Is Atheism (et al) a Worldview?

[Nimos]

If you misunderstand the argument, you are in good company. Moore himself misunderstood the argument. And I found it compelling when I first heard it. But it is logically unsound. It just takes a bit of thinking to get to where you realize that.

An ethicist starts with the question: "What is morally good?" or-- if you want to be more basic about it: "What is good?" or "What is goodness?"

A hedonist has an answer at the ready: "Happiness and pleasure are good. Pain and suffering are bad."

But Moore wanted to point out that you can ask the question: "Is happiness and pleasure good?" and by pointing that out, he thought the matter remained an open question.

But he was WRONG. It is not an open question. The hedonists already asked themselves the question of whether pleasure and happiness are good. And their answer was "yes." Opponents of hedonism also answered the question. Their answer was "no."

And it has to be one or the other. So the question is not open. It's closed. It must be one or the other. And even Moore admitted that himself.

If that's not a satisfactory answer, I'm more than willing to elaborate further. Just ask. It took me some time to fully grasp Moore's mistake (and my mistake). But one you see it, you can't unsee it. Moore made an error in logic. Thems the facts.

I think I get what you are saying (not 100% sure )

But to me it doesn't seem like a closed question, but rather an open one, because the original one is flawed.

"What is good?"

First of all, what is or who defines what good is here?

I hold the belief that good and evil don't exist but are merely undefined or loosely defined human concepts, which is why I think the question is flawed.

Because when there is no objective definition of "good" then you will always be able to simply say "I don't think that is good", therefore there is no correct answer to the question, to begin with.

The only way to get an answer to the question is if "good" is subjective, in which case the hedonists are right and therefore it is an open question.

Not knowing the full context of the argument between these people, but assuming that you retold it correctly, it sounds like subjective morality wasn't even considered as an option or neglected for whatever reason?

 

[vulcanlogician]

But to me it doesn't seem like a closed question, but rather an open one, because the original one is flawed.

"What is good?"

First of all, what is or who defines what good is here?

I hold the belief that good and evil don't exist but are merely undefined or loosely defined human concepts, which is why I think the question is flawed.

True. If you adopt moral nihilism or moral relativism, then the questions of what is morally good or bad become meaningless.

But Moore was a moral realist.

And once you realize that, you can see how his arguments come tumbling down. The "open question" argument is meaningless to a relativist or a nihilist. But to a realist, it means a great deal.

And Moore was a moral realist. But, moral realist or not, your arguments have to make logical sense in philosophy. Unfortunately, Moore's open question argument FAILED to make sense.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I know there is more than one worldview thread. I hope you are not referring to my thread on Secular Humanism. I was very, very clear that Atheism is not a worldview.

I totally agree with you, but the topic can be interesting anyway.
It can get even trickier when you get right into the weeds.

As an example, I've tried to structure my worldview in a way that accounts for the fact that some of the people I respect most in the world (IRL) are theists. Obviously, at some level of granularity, we have some pretty substantive differences in our views on the world, but there are also a lot of important commonalities, particularly around personal responsibility, how to treat people, etc.

So, we reached commonalities in our worldview whilst standing on opposite side of the theist/atheist divide.

But I was raised Christian, so to what extent are the lessons I was taught as a child about how to treat people 'Christian' in nature? And I now have three daughters, two of whom are atheists (as much as possible I've avoided pushing them in any direction) with my third too young to have an opinion. So those daughters have been taught how to treat people, and personal responsiblity by an atheist. But that atheist was taught by a Christian.

Meh...it's like cultural background, to me. I have an English grandfather, and I daresay his life experiences included some elements informed by that, and some level of impact from that affected how my father was raised, and so on.

Ultimately, my world view comes from a whole bunch of different things, including my personal experiences and thoughts (but not limited to those). I could hazard a guess at which parts are informed by what, but in many cases it would be exactly that...a guess!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

But Moore wanted to point out that you can ask the question: "Is happiness and pleasure good?" and by pointing that out, he thought the matter remained an open question.

Just a clarification...
Do you mean 'morally good', for want of a better word?
As in...I think happiness is 'good', but I wouldn't describe it as 'morally good'.
(and I'm certainly not a hedonist, in any sense)

 

[vulcanlogician]

Just a clarification...
Do you mean 'morally good', for want of a better word?

Yes. I mean "morally good." And not for lack of a better term.

As in...I think happiness is 'good', but I wouldn't describe it as 'morally good'.

Oops. You accidentally made a moral statement. If happiness is "good" then you would prefer it over unhappiness for you and your loved ones. There is only one dimension that the good is preferable over the bad. And that's the MORAL dimension.

