davidf - yes, if atheism is true then any values derived from religion are just mumbo jumbo. But you do not seem to appreciate just what the situation is if atheism is true.

You have conceded that nothing would have intrinsic value but you seem to think that that is of no great significance. Yet it would be the case that everyone's claims of value would essentially be no more than just mumbo jumbo.

So, once again - there can be no basis for an atheist to claim that his/her feelings or values are better or more correct than someone else's.

Thus if an atheist says they believe that a sadistic murderer or a gross environmental polluter are terrible people they are simply expressing their personal preference. There is no intrinsic value to any human life or to the Great Barrier Reef in an atheistic universe.

So why do you feel that it makes any sense for you to criticise Sells or anyone else for holding different values to yourself, I don't understand.

.

Dear JP,

.

« … in a universe that has just happened, completely unintentionally, to come into existence it is hard to see how anything has intrinsic value »

I think you’re right, JP. I think the notion of “intrinsic value” is the fruit of our imagination that has no “objective” existence in reality. Any value we attribute to anything is purely subjective and, as you rightly suggest, may vary from one person to another and from one moment to another for the same person.

In economic terms, I understand “intrinsic value” to mean “what something is worth” to a particular person at a particular moment in his or her life, as against its “price” or market value which may be quite different. A masterpiece painting compared to a child’s favourite doll - for the child - is a good example. When that child grows up and acquires a mature sense of aesthetics, perhaps she might place a higher “intrinsic value” on the masterpiece painting than on what was once her favourite doll.

The same principle applies to the immaterial. I tend to place “what little liberty we have” fairly high on the scale of human values. Others may place honour even higher. Still others may cherish life to an even greater extent - and so on.

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.

Also, might I add that I consider that these same principles apply independently of whether, as you say, the universe “just happened, completely unintentionally, to come into existence” or not.

I should be interested to learn what you have to say on the subject as you seem to have a different point of view from that of david f.

.

Dear JP,

I don't think you understand that opinions and morals do not have to come from religious mumbojumbo to be valuable and worthwhile. Perhaps some day you may be enlightened. Perhaps not.

Atheism is reality. God, gods and all other religious beliefs are merely human inventions.

Anyhow, it's beyond me to remove your blinders.

Enjoy your life as much as you can.

Banjo – both you and davidf seem quite ready to accept that in an atheistic universe nothing actually has intrinsic value. That is an easy thing to say but the implications are surely very significant and I would say, very unpleasant, to put it mildly.

If human life really does have no intrinsic value, having just happened to evolve unintentionally from the slime, then Stalin did no wrong in causing the deaths of many millions of people. Now you may want to attribute value to those lives and you are free to do so but there is absolutely no reason why anyone should care what you choose to attribute value to. Your preferences of value are of no significance, and of course no one else’s are either. Stalin had power and so he was able to have his preferences prevail for a time but in the end he died as we all do.

I’m not sure what you are saying in your second and third last paragraphs. On the one hand you seem to concede that there is no such thing as right and wrong but then you seem to say that morality applies independently of whether or not the universe just happened to come into existence completely unintentionally.

If the universe has no purpose it is hard to see how we can do anything wrong and equally how we can do anything right. We may personally prefer that people not do certain things but there is no need for them to be concerned about our preferences. It is hard to see how there can be any independent moral values in an atheistic universe.

This is what I find puzzling about davidf and other atheists. They seem to think it makes sense to express outrage against others with whom they disagree, while admitting, as davidf does, that there are no intrinsic values in an atheistic universe. Davidf wants to have it both ways but if atheism is true his opinions mean nothing except to himself and he might as well just remain silent.

JP:
“It is hard to see how there can be any independent moral values in an atheistic universe.” So religious based moral values are independent? Of course they are not.

They are simply rationalisations of religious behaviour. There are no logical reasons for religious behaviour. Religious behaviours are what people engage in when they feel frightened, angry, sad or guilty. They are not logical at all. It is what primitive people do when they are unable to analyse their feelings and understand them to be in accord with nature. They do not know how to respond so they resort to primitive practices and then rationalise them by the most convoluted methods.

To protect such rationalisations and to try and make them seem reasonable they invent values to which they try and make the rest of society conform. They are afraid that there are reasonable responses to their feelings and try to suppress any indication that such may be true.

An atheistic universe makes far more sense than a return to behaviours which belong to cave men

You can count me in there too, JP.

<<...both you and davidf seem quite ready to accept that in an atheistic universe nothing actually has intrinsic value.>>

The same goes for if theism were true. Why anyone should care what a god “chooses to attribute value to”?

<<That is an easy thing to say but the implications are surely very significant and I would say, very unpleasant, to put it mildly.>>

Oh, don’t put it mildly on our account. Please, tell us what the world would be like and, while you're at it, why it’s not like that already given that not everyone believes in a god, or a god that values what yours does.

<<If human life really does have no intrinsic value, ... then Stalin did no wrong in causing the deaths of many millions of people.>>

It can still be wrong to us, and it’s wrong according to enough people for the world to function and exist more peacefully than we did in, say, Biblical times when fewer held such values:

“Happy is the one who takes your babies and smashes them against the rocks!” (Psalm 137:9)

<<Your preferences of value are of no significance, and of course no one else’s are either.>>

They are of significance if someone believes that they should run around killing people (or smashing babies against rocks) while others don't want to co-exist with such a person. That’s significance enough. Any supposed significance from a god dictating such morals and values to us is discredited by the Euthyphro dilemma.

My car won't have any value to me when I'm dead, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have value to me now; nor would a god's valuing of it give it any more intrinsic value than my valuing of it.