Re: [asa] Re: (religious memes?)

Heya Dave,

First, I'm not certain that natural goods and evils reduce to what you're
saying so simply. But beyond that, what you're describing sounds like
classical hedonism. As I said, I have no doubt that an atheist can subscribe
to an ethical system - it's just going to be arbitrary. I do not doubt
someone can gain pleasure from feeding the hungry and clothing the naked.
Sadly, I do not doubt someone can gain pleasure by dealing with them in a
wholly other way too.

On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 11:02 PM, dfsiemensjr <dfsiemensjr@juno.com> wrote:

> I think here is a problem here. What seems to be demanded is a
> theoretical defense of morality on atheistic grounds. This perhaps cannot be
> offered, but there is a substitute. If one notices what is listed as natural
> evil,it turns out to be whatever the individual does not like--pain, death
> (especially of the young), etc. Then good is, as an opposite, whatever
> produces pleasure. This can include sharing, helping the helpless, and other
> aspects of philanthropy. Indeed, these matters may be justified as promoting
> the survival of the species.
>
> Of course, abiding by the laws and mores of the group have been noted to be
> the defense of the weak, while the dominant can get away with almost
> anything. Recall that disagreeing with Stalin was a quick trip to the
> cemetery.
> Dave (ASA)
>
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 19:01:08 -0400 Schwarzwald <schwarzwald@gmail.com>
> writes:
>
> I have to admit, I think David has a point here that often goes ignored out
> of what I suspect is well-meaning but misplaced/overdone politeness.
>
> I'd like to know where "atheism" has ever been used to instigate good,
> particularly if we're talking about utterly materialistic/naturalist atheism
> (as opposed to, say, buddhism where naturalism is rejected, various
> spiritual principles and realities are affirmed, but it's 'atheistic' in a
> technical sense). Especially since that strain of atheism far and away
> rejects the idea of objective morality, and 'good' reduces to "What
> society/individuals have subjectively declared to be good" or even "What
> evolutionary contingencies lead us to call "good" at the moment".
>
> I have absolutely zero doubt that a person can proclaim themselves to be an
> atheist, yet engage in acts we would judge as good. Trying to say, however,
> that such "good" flows from naturalism/atheism itself, though, is nearly
> impossible to do without inconsistencies, except in the most superficial
> way. Like saying "hurricanes can be good" because sometimes they knock down
> trees that were a driving hazard.
>
> A self-proclaimed Christian who does evil, even while using religious
> rhetoric, can plausibly be criticized as violating the obvious moral
> teachings of his faith. How can a self-proclaimed atheist/naturalist who
> objects the existence of right and wrong be criticized of violating such? At
> most he can be criticized for violating some ethical system he purported to
> subscribe to that's ultimately arbitrary anyway. But if he digs in his heels
> and insists that there is an objective morality and purpose to the world and
> humanity, he may not have left the realm of atheism necessarily (possibly,
> though), but he's certainly left naturalism behind.
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> Best Weight Loss Program - Click Here!<http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2142/fc/BLSrjpTFoYcfHXcfvURJ71U9yG3TM1uOTv2Yc6kRylFdTDg9n9YnsM422mk/>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Wed Sep 2 23:35:57 2009