It would be "bad" or perhaps "wrong" if you or your loved ones were to experience anguish or pain. But the statement that it would be bad or wrong for such things to happen make no sense unless you understand these things through a moral framework.

You may say something like: "Pain is obviously bad, and pleasure is obviously good." But that is the nub of morality. If we were going to be completely amoral about things we'd say something like "pain happens and pleasure happens." We wouldn't use terms like good or bad.

 

[Nimos]

True. If you adopt moral nihilism or moral relativism, then the questions of what is morally good or bad become meaningless.

But Moore was a moral realist.

And once you realize that, you can see how his arguments come tumbling down. The "open question" argument is meaningless to a relativist or a nihilist. But to a realist, it means a great deal.

And Moore was a moral realist. But, moral realist or not, your arguments have to make logical sense in philosophy. Unfortunately, Moore's open question argument FAILED to make sense.

Yeah, but isn't that because objective morality fails?

If we only focus on the first question.

Can we even mention one thing that is objectively morally good to begin with? That is my huge issue with the argument, whether Moore has failed or not is kind of irrelevant I think.

To rephrase the question, it would be like me asking you, "Is X scary?" and then when you say "Yes", I reply that you are wrong because I don't think you are scared enough. There is no way for you to answer correctly if you know what I mean unless we have a clear definition of what "being scared" even is.

 

[vulcanlogician]

I can't dismiss your statement, man. Some things are scary (or may appear to be scary) to certain people. If you were to separate yourself from all emotional involvement in a matter, you would care less whether something was scary or not to some person or another.

But the MINUTE you started to care, the scariness of a given phenomenon would matter. And if you thought your daughter should experience pleasure rather than horror, you begin to delve into that dubious space of moral realism. I unapologetically occupy that space. I say pleasure and happiness are better than pain and horror. Those things are obvious to me. But if you want to view these things as indistinguishable or based on human prejudices, I get that.

I brashly make moral judgments. Even though I see the other side too. There is too much suffering in the world for me to do otherwise.

But I bet you pronounce suffering bad just as I do. You just haven't thought so much about WHY suffering is bad.

I think you just haven't considered human suffering enough to know that it;s bad. Because all you gotta do is consider human suffering a tiny bit, and you'll instantly recognize how bad it is.

 

[Nimos]

I can't dismiss your statement, man. Some things are scary (or may appear to be scary) to certain people. If you were to separate yourself from all emotional involvement in a matter, you would care less whether something was scary or not to some person or another.

But the MINUTE you started to care, the scariness of a given phenomenon would matter. And if you thought your daughter should experience pleasure rather than horror, you begin to delve into that dubious space of moral realism. I unapologetically occupy that space. I say pleasure and happiness are better than pain and horror. Those things are obvious to me. But if you want to view these things as indistinguishable or based on human prejudices, I get that.

I brashly make moral judgments. Even though I see the other side too. There is too much suffering in the world for me to do otherwise.

But I bet you pronounce suffering bad just as I do. You just haven't thought so much about WHY suffering is bad.

I think you just haven't considered human suffering enough to know that it;s bad. Because all you gotta do is consider human suffering a tiny bit, and you'll instantly recognize how bad it is.

I agree that human suffering is bad, that is a given. My point is that I don't believe that this morality is objectively bad. Nothing in the Universe seems to care whether we suffer or not, except us.

To me, this seems to strongly indicate that morality is subjective and more than anything driven by our evolutionary history and culture. And the fact that morality has changed so much over time as well. Owning slaves wasn't a huge issue back in the day, in fact, most of human history is filled with it being considered perfectly fine. We even have the bible talking about slavery and we know it wasn't that long ago that slavery was abolished.
So was all of humanity immoral back then? To me, it would be silly to think that they went about their daily lives knowing they were doing something horrible, it simply doesn't make sense to think that.

If morality is objective, how would one explain that?

Also looking at the world today and the different cultures, there is a huge difference in morality. The Arabic world thinks a lot of what we do is immoral, whereas we think that some of the stuff they do is equally wrong (cultural differences). This doesn't make sense if there is an objective moral truth.

If we look at something like killing each other, pretty much globally we are raised to believe that this is wrong and luckily the majority of people agree. Yet, the use of the word "war" and the concept of killing completely changes, it is still horrible, yet justified as long as you put on some different cloth and call yourself a soldier you can shoot others, if you are head of a country you can order the killing of others hardly without any issues. This wouldn't make sense in a world governed by objective moral truth. Yet makes perfect sense in a world with subjective moral standards, because killing those who hurt us seems logical, to stop it. And it also explains why anyone would order (start a war) the killing of others.

