Morality in the Absence of God
Damn you, Libertarian Defender. Damn you, Aaron Kinney. Between the discussions going on here and here, and Aaron’s appearance on Unchained Radio, I have been thinking about morality non-stop for the last 36 hours. OK, you’re both forgiven as long as you contribute something in the comments here.
Morality without god telling you what to do is a sticky business. Those whose lives come with an owner’s manual (Bible, Quran, etc.) can just look up the answer when facing a moral question. I know that if there were really a god with the properties ascribed to him by the major monotheistic religions, I would certainly do what he told me to whenever possible. I’d be scared silly. However, in the absence of such an authority, we’re on our own to figure out good and evil.
I have long considered myself a moral relativist (like LD), but I’ve never examined it all that rigorously. I’ve also never much liked the idea. I wanted very badly for there to be an objective set of moral rules, but I just didn’t see them no matter where I looked. Then Aaron comes along with his objectivist morality, and I have to think about it seriously. Based on his blog and the limited interactions I’ve had with him, I’d say he’s a pretty smart guy.
On The Atheist Hour, Aaron was asked an interesting question. “Why should you want to live?” I’m paraphrasing, but that’s the basic idea. Not “Why DO you want to live?” The SHOULD makes a huge difference. I want to live because of natural selection. Creatures that want to survive are more likely to reproduce than those that want to die. Duh. That doesn’t deal with the SHOULD part, though. My knee-jerk reaction as a moral relativist is that “shoulds” (or at least non-conditional shoulds) are meaningless, but I decided to take a shot at answering the question, anyway. I decided to discuss the issue with my wife (who’s no intellectual slouch). Suffice it to say that my wife is now pretty sick of the conversation because we’ve been going around and around the same points. As an unintended side effect of our talk, I think I may have convinced her that cannibalism isn’t so bad, which makes me very nervous about going to sleep tonight. I’ll have to make sure she has a snack later.
I won’t go into all the details of the arguments I’ve tried out, but after running through this a hundred times, I keep getting hung up at the same place. Life is the problem. It seems to me that objective morality is only possible if one takes as an axiom that life is superior to death. Everything else must follow from that. However, that is a value judgment, and I can’t find anything empirical on which to base it. Without this piece of the puzzle, I have to believe that morality, if the concept has any meaning at all, can only be determined by an individual or a culture, and there is no rational way to compare two actions on a scale of morality.
Usually, I post to make a point. Not this time. I’m looking for help and discussion. Can anyone show me how objective morality is possible without this dubious axiom? I’m going to argue for moral relativity here, but that doesn’t mean I’m saying any objectivists are wrong. I just need to put the argument through its paces.
If you want to brush up on objectivism, check out What Is Objectivism? (Thanks for the link, AK). For more on moral relativism, see the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
As a side question, how much of the trouble in this arena stems from language? All of the words I’m using were made up by people. Morality is just a word. Maybe it shouldn’t be. Maybe it doesn’t describe anything in the real world, and all of the philosophical arguments we can muster won’t reify it. I’ve had a pet theory that I’ve been developing for the last few years. It’s a bit hard to follow unless you’re familiar with the concept of digitization. Basically, language is digital. The more words we generate, the higher the sample rate. However, the universe is analog. Doesn’t that mean it’s impossible to describe the world 100% accurately? If math is more your thing, think about calculus. If the world is a curve, language is the process by which we artificially straighten out a small piece of it to take a derivative. That’s not as good an analogy as the first, but it’s close. This last paragraph may be total gibberish, so feel free to ignore it and just jump into the main question about morality.
~I AM~
September 20th, 2005 at at 7:55 pm
My views on morality are based on the theory of evolution; if it helps the species survive, then it’s a good thing. It’s all a matter of altruism and selfishness, I think.
Of course, this would also bring me to Aaron’s “Why should you want to live?” question. All I am is a mass of cells on a dust speck hurling around a big ball of gas in a gravity well in a pretty darn big collection of gas balls (this is the strangest thing I’ve said today). In the great scheme of things, my existence is meaningless. Nevertheless, I am alive, and it’s a pretty good feeling. I’d like to keep it this way.
September 20th, 2005 at at 9:01 pm
Ah, the topic that will not die. It shall soon comsume the entire web.
It’s nice to see that I’m not alone anymore in regards to being a relativist. Soon, we will gather into a mighty phalanx, and defeat the objectivists in a round of American Gladiators.
Anyways, I voiced my thoughts over at Libertarian Defender’s Blog, so I’ll let new voices respond.
September 20th, 2005 at at 9:11 pm
# existence - the fact that something is. You exist, and objects around you exist.
# identity - the fact that something has definite attributes. You, and the objects around you, exist in a definite way.
# consciousness - the fact that you perceive (introspectively and extrospectively).
I agree to these precepts, but not from my exposure to Ayn Rand and objectivism. I read Sartre’s “Existentialism and Human Emotions”, and got a fresh base from which to create my own moral code. I think, therefore I am. There are other “things” that look like me, I conclude that they are, like me, alive. Which means that they probably experience the world in much the same way I do. They feel fear, sadness, joy, relief, etc, just as I do. I do not want to fear for my life, or be threatened with violence, or be denied happiness, so I must make a pact with myself and everyone else. I will choose not to do things that harm others because I would not want them to do these things to me. Likewise, I will choose to do things for people that I would like done for me. This double-sided golden rule is better than just each side alone. The logic of it is cold, but charitable. The living, emotional connection to the golden rule is empathy. I see someone hurt, and I can imagine feeling that pain. This makes violence so loathsome to me. My empathy even extends to animals that have similar nervous systems. This is why (among many other reasons) I am a vegetarian. I feel empathy towards people in other places are suffering or are otherwise disenfranchised. I would not want to be in their position, and would certainly not want someone to put me in that situation, so I agree not to do it to others, understanding that they, in turn, agree not to do it to me.
The golden rule is a simple one, but seems to me to be the fairest, most acceptable code by which to live. Simple rules, complex behavior.
Just my $0.02
September 20th, 2005 at at 9:31 pm
Oh man, I love this topic.
We are human are the only ones whose neo cortex has evolved enough to even consider this problem. You’d never meet a nihilist wolf, as it were.
We live because we are driven to. We always have the option to stop sustaining ourselves. Every single person on the planet has the option to refuse food or drink. Death is always an option. In a universe where the second law of thermo dynamics dictates that entropy must increase, refusing to move forward in the resource acquisition will result in certain death.
