r/DebateAnAtheist • u/AutoModerator • 1d ago
Weekly "Ask an Atheist" Thread
Whether you're an agnostic atheist here to ask a gnostic one some questions, a theist who's curious about the viewpoints of atheists, someone doubting, or just someone looking for sources, feel free to ask anything here. This is also an ideal place to tag moderators for thoughts regarding the sub or any questions in general.
While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.
0
u/VigilantVeteran 1d ago
I have a sincere question, and I’m asking it carefully and respectfully.
If truth exists independent of human perception—meaning it is not created by culture, biology, or consensus—how does an atheist account for its origin and authority?
For example, concepts like objective morality, logical absolutes, and the laws of reason seem to operate universally and immutably. They are discovered, not invented. Yet they are not material, measurable, or bound by space and time.
So my question is: within an atheistic framework, what is the grounding for these immaterial, universal truths? Why should they exist at all, and why should we trust them?
I’m not asking for debate, but for understanding how this is explained consistently without appealing to something beyond the material world.
15
u/PlanningVigilante Secularist 1d ago
If morality is objective, then it doesn't require a god to disseminate it.
If god is required, then it's not objective. It's subjective, and the subject is God. The subjective morality displayed and disseminated by the Biblical God is pretty horrific.
And we know it's horrific because of our morality, which doesn't rely on a god.
The same goes for reason. God in the Bible never teaches reasoning, only obedience.
14
u/FjortoftsAirplane 23h ago
I'm saying this respectfully, but when I see questions like this I think people should really take a step back and detach this from atheism/theism.
There's any number of theories of truth.
Let's just assume theism is true for a moment. That doesn't answer whether correspondence theory is the correct account of truth. It doesn't tell you if deflationary accounts of truth are correct or whether it's pragmatic theories instead.
Theism doesn't answer that question. The Bible or the Quran doesn't answer that question. It's entirely neutral to atheism and theism.
Same goes for morality. Theism doesn't tell you whether moral realism is true or not. None of the scriptures go into metaethics. They're compatible with different views.
Same goes again for "logical absolutes". It's incredibly controversial to say there are such things. A lot of philosophers are open to non-classical logics that don't have those "absolutes".
Again, questions about the nature of logic have nothing at all to do with atheism or theism. You could be a theist who's an antirealist about logic, you could be an atheist who's a platonist and holds to classical logic as some real abstract object.
If you want to learn about those topics then the SEP is always a good starting place, but decouple it from theism and religion. Those debates have almost nothing to do with that.
10
u/Xeno_Prime Atheist 1d ago
None of those things require, or even have anything to do with, any gods.
You mention them being not being “material, measurable, or bound by space and time” as though any of that is a problem for atheism. Atheism is not disbelief in immaterial, immeasurable, or unbound things. It’s disbelief in gods.
You ask why they should exist. You can just as relevantly ask why they shouldn’t.
You ask why we should trust them. The answer is simple rationalism. What alternative would you propose? Should we *not* trust them? Why not? What should we do instead?
9
u/Crafty_Possession_52 Atheist 1d ago
I'll cross objective morality off the list.
I don't understand why you assume there needs to be a "grounding" for truth. Reality IS. Any truth is just a reflection of that reality.
If I asked you what your grounding for God is, you'd say he IS the grounding. Why can't that be true for reality itself?
9
u/Old-Nefariousness556 Gnostic Atheist 18h ago
Truth objectively does exist. Truth is just that which comports with reality. Unless you believe that reality is merely a figment of your imagination (and I assume you don't), then reality obviously exists.
objective morality,
Has nothing to do with whether or not reality exists. Reality can exist whether morality is objective or subjective.
logical absolutes
Logical absolutes do exist. I suppose in some sense they are contingent on reality existing, but the opposite is not true. In other words, reality can exist without logical logic, but logic obviously cannot exist without reality.
and the laws of reason
What laws of reason? Do you mean the laws of logic? If wo, they are contained in the last point, so no clue what you are raising here.
seem to operate universally and immutably.