 

[osgart]

I agree that human suffering is bad, that is a given. My point is that I don't believe that this morality is objectively bad. Nothing in the Universe seems to care whether we suffer or not, except us.

To me, this seems to strongly indicate that morality is subjective and more than anything driven by our evolutionary history and culture. And the fact that morality has changed so much over time as well. Owning slaves wasn't a huge issue back in the day, in fact, most of human history is filled with it being considered perfectly fine. We even have the bible talking about slavery and we know it wasn't that long ago that slavery was abolished.
So was all of humanity immoral back then? To me, it would be silly to think that they went about their daily lives knowing they were doing something horrible, it simply doesn't make sense to think that.

If morality is objective, how would one explain that?

Also looking at the world today and the different cultures, there is a huge difference in morality. The Arabic world thinks a lot of what we do is immoral, whereas we think that some of the stuff they do is equally wrong (cultural differences). This doesn't make sense if there is an objective moral truth.

If we look at something like killing each other, pretty much globally we are raised to believe that this is wrong and luckily the majority of people agree. Yet, the use of the word "war" and the concept of killing completely changes, it is still horrible, yet justified as long as you put on some different cloth and call yourself a soldier you can shoot others, if you are head of a country you can order the killing of others hardly without any issues. This wouldn't make sense in a world governed by objective moral truth. Yet makes perfect sense in a world with subjective moral standards, because killing those who hurt us seems logical, to stop it. And it also explains why anyone would order (start a war) the killing of others.

Why would this all matter if in fact morality is objective? Subjective opinions on morality can be very much in error. Nothing has to be guided by objective moral truth for there to actually be objective moral truth. Objective moral truth would be true regardless of how anyone feels subjectively about it. Objective moral truth could exist as the best cause and effect morality. If all humans decide to jump off cliffs because they don't regard the cliff as truly being there even though it is that doesn't make the cliff less real.

I regard objective moral truths are there for humans to heed and take personally in their own lives. Morals is about the intrinsic nature of inner motivations, and character qualities in individuals. Ethics is about rules of behavior, and conduct specifically. So I see morals, and ethics are not the same thing.

Objective moral truth is something to be carefully explored, considered, and discovered for one's inner self at length. It can exist in actuality though no one pays heed nor can find the resources to learn about it. Objective moral truth is very transformative, and is a way of examining, and enlightening one's self in regards to their own motivations.

Objective moral truth exists regardless of the ultimate indifferent physical nature of reality, and regardless of the subjective pitfalls that people fall into. They exist regardless of the non existence of Gods, or a guiding force.

Truth is defined as in accordance with fact and reality. Truth is also defined as in accordance with all virtues. Finally I see no reason to give up on finding objective moral truth though people dismiss it rather easily because subjective morals rule the Earth, and a lot of virtues may be poorly defined. It does appear to me that human success is most often found where people incorporate good virtues in their daily living. Human failures stem from ignorance of these virtues, and also because it's simply not in their desires nor their motivations. In this day and age people need to awaken and determine themselves to find it. Morals have simplicity but not too simple, and ethics would be more complex.

 

[Heyo]

I think I get what you are saying (not 100% sure )

But to me it doesn't seem like a closed question, but rather an open one, because the original one is flawed.

"What is good?"

No, it's "what is best?".

 

[Valjean]

If you think atheism is a label for an empty mind, then you will think it is not a world view. And most atheists around here these days fight tooth and nail to maintain the empty mind label of atheism because they don't want to be called on to defend anything they actually think or believe.

Are you kidding? Why do you think we inhabit talk fora if we don't want to talk about beliefs and opinions?
I find atheists generally more eager to discuss beliefs and justifications than the religious. I could name half a dozen of us right here on RF who reliably reply to apologist discussions.
Atheists are often atheist because they've thought about these things. They have reasons for their opinions, and can articulate them. The religious, having had their beliefs handed them on a platter, have not and can not.

There are atheists from many different cultural backgrounds, with many different world-views. A single belief or lack of belief doesn't constitute a world-view.

But atheism is either something or it's nothing. And if it's something, that something is part of a world view. If it's nothing, than who cares, anyway. The label has negated it's own validity and should just be ignored as empty gibberish.

Atheism usually defines itself as a lack of belief. If you must have a positive atheist claim, it would be that theists have not met their burden, so the God claim remains unfounded.

