This is a question I'm sure most of you have heard before. Specially after the rise in popularity of Sam Harris and his book The Moral Landscape. However, I've never had the opportunity to discuss the idea with anyone. So I thought I'd do it here.
In a sense my title is misleading. Can atheists live moral lives? The obvious answer is yes. Even worms can live perfectly moral lives as well for all we know, and there is no reason why another human being cannot. Of course there are many interpretations for what is considered moral behavior, and in one instance an action can be immoral under one category, and acceptable under another.
Let's just assume we all know what we mean by good and bad when it comes to human behavior, so we don't get distracted by definitions. I also want to be clear that I'm not trying to make a claim in favor of Christianity in this post, there is no hidden punchline I wish to make. That's a topic for another post.
The real question I want to ask is this: Why should atheists live moral lives? By atheists, I'm more broadly encompassing the whole human race, if we are all living under the same principles. My reasoning behind this question is this. What is the reason for my life, and for doing anything and everything, in light of the knowledge that in a few years everything I am, and everyone I know, and anything I've done, and anyone I've affected, will be dead? I'm a university student, and as a result I'm very busy. During a typical semester, I have to take seriously my every action if I wish to be successful and not waste time. When you are busy, you need a good reason for doing anything that isn't essential, if not it's pointless.
In the words of Tolstoy: "Is there any meaning in my life that the inevitable death awaiting me does not destroy?"
What good then does morality do? What difference does it make if I choose to derail the approaching train to save the five lives chained to the track, or simply watch the event unfold, if either way in a few years all of them including myself will be dead?
Alan Turing is credited with deciphering the Enigma. Which allowed the allies to obtain German military intelligence, and tactics. Early on he faced a dilemma. He knew there was going to be an attack upon a naval ship, with innocent lives he could easily save by notifying the military. However in so doing, he would inevitably compromise the code, and potentially lose the war, and thousands more would die. So he allowed the death of one ship, to save lives of countless others.
We can all agree that he made the right decision, and this type of morality is usually termed utilitarianism. But did it make a difference? All those lives he saved by his decision, are now dead or dying as the last few WWII survivors pass away. Even if you claim the world we live in exists thanks to him, and the Allies winning the war, does it make a difference? We too will be dead as a result, and those that come after us. Life is an etch a sketch, and regardless of your drawing being good or bad, at the end of the day, one shake of your world and and the memory of it will be forgotten.
I heard a man put it this way. When the Titanic is going down, it does not matter if you go down hugging or mugging.
When a plane you are on is falling out of the sky, and the man next to you pulls out a gun and asks for your money, or the man behind you begins stabbing other passengers, or the lady in front begins teaching CPR, or the flight attendant decides to give a free meal to a homeless passenger that was on the flight, none of it matters. Not only does it not matter, but all of it seems irrational in light of the impending doom.
So what do you guys think? Why should atheists live moral lives?
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
John6b - "Let's just assume we all know what we mean by good and bad when it comes to human behavior"
I bet that assumption don't last 5 posts.
Even if it lasts only 2 posts, that's too long of a discussion since it's not what I'm interested in.
Well, to be completely honest, whether or not we are moral rather depends on what moral standard you are using. If you are talking about the ethical reasoning we tend to use to determine if an action was "good" or "bad", then yes, most people are moral. If you are talking about the divine commandments and laws of one of the many gods mankind has created, then no, most people aren't moral. But, more broadly, you seem to be asking WHY we should BE moral. Which is an interesting question, when viewed externally. It seems we have a clash between two moral paradigms. One states that we should not rape because some possibly nonexistent entity commands us not to, and that command is somehow absolute and objective despite supposedly coming from another being. And another, who states that rape is wrong because of the physical, emotional, and psychological damage it inflicts on the victim.
Now, some may say that we shouldn't care what damage is inflicted on the other person if there are no lasting consequences to us, but that is a completely sociopathic argument. Why do we care about other humans? We evolved that way and are taught to as we grow up, so no god is really necessary to explain why we care. So, in the end, I don't see anything an external source or afterlife could really add to morality. In fact, instituting rewards and punishments does not actually make morality, but attempts to dictate it by force. Forced morality isn't really all that moral.
