’t mean someone standing with their mouth open. If not mankind, in a general sense, then what?

    The self-evident aspect of a true statement comes from one recognizing that it is true upon understanding the statement alone, without any further explanation.

    I don’t recognise its truth (that ‘love’ is self-evidently a moral good), and therefore, it isn’t self-evident. You are just giving your opinions unwarrated weight.

    I think it is ‘good’ to have a general disposition of goodwill towards sentient beings. I approve. But that is not something I would puff up as a ‘self-evident truth’.

  7. William J. Murray: That’s for you boys that have a hard time telling a philosophical argument/discussion from a claim of fact requiring evidence to support.

    Luckily for you.

  8. William J. Murray: The self-evident aspect of a true statement comes from one recognizing that it is true upon understanding the statement alone, without any further explanation.

    A classic mistake. Your entire life experience up to that point is the context for any such statement. What would be self-evident to someone brought up without language or culture?

  9. Rich:

    Self evident truths are gateway tard to properly basic beliefs.

    Just say no to tard.

  10. William,

    Your entire shtick consists of:

    1) Taking your subjective morality,
    2) Slapping the label ‘objective’ on it, and
    3) Sneering at the benighted folks whose morality is merely subjective.

    Besides the mouth-breathers at UD, who is going to buy that?

  11. keiths: Besides the mouth-breathers at UD, who is going to buy that?

    For some being a big fish in a small pond is enough.

  12. Allan Miller:
    That is my interpretation of ‘agape’. Assuming you didn’t mean someone standing with their mouth open. If not mankind, in a general sense, then what?

    First, remember I said “more like agape. From Wiki:

    Agape (Ancient Greek: ἀγάπη, agápē) is “love: the highest form of love, charity; the love of God for man and of man for God.”[1] Not to be confused with “philēo” – brotherly love – agápē embraces a universal, unconditional love that transcends, that serves regardless of circumstances

    Allan continues:

    I don’t recognise its truth (that ‘love’ is self-evidently a moral good), and therefore, it isn’t self-evident. You are just giving your opinions unwarrated weight.

    That you don’t recognize it as true is irrelevant to its self-evident nature. You can also not recognize “I exist” or “A=A” as self-evident truths; that doesn’t change their status as self-evident truths.

    I think you’re probably not understanding what a self-evident truth is. It’s not a claim of fact; it’s a philosophical concept at the root of establishing models of justfiable knowledge by recognizing certain core axiomatic statements from which one builds and develops further knowledge and by which meaningful debate on that subject can occur. Without a ruler, so to speak, one cannot make meaningful measurements. Without a basis to vet knowledge, meaningful knowledge cannot be accrued.

    Without a shared axiomatic glossary acknowledged as valid, honest argument is not possible. (Which is, incidentally, why I don’t respond to KN. I would be responding to KN’s statements according to what his statements mean in my foundationalist/justificationalism philosophical frame of reference. I would not be responding to what he means from his frame of reference because, frankly, I have no idea what his statements mean from his perspective. He’s also made it clear that he considers such assumptions on my part to be a form of “oppressive normative violence” on my part, and I think I’m safe in assuming that such interaction is unwanted on KN’s part – again, I don’t know how to interpret what KN says due to his rejection of my philosophical framework. So, I’m thinking the most moral course of action is to not attack him with my oppressive, violent assumptions by responding the only way I know how. And none of this is meant as sarcasm nor meant to be condescending.)

    All your non-recognition of the statement does is make any discussion or debate about what is good and what is wrong between us highly problematic, and it doesn’t matter at all to the objective vs subjective morality debate.

    So, long story short: if you don’t agree that love is good and cruelty is wrong, we have no basis by which to argue further about what is and is not morally good or morally wrong, because those are, IMO, fundamental aspects of any meaningful morality.

  13. William,
    If all you are doing is making a logical argument for objective morality, why do you include the logical argument as evidence for objective morality when asked for evidence?
    William @ UD

    Evidence that can be seen to support the view that morality refers to an objective commodity:

    1. The existence of self-evidently true moral statements,such as “it is wrong in any time, in any culture, regardless of the beliefs of those committing the act, to torture children for personal pleasure.
    2. The existence of conscience, a sense that experiences the moral landscape

    3. The innate sense of moral obligation and authority

    4. The general intersection of fundamental and/or generalized moral statements regardless of culture and time, such as the golden rule/categorical imperative in many historical cultures around the world, as if humans were all individually and culturally interpreting an objectively existent commodity
    5. Logical arguments that show the necessity of an objective morality

    You go on in that thread making plenty of arguments like:

    No, it goes beyond “not being able to identify a truly objective standard”; you aren’t claiming you cannot identify one, you are claiming that none exist, that morality is nothing more than a set of personal preferences.

