What a politician, business leader, university lecturer, school teacher, military leader, media personality, community leader, research scientist or anyone in a position of influence believes is none of my business. It would be highly intrusive for me or anybody else to demand an accounting of their thoughts from them. What is important to me is not what they believe but what they do.

I suspect that the reason Graham Preston would ask his intrusive question is that he is a believer in religious mumbojumbo. Believers in religious mumbojumbo are often intolerant of those who don't subscribe to their particular brand of religious mumbojumbo.

I would refer Graham Preston to Matthew 7:16 "By their fruit you will recognize them." That should be enough. Look at what they do. What they think or believe is not Graham Preston's or my business.

You seem to share a common misconception regarding atheism that seems to be expressed by many religious people. This misconception is that atheism is somehow another branch of an exclusive, organized religion, with shared values, beliefs and goals. You are projecting the worldview you understand, rather than what really is. This is not limited to atheism, just look at how some of the religious people here on OLO speak of global warming, and certain political groups etc. NOT BELIEVING is not another type of BELIEVING.

The second problem you have is that you are just simply asking the wrong questions.
"What is life about?"
"What, if anything, is life for?" etc.
These questions are the equivalent of "why is blue", "what, if anything, is nothing?". Not very useful to anyone.

Why don't you instead ask people with influence "what are you going to do with your influence", or even "why do you have influence?" and you might actually improve the ACTUAL world we live in.

‘morning Graham,

An interesting approach to the eternal question of the meaning of life. It’s interesting that this article originates from cartoon images where it is said that a picture tells a thousand words.

Larry Pickering as a cartoonist, seems to write about the images of his cartoons and apart from getting on the wrong side of some, his words often reflect his outside the box thinking.

Likewise your article is a little outside the box but it is still a meaning of life debate.

IMHO it doesn’t matter if we evolved or were created because neither perspective acknowledges the we are yet to emerge as a benign species. The two perspectives simply offer excuses for being what we are, either God gave us free will which we use unwisely or our evolutionary heritage has left behind a bit of the wild animal savagery.

Likewise the issue of death remains the same, we die and return to the earth or we die and spiritually go to paradise or are reincarnated.

It is hard to dispute the physical journey from birth to death however, many may choose to explain human behavior as evolutionary or through spirituality. In the end it doesn’t matter because there is no explanation other than we are what we are.

There are some 34,000 registered religions with hundreds of thousands of rules. All dedicated to making humans better then we are. I’m not sure of the purpose for examining sections of human communities in terms such as “ business leaders, university lecturers and school teachers, military leaders, media personalities, community leaders, research scientists – anyone in a position of influence”.

What is different between these groups to the rest of humanity? Why should interrogating their beliefs be “awkward questions”? The only difference I can point to is that those in a position of influence can screw things up on a larger scale than those who do not have as much influence.

That said, their religious, ideological or political affiliations might be an influence but that would be value judgment.

Great article.

This just shows how absurd and evil the power of the state is, forcing itself on everyone living within a geographical region, despite this population sharing no common philosophy, thus no common goals.

If states are inevitable (due to human fears), then the decent thing is to at least keep them small in size, so that individuals are able to move to areas that are ruled by more like-minded leaders, or alternately it becomes more easy to change the leadership to be more in tune with the philosophy of local people.

In Australia for example, the state hogs a whole continent (and many islands around it). It is scary to find that this state for example upholds and exaggerates the "sanctity of life" without having even a clue, and certainly having no agreement on, what life is and what is it for.

Yes but who do you ask!?
Someone or something that knows the answers!
And that someone is you!
If you really do want those very difficult questions answered, then seek ye first the kingdom of heaven within!
Or put in another more easily understood way, in modern parlance; learn to meditate.
Once you have mastered the art of completely stilling the monkey chatter than is your conscious mind, and place yourself in a state of very deep and VERY SAFE DOGMA FREE meditation.
The questions you took into meditation with you, will be replaced by a kind of knowing. And some claim it cured their cancer, or ended their PTS!
For example, if we were placed here, by a thousand and one chances inside chaos, to evolve?
Then given the serendipity chance theory, believe that a whirlwind would have a better chance or odds, of whipping through a junk yard, and creating a fully functional and flyable, 747!
Which by the way, is around a thousand times less complex, than a fully functioning human, with as many as 50 billion brain cells, the said product, of so called evolution!
Conversely, when we look back, over the total term of our life, we can see a reason and a purpose in everything, even the bad stuff, that didn't kill us; but just made us stronger, or just far more resilient and or, empathetic!
We are here to learn to love and perhaps realize our dreams, and or learn to cooperate, so that we can create the very conditions, we need to realize those very dreams!
And dreams need to be practical, not pie in the sky; or indeed, fill any evil purpose!
And no, I can tell you with absolute and very personal surety, that life doesn't end, when we die.
But goes on in another form!
And the only thing you need believe in, is the mighty irrefutable truth!
No, life doesn't just end!
The other form looks like; the one I love, she glows like moonlight, the one I love, she shines like silver!
Rhrosty.

I agree with the point about "by their fruits" as a better criteria than what people claim to believe about life and its meaning.

There is a point to being aware of the affiliations and loyalties of those in a position of influence but in practice the truly dangerous won't be those who deal with such questions honestly.

R0bert

We are here because we were fortunate enough to be able to evolve against many odds, and then survive, on this planet.
We will go out because we have mutated into a virus breeding ourselves out of house and home.

Good article.

And well said, Yuyutsu. Whenever we do examine the beliefs and reasons of the statists we find that they cannot withstand critical scrutiny and just degenerate into a jumble of factual, logical and ethical falsehoods. By the same token we don't really care what metaphysics the statists believe.