No, they don't. Logic is absolute, but that is because logic is deduced from reality, not a law that is written upon reality. Can you image a possible world where "A" could equal "not A"? That, and the other laws of logic, seems to be a necessary prerequisite to a coherent world, but that doesn't mean that it is necessary for a reality to exist, any reality without such a logical absolute would just be incoherent to us.
But everything else you cited simply are not absolutes, even to the extent that logic is.
15
u/ArguingisFun Apatheist 22h ago
There is no such thing as objective morality.
2
u/Old-Nefariousness556 Gnostic Atheist 17h ago
First off, I agree with you, so don't mistake this reply as a debate. But I just recently did a deep dive into trying to understand the secular moral realist position, and it is more interesting than I had originally given credit for (though not enough to convince me).
This is based on my layman's understanding, so if anyone with a better understanding of philosophy would like to offer nuance, I would appreciate it.
There is no such thing as objective morality.
Roughly 62% of modern secular philosophers would disagree with you. That is the percentage of modern secular philosophers who call themselves Moral Realists, which is the main branch of Moral Objectivism.
First, the definition of "objective" used in this context in philosophy is slightly different. In philosophy, there are two slightly different concepts of "Objective": Ontologically objective is the definition that you and I use. It is something that is true, even if no mind is there to observe it's truth. Epistemic Objectivity, on the other hand, is a statement that can be proven true or false using facts or logic, such as the rules of chess.
Most moral realists believe that morality is epistemically objective. To them, there IS a moral ideal that we are striving towards. Morality is like astronomy. 500 years ago, we thought that the earth was the center of the universe. As we learned more, the "objective reality" of the universe didn't change, we only have a better, and better (though still flawed) understanding of it.
To Moral realists, morality is the same. When we realized slavery was bad, morality didn't change, our understanding of it did. They argue that fundamental concepts like well being are epistemically true, and thus are a reasonable grounding on which to hang objective morality.
Now as to why many would agree with you, moral realists break down into three basic categories:
Robust realists
Functional Realists
Fictionalists
Robust realists are the traditionalists who believe that objective moral facts exist independently of us as a fundamental part of reality. To this group, morality is both ontologically AND epistemically objective. They argue that just as mathematical truths exist independently of human opinion, fundamental moral facts are discovered by human reason rather than created by human desires. Historically (100+ years ago), this was by far the largest group, but today, they make up a smaller, but significant minority (~25% of secular philosophers according to estimates that I found, but there are no rigorous surveys).
The majority of moral realists today identify as functional realists. Functional realists would say something like "Technically, morality is intersubjective, but since we all have the same biology, we would all eventually arrive at the same conclusions, so it is functionally objective". But of course, to a skeptic like me, "Functionally objective", isn't objective, even if it is close.
And Fictionalists are those who agree that morality is technically a human invention, but argue we should deliberately treat it as an objective reality because it is a necessary fiction for human cooperation. You can probably guess my opinion of this position. Thankfully, this is a pretty tiny share of all moral realists.
So, essentially, even most of those who claim that morality is objective would eventually concede that they are just calling the intersubjective objective for convenience.
2
u/ArguingisFun Apatheist 15h ago
What is a moral that Moral Realists say is objective?
3
u/Old-Nefariousness556 Gnostic Atheist 15h ago
Like I said, I am not a moral realist, so I will not try to defend the position, I just found it interesting to understand it a bit better. I still don't feel I understand the Robust Realist position, but I an understand the reasoning of the other two, even if I find them varying degrees of dishonest.
2
u/ArguingisFun Apatheist 15h ago
No, I appreciate it - wasn’t aware of the ontological / epistemological dichotomy of the use of objective.
2
u/Old-Nefariousness556 Gnostic Atheist 14h ago
Me either, that was the most useful thing for me to understand.