    Someone claims something does not exist, why do you care if you are only making a logical argument?

    Of course, you are free to react with shrug to all the other personal preference choices a person makes, AND believe morality is also a personal preference, AND then intervene on someone doing something you consider to be immoral; but you can’t rationally justify it, because if it was rational to intervene on others who make personal preference choices that conflict with what you would do, you would intervene when someone chose a pie you didn’t like.

    There is a difference between flavours we prefer and the building blocks of our consciousness that have to be learnt over many years that imbue us with the social gestalt. I guess William’s multi-year purely logical argument for objective morality never considered that.

  14. William J. Murray,

    That you don’t recognize it as true is irrelevant to its self-evident nature. You can also not recognize “I exist” or “A=A” as self-evident truths; that doesn’t change their status as self-evident truths.

    I can see that negation of ‘I exist’ and A=A are self-contradictory, and so can be accepted without further examination. That is not the status of your now-too-woolly-to-have-much-meaning ‘love’, vis a vis any moral imperative.

    I think you’re probably not understanding what a self-evident truth is. It’s not a claim of fact; it’s a philosophical concept at the root of establishing models of justfiable knowledge by recognizing certain core axiomatic statements from which one builds and develops further knowledge and by which meaningful debate on that subject can occur.

    Yadda yadda yadda. I know what a self-evident truth is. ‘Love is a moral good’ is not one.

    So, long story short: if you don’t agree that love is good and cruelty is wrong

    I already said I approve of ‘love’ (I preferred the term ‘goodwill’). I also disapprove of cruelty. But these are personal reactions. Yours and mine. And those of others, when we check. You are trying to turn these (probably part learnt, part innate, certainly quite common in the species) into something that necessarily exists outside of the world of human minds. You have much more work to do there, than simply declare their ‘truth’ to be self-evident.

    IMO you are reifying a broad consensus, a shared ‘feeling’, then trying to frame the debate in such a way that only your reification works.

  15. OMagain,

    If all you are doing is making a logical argument for objective morality, why do you include the logical argument as evidence for objective morality when asked for evidence?

    Because logical arguments can be used as evidence in favor of a proposition that something exists.

    Someone claims something does not exist, why do you care if you are only making a logical argument?

    Nice quote-mining. Full quote:

    No, it goes beyond “not being able to identify a truly objective standard”; you aren’t claiming you cannot identify one, you are claiming that none exist, that morality is nothing more than a set of personal preferences. If that is all morality is, then no, you can no more logically justify intervening in a moral situation than you can justify intervening in any other personal preference situation. You cannot justify moral obligation or authority any more than you can justify a sense of “obligation” and “authority” in any other case of personal preference.

  16. What seems to be forgotten is that we learn much of our morality (some component is likely innate in our social species as well).

    We learn what is ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘naughty’ and ‘nice’ round about the time we learn the correct usage of those very words. We learn to align with our peers and parents on matters of approval and disapproval – not as automata, but with a predisposition to absorb. It wasn’t ‘self-evident’ to us once. But sophisticated reasoning retroactively insists it was there all along.

  17. Allan said;

    I can see that negation of ‘I exist’ and A=A are self-contradictory, and so can be accepted without further examination.

    That doesn’t change the fact that some people either deny or don’t recognize their validity. Whether or not you personally recognize a self-evident truth as such has no bearing on its nature.

    That is not the status of your now-too-woolly-to-have-much-meaning ‘love’, vis a vis any moral imperative.

    I already said I approve of ‘love’ (I preferred the term ‘goodwill’). I also disapprove of cruelty. But these are personal reactions. Yours and mine.

    Then we have nothing more to debate on this subject.

  18. William J. Murray: Full quote

    No, let’s have the whole thing:

    No, it goes beyond “not being able to identify a truly objective standard”; you aren’t claiming you cannot identify one, you are claiming that none exist, that morality is nothing more than a set of personal preferences. If that is all morality is, then no, you can no more logically justify intervening in a moral situation than you can justify intervening in any other personal preference situation. You cannot justify moral obligation or authority any more than you can justify a sense of “obligation” and “authority” in any other case of personal preference.

    What flavor of pie you like is a personal preference. According to you, what is morally good or evil is a personal preference as well. How you react to people selecting a flavor of pie you don’t like should be about the same as how you react to people doing things you consider to be immoral because it’s essentially all the same thing: people making personal preference decisions.

    Of course, you are free to react with shrug to all the other personal preference choices a person makes, AND believe morality is also a personal preference, AND then intervene on someone doing something you consider to be immoral; but you can’t rationally justify it, because if it was rational to intervene on others who make personal preference choices that conflict with what you would do, you would intervene when someone chose a pie you didn’t like.