It is enough to show whether their beliefs are circular and self-contradictory which they invariably are. Their only differences are on what double standard they think everyone else should be ordered around.

I think we have a foundational moral duty to seek truth, identify falsehood, and try to base our beliefs on the facts. For how can ethical beliefs be true if they’re based on factually untrue premises? Historically, the great crimes of the religious always come from their permitting themselves false beliefs, or beliefs that were so unlikely to be true that they really have no excuse for causing others to suffer on that pretext.

An example is the Genesis account of creation, which invalidates Jewish, Christian and Muslism beliefs IMO. It was one thing for ancient goatherds to believe this stuff; for modern man to base moral conclusions on it is willful culpable ignorance; made 1000 times worse by being backed by force.

Speculations on entire collective abstract categories are fertile ground for error: the difference between astrology and astronomy. It is ironical that Newton and the natural scientists, who set out only to explain strictly limited observable phenomena, excluding recourse to supernatural beings and excluding irrational methodology - ended up explaining far more and far better than all the saints and metaphysical speculators who take as their subject matter the whole creation, thus hopelessly confusing the origin of the universe, the origin of the planets, the origin of life, the origin of species, the origin of languages, and the origin of ethics.

Good article.

And well said, Yuyutsu. Whenever we do examine the beliefs and reasons of the statists we find that they cannot withstand critical scrutiny and just degenerate into a jumble of factual, logical and ethical falsehoods. By the same token we don't really care what metaphysics the statists believe.

It is enough to show whether their beliefs are circular and self-contradictory which they invariably are. Their only differences are on what double standard they think everyone else should be ordered around.

I think we have a foundational moral duty to seek truth, identify falsehood, and try to base our beliefs on the facts. For how can ethical beliefs be true if they’re based on factually untrue premises? Historically, the great crimes of the religious always come from their permitting themselves false beliefs, or beliefs that were so unlikely to be true that they really have no excuse for causing others to suffer on that pretext. An example is the Genesis account of creation, which invalidates Jewish, Christian and Muslism beliefs IMO. It was one thing for ancient goatherds to believe this stuff; for modern man it’s willful culpable ignorance.

Speculations on entire collective abstract categories are fertile ground for error: the difference between astrology and astronomy. It is ironical that Newton and the natural scientists, who set out only to explain strictly limited observable phenomena subject to strict exclusions - e.g. excluding recourse to supernatural beings and excluding illogical methodology - ended up explaining far more and far better than all the metaphysicians and theologians taking as their subject matter the whole creation, thus hopelessly confusing the origin of the universe, the origin of the life, the origin of sex, the origin of species, the origin of languages - and of course the origin of ethics!

(Oops! Sorry 'bout that. Anyway.)

The more cogent explanations of the evolutionary theorists and praxeologists, start with the foundational tenet that life is decided *at the margin*. It cannot be properly understood without taking as its centrepiece individual action at the margins of because this is where all action is decided: subsistence, sexuality, reproduction, utility, you name it. Trying to understand it as an abstract aggregate category is vain.

Without your own life you are incapable of even perceiving anything. The question is: what does life mean *to you*?

Atheism no more requires the abnegation of ethics than theism justifies ethics.

“ Would [atheists] agree that, if atheism is correct, anyone else's goals, no matter how diametrically opposed to their own they are, are just as "valid" or "invalid" as their own?”

No, because the scarcity of resources, and the nature of human social co-operation, make possible, and require, a rational ethics. This rules out the use of aggression or fraud to get what you want: the chronic crime of statists and religious alike.

If ruling out aggression and fraud on first principles is not logically ‘valid’, that problem is no more solved by theism than by atheism, since if by recourse to fables the theist can conjure arbitrary assumptions in favour of ethical behavior, the theists can do the same without recourse to fabulous supposed invisible beings. It is enough to cut out the middle-man and go direct to asserting ethical standards.

The theists indeed are less likely to miscarry ethics in valuing human beings and the benefits of social co-operation in their own right, rather than by way of gods which, as it turns out, have often been pretty nasty pieces of work: angry, capricious and very violent.

Now. Having found the true meaning of life, I regret I am unable to inform you what it is, because it’s a secret. However if you seek truth, and shovel aside bullsh!t for long enough, you may hope to find it eventually, and when you do, you’ll be very happy.

Yes G Preston

Out the heretics! Lets be like America where politicians, and even generals, lean to fundamentalist neo-con Christian-Jewish causes by being forced to wear religion on their sleeves.

As to G Preston's About the Author description: "Graham Preston is an illustrator and a student of life."

If he is actually the Queensland anti-abortion activist then the following newspaper story is relevant:

"BRISBANE MAN CHARGED OVER ANTI-ABORTION PROTEST IN HOBART"
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-04/brisbane-man-charged-over-anti-abortion-protest-in-hobart/5297756 :

4 Mar 2014,

"A Brisbane man has become the first person charged under a new Tasmanian law which bans protests close to abortion clinics.

The lone protestor, Graham Preston, was arrested after holding two placards and handing out leaflets while standing outside an abortion clinic in central Hobart.

The 58-year-old says he has been arrested for similar action in Brisbane and came to Hobart to promote the right-to-life message.

Preston said he was aware of the new Tasmanian law which prohibits such protests within 150 metres of an abortion clinic.

"It would seem to me to be incredible if somebody could get arrested for promoting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Australia is a signatory to it," he said.

Police charged Preston under the Reproductive Health Act. He was released on bail and will appear in court at a later date."