Why do we move forward one asks? I question whether we honesty have as much control over that instinct as we think we do. The simple answer is because those creatures without the natural tendency to do so are simply not here any longer. The “roll uphill” nature of life dictates that that simple truth.
The development of abstract thought in the higher (newer) areas of the brain allowed us to envision various other options to our natural tendencies, some of which were extremely adaptive (for example, hunting with weapons instead of say just stampeding herds off a cliff) and some of which have proved to be rather maladaptive (supposing that we, for example might have been created by some supernatural being). Abstract thought allowed us to be in control of certain choices, which lower animals without such tendencies don’t have. For example we know the best way to get potato chips out of a bag is to pour them out, while dogs suffocate trying to lick the last scraps out of a plastic bag of chips. We don’t have complete control however, we cannot for example, decide to stop breathing, just like sharks can’t decide to become vegetarian.
I happen to be a big fan of Objectivism. I think it’s on the money as far as “everyone is responsible for themselves” goes. In that way it’s like moral relativism, in that each person really develops their own criteria for what is right and not right. In moral relativism, to each his own, sure but I think where that stops short is where people have conflicts.
What is right for me, and right for you is fine and dandy IF we don’t ever have to interact. Once we live in the same country, and have to thrive in close quarters, moral relativism falls apart. Objectivism would say, “Let’s see how the reality plays out and let that determine who is really right.” If each person becomes self-interested and each becomes the well of their own production and they don’t have to interact then we can all respect each other based on our own objective merit.
Fine. BUT I think we can’t ignore the very real influence of evolutionary forces on this whole process. It’d be awesome if all of life were some clean academic exercise, but we have to remember that each of us comes to the table with different skill sets, different abilities and each is out to look out for himself and his family and often times that tendency will lead to conflict among cohorts. As we all aren’t simply each able to make those clean cut decisions, we all engage life with varying degrees of effectiveness.
I submit my humble opinion that a moral person is someone who knows the precious unlikelihood of life and does what he can to preserve his own life and the life of his family as best as he is able. Sometimes that means killing an offender, sometimes that means cooperating within a community sometimes that means looting (or “finding food,” depending on what race you are) during a hurricane. An immoral action would be abdicating responsibility in the face of hardship, such as a father who abandons children or a leader who denies responsibility (or even a family that starved to death instead of looting!).
Moral people know why they do things and understand that the reason they work and live and love is to sustain them. Immorality is not a concrete set of rules but those things which in the end prove maladaptive. We are the only creatures on the planet who have rational thought, foresight and abstract thinking and so can anticipate results before they happen. Thus we can see that things that are maladaptive lead to death. We know that a father who abandons children is putting them at risk as so we try to prevent it.
I think we make the mistake of thinking that morality is something we need to “enforce.” Morality enforces itself. We all things moral or immoral because we can see down the road a ways, but you know what? If a person wants to live an immoral life and destroy himself, then why is it my place to do show him different? If, in the course of his immoral life, his action affect me or my family, the it’s perfectly within my moral prerogative to defend myself and my family and refusing to do so or being ineffective at it would be immoral on my part.
Ultimately (and I guess this is where this diatribe ends) absolute morality is the death and destruction of a person’s life or family who refused to engage their rational thought, instinct for self preservation, acting for self interest and suffers the ultimate price, be it death, incarceration, banishment, detention, silent treatment, etc, etc.
September 21st, 2005 at at 7:07 am
I find myself in agreement in large part with Brian. A few observations:
Humankind are pack animals. The concept of interactive cooperation is instinctual. Behavior is shaped by parents, and instruction/discipline, positive/negative reinforcement is received by children before the skills are acquired to question authority. This is a survival trait. Simple morality is based on the instinct of cooperation and socialization. One either accepts or rejects this early programming. If rejected, it is replaced in part or in whole. If society accepts your actions as moral, you are accepted as part of that society. If that whole society is judged and found to be immoral, again the standard is applied by a larger and/or more powerful group. Morality in this way, is a social contract and requires criteria outside the individual in order to make the determination of moral/amoral.
As to why I should want to be alive, who says I should? There are plenty of suicidal people. I happen to enjoy my life sufficiently to want it to continue. Besides, I have no real data on what, if anything, comes after death, so for me, there is nothing to seek there.
September 21st, 2005 at at 7:10 am
Like most of the atheists I know, I have pondered this question a smidgeon (probably not like the 36-hour marathon I AM just underwent, but a fair amount). The way I reconciled the objective and relativist arguments was to take one statement as an axiom:
Life (and/or living) is important because it is continued life that allows us to consider its importance.
I recognize that life (and death) are important in terms of evolutionary theory and that evolution is really the underlying power here. But when it comes to morality, survival of the fittest does not seem to work all that well (unless you’re the fittest without other humans). My perspective is similar to Mookie’s - without life we cannot continue to ponder the questions of life (or existence). So, instead, I posit my axiom - life is important - and derive the rest of my morals from that axiom. The way I see it, this inserts into the relativist argument a small amount of objectivity. How life is valued varies from culture to culture and society to society, but in all human cultures life is valued (even in cannibalistic ones, just not in the ways we are used to).
For me, placing value and importance on continued existence (since this is our only shot at it) leads me to a number of conclusions, but I recognize those to be relative to my upbringing, my abilities, and the other things I value. As a liberal, I think quality of life could be improved by reducing poverty rates. But I also find global over-population arguments compelling and wonder what the best way is to reduce population growth and, ultimately, population size. Sometimes my morals and values conflict. But I don’t know that a perfect set of moral principles is necessary to live a good life. If we are able to allow certain guiding principles to govern our behavior in ways that are beneficial to the “human experiment” and the continued existence of life (however we interpret that), then I don’t think we can really fail as moral humans.
I’m no Ayn Rand, but this approach works for me.
September 21st, 2005 at at 8:45 am
I think you can say that life is superior to death if you define “evil” as destruction. I am a chemist by degree and entropy seems to be a pretty good measure of destruction and disorder. Death leads to disorder of what was an ordered system. In the same way, we can say that making a building is a good, constructive act, but not as much as building a life form. Of course, it gets complicated from here because if that life form is a deadly bacterium that kills millions and the building is an university that educates millions of doctors, the opposite becomes true. Similarly, abortion of a foetus is an evil act (by our definition, but not in the grand scale of things), but murdering babies is worse, murdering an educated adult is even worse (I think others will disagree), etc. If the baby grows up to be a murderer and rapist, then the abortion would have minimized the evil and could have been called good (relatively) in the longer term.