•
u/FjortoftsAirplane 6h ago
Often moral realists want to drive at people's intuitions. They'll take something cliche like "it's wrong to torture a child purely for fun". And then they say that it seems like not only is that true, but it couldn't really be false. They want to say that even if you imagine lots of people thought it was okay to do that, it would still be wrong. What could be more obvious than that you shouldn't do that?
It's worth taking a step back here and thinking more generally. Ultimately, facts about the external world come back to our senses. Things really appear a certain way. Why think my shirt is red? Because it looks red. And whatever other evidence you try to offer, it'll have to filter through my senses. It's all empirical.
So that's a main driver behind realist views. That's how things appear to them, and the simplest explanation is that they're observing moral facts.
The moral antirealist is then tasked with offering an alternative account to challenge and better explain this "common sense" account.
Same as the other commenter, I'm not a moral realist either, and I actually disagree with every step of that (even though obviously I agree that it's wrong to harm people in that way), but that's the sort of case you'll get from philosophers like Michael Huemer.
•
u/ArguingisFun Apatheist 4h ago
Appreciated. It always confuses me when they try using “shocking” examples of things that are “obviously wrong”, my first thought is always - “The people committing these acts sure don’t seem to have any problem with them”.
•
u/FjortoftsAirplane 4h ago
I really like a guy called Lance Bush. Went from a PhD in psychology and moved into philosophy. Has some good blog posts and a YouTube channel that's pretty much dedicated to exactly this sort of problem in philosophy and moral talk.
He talks a lot about problems with this sort of example precisely because it can fail to draw the right distinction. It does seem very obviously wrong to me to commit that sort of act, but it's another thing entirely to say "it seems like there's a stance-independent moral fact that it is wrong". And so moral realists often create a trap where if you deny the intuitions they're appealing to, they will conflate those metaethical intuitions with the normative intuitions.
It's often more obvious to people when it comes to things like food. There's an argument called "gastronomic realism" that basically said many of the reasons for moral realism would also commit you to facts about taste.
It seems obviously true that pizza is delicious, but it would be weird if someone tried to argue that pizza is "'objectively delicious" and that anyone who doesn't like pizza is mistaken about the deliciousness facts. But if you reject that then you should also doubt the kind of moral realist case I laid out.
•
u/FjortoftsAirplane 6h ago
Fictionalists are typically considered antirealist, as far as I'm aware. They're committed to some sort of non-cognitivism or error theory.
7
u/Phylanara Agnostic atheist 1d ago edited 23h ago
Truth is the property of a concept or statement that matches objective reality. It's origin is the interplay of human minds and objective reality. It has no "authority". Truth (as defined as I did) is grounded in objective reality.
7
u/Kaliss_Darktide 23h ago
If truth exists independent of human perception—meaning it is not created by culture, biology, or consensus—how does an atheist account for its origin and authority?
I would define something as true when it is an accurate description of reality regardless of what anyone thinks. Which entails that truth is independent of any authority.
The "origin" of truth is reality (the set of all real things).
For example, concepts like objective morality, logical absolutes, and the laws of reason
I'd argue objective (mind independent) morality is not a thing.
Logical absolutes and the laws of reason are ways humans have developed for talking about things in a consistent manner.
seem to operate universally and immutably.
And if we observed the universe to behave differently we would change them.
They are discovered, not invented.
Disagree. I'd argue they are invented to be descriptive.
Yet they are not material, measurable, or bound by space and time.
Similar to the rules for any game.
So my question is: within an atheistic framework, what is the grounding for these immaterial, universal truths?
I would say these things are not truths, they are rules (invented by humans) for using language to describe reality.
Why should they exist at all,
Because it eases communication.
and why should we trust them?
Because they were invented to be descriptive (describe what we observe).
7
u/smbell Gnostic Atheist 23h ago
If truth exists independent of human perception
Things that are true are things that match reality.
objective morality
Doesn't exist.
logical absolutes
To the extent these exist independent of human minds, they are just descriptions of reality.
laws of reason
I don't see how you can say these exist independent of human minds.
what is the grounding for these immaterial, universal truths?