I can see the merit of quizzing those in power about their fundamental beliefs where they clearly affect their roles – for example, if a Roman Catholic health minister intends to restrict abortion. But by and large I don’t think it’s very important, for a couple of reasons.

First, most positions of power are constrained and contingent. It matters very little if the head of the Department of Transport believes in karma and reincarnation or not, as it is not relevant to her/his role.

Second, religious belief/unbelief is a poor predictor of how a person exercises power. There are believers and non-believers across the political spectrum. Scott Morrison and Philip Ruddock are both self-described Christians but have presided over what many would see as very unchristian policies on asylum seekers. It might be legitimate to ask them how they square their actions with their beliefs, but knowing in advance that they were Christians would give very little insights into how they behaved.

Morals, principles, values are all important. I would leap-frog to ethics as the focus.

That is what I want, persons with good ethics and demonstrated effectiveness pre-selected and elected (hopefully).

I believe that there are many such people around and from their demonstrated record of achievement and ethics, some have strong claims to lead, but they are often turned away (by themselves most likely) from a deserved role and contribution in government.

Ask yourself, do YOU (referring to readers) really, truly want someone with strong ethics and effectiveness to lead? -Because so many seem to prefer those who give them what they want, which is usually some advantage or other.

I wonder how many realise we are the ant farm of some god's kids.

David Korten also summaries belief systems (in a similar way to the author) in his essay “A New Story for a New Economy”

http://www.yesmagazine.org/happiness/a-new-story-for-a-new-economy

According to this, there are 4 main types of belief.

“1. Distant Patriarch: My most important relationship is to a distant God who is Creation’s sole source of agency and meaning.

2. Grand Machine: I exist in a mechanistically interconnected cosmos devoid of agency and possessing no purpose or meaning.

3. Mystical Unity: Relationships, agency, and meaning are all artifacts of the illusion of separation; I am one with the timeless eternal One.

4. Living Universe: I am an intelligent, self-directing participant in a conscious, interconnected self-organizing cosmos on a journey of self-discovery toward ever-greater complexity, beauty, awareness, and possibility.”

Now No. 4 seems a little over my head, and I am more interested in No.3.

It is a belief system that seems to be shared by countless cultures over centuries in what we sometimes term “primitive tribes”. They believed in something greater than themselves, but not necessarily a single God, and more like an eternal and surrounding spirit.

But, there is the real possibility that there is a No. 5 now in the world, and it permeates most western countries, and it could be termed “A unit for exploitation and manipulation”

“To be born, educated, exploited and manipulated for work and consumption, and be of economic benefit to a select few”

david f – what a person believes may be a reasonable indicator of what they may do. If people are going to put themselves in positions of power and influence I don't see that there is a problem with the rest of us – who may be negatively affected by them - having some idea of their beliefs about life and where that may take them. RObert – I take your point that the questions may be answered dishonestly, nevertheless they are worth asking.

Stezza – I did not say anything about atheists having shared values, beliefs or goals. I simply pointed out the fact that if atheism is true there can be no objective, universal values or goals. In an atheistic universe we have come into existence unintentionally and there is no purpose to our existence – at least no purpose beyond the personal goals that each individual may choose to make up for themselves. Under those circumstances no subjective goal can be any better or worse than another.

The questions, what is life about? and, what is life for? Are perfectly intelligible and meaningful questions, even in an atheistic universe. If atheism is true, then life is ultimately about and for nothing, but in the mean-time it can be about and for whatever anyone chooses to say it is about or for. The only problem with that is, no choice can be the right or wrong one as right and wrong couldn't objectively exist.

spindoc – you say – “those in a position of influence can screw things up on a larger scale than those who do not have as much influence” – and that is exactly my point in saying that those in influence should be asked what they believe about life.

Rhosty – on what do you base the views about life you have expressed – are they just your own personally thought out conclusions or are they based on some other source? If they are your own thoughts can you give any reason why ,with all due respect, others should listen to your conclusions?

(cont)

Jardine – you say – “we have a foundational moral duty to seek truth, identify falsehood, and try to base our beliefs on the facts” – what is the basis of this “duty” which you claim we have? In an atheistic universe to whom could we owe any duty? If to anyone, why?
You say that atheism does not require the abnegation of ethics and I would agree with you. If atheism is true everyone can make up their own ethical claims. The problem is that there is no way of establishing which ethical claims should be listened to when there is a disagreement.

Why should your ethical beliefs trump your neighbours? You seem to think that you have access to “rational” ethics and presumably those who disagree with you, are irrational. But it may be quite rational for a young man, if he can get away with it, to kill his aged, sick grandmother to get her inheritance. Would that make it right for him to do so?

Plantagenent – I’m curious - what significance does it have whether or not I am the person in the article?

Rhian – the Minister for Transport does not only vote on matters relating to transport, they also get to vote about abortion if that comes up, as does the rest of parliament.

I would agree that politicians can act inconsistently with their professed beliefs and if they do, that inconsistency should be loudly proclaimed. At least though if a politician professes to base their worldview on Christian beliefs there is some standard against which their actions can be measured, but if atheism is true there is no standard at all against which actions can be measured. There is no objective rule to say that atheists cannot keep changing their position to whatever suits them at the time.

onthebeach – you want someone with “good ethics” in politics. That’s the issue, on what do people base their claim of what good ethics are. If atheism is true then there is no basis for any ethical claim beyond one’s personal preference.