I like your response, and I can agree with most of it. But I feel like you missed my argument.
This what we can agree on: Morality depends on the standard, and there are many standards. For this reason I said lets assume we all know and agree on what is good and bad, since that is not the debate, and I want to avoid pointless disagreements. I also said I don't want to make this into a religious argument. So I'm going to ignore your statements about the clash between paradigms, and religious comments.
Your second paragraph is the one I want to focus on, because you brought up a type of ad-hominen that I was expecting to see. I agree fully that a disregard for life, simply because life is of little lasting consequence, is a very sociopathic stance. But that is a very emotional response to give a very logical argument. It may be true that only Hitler would hold such a stance, but that is not refuting his logic. Regardless of the Final Solution being executed in January 1942, the last holocaust survivor still died February 2014. Trees live far longer than that, but we still consider their existence of far less value.
It makes no difference if biological evolution made us into social animals, or if cultural evolution has given us values. Psychology still shows that we are capable of blatant inconsistencies, like being able to detect patterns and meaning in things that are completely patternless and meaningless.
The argument here is that morality, is one of those inconsistencies.
"This what we can agree on: Morality depends on the standard, and there are many standards."
Indeed, and depending on which standard is used it becomes something fundamentally different, altering what it is and what it means. Which, for the purposes of conversation, is actually kind of an important distinction to make.
"For this reason I said lets assume we all know and agree on what is good and bad, since that is not the debate, and I want to avoid pointless disagreements."
You are welcome to avoid such disagreements, but since they are partially central to what morality is and means, you would be avoiding the very thing you are trying so hard to discuss.
"I also said I don't want to make this into a religious argument. So I'm going to ignore your statements about the clash between paradigms, and religious comments."
Go right ahead, but that will also be ignoring the better part of the argument, so I suppose that means I can simply ignore the rest of yours, right?
If you insist. Let's take two schools of ethics: Utilitarianism and Deontology.
"The greatest happiness for the greatest number" vs "Actions more important than consequences."
Your son is dying. The doctor has the cure. You cannot afford the medicine. What do you do?
Utilitarian: Steal the medicine, because it's what maximizes the happiness of the child.
Deontology: Unless stealing can be turned into a universal rule that everyone should follow, you cannot do it.
There, I've given you what you wanted. A moral dilemma where an action is right under one category, but wrong under the other. Does it make a difference? No. You can spend the rest of your life debating whether utilitarianism or deontology is the better school of ethics. Either way at the end of the day both you, the father, the child, and the doctor will all be dead, and whatever conclusion you've arrived at will be forgotten. Religion within the context of my question can only be brought up as a form of ethics, and you have the same dilemma. Whether you think stealing the medicine is right because the life of the child is worth more than the cost of the medicine, or whether you think stealing is always wrong because God says it is: both the life of the child, the money, you, the medicine and the christian will all be dead and forgotten at the end of the day.
The only approach to ethics that can possibly be reconciled with our approaching death is Hedonism. Maximizing our momentary pleasure and minimizing our temporary pain, all the while knowing that anything you do has no meaning except making the few years you are alive bearable. But even within this framework, weather you lived full of pleasure, experienced no pain, none of it will matter once you are dead.
If you still think religion, or schools of ethics matter at all in this conversation by all means, present your case then. You have my permission.
"There, I've given you what you wanted."
Close enough.
"A moral dilemma where an action is right under one category, but wrong under the other. Does it make a difference? No."
Yes, I'd say it makes quite a bit of difference, considering it would be difficult to talk about something unless you understand what you are talking about.
"You can spend the rest of your life debating whether utilitarianism or deontology is the better school of ethics. Either way at the end of the day both you, the father, the child, and the doctor will all be dead, and whatever conclusion you've arrived at will be forgotten."