This gives a pretty complicated system of morality, but I think it comes very close to making sense! I don’t believe in good or evil in a real sense, but this is how I think about morality. My basic assumption is that it is harder to create than destroy and that we should try to create. I don’t know that there is a reasonable derivation for this from deeper ideas. It just seems to me that much of the things we perceive as beautiful are also very complex, whereas disorder is not particularly beautiful.
September 21st, 2005 at at 8:45 am
I noticed that most of these replies assume that Darwinian evolution is true(i.e., life came from non-life then evolved from into an original species and then from one species to another). While I completely agree with micro-evolution (evolution within a species), I see no evidence for macro (Darwinian) evolution. Presumably, there would be literally millions of transitional fossils if Darwian evolution were true. Yet species all appear in the fossil record all at once, and we don’t see changes from one species to another. Not to mention there is no evidence of life coming from non-life and “evolving” into hyper-complicated life forms.
September 21st, 2005 at at 9:22 am
Neil, you are woefully uneducated in science if you think that.
http://www.talkorigins.org/
http://www.pharyngula.org/
http://www.pandasthumb.org/
September 21st, 2005 at at 10:42 am
Neil,
That transitional evidence does exist. An recent interview with Rich Dawkins (link below) discusses this very topic.
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/002408.html
On the whole question of why live? Maybe I’m a bit simplistic about this whole thing but life in and of itself is the point of life. Eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die. And if you can push some of your genes to the next generation even better.
Stefan
September 21st, 2005 at at 10:57 am
the reason that you should strive to live is simple, one day you will die, and there’s no coming back.
its as if your entire life was you locked in this tiny little room, and there was only 1 book there to read. no tv shows, nothing else for entertainment. logically, you wanna take your time with this fucking book and make it last, because once you finish it, the people who put you in the room take it away and you are left there alone.
enjoy the damn book, even if its shitty, because its the only one you get.
thats how i see it.
September 21st, 2005 at at 11:12 am
Neil, macro and micro evolution DO NOT EXIST, its just your outlook on it. “macroevolution” is nothing more than “microevolution” given a longer period of time. remember, species, genus, phylum, those are all categories that humans created, so they are by no means concrete barriers, just a nice filing system.
September 21st, 2005 at at 11:27 am
Gee, subnormal, if you say so, I guess they don’t exist . . . yet I would be interested in your proofs, or even “logic” as to how life came from non-life.
I believe in the scientific method, and I’m still waiting for the millions - or even dozens - of transitional fossil forms. Humans created those categories because that is what the fossil evidence shows. Even major evolutionists admit to that. Consider this quote from Harvard’s Richard Lewontin, who exposes his worldview:
“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
September 21st, 2005 at at 11:43 am
I read this last night before bed, and wanted to think on it. I’d love to add something clever and insightful here, but a) I had a very odd dream with Aaron and I AM last night (the result of reading this so late, I suppose) and b) I read through all these responses and now my sleep deprived brain is overwhelmed.
Must.Drink.Caffeine.
I AM, I hope you haven’t been eaten.
September 21st, 2005 at at 12:04 pm
Mookie:
I do not want to fear for my life
There it is again. Why? I agree with everything you said, but it’s based on a preference for life.
Brian:
Why do we move forward one asks?
No. Why SHOULD we?
I happen to be a big fan of Objectivism.
As am I. I agree with all of it except the morality part.
I submit my humble opinion that a moral person is someone who knows the precious unlikelihood of life and does what he can to preserve his own life and the life of his family
But what about the people who don’t? What if I value death? Look at Charles Manson. I don’t think he’s “immoral.” I just think his brain works differently from everyone else’s. By most accounts, he’s “crazy.” Maybe crazy is just a different set of values that we find detrimental to society.
breakerslion:
If society accepts your actions as moral, you are accepted as part of that society. If that whole society is judged and found to be immoral, again the standard is applied by a larger and/or more powerful group.
Sounds like moral relativism to me. In fact, it’s worse than that. These statements that support the morality of the majority make the Christians right.
As to why I should want to be alive, who says I should?
My point.
exmoron:
Life (and/or living) is important because it is continued life that allows us to consider its importance.
OK. How do you back up the value of “considering?”
Matt:
I think you can say that life is superior to death if you define “evil” as destruction.
Just more words. You can make any argument you want by changing definitions to suit your purpose.
Neil:
You’re so wrong and so off-topic that I’ll ignore you for now.
subnormal:
But death isn’t boredom. Death is nothing. Nothing may well be better than a horrible life.
September 21st, 2005 at at 12:28 pm
Tanooki Joe, you better watch out, because objectivists are known for their skills with the giant Q-Tips on elevated platforms
Brian, that was a great post.
addict_no_more, Ive been dreaming about you too! j/k!
I AM, you notice how I stammered and seemed unprepared when the Christians on The Atheist Hour asked me why I should value life? I had a hard time justifying it or explaining it because of what I didnt recognize at the time, but DO recognize now: The preference of life to death is axiomatic. And just as you said in your blog post, you do have to come to the axiom. Ive been reading and discussing alot of things since my radio show about morality and the value of life. So far, from what I can tell, the preference of consciousness (life) over non-consciousness (death) is axiomatic because to even MAKE a judgement on whether life or death is preferable, you have to borrow from the pro-life (sounds funny I know) worldview in order to make that judgement. The only way you can even choose to value life or death is to do it from a conscious, living perspective in the first place! Thats why its axiomatic, just like the law of identity is axiomatic.
To quote my good friend Francois Tremblay, “Life is a prerequisite for any discussion of value or morality. We can no more ask why we value life (or death) than we can ask why we use logic. We have no choice but to use logic and we have no choice but to be alive.”
Think about this: Technically, you cant choose to be dead. The best you can do, is to choose to commit an action that will end your life. But short of taking physical action, you cant just choose to value death and be dead. You cant even be dead technically. At best, you can only take action that will make you “no longer be.”
It seems to me that in reality, its impossible to even value death. How can you value nonexistence, when you have to use the “i exist” worldview to even make that kind of judgement?