Graham Preston

Dear JP,

What a person believes can be an indication of what a person does or possibly not. However, the only question of importance about a person in public office should be whether he or she is willing and able to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of that office. I know a man who has or had (he may be retired.) an important position in the civil rights office of the state of Connecticut. He is very prejudiced against black people. I know another man who works in that office who told me the prejudiced man works just as hard for the rights of black people as anyone else in the department does. The kind of question that Graham Preston wants to ask is intrusive and wrong. Is a person in public office of any kind willing and able to fulfill the responsibility of that office is the only question that need be answered. The prejudiced person is also a religious person who apparently feels that his oath of office obliges him to take on the responsibility and the duties required by that office regardless of his personal feelings or beliefs on the matter. He does his job. That is all that is necessary.

Dear Graham,

Christian beliefs are no more a standard by which a person's position can be measured than another belief or the lack of of any religious belief. There is no evidence that a believing Christian behaves any better or worse than anybody else. The Australian Constitution in article S. 116 requires that there be no religious test for public office. Your demand that a person in public office state their beliefs is a violation of S. 116. In your particular case you demonstrate and are willing to violate the law by harassing women who want to get an abortion. Other Christians apparently believe that a woman has a right to choose to get an abortion and will even perform the procedure. Christians can differ widely in many areas. Some are conscientious objectors. Some fight in wars. There is no evidence that Christians behave any better or worse than those who believe in another religion or no religion.

The law allows a person who does not believe in any religion to affirm they will tell the truth in a court proceeding rather than take an oath. The law gives equal weight to the testimony of people whether they take an oath or affirm they will tell the truth.

Graham Preston, in my opinion, you are a meddlesome busybody.

@JP, Thursday, 7 August 2014 11:53:06 AM

It is not true that without the rules of religion man has none and is not capable of moral behaviour based on a frank, kind and caring value system. Humans have evolved to be cooperative with one another and to value each other and group/society. Those critical essentials that made humans successful as a species are likely hardwired into the brain. Apart from that, a large enough majority of rational, thinking persons soon realise the benefits of supporting one another and the values that preserve and make life easier.

While I have found many in local mainstream church congregations to be the salt of the Earth and generally honest, such membership is no guarantee of ethical behaviour and can make it very difficult to spot those who use religion as a convenient cloak for shabby acts and law breaking. Similarly, some who criticise religion do do because they are 'rule breakers' themselves and find the traditional more and values of society and laws inconvenient to them.

The sole hope and protection for good citizens and for individual protection against the growing authoritarianism of government is freedom of speech. Especially because those who are unethical and offend, usually posses the guile, rhetoric and the resources, esp lawyers, to conceal and even justify their anti-social offences.

I do not support and I am wary of any outfit that entourages its members to suspend their own critical facilties and rely on the judgement and rules of others, especially where there is no democracy in electing the leaders and in making decisions. However even where democracy applies, it is always imperfect, and very flawed where there are restrictions on free speech.

While I support religious tolerance, within practical limits of course, it must be religion that does not attempt to make rules for me, to censor and restrict my behaviour, or thoughts as some do try to do.

Sorry, 'more' should be 'mores' in the last sentence of the second para, and in the first sentence of the fourth para, 'entourages' should be 'encourages'.

No truer words that are written by the apostle Paul that when men deny their Creator, they are handed over to all sorts of idiotic ideas and immoral actions. The nonsense that flows from the evolution myth demonstrates that so clearly. No wonder our teenagers are so confused and in far to many cases doing themselves in while our professors sprout such ignorance and garbage in our schools and unis.

Graham Preston asks:

"Plantagenent – I’m curious - what significance does it have whether or not I am the person in the article?"

Graham because once people like yourself demand that a person reveal that person's religious beliefs - you will inevitably ask:

"Well then, what's your position on abortion? For example doesn't a belief that abortion is OK conflict with your professed Catholic faith?"

david f – You are correct in pointing out that there is disagreement amongst Christians on at least some ethical issues. That disagreement however does not rule out the possibility that Christianity still does provide ethical principles and that some Christians just get it wrong.

On the other hand it would appear to definitely be the case that if atheism is true then we are completely lacking any ethical standards, beyond of course the personal preferences of each individual person.

If atheism is true then your calling me a meddlesome busybody, for example, really says very little, except as you say, that that is your opinion. Another person may say that I am not, but that would just be their opinion too, and would be of equally little consequence.

It becomes more obviously odd though when we consider that in an atheistic universe, the opinion of someone who says a murdering rapist is a morally good person is just as valid as the opinion of the person who says they are morally bad. There would seem to be no way to establish which opinion is correct.

onthebeach – you suggest that caring and kindness may be hardwired into the human brain. Firstly, it is hard to comprehend how atoms could bring something like that about; secondly, there is much cruelty and unkindness carried out by humans so kindness and caring don’t seem to be very well wired in; and thirdly even if atoms have somehow brought about the tendency to kindness and caring why should anybody take notice of those tendencies if it is in their own interests to not do so? Surely no one needs to be concerned about “offending” atoms?

You also suggest that “a large enough majority of rational, thinking persons soon realise the benefits of supporting one another and the values that preserve and make life easier” - but why should the fact that a majority of people agree with each other make them “right”? A majority of people in Germany in 1938 may have agreed with Hitler but did that make them right?

Dear JP,

Your assumption that ethical standards are incompatible with atheism is simply nonsense which is not based on evidence. It assumes that one needs religion to have ethical standards. Ethical standards and caring are found not only in man but in other animals who may care for the weaker or injured members of their pack or herd. Mother bears care as much for their offspring as human mothers do. I doubt that there are many Bible-believing wolves or bears.

Earnest Albert Hooton, a Harvard anthropologist studied various subgroups of US cultures. Among them were prison populations. The prison populations had a higher percentage of religious believers than the general US population.