    Your actions betray that you do not believe – at least not subconsciously – that morality is just a set of personal preference choices, or else you would react the same as you do with other personal preference choices people make.

    Note that last arrogant line. I know better then you what you are thinking. That essentially sums up your whole argument.

  19. William J. Murray: Because logical arguments can be used as evidence in favor of a proposition that something exists

    Who is asserting such a proposition regarding objective morality in the discussion linked to?

  20. William J. Murray: Nice quote-mining

    I noted a flaw in your argument and your response is to point out an alleged quote mine. Good dodge, I’ll remember that one when my morals become more like your objective ones.

  21. William J. Murray,

    That doesn’t change the fact that some people either deny or don’t recognize their validity. Whether or not you personally recognize a self-evident truth as such has no bearing on its nature.

    Your statement was [eta, appeared] declarative on the specific subject of my recognition. But there is, in any case, a means by which their status can be ascertained. That is not the case for your other attempted axioms. A sullen ‘doesn’t mean they aren’t’ doesn’t really cut it.

    Allan: I already said I approve of ‘love’ (I preferred the term ‘goodwill’). I also disapprove of cruelty. But these are personal reactions. Yours and mine.

    WJM: Then we have nothing more to debate on this subject.

    I presume this is not you agreeing that morality is subjective …

  22. William J. Murray: Nice quote-mining.

    It’s quite clear. Graham2 asks WJM for evidence for objective morality.

    WJM: A true UD (non) reply. I am using ‘evidence’ in its usual sense, but I will leave the definition to your judgement. Now, can you describe any ?

    If you dont think there is any, a simple ‘NO’ will suffice.

    William responds with the above ‘evidence for’ quote.

    When you are asked for evidence it is in relation to something that exists. Not something that there is a logical argument for. You never think to mention that to Graham2 hence it was not what was going on. Sure, you throw in the word ‘logical’ often enough you can do what you are doing now, but when you look at it objectively (ha) I think it’s clear what’s going on.

  23. William J. Murray: Whether or not you personally recognize a self-evident truth as such has no bearing on its nature.

    Presumably the various camps would have to settle their differences somehow? Can you suggest a way?

  24. Allan said:

    I can see that negation of ‘I exist’ and A=A are self-contradictory, and so can be accepted without further examination.

    No, Allan. A=A is not valid because otherwise it would be self-contradictory; it is what establishes self-contradiction as a means of discarding erroneous assertions. A=A is the axiomatic concept in the form of a statement which establishes self-contradiction as an indication of non-validity.

    It is what makes “I do not exist” a self-negating statement. “Selfness” = “existence”, and thusly to say otherwise is discardable as erroneous. Also, “Selfness” and “existence” are just as “wooly” concepts as “love”; that doesn’t make the statement “I exist” any less recognizable as a self-evident truth.

    A=A expresses the necessity that a thing be that thing and not not that thing in order for there to be any rational comprehension of anything. Things may in fact both be themselves and not be themselves at the same time, but that would make meaningful comprehension of anything impossible.

    Whether or not you agree with that my statements are self-evidently true, unless we can agree on self-evidently true moral statements that serve as verifiers of moral knowledge, then we’re back to at least a de facto subjectivist morality.

  25. Here are the main options as I see it.

    1) Morality is entirely a matter of whim.
    2) Morality is a complex of senses of approval and disapproval of the behaviours of self and others arising from a combination of genetics and culture, experienced by the individual as a real (introspectively-perceived) incentive or restraint on behaviour, or remorse/satisfaction after the fact.
    3) Morality is a complex of senses of approval and disapproval experienced as above but sourced from either
    3a) an entity
    3b) a property of the universe
    … in either case, said arbiter having good knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the behaviour, possibly including subsequent facts such as remorse or reparation, and the capacity to mete out longer-term Consequences.

    It is possible to reject both 1 and 3 and still be logically consistent IMO.

  26. OMagain: Presumably the various camps would have to settle their differences somehow? Can you suggest a way?

    Why do they have to settle their differences?

  27. William J. Murray: A=A expresses the necessity that a thing be that thing and not not that thing in order for there to be any rational comprehension of anything.

    Careful, you may wander into formal logic territory, and I suspect you won’t like it there…

  28. William J. Murray,

    Whether or not you agree with that my statements are self-evidently true, unless we can agree on self-evidently true moral statements that serve as verifiers of moral knowledge, then we’re back to at least a de facto subjectivist morality.

    Framing the debate in that way makes agreement impossible. It is a misuse of language (IMO) to appropriate the term ‘self-evident’ in that way. It’s an attempt to give unmerited philosophical weight to a matter which is more of the flavour of ‘generally agreed’.