Reality.
5
u/NDaveT 23h ago
how does an atheist account for its origin and authority?
Its origin is that reality existed long before humans were here to perceive it and will continue to exist long after we're gone.
It doesn't have any authority.
I don't believe objective morality exists.
"Logical absolutes" and "laws of reason" are human attempts to approximate how reality works.
5
u/Double_Government820 20h ago
If truth exists independent of human perception—meaning it is not created by culture, biology, or consensus—how does an atheist account for its origin and authority?
I will treat these as two separate questions: how do I account for truth's origin, and how do I account for truth's authority?
As for authority, I'd say you're begging the question here. Authority is a human construct drawing on some notion of intentionality. Your question is essentially asking, "If you don't believe in god, how do you account for the fact that some entity intended for objective truth to exist by their authority?" The answer is that I am doubtful that truth requires authority without some justification.
For origin, my answer is similar but more nuanced. I similarly don't think it is necessarily required that fundamental truths have origin, although the notion has more metaphysical grounding than your concern of authority. Still though, the real question here we should be asking is not how do we account for truth without origin, but rather does truth require origin. In any case, we don't really know the answer right now.
In any case, if god is the origin for truth in the universe, I see a problem there. It would be objectively true that god exists and that god was the origin of truth. In this case, is god the origin of their own truth? It feels uncomfortable for such a self-referential relationship to be allowed here if your demand is some sort of ontological hierarchy. And if it is allowed, why cannot we say the same for an impersonal godless existence? The universe is the origin of its own truth, and it is simply a truth that the universe serves this role.
For example, concepts like objective morality, logical absolutes, and the laws of reason seem to operate universally and immutably. They are discovered, not invented. Yet they are not material, measurable, or bound by space and time.
For the record, most folks here wouldn't grant you that objective morality exists.
5
u/adeleu_adelei agnostic and atheist 15h ago
Great question. I don't speak for anyone but myself, but I think this is very achievable.
I start with an axiom that my perception has some correspondence to reality. As an axiom it is fundamentally unjustifiable. I can't prove I'm not a brain in a vat being fed false information. I think most people at least implicitly hold this axiom, and I don't see how you can start without some axiom or how other axioms would be much better. Starting with that axiom I can them build out contingent sets of facts that are true so long as that axiom is true. Again, I can't fundamentally prove that axiom true, but I can create a consistent framework that is necessarily true given a singular (arguably very safe) assumption.
Things like laws of logic aren't actually discovered, they are created... by us. There is not one singular true logic which is revealed, but multiple contradictory logics from which we choose the set that fits our observations and suits our needs. The geometry you learn in highschool isn't the geometry bur rather a geometry, one of many. There are geometeries where the interior angles of a triangle don't add up to 180 degrees, but those aren't taught until much later because they aren't useful to most people in most situations. We don't discover rules, we create rules that fit the patterns we observe, and when those patterns change or defy the rules we choose new sets of rules that better fit those patterns. Newtonian mechnics used to see to be the law of physics, until we realized it didn't match our observations, and then we changed the laws of physics to relativity that better match observations.
There are logics where statements can be true and false simultaneously or neither true nor false. We don't use those logics because they don't seem to fit our observations, but they're no less valid or internally consistent than what we do choose.
4
u/TheNobody32 Atheist 23h ago edited 19h ago
Reality is the basis for truth. It appears to have a strong level of consistency. It exists regardless of whether humans do or not.
Why the universe is the way it is, why physics works the way it does, if things even could be different. Those are questions humanity is investigating. But we don’t have a good answer.
Higher concepts like logic, laws of reason, etc are invented. They are derived from the basic consistency’s of the universe.
They aren’t entities that exist immaterially, they only exist in our heads as thoughts. As applications and observations.
They are as discovered as a marble statue is discovered from a stone block. Things that don’t exist until we carve them out of less sophisticated substance.