...and this is were we disagree. You seem to think that because our actions will one day be forgotten, and everyone affected by them will one day die, that makes them irrelevant and meaningless NOW. That simply isn't the case, what we do does matter to ourselves and others in real-time, pretending otherwise is rather silly. I'm sorry you seem to hold some kind of nihilist view towards our actions unless they follow us for eternity, but we will disagree, considering seemingly innocuous and benign choices may have serious impact on the future.
"Religion within the context of my question can only be brought up as a form of ethics, and you have the same dilemma. Whether you think stealing the medicine is right because the life of the child is worth more than the cost of the medicine, or whether you think stealing is always wrong because God says it is: both the life of the child, the money, you, the medicine and the christian will all be dead and forgotten at the end of the day."
...and the fact that we die impact morality, how, exactly? By that attitude it doesn't matter what anyone ever does, because everyone will die, so why give a crap. Well, because like our actions, the effects of those actions can be apparent in real-time.
"The only approach to ethics that can possibly be reconciled with our approaching death is Hedonism."
Only if you submit yourself to nihilism because of that approaching death, the fact that we die doesn't make our life or choices less valuable, but rather more valuable from a statistical standpoint.
"Maximizing our momentary pleasure and minimizing our temporary pain, all the while knowing that anything you do has no meaning except making the few years you are alive bearable. But even within this framework, weather you lived full of pleasure, experienced no pain, none of it will matter once you are dead."
Thus is where YOU bring religion into it, hinting at the ideal that nothing we do matters unless we exist for eternity. Sounds amazingly like something Phil Robertson would say, and still completely ignoring the fact that we MUST continue to live the best we can, even if tomorrow isn't guaranteed. You, quite literally, exist because of the little tiny decisions your ancestors made, yet they meant nothing? Your existence means nothing? If that is true, why should anything you or anyone else says be any more meaningful than your existence?
"If you still think religion, or schools of ethics matter at all in this conversation by all means, present your case then. You have my permission."
Because the way you are framing it, it matters very much. If you want to hint that unless we live forever, morality is meaningless, then you are smuggling theistic concepts in of your own accord. You are, quite literally, saying that it makes no difference at all whether you ever existed or not.
Notice that your conclusions shift the conversation away from debates about religion or what is morally right and wrong, and arrive at a deeper issue, which we could been discussing from the beginning:
"Does the fact that our actions and everyone affected by them will one day be forgotten, void their relevancy?"
The whole justification for why atheists should live moral lives rests on this question.
You brought up the idea of being valuable from a statistical standpoint. But value is a very subjective thing, and subjectivity is exactly what we have to remove if we are going to arrive at any reasonable conclusion. We can however try to measure whether we are statistically significant. I don't know how you would go about measuring that exactly, but I do know we are very insignificant in terms of our place in the universe, our duration in the cosmic timeline, the number in our species, our abilities, and so forth. A tick has a better claim at proving it's significance in our world, than we do at proving our significance in the universe.
"Notice that your conclusions shift the conversation away from debates about religion or what is morally right and wrong, and arrive at a deeper issue, which we could been discussing from the beginning:"
This isn't my conclusion, it was in how you framed the argument.
""Does the fact that our actions and everyone affected by them will one day be forgotten, void their relevancy?""
In the here and now? No, it doesn't. See how easy that was!
"The whole justification for why atheists should live moral lives rests on this question."
Not really, we don't have to argue how our choices will have impact centuries from now for them to have temporal meaning now, that is an obfuscation and a bad one at that.
"You brought up the idea of being valuable from a statistical standpoint."
Indeed, statistics, a branch of mathematics.
"But value is a very subjective thing, and subjectivity is exactly what we have to remove if we are going to arrive at any reasonable conclusion."
Mathematical value is subjective now?
"We can however try to measure whether we are statistically significant."
Indeed, and when we do measure how statistically improbable and dependent we all are on these very action you are attempting to call void and meaningless, we realize that every event has the probability to be far more significant than anyone would surmise.
