Atheism and moral nihilism

[PorcelinaV]

Would you agree that atheism / naturalism has a less solid basis on which to ground morality?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/mar/09/life-without-god-bleak-atheism

Even more disturbing, perhaps, is the threat of moral nihilism. Atheists are quite rightly keen to counter the accusation that life without God cannot be moral. The British Humanist Association, for instance, claims that "Right and wrong can be explained by human nature alone and do not require religious teaching". But, just as with happiness, there is a need to distinguish the possibility of atheist morality from its inevitable actuality. Anyone who thinks it's easy to ground ethics either hasn't done much moral philosophy or wasn't concentrating when they did. Although morality is arguably just as murky for the religious, at least there is some bedrock belief that gives a reason to believe that morality is real and will prevail. In an atheist universe, morality can be rejected without external sanction at any point, and without a clear, compelling reason to believe in its reality, that's exactly what will sometimes happen.So I think it's time we atheists 'fessed up and admitted that life without God can sometimes be pretty grim.

@Maatandosiris I don't think I agree with you. If you strip it down to the absolute essentials needed for a species/a society to survive, there are some things that simply have to be in place: prohibitions against murder, theft, incest and the like. The rest grows from there and much of it doesn't make sense.

epigenetics are extremely interesting esp in a moral and spiritual context. How far this spreads within cultures is obviously very open to debate. It can, of course. Lead to some interesting moral questions if it’s own.

Dion Fortune believed that race played a large part in the most suitable spiritual path and that westerners weren’t best placed to follow eastern spirituality for example. But is this due to some inherited predisposition to certain symbology? Cultural experiences and exposure to symbols or just racism?

Well I guess if morals were objective it would matter from whose perspective.

I don’t think all those things are necessary for a society to function. Can a society function without private property? I would say yes. Theft can only exist with the existence to private property.

@Maatandosiris, over simplistic categorisation linked to race IMO is the definition of prejudice and racism. Whilst I believe culture can affect gene expression, attempting to retrospectively extrapolate and categorise from this information is futile. And horrifying. Even within cultures, experiences and people's responses to them are individual. We must not forget that.

But it that case morals could never be innate.

But it that case morals could never be innate

@Maatandosiris, of course they could. For example the skill of walking on two legs is innate but some people inherit disease which means they never develop that skill. Doesn't mean the potential to walk does not necessarily lie within them just the inherited disease prohibits the necessary physical development. It could be similar in terms of a complex moral code.

Equally we all could have inherited a predisposition to certain symbology however inherited psychological quirks might inhibit the development of the necessary linguistics to fully understand what we are experiencing.

But then what you’re saying is that morals are inevitable. So someone deviating from accepted morals has something wrong with their genes. In this case where does personal responsibility lie? If this were true a murderer would have no more control over their actions than someone born without legs is responsible for not being able to walk.

@Maatandosiris when I mentioned theft, I was thinking more about stealing essentials like food, so another person doesn't actually have something to eat. Which absolutely is a societal issue. I agree that societies can function well without property ownership.

But the purpose of symbology (at least at a spiritual level) is that it transcends the necessity for linguistic expression ( in fact that is the very purpose of symbols from certain perspectives)

But that’s not generally a differentiation that societies make re theft.

Similarly murder. Some societies include situations where it is ok to take another’s life. Others don’t. Again there are different views on how morals regarding taking another’s life interact with the functioning of society. So where do these differences come from? Some people see abortion as the murder of a child, others think the option is a necessary one in order for modern society to function

In this case where does personal responsibility lie? If this were true a murderer would have no more control over their actions than someone born without legs is responsible for not being able to walk.

@Maatandosiris, not quite since I believe also our genetic state is meta stable. Gene expression can be affected by the environment and our reaction to it

It's an interesting discussion, in terms of Christianity. There is mention of being a 'slave to sin' or 'free in Christ'. The idea that sinning (not being in accordance with God's will) is what inhibits freedom. With Christ comes freedom, healing, being able to be in a state which is in accordance with God's will and being able to be (more and more) responsible - have the ability to respond. There is some discussion of how a conscience can becomes hardened and from the Old Testament of how previous generation's sin affects future generations.

N.B I view sin as simply acting without personal regard or reference to what might be God's will. It doesn't mean people necessarily are committing crimes or horrible people.