When we recognize the axiomatic nature of life (something that I wish I read up on more before my radio appearance), we can see that the Christian borrows from the objectivist or axiomatic morality worldview. The Christian thinks that the answer to the question is “God tells me to” but all hes doing is pushing it back a level. Why does the Christian care about what God tells him to do? Why does the Christian care if he defies God and goes to hell? The Christian can only account for this kind of thing if he admits an innate, inherent, axiomatic desire to sustain his own life and pursue rational self interest.
September 21st, 2005 at at 12:30 pm
I also read this last night and decided to think a while before answering.
This is another one of those questions that requires the answer to the “ultimate question”. To which the answer of course is 42. But, as Adams points out, it is the question that we are not yet even able to define.
From my perspective relativism is the only viable practicable option for daily interactions with other people. Objectivism is the utopian goal that, though worthwhile, as an aspiration or guideline, is ultimately unattainable because the basic premise requires the answering of basic questions that, as yet, are unknowable.
Why SHOULD you exist? Well, I don’t know, and if I stop existing I may never find out.
Any other answer is made up up bullshit.
The next step requires relativism despite what the theists say. To argue any position other than relativism is to assume that you KNOW the answer to the “SHOULD” question. This would be a supremely arrogant position.
Christians can’t really answer this question on it’s own either; they would say that the Bible tells them how and why to live their life. But, sense the Bible is just more made up bullshit, we ultimately return to relativism once again.
September 21st, 2005 at at 12:43 pm
I Am,
After re-reading your post, this part really stuck out at me:
It seems to me that objective morality is only possible if one takes as an axiom that life is superior to death. Everything else must follow from that. However, that is a value judgment, and I can’t find anything empirical on which to base it.
Can you find anything empirical with which to base the proposition that logic is superior to illogic? No, because you have to use logic to even test it, and you cannot find an example of “illogic” with which to compare.
The same thing goes for life. You have to presuppose life to do anything. You cannot judge the value of life without being alive to do it. You cannot compare being alive to being dead because when youre dead, youre not really dead, but are simply no longer existing as a conscious entity. There is no “dead” frame of reference possible. Does that make sense?
Life is axiomatic, like logic and identity and all those other axioms. Hey, there has to be an axiom somewhere, so whats wrong with life being one?
If life is axiomatic, then all my objectivist mombo-jumbo actually makes perfect sense. But if life is not axiomatic, then Im an idiot and all the relativists are right. But one of the problems I have with moral relativism is the fact that certain things transcend culture, like murder and incest and theft and such. When it comes to violating the rights of another man, or violating the golden rule in other words, its pretty much seen as immoral across the cultural spectrum. All higher animals understand this golden rule and react to it accordingly. Wouldnt that imply that moral relativism is, if nothing else, limited in scope, and that there is some kind of objective standard somewhere? An axiomatic life would fit in nicely with the golden rule, libertarianism, individualism, objective morality, etc…
September 21st, 2005 at at 12:58 pm
Aaron, You almost had me rethinking my reply until you said “…certain things transcend culture, like murder and incest and theft and such.” Because, even those “crimes” can be seen in a relative light. Incest would not be “wrong” if there were only two people left in the world and they happened to be related. Some would say that it would be their moral responsibility to mate to try and save the “humanity”. Murder is very similar, a criminal that is sentenced to death or an enemy combatant that is killed in warfare would not agree from their relative position that their death is warranted.
So, once again no matter how hard we try to find an objectivist leg to stand on we keep stumbling over relatives. So to speak.
September 21st, 2005 at at 1:03 pm
AK:
It seems to me that in reality, its impossible to even value death.
Semantics. You can choose NOT to value life. Same thing.
Can you find anything empirical with which to base the proposition that logic is superior to illogic? No, because you have to use logic to even test it, and you cannot find an example of “illogic” with which to compare.
Not so. Logic is valuable because it gives us the right answers. We can test the rules of logic in situations in which we already know the premises and the conclusion. A system that gives us correct answers is superior to NOT having such a system (illogic).
If life is axiomatic, then all my objectivist mombo-jumbo actually makes perfect sense. But if life is not axiomatic, then Im an idiot and all the relativists are right.
Exactly. It all comes down to this one, simple point.
When it comes to violating the rights of another man, or violating the golden rule in other words, its pretty much seen as immoral across the cultural spectrum.
It is obvious to every culture that allowing violence against others is tantamount to allowing violence against oneself. I don’t think this is evidence of any kind of objective, overarching principal. I think it’s only evidence that most people can understand cause and effect and have the ability to extrapolate the implications of one situation to a similar situation. Look at a dictator like Stalin. He didn’t need to play by those rules because he was (mostly) protected from retribution from the common people.
September 21st, 2005 at at 1:40 pm
LBBP, you said:
Because, even those “crimes” can be seen in a relative light.
I would disagree slightly, and say that they can be seen in a contextual light. The examples I gave were clear cut and simplified ones. But when you add other factors in the mix, it changes the formula and therefore the solution. The point is that in a given formula, there is a limited amount of appropriate solutions, often only one solution.
Incest would not be “wrong” if there were only two people left in the world and they happened to be related.
Thats because the need to sustain and promote life in the form of reproduction would overrule the incest taboo. But in a heavily populated world, incest is shunned for good objective reasons that correspond to reality and consequences, not cultural taste.
Some would say that it would be their moral responsibility to mate to try and save the “humanity”. Murder is very similar, a criminal that is sentenced to death or an enemy combatant that is killed in warfare would not agree from their relative position that their death is warranted.
Murder is the unlawful killing of a person; the initiation of violence against another; violence that is not based in self-defense. “killed” is not contextual. In a war for example, we can say that it was wrong for Nazis to conquer Europe and kill people, but it wasnt wrong for Ameria and England to invade and defend human interests by killing Nazis.
So, once again no matter how hard we try to find an objectivist leg to stand on we keep stumbling over relatives. So to speak.
I still disagree. In all the instances you cited, the primary goal of sustainment and promotion of life was never betrayed or shown to be relative. All the examples involve the addition of variables into the equation, and then the actions need to be adjusted accordingly. But in all instances, the actions must ultimately serve the purpose of sustaining life. That is what makes them moral.
September 21st, 2005 at at 1:49 pm
Semantics. You can choose NOT to value life. Same thing.
Fair enough, I AM. But you can only make that choice when you are alive. Can you make that choice if you are not alive? Can you be in a position to even make judgements? You still have to presuppose life in order to judge it.
Not so. Logic is valuable because it gives us the right answers. We can test the rules of logic in situations in which we already know the premises and the conclusion. A system that gives us correct answers is superior to NOT having such a system (illogic).