"I don't know how you would go about measuring that exactly, but I do know we are very insignificant in terms of our place in the universe, our duration in the cosmic timeline, the number in our species, our abilities, and so forth. A tick has a better claim at proving it's significance in our world, than we do at proving our significance in the universe."
Statistics is about more than simple sample size, but probabilities as well. The fact that we exist despite the sheer number of statistically improbable events is staggering, which makes us and our action fairly significant as well, all things considered.
I'm going to use your format to reply.
"In the here and now? No, it doesn't. See how easy that was!"
-The assumption was already that your answer was no If it wasn't we would have agreed and your response would be redundant. I'm looking for a justification for you answer.
"Not really, we don't have to argue how our choices will have impact centuries from now for them to have temporal meaning now, that is an obfuscation and a bad one at that."
-Not an obfuscation, but the whole premise of my question. So to make things perfectly clear about the reality of the world we are living in, from here on out lets narrow our conversation down to being on board a plane, with an engine that has exploded, and we are headed straight for the ground. Why should you live morally in the last moments of your life when the plane is going down?
"Indeed, statistics, a branch of mathematics."
-Obviously
"Mathematical value is subjective now?"
-Nope, but mathematical values are not how you expressed your sentence. You were clearly using value as a synonym for meaningful/meaningless. If not your sentence wouldn't make sense. A mathematical value is another word for a numerical amount. So your sentence would have read thus if we use mathematical value: "The fact that we die doesn't make our life or choices a low numerical amount, but rather a high numerical amount from a statistical standpoint." Clearly the proper way to read your sentence was thus: "The fact that we die doesn't make our life or choices have less meaning, but rather have more meaning from a statistical standpoint."
"Statistics is about more than simple sample size, but probabilities as well. The fact that we exist despite the sheer number of statistically improbable events is staggering, which makes us and our action fairly significant as well, all things considered."
-First of all, statistical improbability doesn't mean a thing. Unicorns are statistically improbably, does that make them significant at all?
-Secondly, we are not statistically improbably. Pick up a Richard Dawkins book, or anything in the biological and astrophysics department. Suppose that the odds of life occurring in a planet is 1 in 100million, fine let's say that's statistically improbably. But let's suppose now we have 100 billion planets, each with a 1 in 100million chance of life occurring. This means there's probably a 1,000 planets with life on them.
There's many more planets than 100 billion planets on our universe, not to mention moons, etc, and I doubt the biological sciences say that the odds of abiogenesis occuring is as high as 1 in 100million, since much the debate against creationists is saying either that the probability is not as high, or that it is irrelevant.
"The assumption was already that your answer was no If it wasn't we would have agreed and your response would be redundant. I'm looking for a justification for you answer."
That is easy, because we live in the present and have to make decisions in it, not centuries from now. So what if my decision not to kill doesn't effect people ten millennia from now, it effects people right now, which is quite enough to give it justification.
"Not an obfuscation, but the whole premise of my question."
In that case, your premise is bad.
"So to make things perfectly clear about the reality of the world we are living in, from here on out lets narrow our conversation down to being on board a plane, with an engine that has exploded, and we are headed straight for the ground. Why should you live morally in the last moments of your life when the plane is going down?"
Oh yes, because something a hundred years away is the same as something imminent. However, let us look at it this way:
Someone on a plane that is crashing decides to murder every passenger in his vicinity, somehow the plane lands safely enough that most of the passengers and crew survive, is what he did moral? How about if they all died, is it any less moral or immoral simply because of the time frame involved? What does time or permanence have to do with morality? These are the things you are asking, so let us go over it:
Did his actions objectively harm other people without adequate reason? Yes, they did, ergo they are immoral. Does it matter to the morality of his action if everyone on the plane survives or dies? No, that has absolutely no impact on the morality of his actions. Does something have to be permanent to be moral? Obviously not, and absolutely no one would expect actions in a finite universe to be permanent, unless they were delusional.