What evidence there is seems to show that atheists have a higher standard of morality than believers in religion, Marxism, nationalism or any other faith. I attend Sunday Assembly which was founded by atheists although we do not restrict the group to atheists. Members of Sunday Assembly visit the sick, gather items for the homeless and have a sense of community not particularly different from that found in churches, mosques or synagogues. Sunday Assembly is not a faith but a group of people without religious faith but with a sense of community.

http://sundayassembly.com/ is our website. Sunday Assembly meetings in Brisbane are at Ashgrove State School Hall, 31 Glory St, Ashgrove on the first Sunday of the month at 10 am.

http://sundayassembly.com/blog/2014/04/29/100-assemblies-15-countries-every-inhabited-continent-2014/ will tell you about our meetings in other places.

From the website:

"The Sunday Assembly is a godless congregation that celebrates life. Our motto: live better, help often, wonder more. Our mission: to help everyone find and fulfill their full potential. Our vision: a godless congregation in every town, city and village that wants one."

Notice the last three words above. We are not a missionary group. We simply tell people we exist and leave it up to them if they want to come to our meetings.

I worship the sanctity of doubt. I believe the scientific method is the best way of finding out about our universe, and that this life is all we have.

Dear Graham,

I assume you and JP are the same person. We probably both agree to condemn murderous rapists. I would have him locked up so he can do no more damage. What would you have done to him? However, rapists do not always kill the woman they rape. Sometimes they make them pregnant. In such a case I think the woman should have the right to have an abortion so she would not have to go through a pregnancy and bear her rapists child. Judging from your past record you would prefer to stand near the door and harass her as she entered. A woman going into an abortion clinic has probably given it a great deal of thought. You would harass her anyway.

Apparently you get your morality from a book of legends which promotes the idea that a big Daddy in the sky has given the word. I really don’t think much of his morality. If Jesus' life and suffering really happened it reveals that God is a sadist. When I was a little boy I heard about the binding of Adam, and it frightened me. I asked my father what he would do if he heard a voice telling him to sacrifice me. He said he would see a psychiatrist. I felt safe with my father but did not feel I could accept a God who would tell a father to kill his son. The God of the Bible wiped out almost all life on earth in the flood, commanded the Jews to commit genocide in the book of Joshua and did many other nasty things. In the New Testament he arranged to have Jesus done in through horrible torture. If there is a loving God it is not the God of the Bible.

I cannot speak for all atheists just as you cannot speak for all Christians. However, I think most atheists would agree that morality is just a way humans have worked out to live together. We care for others and hope that others will care for us if need be.

Same old same old, JP/Graham Preston.

>>You are correct in pointing out that there is disagreement amongst Christians on at least some ethical issues. That disagreement however does not rule out the possibility that Christianity still does provide ethical principles and that some Christians just get it wrong.<<

What is so interesting about this line of reasoning is that it remains equally true if you were to substitute the word "atheist" and "atheism" for the words "Christian" and "Christianity". Or, for that matter, Muslim and Islam. It is an abiding characteristic of the evangelical Christian (a classification that is not, by the way, in the majority) that they persist in ignoring this very simple, basic point.

The corollary is therefore totally invalid...

>>On the other hand it would appear to definitely be the case that if atheism is true then we are completely lacking any ethical standards, beyond of course the personal preferences of each individual person.<<

Which in addition to its false premise, carefully avoids the fact that Christianity, too, is a "personal preferences of each individual person". Which alone renders the logic untenable, even without the evidence that so many Christians have been found to ignore their own teachings. Or, as JP somewhat coyly puts it, "just get it wrong".

As an addendum, I also find faintly ridiculous the question "why are we here", as if there must perforce be a reason for our existence. Does a cat, I wonder, ask the same question? Or a mosquito?

We just are.

And damn lucky to be so, I'd suggest.

david f –I haven’t said that atheists don’t have any ethical standards. I acknowledge that atheists can, and do, make up whatever standards of morality they like.

My point is that in an atheistic universe – where everything has come into existence unintentionally and for no purpose - there can be no objective moral standards. All that there could be would be each person, or group of persons, expressing their personal preferences as to what they want to call morally right and morally wrong. Do you disagree with anything in this paragraph?

The problem for atheists comes when atheists disagree about what behaviours they prefer to call morally right – each of them can express their preference but there is no way to establish which of them is correct, because there can be no correct answer in such a universe. Take abortion for example, one atheist may think it is moral while another may think it is immoral (yes, there are pro-life atheists, see http://www.prolifehumanists.org/tag/pro-life-atheists/ for example) but beyond expressing their personal views about the morality of abortion there is no other standard against which they can measure their positions to see who is right.

That isn't just true for abortion but for all moral issues, be it theft, rape, murder or whatever. No matter how much you may despise another atheist’s moral position on something, in an atheistic universe, his preference is just as valid or invalid as yours.

Pericles – I am not saying that there has to be a reason for our existence. If atheism is true than there is no reason for our existence. That is why I say that there can be no meaningful morality in an atheistic universe. In such a universe there is nothing we ought to do or ought not do. Thus the murderer does nothing wrong and Nelson Mandela does nothing morally right, because there is nothing right or wrong to do – there is no reason for our existence, so anything goes.

Of course you may not like what some people do but that does not make their behaviour wrong.

Hey Presty

Thats a shame about your anti-abortion mate Abetz getting so soundly thrashed on TV today.

Even Abbott jumped on him.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/eric-abetz-draws-link-between-abortion-and-breast-cancer-before-world-congress-of-families-20140807-101p60.html

Cheers

Dear JP,

The fact is that there are no objective moral standards whether atheistic or religious. Your moral standards are arbitrary. People who subscribe to the same book of legends as you do interpret it differently.