True, but all of this can only be done USING logic. Logic is presupposed when its value is determined. The only way to even make a value judgement on logic is to use logic to do it.
Exactly. It all comes down to this one, simple point.
Around and around we go! Its actually alot of fun to discuss this stuff, in a maddening sort of way.
It is obvious to every culture that allowing violence against others is tantamount to allowing violence against oneself. I don’t think this is evidence of any kind of objective, overarching principal. I think it’s only evidence that most people can understand cause and effect and have the ability to extrapolate the implications of one situation to a similar situation.
Interesting. I see a hint of an objective, overarching principal, where you do not. We both agree that humans can understand causality and consequences, but why do the humans all come to the same general conclusions about causality and consequences? Of course you disagree with me here, but I think its because all humans see the value of life as axiomatic.
I Am, would you agree with me at least that humans are all programmed to value life due to evolution? As in, the organisms that value life survive and pass this trait on, while those who dont value life dont live to reproduce, and therefore the nature of ourselves as organisms holds life as an axiom?
September 21st, 2005 at at 2:07 pm
At the risk of comment-whoring, I want to post something I recently re-discovered:
My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man’s virtues…”
–Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged.
The axiom of life is virtually identical to the axiom of identity. In this case, its my (or ones own) identity. To be against life is to be against the axiom of identity.
These ideas make sense to me in my head, but it always feels like I have a hard time expressing them. For some reason, Rand, Kelley, and everyone else I read seems to be able to express it better than I can. I also really admire what Francios Tremblay said, and thats why I quoted him a few comments ago.
September 21st, 2005 at at 2:12 pm
Gene Cook and his two callers represented a Christian worldview, which contains within it so many irrational presuppositions that one is left bewildered when asked loaded questions as if they were not. One is forced in this unfortunate position to find ways to explain reality without angering the other party by openly dismantling the Christian worldview, because such an event would effectively close the ears of all listening Christians and increase their incorporation of irrational presuppositions into their arguments. Aaron held his own in this discussion and for that I applaud him.
September 21st, 2005 at at 2:21 pm
Aaron:
Can you make that choice if you are not alive? Can you be in a position to even make judgements? You still have to presuppose life in order to judge it.
No, you cannot judge life from death. That still doesn’t mean I have to (or SHOULD) value life while alive.
Logic is presupposed when its value is determined.
I’m not sure I understand / agree. Can you elaborate on this?
Around and around we go! Its actually alot of fun to discuss this stuff, in a maddening sort of way.
I know I’m getting a kick out of it.
I think its because all humans see the value of life as axiomatic.
I think it’s because (mostly) all humans see the value of life. It’s the axiom part I don’t agree with.
I Am, would you agree with me at least that humans are all programmed to value life due to evolution? As in, the organisms that value life survive and pass this trait on, while those who dont value life dont live to reproduce, and therefore the nature of ourselves as organisms holds life as an axiom?
I agree with your first statement. I’m not sure about “all,” but it’s close enough to all to use that word. However, again, the fact that we DO doesn’t mean we SHOULD.
The axiom of life is virtually identical to the axiom of identity. In this case, its my (or ones own) identity. To be against life is to be against the axiom of identity.
That seems like quite a jump to me. Saying that I exist and I have attributes doesn’t even begin to approach the issue of whether or not I sould want to be alive.
September 21st, 2005 at at 2:22 pm
Uberkuh:
I agree that Aaron did a great job. I don’t mean to detract from his performance in any way by tussling with him over objectivism.
September 21st, 2005 at at 2:26 pm
In surfing debates such as this one, it has been interesting to me that the one area that either side of any argument will usually concede absolutes is in the area of mathematics. The obvious phrase is often something like “1+1=2 therefore blah blah blah….”. The debate can rage about the relevance of a mathematical argument but almost never about the absolute value of mathematical expression.
That said, it seems interesting to me that the mathematics of the “true” nature of our universe, at least in part, need to be expressed in relativities. Extending this analogy, even some of the purposed mathmatical absolutes have needed to be reconsidered. Take for instance the speed limit of light for matter; not broken yet, but is is in serious jeopardy of being bent.
What does this say about morals and the nature of the universe (maybe nothing and I am grasping at straws)? But, if the math that explains the universe has no absolutes and even the very nature of matter depends on your relative perspective (not to mention how it changes with measurement), how can we propose to explain our behavior in such a universe with absolutes?
September 21st, 2005 at at 2:26 pm
At the risk of comment-whoring…
I swear my dream had nothing to do with you being a comment whore - or any other kind of whore.
Heh.
I want so badly to get involved in this debate, and yet I find that I can’t even decide where I want to be in it. So I’m going to keep reading, see if I figure anything out and otherwise keep quiet.
I’m also going to try very hard to stop dreaming about strange men.
September 21st, 2005 at at 2:28 pm
It’s fun debates like this that keep me from writing more substantive entries at my blog.
September 21st, 2005 at at 2:34 pm
Oh, that’s alright. I’m sick at the moment and busily working away as a cubicle slave, so I haven’t been paying attention, anyway. I did read your original post, however, and I have been thinking a bit about what it means to have an objective moral standard and, given that, why an objective moral standard does not depend on being a Christian.
September 21st, 2005 at at 2:47 pm
Thank you Uberkuh. I tried my best you know? I knew the questions were loaded, but because its their show and Im a guest, I was trying to answer the questions without ripping up their Christian presuppositions in the process. Needless to say, my position is less effectively defended when it allows for the Christian presuppositions in its defense.
I AM:
I’m not sure I understand / agree. Can you elaborate on this?
What I mean is that logic must be used to determine its value. Without logic we cant do anything, including evaluate logic itself. Thats why logic is an axiom. Do you agree that logic is an axiom?
I think it’s because (mostly) all humans see the value of life. It’s the axiom part I don’t agree with.
Hmmmm. Im not sure how to give justification for life to be an axiom from here…
However, again, the fact that we DO doesn’t mean we SHOULD.
I think I may have something now. The SHOULD comes from the fact that we are life forms ourselves. If we dont value life, then we deny ourselves because we are examples or instances of life. In the same way that logic is an axiom and must be assumed to even evaluate it, life is also an axiom and it must be assumed to even evaluate it. Come to think of it, I dont know for sure if axiom=should, but the axiom would make DO an inescapable conclusion and the should might not even come into play.