  29. Self evident truths, if they exist, can’t require anything else to back them or ground them including deities, or they would not be self evident truths

  30. Allan Miller: It is possible to reject both 1 and 3 and still be logically consistent IMO.

    If 2 is true, then exterminating Jews can be as morally good as hiding them from the Nazis.

    If you’re good with that, I’m satisfied with this portion of the debate.

  31. Allan said:

    It is a misuse of language (IMO) to appropriate the term ‘self-evident’ in that way. It’s an attempt to give unmerited philosophical weight to a matter which is more of the flavour of ‘generally agreed’.

    Only if you don’t understand what a self evident truth is.

    From The Free Dictionary:

    Noun. 1. self-evident truth-an assumption that is basic to an argument. basic assumption, constatation. supposal, supposition, assumption-a hypothesis that is taken for granted; “any society is built upon certain assumptions”.

  32. OMagain: You tell me. You appear to be the one doing so.

    No, I’m the one willing to admit when debate is stymied by fundamental differences and move on. If we cannot agree that “Love is good” and “cruelty is wrong” are statements that can (with other such statements) ground a sound morality, then it’s time to move on. No resolving of differences necessary.

  33. William J. Murray: Noun. 1. self-evident truth-an assumption that is basic to an argument. basic assumption, constatation. supposal, supposition, assumption-a hypothesis that is taken for granted; “any society is built upon certain assumptions”.

    So it is not necessarily self evident or true

  34. William J. Murray: No, I’m the one willing to admit when debate is stymied by fundamental differences and move on. If we cannot agree that “Love is good” and “cruelty is wrong” are statements that can (with other such statements) ground a sound morality, then it’s time to move on.No resolving of differences necessary.

    Actually it is the intent of cruelty that is wrong, not cruelty itself ,correct? Which symmetrically it is not selfless love that is good, it is the intending to have selfless love that is good.

  35. My foremost qualm about WJM’s appeal to “self-evident principles” is that they are internal to a specific kind of moral evaluation — namely, one that has already been deeply informed by the historical trajectory that leads from ancient Judaism through Christianity to the Enlightenment.

    As such, though they are seemingly “obvious” to those who share that moral outlook, they really can’t do much to persuade anyone who hasn’t already acquired that outlook through distinctively Western styles of moral education.

  36. newton: Actually it is the intent of cruelty that is wrong, not cruelty itself ,correct? Which symmetrically it is not selfless love that is good, it is the intending to have selfless love that is good.

    I thought love stinks.

  37. William,

    If we cannot agree that “Love is good” and “cruelty is wrong” are statements that can (with other such statements) ground a sound morality, then it’s time to move on.

    I doubt that any of us disagree that “love is good” and “cruelty is wrong” can ground a moral system. What we doubt is that such a moral system thereby becomes “objective”.

    You’re simply taking your subjective morality and slapping the label “objective” on it. That’s good enough for Arrington et al, but it won’t fly at TSZ.

  38. I doubt that any of us disagree that “love is good” and “cruelty is wrong” can ground a moral system. What we doubt is that such a moral system thereby becomes “objective”.

    Then it’s a good thing I wasn’t making that argument.

  39. I repeat:

    You’re simply taking your subjective morality and slapping the label “objective” on it. That’s good enough for Arrington et al, but it won’t fly at TSZ.

  40. Newton said:

    Actually it is the intent of cruelty that is wrong, not cruelty itself ,correct?

    Because a thing we do causes suffering or appears to be cruel doesn’t mean the act itself or the intention was cruel. It’s an important moral distinction.

    Which symmetrically it is not selfless love that is good, it is the intending to have selfless love that is good.

    “Symmetry” is not a meaningful moral or logical principle. Each moral statement must be examined individually, because many moral statements are general or conditional. An intention to achieve a selfless, universal love is indeed a good moral intention, as is achieving it, experiencing it and expressing it.

  41. newton: So it is not necessarily self evident or true

    Whether or not it is “necessarily self-evident or true” depends on other aspects of the moral system and the logical structure of that system.

  42. William J. Murray: An intention to achieve a selfless, universal love is indeed a good moral intention, as is achieving it, experiencing it and expressing it.

    No one at TSZ will object to that (I would assume), but try telling that to the leaders of the Islamic State (or to Donald Trump).

  43. OMagain: Who is asserting such a proposition regarding objective morality in the discussion linked to?

    Graham2 was asking me what I would consider evidence supporting the idea that objective morality exists. I was not asserting it factually existed (look at the OP and every post of mine up to that point). IOW, he was asking what evidence I thought existed for the proposition that morality is objective in nature. I told him.

Leave a Reply