I find this discussion about values fascinating!

On the one hand, I agree that there are no values in nature: it's a fact that no scientist ever detected a value out there, neither using a microscope nor a telescope nor a particle-accelerator, nor even inferring its existence mathematically. There is simply no such particle, nor wave nor anything else out there which we could call "value".

On the other hand, we do hold values - and we can only do so because we are not part of nature.

Most of us for example value pleasure and the absence of pain, or being alive rather than being dead. Many others also value the survival of the human race as well as other species on this planet. From a rational perspective, however, it's all mumbo-jumbo.

One could argue that values come form the brain, but the brain only produces electro-chemical impulses, so the question remains: why should we listen to and adhere to those impulses should they oppose our values? Our bodies might perhaps have no choice but to perform what the brains tell them, but why should we too agree and consider what our brain suggests as "MY" values?

In answer, if we follow our brain, then it's only because we value following it!

Yes, there is a value in not-killing a baby (born or unborn), but it's not at all because the baby has value - it's because the act of killing would turn ourselves into something we don't want to be.

Religious individuals, regardless whether or not they formally consider themselves religious; attend a church; believe in what religious people are supposed-to-believe; or have a concept of God, value closeness to God as opposed to sinking into deeper attachment to the world. This is why they do not want to behave like Stalin, as opposed for example to others who also do not want to behave like Stalin, but perhaps because they, also irrationally, value being popular, accepted and loved by others.

Dear Yuyutsu,

We are part of nature. We are not a separate entity. Like any other species we cannot increase in numbers indefinitely. Like any other animal we must eat to live and reproduce if our species is to continue.

According to the Bible man has dominion over nature. That fosters the illusion that we are not part of nature.

Another of the illusions fostered by some religions is that there is a dichotomy between the spirit and the world. The phrase you used 'deeper in the world' is nonsense. There is no dichotomy between spirit and world. We cannot withdraw from the world, be deeper in it or less deep. We are part of it. Nature is all including us.

Dear David,

Our bodies are part of nature.

It is only due to identifying ourselves with our body that we believe ourselves to also be part of nature.

When we drive a car we often say "I turn left", "I go 100 Km/hour", "I am nearly out of petrol" and if our car had a mechanical fault which caused an accident we tend to say: "I caused the accident, not the other car".

Deep down we all know that we are not a car, yet we tend to forget it while in the driver's seat.

Same for the body.

.

Dear JP,

.

You wrote :

« Banjo – both you and davidf seem quite ready to accept that in an atheistic universe nothing actually has intrinsic value. »

No. Not just “in an atheist universe” but “in the universe”.
My understanding is that there is no such thing as a god or the supernatural but I am willing to consider any new facts - supported by relevant evidence - which may come to light.

In the meantime, I do not consider that the term “atheist” is appropriate to describe the universe or anything else for that matter. It makes no sense to take as a reference something that does not exist.

Also, whilst I am quite flattered you assimilate me with david f, I’m afraid I can only speak for myself.
.

You observed :

« On the one hand you seem to concede that there is no such thing as right and wrong … »

More precisely, I wrote :

« I understand that there is no such thing as right and wrong in nature and, so far as life is concerned, only what is most efficient for its continuance and development, the so-called human concept of ethics or morality being part of this process. »

Life is a self-sustaining process, but only what is most efficient (adaptable)survives and develops.

Nature has bestowed human beings with two important, complementary functions: the ability to develop a greater degree of individual autonomy than any other form of life, and the ability to develop a mechanism of self-restraint.

The former is what we call “free will”. The latter is what we call “ethics” or “morality”. But these are human concepts with religious connotations. In nature, free will is autonomy. Right is what is efficient (adaptable) for the survival and development of life. Wrong is what is inefficient.
.
You continued:

« … but then you seem to say that morality applies independently of whether or not the universe just happened to come into existence completely unintentionally. »

Correct. That’s how nature works – whether there’s a god or not.

.

Banjo - I take your point that “atheist universe” is poor terminology. Are you happier with materialistic universe?

But then I have problems with some of your terminology: “nature has bestowed human beings with two important, complementary functions”. What is this “nature” you refer to? Do you simply mean by this word, physical matter?

You then use the word “bestow” which means to present, give or confer, all of which have the implication of something being deliberately done by a conscious being. Does physical matter deliberately do anything for human beings?

Surely in a universe that has just happened into existence, for no purpose, things just happen as the laws of physics mindlessly and unconsciously act upon physical matter. So “nature” has not “bestowed” human beings with “the ability to develop a greater degree of individual autonomy than any other form of life”.

You say that “the ability to develop a greater degree of individual autonomy than any other form of life” is what we call “free will”. You also say that “in nature, free will is autonomy”. So I am uncertain as to whether you believe in free will or not. In a purely physical mechanistic universe what can free will or autonomy possibly mean?

You then say that “Right is what is efficient (adaptable) for the survival and development of life. Wrong is what is inefficient”. That may be your definition of right and wrong but it is hardly a materialistic definition of such. In a materialistic universe there is no necessity for anything to survive. There is no necessity for anything at all. There is nothing intrinsically right or wrong just as there is nothing intrinsically valuable.

If you have not previously read my OLO article, The absolute weirdness of a deterministic universe, may I suggest you read it, http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=17152 .

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote: Deep down we all know that we are not a car, yet we tend to forget it while in the driver's seat.

Same for the body.

Dear Y,

It is not the same for the body. The driver is not part of the car, but we do not exist apart from our bodies.