What you call objective moral standards are simply those you choose to live by. Your imaginary big daddy in the sky may tell you that it is ok to eat pork. The imaginary big daddy in the sky may tell you that you should avoid eating pork if you are a Jew or Muslim.

The laws where we both live over a hundred years ago did not allow a married woman to own property in her own right. They did not allow her legally to get an abortion. Now a woman can own property, can hold public office and can decide whether she wants to carry a pregnancy to term or not. My morality says she should have that right. Your morality would deny her that right.

Morality is not objective but subject to community standards and individual preferences. You would restore the morality regarding abortion to past standards, but you are under a delusion if you think your morality is in any way more objective than mine. Your morality comes from a crude historical religion based upon fear, superstition, imaginary tales, sacred histories, rituals and a predominantly political expression by a clerical class. Don't kid yourself that it is objective.

david f – what it comes down to in the end, it seems to me, is which miracle we are prepared to believe in. I don’t believe that it is irrational when I look at the world around me to accept that there could be a being greater than us, God, who has deliberately created all this.

On the other hand the atheist believes that everything came from nothing (at least according to people like Richard Dawkins Stephen Hawkings) and that lifeless atoms spontaneously gave rise to life, consciousness, intelligence, and speech and all this for no reason or purpose.

I find the atheist miracle much harder to believe in.

JP

If you are against abortion. How does that explain you?

Where you spat, like a fur ball, out of God's spittoon?

Dear JP,

Religionists play with words and make it seem as though other people are talking their language. There is no atheist miracle. Matter can self-replicate. Once that happens slight changes in the process can accumulate and develop into many forms. It is in your mind that there has to be a purpose and goal to all this.

If you suppose a God then the question arises how did that God come into being. What or who created God? Did such a wondrous being arise spontaneously or was he created?

It used to be thought that the chemistry of living matter was somehow different from the chemistry of non-living matter. That is why we have the two branches of chemistry - organic and non-organic. As chemists become more skilled they are able to synthesise any organic matter in the lab through regular chemical means.

You want to believe in miracles and the existence of a God for which there is no evidence. Humans have been creating gods for a long time. That is primitive thinking. Because you don't want to abandon that primitive thinking you use tricks of language to make it seem as though scientists use the same kind of primitive thinking that you do. They don't. We do know that amino acids form under certain conditions from inorganic material. Amino acids can get together to form proteins - a basic material of life.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_Miller tells how Stanley Miller has formed amino acids in the lab by simply mixing various inorganic substance found in nature and subjecting them to electric charges such as happens in nature by lightning. Since we do not know the exact conditions of the early history of our planet we cannot be sure how life originated, but we already have answers to part of the puzzle.

Neither Dawkins nor I believe in miracles nor do we see a reason why there has to be an ultimate purpose. You believe in miracles, but that is no reason to think that other people do.

david f - I read carefully the link you sent to the Miller experiment. I would ask that you in turn do the same with this link, also about that experiment: http://creation.com/why-the-miller-urey-research-argues-against-abiogenesis

As you can see there, that experiment does not show how life spontaneously came into existence. Scientists have no idea how that could have happened. It needs as much faith to believe that life spontaneously arose as it does to believe that God created life.

>>It needs as much faith to believe that life spontaneously arose as it does to believe that God created life.<<

This sound like

“It needs as much faith to believe that planets are “spontaneously” kept in their orbits as it does to believe that God created the planets and their orbits.”

The difference is that in this case - in distinction to the first one - science (Newton) found a scientific explanation (explaining to a theist “how God did it”, and self-explanatory for an atheist) for the movement of planets.

Neither is an argument for or against the existence of God who is believed to be.beyond the reach of scientific explanations hence cannot be reduced to the discarded “god of the gaps”.

“self-sufficient”, sounds here better than “self-explanatory”.

Dear JP,

I am quite aware that the Miller experiment does not show how life spontaneously arose. As I wrote it is only part of the puzzle.

Every primitive people apparently has some creation story. The Aborigines tell of the Rainbow Serpent. The Koran has God creating human out of mud. The Japanese have the sun goddess creating humans. The Bible has a bonus. There are two creation stories. One has Eve created out of Adam's rib (KJV Genesis 2:21-2:22) the other has the the two humans created at the same time (KJV Genesis 1:27). It seems obvious that the two myths were just two different creation stories patched together. We have a good idea where the rib story came from since the ancient Sumerian clay tablets which predate the Bible have been translated. The word for rib and 'mother of all living' are the same in that language.

http://faculty.gvsu.edu/websterm/SumerianMyth.htm tells of the Sumerian creation myth.

Primitive people made up stories to tell how life came about. There is no more reason to believe one then the other. There is no more reason to believe the creation stories in the Bible than in any other creation stories.

This is another trick of Bible bashers. They set up straw men and deny claims that aren't made. No scientist claims that the Miller experiment describes the origin of life. As I wrote it is only part of the puzzle, and we may never solve it as we can't be certain of the conditions on earth at the time.

I have no reason to think that God and creation legends are any more than human inventions. We cannot at this time explain how life originated and may never be able to explain it. However, that is no reason to believe that creation stories whether found in the Bible or elsewhere are anything but products of the human imagination.

'There is no atheist miracle ' no Davidf just fantasy that order came from chaos. I am sure a 2 year old could see through such nonsense.

Dear JP,

Please listen to George. He believes in God but does not need to deny scientific discoveries to hold that belief. One does not need to believe that the Bible is literally true or even to consider it sacred literature to believe in God. Muslims believe in God but have a sacred book different from the Bible. Jews believe in God but do not consider the New Testament as part of the Bible. One can believe in God without believing in the Bible.