For example, with logic as an axiom, we have a DO in that we DO have to use logic. Now SHOULD we? I dont think its possible to evaluate “should” when it comes to axioms, like logic. SHOULD we use logic? Its a meaningless question; we have to use it, we have no choice.
Therefore, the should for life doesnt come into play from what I can see. Life is an axiom, and we have to use it. Without life, everything becomes meaningless because there would be no consciousness from which to even evaluate anything. Morality, relative or objective, disappears altogether if life is not an axiom; if nonexistence (death) comes into play.
Oh man we are gonna be at this for hours! Its just gonna be a circle of discussion LOL :-O
addict_no_more:
feel free to get involved! If you dont know which side of the fence you are on, then try asking questions to us or something. Hopefully we can help you figure out where you stand.
September 21st, 2005 at at 3:02 pm
AK:
What I mean is that logic must be used to determine its value.
I don’t think logic has anything to do with value. Logic deals with truth. I like green better than blue. Can you make a logical argument for the disparity in the value I assign to those colors?
Do you agree that logic is an axiom?
I’m not sure that question makes sense as stated. Logic is a system. However, I understand the spirit in which it is asked, so I’ll say yes. The rules of logic are immutable. By that, I don’t mean the rules of logic as we know them. I mean the rules of logic as they are, including those we may not yet fully understand.
but the axiom would make DO an inescapable conclusion and the should might not even come into play.
Be careful, Aaron. You’re starting to sound like a relativist. Isn’t “should” what morality is all about?
Its a meaningless question; we have to use it, we have no choice.
You clearly spend your time with smarter people than I do. Most of the people I know use logic rarely, and I don’t know anyone, including me, that uses it always.
Morality, relative or objective, disappears altogether if life is not an axiom; if nonexistence (death) comes into play.
If morality is objective, why would it require evaluation or consideration for existence? A star is objective. It’s there even if there are no living things anywhere. Morality, you seem to believe, is dependent upon consciousness because it doesn’t exist unless it’s evaluated.
Ooh. Check this out. Can inanimate objects be said to be moral or immoral? They exist. They have identity.
September 21st, 2005 at at 3:15 pm
Life…and all that it encompasses!
I AM writes “Life is the problem. It seems to me that objective morality is only possible if one takes as an axiom that life is superior to death. Everything else must follow from that. However, that is a value judgement, and I can’t find anything empirical on which to base it.”
I find in my search for ‘answers’ and ‘truths’ that when you reverse a statement new light can be brought to a subject. The reverse axiom…’death is superior to life’… gives more insight to why life is more than a ‘value judgement’. Using empirical data and equations if death is more superior to life then no ethics are required. Everyone would seek death, the only ethics involved with that are how quickly you die. The human race would not last through a single generation and no offspring would be forthcoming.
All moral codes and ethics are based on life being a desirable experience. From the simple ‘Golden Rule’ to the complex Shira laws of the Muslim and the entire legal system of the US, all agree that life is worth living (even if it is a miserable existance). Even the christians who ‘believe’ that heaven is waiting for them, do not wish for their own deaths…hence they attempt to make life on earth more to their own image.
Most people do use a ‘value judgement’ to justify existance. But from a completely empirical stand-point, life is a chemical reaction. If the reaction is not allowed to reach an end point (due to exterior influences, such as murder) then the chemical reaction has not reached its goal (a completely different topic). Life is like baking a cake, if it is removed from the oven to soon then the cake is a waste of time, energy, and materials. So to is life…the amount of time, energy, and materials that a ‘community’ (parents, teachers, clergy, friends, the self) puts into a single life is the empirical justification for life.
September 21st, 2005 at at 3:21 pm
My brain is about to explode!
I AM:
I don’t think logic has anything to do with value. Logic deals with truth. I like green better than blue. Can you make a logical argument for the disparity in the value I assign to those colors?
Well, what I meant was that in any attempt to evaluate the merits of “logic,” one must employ “logic.” Maybe saying “value” was the wrong word to use.
Regarding color choice, no. Choosing a favorite color is more of an aestetic or artistic preference that in turn represents ones value judgements. Besides, choosing your own favorite color has no impact on the sustainment of your life or anyone elses. Morality deals with determining optimal action, and choosing a color isnt the same as determining an optimal action; it is assigning artistic representations of ones value judgements.
I’m not sure that question makes sense as stated. Logic is a system. However, I understand the spirit in which it is asked, so I’ll say yes. The rules of logic are immutable. By that, I don’t mean the rules of logic as we know them. I mean the rules of logic as they are, including those we may not yet fully understand.
Check out this linkie on logic and axioms:
http://www.whatisobjectivism.com/explained/page2.htm
Here is a snip:
“Logic, the method by which we sift contradictions from our thinking, is a derivate of the axiom of identity. While the laws and fallacies of logic are numerous, they can be subsumed to three basic laws :
The law of identity : A is A.
The law of non-contradiction : A cannot be not-A.
The law of excluded middle : B can either be A or not-A.”
Be careful, Aaron. You’re starting to sound like a relativist. Isn’t “should” what morality is all about?
Yes, “should” is what morality is all about. What Im saying is that with axioms, “should” doesnt come into play. The “should” would come into play when you make desicions derived from the axioms; the “should” cannot come into play in regards to the axiom itself.
For example, if logic is an axiom, we cannot ask “should we use logic?” for we have no choice. Logic is what we DO use, by necessity. The “should” would only come into play later, when we ask things like “what should we use logic for?” or “what conclusion should we come to, using logic?”
So on the same token, the value of ones own life; ones own self-interest, is an axiom according to my worldview. The question “should we value life?” is meaningless and commits a fallacy when it is asked, just like with my logic example above. The “should” only comes into play when we ask later questions like “what actions should we do, and what should we value, based on the axiom of life?” In this way, I can steer clear of relativism thanx to life being an axiom.
You clearly spend your time with smarter people than I do. Most of the people I know use logic rarely, and I don’t know anyone, including me, that uses it always.
I know what you mean!
If morality is objective, why would it require evaluation or consideration for existence? A star is objective. It’s there even if there are no living things anywhere. Morality, you seem to believe, is dependent upon consciousness because it doesn’t exist unless it’s evaluated.