"Nope, but mathematical values are not how you expressed your sentence. You were clearly using value as a synonym for meaningful/meaningless. If not your sentence wouldn't make sense. A mathematical value is another word for a numerical amount. So your sentence would have read thus if we use mathematical value: "The fact that we die doesn't make our life or choices a low numerical amount, but rather a high numerical amount from a statistical standpoint." Clearly the proper way to read your sentence was thus: "The fact that we die doesn't make our life or choices have less meaning, but rather have more meaning from a statistical standpoint.""
The two are similar enough in meaning and purpose that I don't consider them to carry different meanings.
"First of all, statistical improbability doesn't mean a thing. Unicorns are statistically improbably, does that make them significant at all?"
Hahahahahahahahaha, comparing humans to unicorns, that is just pathetic. There is a very striking difference between the two, if you can't figure it out, I see little hope for this conversation.
"Secondly, we are not statistically improbably."
Life isn't, humans aren't, individuals actually are rather improbable. Your parents had to meet and share genes, as did their parents, as did their parents, as did their parents.....etc.
"Pick up a Richard Dawkins book, or anything in the biological and astrophysics department. Suppose that the odds of life occurring in a planet is 1 in 100million, fine let's say that's statistically improbably. But let's suppose now we have 100 billion planets, each with a 1 in 100million chance of life occurring. This means there's probably a 1,000 planets with life on them."
That is for life, period. That is not for us individually.
"There's many more planets than 100 billion planets on our universe, not to mention moons, etc, and I doubt the biological sciences say that the odds of abiogenesis occuring is as high as 1 in 100million, since much the debate against creationists is saying either that the probability is not as high, or that it is irrelevant."
Fascinating, truly, but utterly irrelevant to the probability of an individual.
"Someone on a plane that is crashing decides to murder every passenger in his vicinity, somehow the plane lands safely enough that most of the passengers and crew survive, is what he did moral?"
-The plane cannot land safely, and none of the passengers and the crew can survive. This scenario is meant to make the inevitableness of death a very tangible thing. It's not comparing something a hundred years away to something happening now. It's comparing a very realistic scenario of dying in the next few minutes, to dying a few years down the line assuming we have optimal health. So all the passengers must die.
"Someone on a plane that is crashing decides to murder every passenger in his vicinity, is what he did moral?"
-I would like it if you answered the same question again, without the possibility of survival. You may not like what I'm about to do, but since we are taking this plane to represent our lives on earth, to say that the plane crashed and the passenger survived is analogous to believing in an afterlife. So lets's just be clear. Everyone on the plane is about to die, no survival.
-My response to your question is that I find the mans action very pointless, and illogical. Committing murder in a crashing plane, can only be the result of a mind completely drained of reason. But I'd like to make the point that so is handing over $100 to the child next to you. The money might increase his happiness if he doesn't realize the plane is about to crash, but if he does realize it it's completely useless. Or maybe not, maybe the money has some use. Maybe he can decide to enjoy his last seconds, so he raises his hand, and waits for the flight attendant to walk over and asks if he can buy a cookie. The flight attendant smiles and says sure, and hands him a cookie, and receives the money. She puts the money away and walks over to the next customer. All this while the plane is seconds from being obliterated.
"Did his actions objectively harm other people without adequate reason? Yes, they did, ergo they are immoral."
-I can agree that his actions can be immoral. So don't get confused. Even in my initial post to the forum I said full well that I believe atheists can live moral lives. This means that morality does exist, and it's something we can follow if we wished. That's also part of the reason why I mentioned that it doesn't matter what school of ethics you subscribe to, because what you call moral and immoral doesn't impact my question. I want to know whats the point of living morally right before the plane crashes?
"Hahahahahahahahaha, comparing humans to unicorns, that is just pathetic. There is a very striking difference between the two, if you can't figure it out, I see little hope for this conversation."
-Yeah, unicorns are beautiful and people are not.
"Individuals actually are rather improbable. Your parents had to meet and share genes, as did their parents, as did their parents, as did their parents..." "That is for life, period. That is not for us individually."