There are different kinds of belief in God.

Henotheism, worship of a single god despite recognition of other deities.

Monotheism, belief in a single deity. (Some would contend that Christianity with a belief in a Trinity and the divinity of Jesus is not a monotheistic religion.)

Panentheism, belief in a deity that subsumes and transcends the universe.

Pantheism, belief in a deity that is considered synonymous with the universe.

Polytheism, belief in multiple deities.

I do not believe in God, but I can prove neither that he doesn't exist nor that any of the above forms of belief are false.

Dear runner,

I doubt that there are many two year olds who could understand how evolution works. However, scientists and intelligent people in general do. Acceptance of evolution does not conflict with a belief in God. If there is a God who can know how he chooses to do things? Evolution may simply be the way in which God has chosen to create the diversity of life on our planet. Evolution conflicts with a literal acceptance of the Bible. However, there are conflicts within the Bible itself.

In a previous post I pointed out that one Bible creation story has Eve created out of Adam's rib (KJV Genesis 2:21-2:22), and another Bible creation story has man and woman created at the same time (KJV Genesis 1:27). This example shows we cannot accept a literal belief in the Bible. The Bible was written by humans who may or may not have been inspired by God.

JP/Graham,

You are still not understanding that atheism is not similar to a being in a religious group. You say you understand this, but your subsequent comments show this is not true. There is no "atheistic universe" and there are no "universal values" even within specific religious groups. I know this is hard to understand, that is why people have created myths, magic and gods to try and provide answers to the unknown.

Unless you have spoken with your god directly, who provided you with a comprehensive list of values and rules, then you either are interpreting meaning from an ancient man-written book (with each individual interpreting differently) or are being told what an interpretation is by a fellow human. Therefore acting as though your "chosen" values are more superior or meaningful than another individuals "chosen" values is a hypocritical. You are being told what is right and wrong by another human. This is worse than deciding for yourself.

You would have slightly more credibility if your religious values were shared exactly between all members of our religious group, and if these values had remained consistent over time. However, they have changed, and changed rapidly, to try and maintain relevance within our society. This is important to understand, that religion has to change to keep up with society, not the other way around. You say that people within your religion share common values, however followers of your faith include murderers, rapists, and pedophiles. You say these people are "wrong" but as fellow followers of your god, how do you know this for sure? Yes, the same way as people outside your faith do.

You add "If atheism is true" to your list of absurd questions. This really should be phrased "If I am wrong about my faith in the existence of this specific deity". I will provide you with the proof that your specific deity does not exist, right after you have provided the same proof regarding every other myth and deity that you don't believe in. Atheists are just like you, we just believe in one less god.

Dear Stezza,

<<This is important to understand, that religion has to change to keep up with society, not the other way around.>>

Neither should.

I am watching this futile, endless, argument.
What are they expecting to achieve?
Is someone going to willingly change their way of life and their core values because of the other?
Or is someone going to cave in and be miserable for the rest of their life because the other has the guns?

People should be able to live the way the want.

The problem is this monolithic mega-society, called 'state', which forces itself and the values of (in the best case) its majority on all others. Had societies been smaller, then it would be easier for people to live in societies that suit, or at least are compatible with their values.

There are no objective values (or morals) - because values cannot be found in the objective world, in nature: no scientist ever found a "value particle" (or "value wave" or "value energy"). I am pretty sure that nobody ever will.

So why this silly argument?
Let everyone go their way in peace. Let societies be voluntary (and therefore probably smaller) so that nobody forces people with incompatible values to live together in a single society. Let human population be curtailed so that it becomes more feasible to keep societies small and voluntary.

david f – let’s agree that atheism is true and let’s further assume that every human being comes to fully agree that atheism is true. I am just interested to know how you believe that a completely atheistic society would go about sorting out moral disagreements. It would surely be naïve to assume that there wouldn’t be such disagreements.

So, for example, when some atheists claim that abortion is morally acceptable and other atheists say that abortion is immoral, how would it be determined who is right?

If someone commits a murder in such a society, what should be done, if anything, and why? After all, they would have only acted according to their own preference in committing the murder and is there any reason why someone else’s preferences should trump theirs?

Dear JP,

Atheism merely maintains there is no evidence that there is a God, and therefore it is pointless to believe in one. Provide me with evidence that there is a God, and I will acknowledge that such an entity exists. Your belief, no matter how strong, is not evidence for the existence of God.

Abortion is not a relevant issue to our discussion. Some abortion providers are Christian, and some of those who murder abortion providers are Christian. An abortion doctor in Kansas was murdered while attending a church service by a Christian who objected to his activities.

You wrote: "So, for example, when some atheists claim that abortion is morally acceptable and other atheists say that abortion is immoral, how would it be determined who is right?"

You can substitute the word Christian for atheist and ask exactly the same question. In our society and any society bound by law we only ask that people obey the law. Morality is a personal matter and not the business of law in a democratic society. In the case in Kansas the Christian doctor was acting in accordance with the law. The Christian murderer was violating the law. You are wrong since you have violated the law in harassing woman who want to get an abortion.

One's morals are one's own business. However, violating the law makes one an enemy of the society we live in. In an oppressive society that is justified. However, I don't think it is oppressive to give a woman the right to decide what goes on in her body. You do, and therefore violate the law. In my opinion you are profoundly wrong. My opinion in that matter coincides with the opinion of most of society and is expressed in the law. You want your opinion to override the opinion of most of current society. That is all your vaunted morality is.

I came to Australia in 1987. Outside of a speeding ticket, I have not violated the law. You are a lawbreaker. I am not. By that criterion I am a better citizen than you.