Evaluation and consideration is necessary because morality is objective, not in spite of it. In a morally relative worldview, the “consideration” and “evaluation” of morality becomes meaningless because everything is relative. Now, in an objectivist worldview, consideration and evaluation is necessary because the only variable in question is our perception. As thinking conscious entities, it is our job (indeed our only job) to excercise our perception and carefully intake the information available to us (the information that objective reality provides to us) and do the best we can to observe all factors and all pieces of the equation in order to make the correct or moral decision.
In a nutshell its like this: reality is objective, and sincei t has primacy over us, it is our duty to use the one tool we have -perception- and properly intake all available information and apply logic to it in order to arrive at the optimal decision, or most moral choice.
Ooh. Check this out. Can inanimate objects be said to be moral or immoral? They exist. They have identity.
Good question. In a word, No. Inanimate objects have no consciousness and have no perception. They have no choices to make. And morality is the process of determining, and committing, the optimal action.
September 21st, 2005 at at 3:24 pm
It might help to distinguish between objective and subjective reality. It seems that a debate over objective moral standards presumes that objective reality is independent of subjective reality, but I find this to be unfounded. Here is an article I wrote that touches on the interdependence between these two realities: http://uberkuh.com/node/238
September 21st, 2005 at at 3:31 pm
I got another thought…
Morality is objective because of the answer to the question one asks oneself when making a moral decision. The question is: “what is in my best interest?”
Now, the word “me” means “life.” So if one refuses to accept that life is axiomatic, and the person who asks himself this question decides to destroy himself, the he has proven the objective morality. For when the person allows himself to die, the question can no longer be asked; there is no more “me” to even ask the question for!
Life is axiomatic because life is a prerequisite to even ask “what is my best interest?” This is because morality is defined as optimal action. But optimal action to what? To the entity that asks the question or makes the moral decision.
Without life as an axiom, morality and the ability to make decisions disappears altogether. Before one can ask what is moral, one must be alive and accept the axiom of life.
September 21st, 2005 at at 3:51 pm
“The SHOULD comes from the fact that we are life forms ourselves. If we dont value life, then we deny ourselves because we are examples or instances of life. In the same way that logic is an axiom and must be assumed to even evaluate it, life is also an axiom and it must be assumed to even evaluate it.”
Hmmm… There might be something there…
“Evaluation and consideration is necessary because morality is objective, not in spite of it. In a morally relative worldview, the “consideration” and “evaluation” of morality becomes meaningless because everything is relative. Now, in an objectivist worldview, consideration and evaluation is necessary because the only variable in question is our perception. As thinking conscious entities, it is our job (indeed our only job) to excercise our perception and carefully intake the information available to us (the information that objective reality provides to us) and do the best we can to observe all factors and all pieces of the equation in order to make the correct or moral decision.”
But, that perception can only be referenced from a reliativistic perspective?!
I tried to go to David Kelley’s site for some inspiration to take the objectivist side of the argument and I just couldn’t find a path I agreed with. I really want to go over to the objectivist side but it all just comes out relative. This clip below is a good example:
“When we insist that facts are facts, that right is right, as against the rampant subjectivism of the age, we can easily forget that facts and values must be grasped by people, each acting on his independent judgment. We run the risk of adopting the attitudes and policies of the intrinsicist. When we emphasize that the true and the good are contextual, when we oppose the imposition of dogma and duty, we can easily forget that opinions and preferences are not all on a par–that some are right and others aren’t. We run the risk of subjectivism. To be objective, we have to hold both sets of considerations in mind, both reality and personal context.” - David Kelley, Truth and Toleration, p2-3.
Once again this ends up being a relivivistic viewpoint. “Personal context” is just another way of saying “relative to my viewpoint”.
September 21st, 2005 at at 3:52 pm
Thanx for the article Uberkuh.
Uberkuh, by the way, what do you think of morality, objective reality, subjective experience, etc…? In other words, do you think morality is objective or relative, and why?
September 21st, 2005 at at 3:58 pm
LBBP Says:
In surfing debates such as this one, it has been interesting to me that the one area that either side of any argument will usually concede absolutes is in the area of mathematics. The obvious phrase is often something like “1+1=2 therefore blah blah blah….”. The debate can rage about the relevance of a mathematical argument but almost never about the absolute value of mathematical expression.
Check this out LBBP -
http://www.dc.uba.ar/people/profesores/becher/ns.html
“TWO plus two equals four: nobody would argue with that. Mathematicians can rigorously prove sums like this, and many other things besides. The language of maths allows them to provide neatly ordered ways to describe everything that happens in the world around us.
Or so they once thought.
Gregory Chaitin, a mathematics researcher at IBM’s T. J. Watson Research Center in Yorktown Heights, New York, has shown that mathematicians can’t actually prove very much at all. Doing maths, he says, is just a process of discovery like every other branch of science: it’s an experimental field where mathematicians stumble upon facts in the same way that zoologists might come across a new species of primate.
…
The Omega strain of incalculable numbers reveals that mathematics is not simply moth-eaten, it is mostly made of gaping holes. Anarchy, not order, is at the heart of the Universe.”
There is absolutely no such thing as absolutes, in any part of the known universe. Kind of a weird thing to be certain of, eh?
September 21st, 2005 at at 4:03 pm
Morality, like everything else in the universe, is relative. Any search for “moral absolutes” is bound to lead to nowhere.
Well, maybe to frustration.
September 21st, 2005 at at 4:07 pm
LBBP,
I see what youre saying, but I think you are confusing terms. Relative and Contextual are two very different phrases.
Relative is like you deciding that to kill is good and I decide that to kill is bad and we are both equally right. Note that in this instance, there is no context
contextual is like deciding that killing is bad unless you are doing it in self defense (your life is in danger). This is context.
For example, the bible says “thou shalt not kill” but its not contextual
If I say “thou shalt not initiate violence against another; thou shalt only use violence in self defense” then its contextual.
I hope that helps.
September 21st, 2005 at at 4:10 pm
Morality, like everything else in the universe, is relative. Any search for “moral absolutes” is bound to lead to nowhere.
I respectfully disagree. Axioms are not relative. The law of identity, and of non-contradiction, and of the exluded middle, are not relative. Existence is not relative. The universe has always existed, and always will exist. The law of identity will always be the same, regardless of the state of the universe, either at the big bang or at the big crunch.
And since morality is based on axioms like these, it is also objective and concrete. The one thing we can say though is that morality is contextual. If all the life in the universe suddenly were extinguished, then morality would simply not be a factor any more. But that wouldnt make it relative; only contextual.