-Ok, so as individuals we are are statistically improbable.. even though there's 6 billion of us walking around at the moment, not to mention the countless multitude that lived before. Let's say that's true, and as you say our parents had to meet to create us, fine. What about identical twins? Genetically they are built the same. So do they lose half their value? Quadruplets only have a quarter of the significance that I do, right? Not to mention that scientist have percentages of us being like 96% genetically similar to Chimps, or 50% with Bananas.
"The plane cannot land safely, and none of the passengers and the crew can survive. This scenario is meant to make the inevitableness of death a very tangible thing."
I purposely couched the argument both ways, asking if the persons survival or death really had any impact on the actual morality of their actions. It seems you misliked that question, but I will ask it again. What possible impact on morality does that persons imminent survival or death have?
"It's not comparing something a hundred years away to something happening now."
It does attempt to compare our eventual demise, which could be nearly a hundred year away with improvements in medicine, with one happening in the next few minutes.
"It's comparing a very realistic scenario of dying in the next few minutes, to dying a few years down the line assuming we have optimal health. So all the passengers must die."
Not really, because I fail to see how the death or survival of the person or the passengers around him impact the morality of homicide either way. Unless you are arguing that their imminent death makes his actions more moral, or their survival would make his actions less moral, I am not sure I see your point.
"I would like it if you answered the same question again, without the possibility of survival."
The survival or death of the people involved in no apparent way impacts the morality of the action, so I really don't see your argument, yet.
"You may not like what I'm about to do, but since we are taking this plane to represent our lives on earth, to say that the plane crashed and the passenger survived is analogous to believing in an afterlife. So lets's just be clear. Everyone on the plane is about to die, no survival."
I am still not seeing how that would impact the morality of the action one whit, so I will wait until you explain how it would.
"My response to your question is that I find the mans action very pointless, and illogical."
Indeed, it was pointless and unreasonable harm perpetrated on other people.
"Committing murder in a crashing plane, can only be the result of a mind completely drained of reason. But I'd like to make the point that so is handing over $100 to the child next to you."
Altruism, wanting to do it, or even just wanting to feel good about yourself all would explain this perfectly. While you may not find it reasonable to have or want any of these three qualities or desires, there are actually complex psychological and sociological reasons that we do, so I am still not understanding your argument apparently.
"The money might increase his happiness if he doesn't realize the plane is about to crash, but if he does realize it it's completely useless. Or maybe not, maybe the money has some use. Maybe he can decide to enjoy his last seconds, so he raises his hand, and waits for the flight attendant to walk over and asks if he can buy a cookie. The flight attendant smiles and says sure, and hands him a cookie, and receives the money. She puts the money away and walks over to the next customer. All this while the plane is seconds from being obliterated."
Still not seeing how this overly detailed and emotional narration impacts the morality of the actions in question.
"I can agree that his actions can be immoral. So don't get confused. Even in my initial post to the forum I said full well that I believe atheists can live moral lives."
Which is rather interesting, considering our exchange, and as far as I can tell you still have a very different idea about morality than the rest of us seem to.
"This means that morality does exist, and it's something we can follow if we wished. That's also part of the reason why I mentioned that it doesn't matter what school of ethics you subscribe to, because what you call moral and immoral doesn't impact my question. I want to know whats the point of living morally right before the plane crashes?"
As far as I can tell, the imminent plane crash has as much impact on the morality of the situation as what I had for dinner.
"Yeah, unicorns are beautiful and people are not."
I sincerely hope you are not being serious.
"Ok, so as individuals we are are statistically improbable.. even though there's 6 billion of us walking around at the moment, not to mention the countless multitude that lived before."
You have roughly 1 in 134 million chance of getting any specific nonsequencial hand if you sit down to a game of 7 card stud poker, by opting to play you have a 100% chance of getting a hand(barring sudden death or something that screws up the deal), but that does not in any way raise your odds of getting any specific nonsequencial hand.
"Let's say that's true, and as you say our parents had to meet to create us, fine. What about identical twins?"
Statistically more improbable.
"Genetically they are built the same. So do they lose half their value?"
Nope.