 

[Valjean]

When a person starts out, they have no knowledge of God, Gods, etc. or even a reject of belief in such things, because to reject such beliefs means to know such beliefs, it means to have some type of basis, some type of reason to refuse such beliefs, in other words, a worldview.

But a lack of belief is not a rejection of that belief. In fact. we lack belief in many things we've never even heard of.

 

[Valjean]

I don't really understand much of the relationship that this post may have with the topic being debated... but I feel some kind of prejudice. If I am a Jehovah's Witness, do my comments deserve any kind of different reaction than those who are not?

No. Factual errors, logical errors, and unsupported beliefs are pointed out regardless of their origins.

 

[Valjean]

Eli G said:


Eli G said: Those who believe that the origin of the universe has nothing to do with a Creator do not feel afraid when they make decisions that may have different consequences on other humans... and they can be very bad to others.
He who fears God, knows that if he harms his fellow man he will have a non-human Judge who will judge him.

Yeah, so this is rubbish. Plain and simple.

I'm not so sure. s/he has a valid point in that Christians are kept in line by threats and rewards; by fear of the God they claim is compassionate and loving. There's an implication that Christianity motivates people to do good, and that those lacking such a motivation may be out of control and wont to do harm.
However: Throughout history this has had little apparent effect on the behavior of the God fearing Christians; while the atheists, who've perforce developed their own, internalized moral systems, usually behave as or more in line with Christ's precepts than the Christians.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But you don't believe anything, remember?

I believe lots of things. What a dumb thing to say.
Atheism is the disbelief of one particular thing. Not of all things that could be believed.

You're just a blank slate awaiting someone else to "prove it".

No.

You couldn't even make that sentence make sense.

Speak for yourself.

To clarify: atheism tells you what I do not believe. It does not tell you what I DO believe.

I'm so sorry this simple concept seems to complicated for you to understand.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

"Nonsense. I will happily defend that which I think and believe."

"My disbelief in god is as much part of my "world view"

To clarify, is your claim you have belief there is no god instead of lacking belief?

First, it's not a claim.
Secondly, my position on gods is that I have no reason to believe any such thing exists. So I don't believe any such thing exists.

 

[Valjean]

And it's not like I was saying I believe with 100% certainty that all Jehovah's Witnesses are like that, I even recently said this: "But I could be wrong since a bunch of people who believe in that religion that behave a certain way doesn't mean they automatically all do.", yet somehow that's just too much, and I must be blocked.

All I wanted was for them to prove me wrong, that they're not like other Jehovah's Witnesses, just that. Is that really being judgmental at all?

I've a;ways found JWs personally friendly, sincere and compassionate; their apologetics, on the other hand, are poorly reasoned or defended.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Unfortunately I can't ignore others who got the tittle "Staff Member"... too many of those here, who knows who gives that tittle to them.

I think it's fair to say the staff has given themselves titles, so to speak, through exemplary behavior on this forum. Behaviors such as not feeling the need serve our egos and posture by making announcements that they are ignoring another member, and following it up by firing shots and random volunteer staff members.

Or the title fairy visited one night and granted us the titles.

I can never remember which.

No one, at least that I can remember, has ever given me a tittle.

 

[PureX]

There are Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and Jews who apparently don't believe in gods. Would you say they all share a worldview?

Yes.

No one shares the exact same world view, but the idea that no gods exist is basically an opinion based on a materialist world view.

 

[PureX]

Are you kidding? Why do you think we inhabit talk fora if we don't want to talk about beliefs and opinions?

That's easy. You just want to attack everyone else's beliefs and opinions.

I find atheists generally more eager to discuss beliefs and justifications than the religious.

They don't want to discuss religion. They don't even understand it. But they sure do want to attack and belittle it.

I could name half a dozen of us right here on RF who reliably reply to apologist discussions.
Atheists are often atheist because they've thought about these things. They have reasons for their opinions, and can articulate them. The religious, having had their beliefs handed them on a platter, have not and can not.

**mod edit**Their knees jerk and their comments fly, and that's as far as it goes. It's all resentment and ego. They don't listen to or consider anything anyone else says.

There are atheists from many different cultural backgrounds, with many different world-views. A single belief or lack of belief doesn't constitute a world-view.

We are all different, and we are all the same. So are atheists.

Atheism usually defines itself as a lack of belief.

**mod edit**Intended to justify the old 'kangaroo court' tactic to anyone stupid enough to fall for it.

If you must have a positive atheist claim, it would be that theists have not met their burden, so the God claim remains unfounded.

And there it is.