September 21st, 2005 at at 4:25 pm
I am perplexed by the use of the word “Should” in this context. “Should” is a form of the exitential “to be” in the future tense.
The question, “Why Should…” is in itself a paradox. “Why” begs for reasons for the cause and “should” implies that things will come to be.
In one cohesive statment you cannot logically ask for the reason for existance and also imply that it does not exist already.
“Why should you want to live?” is the same as asking “Why should a metor hit my head tonight as I veg out in front of the TV?”
IF it happened, I could tell you why it happened (it’s trajectory plus my relative sedintary nature coincedentally aligned.)
And if it was foresee and unavoidable, I could tell that it should happen. But I cannot tell you right here and now WHY it SHOULD happen.
Those who use language to confuse and confound justapose those two works as if to imply that we are obligated to answer them. The question sounds like there should can be a logical answer. That has no being on wheather ther is one or not.
Just because we can ask a question does not mean its possible to answer it.
I can’t tell you why I should want to live. All I can tell you is that I do live, and I want to live. I can tell you why I want to live. adb if I keep wanting to live, I SHOULD live, but I can’t tell you why I should want to live.
Ask them back, “Why should God love you?”
September 21st, 2005 at at 4:36 pm
Aaron Says:
I respectfully disagree. Axioms are not relative. The law of identity, and of non-contradiction, and of the exluded middle, are not relative. Existence is not relative. The universe has always existed, and always will exist. The law of identity will always be the same, regardless of the state of the universe, either at the big bang or at the big crunch.
And since morality is based on axioms like these, it is also objective and concrete. The one thing we can say though is that morality is contextual. If all the life in the universe suddenly were extinguished, then morality would simply not be a factor any more. But that wouldnt make it relative; only contextual.
Well, I respectfully disagree…back (?)…or…whatever…
Statement: Axioms are not relative.
Fact: False
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorem
“For any formal theory in which basic arithmetical facts are provable, either the theory is inconsistent or it is possible to construct an arithmetical statement which is true but not provable or refutable in the theory.”
Statement: “The law of identity, and of non-contradiction, and of the exluded middle, are not relative.”
Fact: Sure they are. They are relative to classical logic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_logic
Trouble is, classical logic ain’t the only flavor being offered.
Statement: “The universe has always existed, and always will exist.”
Fact: That statement isn’t supported by the current evidence. The current evidence suggests that the universe did have a beginning.
September 21st, 2005 at at 4:42 pm
[…] day they are talking about my favorite topic, “Morality in the Absence of God.” http://evangelicalatheist.com/2005/09/20/morality-in-the-absence-of-god/ […]
September 21st, 2005 at at 4:45 pm
I would like to retract my post on the ground that it’s too damn confusing.
Uberkuh:
Thank you for sharing that post. I think it’s extremely helpful here. Let’s see how everyone feels about this…
1. The universe is objective in nature.
2. Dictionary.com defines an axiom as “A self-evident principle or one that is accepted as true without proof as the basis for argument.”
3. This definition makes any axiom beyond the existence of existence easily refutable in an objective universe.
4. Since we can’t truly perceive the objective universe, because objectivity can’t be perceived by definition, we have to satisfy ourselves with a thumbnail sketch of objectivity obtained through the consensus of subjective impressions.
5. Since all of the subjective impressions we experience are through other perceiving beings (all of whom are alive and have been programmed by the process of natural selection with the desire to live), we can take the value of life as an axiom for practical purposes.
The conclusion to this would be that while there is no such thing as objective morality, we can accept a practical form of objective morality based on the closest we can get to actually encountering the objective universe.
Does that make any sense at all? I read that over and I’m just appalled at what a pompous ass I sound like.
September 21st, 2005 at at 4:46 pm
Brian Says:
Ask them back, “Why should God love you?”
Or, “Why should I answer this question?”
Or, “Why should it matter?”
Or, “Why ask why?”
Or…
I’d never make it as a philosopher. It’s too fucking annoying and, when it get’s right down to it, impractical.
Now, I think I’ll have a beer, turn my guitar up a notch, turn the CD player up a notch higher, and do my best rendition of “Highway to Hell”.
September 21st, 2005 at at 4:51 pm
Aaron Kinney:
My brain is about to explode!
Bwhahahahahaha! Feeble objectivists bow before the might of our moral skepticism! Soon we shall rule the Universe!
I don’t feel a great need to inject myself, as I Am is covering my viewpoint superbly. Like I Am said, the “dubious axiom” (killer phrase, by the way) is really the whole obstacle for me. I really don’t see that the fact that we must be alive to make value judgments as necessitating that we SHOULD value life, no more than the fact that my parents were necessary for my existence I must axiomatically value them (I’m sure there’s problems with that analogy, but I’m just trying to give you a general drift of my thought.)
Murder is the unlawful killing of a person
And who makes laws? People! (sorry, I couldn’t resist that one)
rmadison says:
There is absolutely no such thing as absolutes, in any part of the known universe. Kind of a weird thing to be certain of, eh?
I’ve heard it expressed in a non-self-contradictory way: “There is only one absolute: that there are no others.”
I’m also enjoying this debate, which is weird, ’cause the first time around it sent me into a philosophical funk. Just remember, even if we don’t come to an agreement, we can still get together to gang up on the theists.
September 21st, 2005 at at 4:52 pm
Aaron:
The universe has always existed, and always will exist.
That’s one hell of a statement. I don’t even know what always means in that context. You can’t see past the big bang through physics-colored lenses, so that’s meaningless.
September 21st, 2005 at at 4:55 pm
Brian, great post, great question.
rmadison, it looks like you know more about logic than I do. So Im not going to address the majority of your post until I read more
But…..
In regards to this statemnt:
Fact: That statement isn’t supported by the current evidence. The current evidence suggests that the universe did have a beginning.
Actually, it is. The universe as we know it had a beginning, but the matter/energy that the universe is composed of, is timeless. It has always existed and always will exist. Most theories involving a universe with a beginning start at a singularity. Singularities of course have mass, density, energy, etc… Think of a black hole. The Big Bang Theory for example starts off with a singularity - a black hole of sorts.
Remember the first law of thermodynamics, sometimes known as the law of conservation of matter/energy: Matter and energy can never be destroyed nor created; they merely change forms.
Even the Hartle-Hawking Wave Function of the Universe theory (one which I am fond of) has a timeless universe, or a timeless blob of matter/energy, that always existed and always will