"Quadruplets only have a quarter of the significance that I do, right?"
Only if you are really, REALLY, terrible at math.
"Not to mention that scientist have percentages of us being like 96% genetically similar to Chimps, or 50% with Bananas."
I am also made of carbon and silicone, so is my computer, this in no way effects my statistical probability.
"What possible impact on morality does that persons imminent survival or death have?"
-I thought I was clear that morality remains the same. If it didn't, then my statement that atheists can live moral lives would be voided. Murder is still murder, love is still love. The consequences of morality however completely lose importance in light of death. I didn't want to use the word consequence, because there are schools of thought like Hedonism, that are more focused on the internal effects of an action rather than the consequences.
"As far as I can tell, the imminent plane crash has as much impact on the morality of the situation."
-The plane analogy is clearly not making you focus on the question. So I'll give you a farmer analogy.
Suppose you are a farmer, and suppose that in this farm watering your plants is considered morally right, and not watering your plants is morally wrong. The rational is that plants are living beings that depend on you, and not to water them is considered murder, etc. However, news has spread through the land that in one years time, a terrible drought will cease the land. As a result all the plants would die, and when all the grain you stored is gone, you too will die.
Does it matter if you spend the next year watering your plants, day in and day, not resting or sleeping? Or does it make a difference if you sit under a tree, take your hat off, and watch as your plants slowly die and so do you?
"I thought I was clear that morality remains the same."
Not really, I started to think you were into moral nihilism, as you seemed to indicate that the morality was somehow influenced by the imminent crash. Pardon if I misread you.
"If it didn't, then my statement that atheists can live moral lives would be voided. Murder is still murder, love is still love. The consequences of morality however completely lose importance in light of death."
I think this is where we fundamentally disagree, I think I will skip to the analogy and see if it elucidates what you are trying to say...
"Suppose you are a farmer, and suppose that in this farm watering your plants is considered morally right, and not watering your plants is morally wrong. The rational is that plants are living beings that depend on you, and not to water them is considered murder, etc. However, news has spread through the land that in one years time, a terrible drought will cease the land. As a result all the plants would die, and when all the grain you stored is gone, you too will die."
I am really going to try to take this very, VERY, odd analogy seriously...
"Does it matter if you spend the next year watering your plants, day in and day, not resting or sleeping? Or does it make a difference if you sit under a tree, take your hat off, and watch as your plants slowly die and so do you?"
Yes, it does. Humans have a psychological imperative to survive, and sheer logic dictates that living longer may possibly give rise to new avenues of survival, meaning that it would actually matter from a purely psychological and rational point of view.
"Yes, it does. Humans have a psychological imperative to survive."
-And? We are psychologically inclined to do a lot of things, including as I said before, find patterns in a completely random sample and give meaning to completely meaningless things. That's the fallacy you are committing. That we have a survival instinct or neurons in our brain is indisputable. That they have any significant meaning does not.
"Sheer logic dictates that living longer may possibly give rise to new avenues of survival, meaning that it would actually matter from a purely psychological and rational point of view."
- Again with the possibility of survival. Is there an example I can give you where you can accept for a fact that we're going to die?
Even if we figure out a way to live thousands of years, our Sun and Solar System will die. Even if we figure out a way to escape our Solar System, there is no guarantee that the Universe we live in will go on forever. In fact there are idea floating around that the Universe will collapse upon itself somehow.
"And? We are psychologically inclined to do a lot of things, including as I said before, find patterns in a completely random sample and give meaning to completely meaningless things. That's the fallacy you are committing. That we have a survival instinct or neurons in our brain is indisputable. That they have any significant meaning does not."
Are you implying that the drive to continue existing is without value? From a logical perspective that seems rather vapid.
"Again with the possibility of survival. Is there an example I can give you where you can accept for a fact that we're going to die?"