JP,

Since you seem up to discussing this topic once again - a topic we’ve covered many times before - perhaps you could answer several questions that you had failed answer in our previous discussions just before disappearing:

1. By what means are you able to determine that God is the good guy and Satan is the baddie?

2. How do you overcome the insurmountable problem for Christians in this debate, presented by the euthyphro dilemma, when no other Christian has managed to do thins? Presumably you have, given the chutzpah with which you speak on this topic.

I look forward to your answers.

AJ Phillips - I thought I had suggested these articles to you before regarding the Euthyphro Dilemma but if not, here they are again: http://creation.com/what-is-good-answering-euthyphro-dilemma and http://www.str.org/articles/euthyphro-s-dilemma#.U-dY7GNZj1U

Regarding God and Satan, the Bible teaches that God is love and this love is shown most clearly in Jesus' sacrificial death which makes it possible for people to be made right again with God. In contrast the Bible teaches that Satan is a liar and a murderer. Of course for those who regard the Bible as fiction then all of the above is irrelevant.

david f - I don't understand why you didn't answer my question relating to the scenario where atheism is true and everyone is an atheist: how would atheists in those circumstances sort out disagreements about what is morally right and wrong?

JP,

As david f points out, one should distinguish between moral and legal attributes. The second term is easily defined and is given by a state’s a legal system. Ethics, i.e. what is and what is not moral, is more complicated. There are theist as well as atheist philosophers who have written on the subject, some seeing some not, God as being behind absolute moral norms. The same as there are theist as well as atheist scientists (and philosophers of science), some seeing, some not, their work as being about God’s creation.

Some atheists see the moral aspects of one’s actions reduced to personal aesthetics (“I would not murder for the same reason I would not eat excrements” as one of them told me), some to rational, what is good for the society (a sense of which is a product of evolution), most of them probably a combination of both. For instance, what - roughly speaking - Catholics call Natural Law is what atheists probably see as moral norms hard-wired in our brains (similar to a sense for logic, rational thinking) acquired through evolution without God in the background.

Absolute moral norms make sense only in a religious context, the same as “absolute truth” that science is striving for but does not speak of explicitly as being within its reach.

So we have to coexist with atheists without insisting on absolutes (concerning morals and truth) that only religious faith - on the wide scale from very naive to philosophically rather sophisticated - deals with. There are moral issues - e.g. abortion on demand (“reproductive rights”) - where we might clearly see God’s command but when arguing the point with an atheist one has to start on a level where we can agree, e.g. what is beneficial or detrimental to this or that individual or the society as such, without invoking God whom they cannot see for whatever reasons.

No, you hadn’t suggested those web pages JP. You didn’t really get the chance to because I pre-empted the predictable answer they provide: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11320#191986.

So my question remains unanswered.

<<… the Bible teaches that God is love and this love is shown most clearly in Jesus' sacrificial death which makes it possible for people to be made right again with God. In contrast the Bible teaches that Satan is a liar and a murderer.>>

I didn’t ask what the Bible taught, and nor does one's opinion on the truth of its claims matter to my question either. You’re side-stepping here.

What I asked was by what means are you able to determine that God is the good guy and that Satan is the bad guy? Because, JP, before you read the Bible, and learn about this god you believe in, you need to interpret what the Bible is telling you. You are effectively living in the atheistic universe that you so berate until you do.

My point is that you employ the same methods to determine what you think is right and what you think is wrong, in order to determine what is right and what is wrong in the Bible, as atheists do in their day-to-day lives, only you have the additional and unnecessary step of sifting through hundreds of contradictions in ambiguous texts, written by ignorant savages, in order to get to the point that atheists arrive at before you do.

Worse still, the additional complication you suffer in your attempt to understand what is right and what is wrong makes you vulnerable to misinterpretation and puts you at risk of getting it wrong. This is why secular morality is superior.

It’s as I’ve said twice before: if you think that lying and murder are wrong simply because of an edict attributed to another being, then you have scarified your humanity in deference to your god.

Your standards of morality, that you hold as superior to those of atheists', actually make you less of a person. I hope it's worth the sacrifice.

Dear JP,

You keep repeating the same nonsense - "If atheism is true" Atheism merely accepts that there is no reason to believe in any God. You don't believe in Zeus. What if your atheism toward Zeus is true? That is the same sort of question you keep asking me? I see no more reason to believe in the God you believe in than to believe in Zeus. Please tell me why there is any more reason to believe in the God you believe in than to believe in Zeus.

I have already answered your question about morality. My morality is a combination of the norms established by society and my individual preferences. My individual preferences are determined by my life experiences which include reading philosophy. Spinoza classified Judaism, Christianity and the various pagan sects as all ‘vana religio’ or superstition. All are crude historical religions based upon fear, superstition, imaginary tales, sacred histories, rituals and a predominantly political expression by a clerical class. Why should your mumbojumbo be preferred to other mumbojumbo?

In regard to abortion I accept the norm which reflects the view of current society. I personally favour that view since it think it was a great advance to recognise the humanity of woman and her right to determine whether she wishes to carry a pregnancy to term. What right have you who is incapable of becoming pregnant to interfere in a woman's decision? In my view a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy overrides any claim a fetus may have.

I have answered all your questions previously. Apparently you don’t like my answers so you keep repeating the questions. I expect you to retain your superstition. I am going to retain my reason. Henceforth just read my past posts and try to understand them.

You apparently have a thing about abortion and would disregard the law. Please tell me on what grounds you deny Zeus and consider yourself entitled to disregard the law. A pregnant woman who has decided to have an abortion should be protected from harassment by meddlesome busybodies.