But the purpose of symbology (at least at a spiritual level) is that it transcends the necessity for linguistic expression ( in fact that is the very purpose of symbols from certain perspectives)

@Maatandosiris, interesting. But symbology can also be considered a language and thus has it's own linguistic features.

Having spent a lot of time working with symbols it is clear to me that they go far beyond what can be expressed by language.

interestingly letters and words can carry their own symbolism which again goes far beyond the overt language

There’s a similar perspective which runs through many expressions of western esoteric practices.

whose “will” we are talking about varies of course. But it is aligning with your purpose.

Most famously this is expressed (although often misinterpreted) in Thelema as set out by Aleister Crowley “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law, love is the law, love under will”

But whose “will is this? Gods? Your higher self? Your genes? Society? Religion? Where does this purpose come from? What are the consequences of not fulfil it?

if we’re saying that there is a will in this context, by definition its impossible to be nihilistic as it gives a meaning or purpose to life. To discover and fulfil yours (or gods) is really the meaning of life.

@Maatandosiris

*Having spent a lot of time working with symbols it is clear to me that they go far beyond what can be expressed by language.(

interestingly letters and words can carry their own symbolism which again goes far beyond the overt language

@Maatandosiris

Funnily enough I studied linguistics and view much of the world in terms of language. 😉Maths = language, gesture = language, chemical signals within organisms and beyond them = language.

I love John 1.

The Word Became Flesh
"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. " (1 John:1)

But whose “will is this? Gods? Your higher self? Your genes? Society? Religion? Where does this purpose come from? What are the consequences of not fulfil it?

@Maatandosiris, I'm primarily talking about God's will, but as a Christian, I believe we can have unity with God through Christ and His will becomes our will too and further on from that with that with His healing our genetic expression can (begin to) line up with God's will and so on as we connect with others in unity and accordance with God's will.

The academic study of these things is interesting. In fact I was recently discussing this with a university professor. There is increasing recognition in the academic world that the scholar practitioner/practitioner scholar is the way forward to study these areas. It is necessary to understand the experience as well as the theory in order to fully understand something.

Whilst symbols could be seen as a language it is not a language capable of translation. Any translation will only ever be a pale imitation.

Re the Word. What is your interpretation of that particular phrase?

Re the Word. What is your interpretation of that particular phrase?

@Maatandosiris, I was thinking about this question as I quoted that. I see the Word as the outward expression of God which as we read on we find out is fully embodied, in the flesh, in Christ.

Whilst symbols could be seen as a language it is not a language capable of translation. Any translation will only ever be a pale imitation.

@Maatandosiris, yet it is translated within us, as we react to it, it translates into chemical reactions and electrical impulses within our body. Pale imitation? Not sure about that. The reactions are literally transformative!

when I say translation, I mean translation into words. It is impossible to translate the meaning of symbols into words.

the internal alchemy achieved through the use of symbols requires no translation into words, it is beyond being able to explain and any verbal explanation will be a pale imitation. The only true way to understand the language of symbols is to experience it.

Interesting. I see this as creation. God literally spoke the universe into being. But as soon as he spoke (ie the Word was no longer with God)

@Maatandosiris,

when I say translation, I mean translation into words. It is impossible to translate the meaning of symbols into words.

the internal alchemy achieved through the use of symbols requires no translation into words, it is beyond being able to explain and any verbal explanation will be a pale imitation. The only true way to understand the language of symbols is to experience it.

@Maatandosiris, ah I see, but I think words can embody meaning far beyond the literal. Each and every word is a symbol of the substance that is being expressed. Each and every written letter carries a sound. Each sound in language can reference a sound in nature, a sound in nature can reference a physical occurrence and so on.

But I agree in terms that we cannot always consciously process all this in such a way as to verbalise it.

Yes I agree that words can and do have far more meaning than the literal interpretation- take the language of the OT for example. The letters themselves are holy and carry meaning - there are arguments re numerical values and when they first appeared. But the words are definitely more than literal. Vibration of manes and sounds in various belief systems are designed to awaken or connect with different things (and actually stimulate the vagus nerve).

Numerical values of words can tell us more - like a code, the most well known obviously being 666 (or 616). But this is more code, than an inner ineffable knowledge)

Couple of different issues here I think.

Firstly, there is arguably an advantage to a system where serious criminals are going to face consequences for their actions.

Secondly, what you seem to be focused on, is whether people are truly moral or only behaving themselves out of fear of punishment.

But is there any evidence, in practice, that atheists are much more moral than theists for this kind of reason?