Did I say good possibility? Even if we were fairly certain that we were going to die, there is a limit to how certain we can actually be, meaning it is reasonable to increase the chances of avoiding cessation of our existence. It would not matter how many nines you tacked on to 99 percent, it would not decrease the rationality of increasing to already poor chances we have. By that logic, people that try to live a healthy lifestyle are completely stupid and crazy, simply because they will not live forever. However, that isn't the point of it, living as long and well as we can is.
"Even if we figure out a way to live thousands of years, our Sun and Solar System will die. Even if we figure out a way to escape our Solar System, there is no guarantee that the Universe we live in will go on forever. In fact there are idea floating around that the Universe will collapse upon itself somehow."
Wouldn't matter in the least, increasing even a poor probability of survival is worthwhile from a wholly rational perspective.
"Are you implying that the drive to continue existing is without value? From a logical perspective that seems rather vapid."
-Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying. Survival only has "value" if it actually works. If I build a robot, but it doesn't work, then it has no value. The only times the robot has value when it doesn't work is when we give it sentimental value. Which is what you're doing. You're giving sentimental value to survival and morality.
"Even if we were fairly certain that we were going to die, there is a limit to how certain we can actually be..."
-There is no limit, we know for a fact what a dead person looks like, and there is no uncertainty about that. Even in Christianity, there is no doubt about what death is."For you are dust, and to dust you shall return."
"By that logic, people that try to live a healthy lifestyle are completely stupid and crazy, simply because they will not live forever. "
-There's a t-shirt slogan going around for comical purposes that reads, "I exercise so I can die healthy." The joke implies that yes, to try and live a healthy life doesn't make a difference at the end of the day.
"However, that isn't the point, living as long and well as we can is."
-I'm cool with that premise, but unfortunately you still have to justify it. If living as long as we can is clearly the goal, then there would be no debate about people on life-support. Forcing them to live as long as possible regardless of how miserable or hopeless their situation is, becomes the most humane an morale thing we can do. Unless you have an exception to your own rule now.
This is an old debate and your twist on it, John, is not new either.
Can someone who identifies as atheist lead a moral life? Of course they can. To promote otherwise is silliness.
Have a little fun with arithmetic: The vast majority of people are (and have been) moral else we would have annihilated ourselves long ago. Out of the billions of moral people, certainly a percentage are / were atheist.
We wrote the book on morality to use as a standard for living together, not apart from each other. We are now geographically in touch but otherwise our separate lives have taken on more importance than the community-of-old we loosely represent. In other words, our individual privacy has become more important than any community bonds.
Where does that leave the morality written for communal living?
It's over. The morality was nothing more than a standard that we used for community living. It has now been re-written as civil laws. Civil laws now define wrong-doing between people or groups because, as you allude to, we just might break moral codes without the consequences of breaking civil laws. If we were left to police our own moral conduct alone, in the absence of civil laws, we would have chaos.
So, to ask why any atheist should adhere to a moral code is the same thing as asking if any atheist should obey civil laws. The question, perhaps a thousand years late, seems without context now.
Let us put it another way. Complaining that morality has no worth or meaning simply because its memory or effect doesn't last forever, isn't much different than arguing that morality is irrelevant because the things we do today won't effect things a hundred thousand years ago.
Some of us (not saying all because I know not all of us are the same) live morally because we want to see peace. We want a place where everyone can be nice to each other. If that happens, there would be no wars. We would be advancing our world together.
For our purpose, since we do not believe that there are people that will find our way for us, it is our job to find our purposes ourselves.
Whenever something happens, we (mostly) don't believe that it happened because it was planned by a supernatural force, but more that it was because of all the countless factors that happened before it. Chance, as some would say. Then, what we make of it is entirely our decision.
Our basic morals pretty much just include us thinking "Will it directly hurt a person?"
I like your answer a lot. I can sympathize with wanting to see peace in the world. I too believe that even if this life is all we have, we should still strive for that purpose.
However I cannot rationalize that desire, with knowing that at the end of the day, no matter how poetic it was, it's all erased as if it never happened.
So I can definitely sympathize with an atheists desire for peace, love, and tolerance. Just as long as we both understand it's an irrational position, or at least pointless.