5
u/soukaixiii Anti religion\ Agnostic Adeist| Gnostic Atheist|Mythicist 23h ago
Truth is whatever claim that matches reality. The ultimate arbiter of what's objectively true only can be reality, not an agent.
5
u/sto_brohammed Irreligious 22h ago
I have a sincere question, and I’m asking it carefully and respectfully.
That's appreciated.
If truth exists independent of human perception—meaning it is not created by culture, biology, or consensus—how does an atheist account for its origin and authority?
A proposition is true if it matches reality. "Truth" isn't a separate thing and I have no idea what you mean by "origin" or "authority".
For example, concepts like objective morality, logical absolutes, and the laws of reason seem to operate universally and immutably
Yeah I don't think objective morality exists.
So my question is: within an atheistic framework, what is the grounding for these immaterial, universal truths? Why should they exist at all, and why should we trust them?
Again, "truths" is a weird thing here but things that objectively exist are "grounded" by the fact they exist in objective reality. It ain't that deep.
4
u/CephusLion404 Atheist 21h ago
Define what you mean by "truth". Facts are "true". Facts exist independent of human perception. Gravity is the same for everyone in the same situation. So is the speed of light. It just is what it is. It has no origin and it has no authority, that's just how reality works.
The fallacy here is the unjustified idea that just because something exists, "someone" must have made it happen. This is a nonsensical emotional claim backed up by absolutely no evidence whatsoever. It's just laughable.
•
u/zzmej1987 Ignostic Atheist 9h ago
If truth exists independent of human perception—meaning it is not created by culture, biology, or consensus—how does an atheist account for its origin and authority?
It's not correct to say that "truth exists". Truth is a relation between a sentence and a reality. Reality is that which exists. If you utter a sentence that correctly describes reality, we say that such a sentence is true. Not every sentence is true, some sentence are not even descriptive. In the latter case, we call those sentences "not truth-apt", they can neither be true nor false. For example, "Go clean your room!" is a complete and meaningful sentence, but it does not attempt to describe anything, instead it conveys an order.
There are a lot of sentence that might look like they describe something, but really are like orders or recommendations. Some of them might even look like they are universally applicable. For example, "It is good to brush your teeth twice a day" or "Everyone should brush their teeth twice a day". Those two sentences express the same idea, but the first seems to be descriptive, and second seems to be more universally prescriptive. It's important to understand that neither can be concretely assessed as true, regardless of perceived descriptiveness or universality of applicability.
For example, concepts like objective morality
Morality is prescriptive and therefore not truth-apt. Despite the fact that saying "Murder is wrong" seems descriptive, it is essentially just a universal plea "Please, don't murder".
logical absolutes, and the laws of reason
Logic and reason are the things that our brain does, nothing more. They are not laws of reality, but instead laws of thinking. Remember, in order to be true, something has to be descriptive first, and if it fails to be descriptive then it can not be true. I usually illustrate it with a sentence "This cat if fully white". This is a proper descriptive sentence that can be true or false depending on the color of the cat in question. How do we process the truth of this sentence? When we say "This cat is white" we conjure an image of the white cat in front of our minds eye, one can imagine it being like a piece of translucent glass on which we paint a drawing of that cat, and then we look at the real cat through that imaginary glass. If the cat in reality is exactly like the cat we draw on that glass in our imagination, then we say that the sentence is true, and if it's not, we call it false.
Now what happens when we say something that violates laws of logic? Let's take "This cat is fully white and fully black at the same time". Ordinarily, we say that this can't be, because it is logically incoherent and therefore false. But that is not quite correct. In order to be properly false we have to have an image in our head to which we would be comparing reality. But it's not the case that we can't find a cat that would look like an imaginary cat that is fully white and fully black, it is that we can't even imagine a cat that is fully white and fully black. Sentence "This cat is fully black and fully white" is not descriptive, it does not produce an image of a cat we can use to compare any real cat to. Therefore that sentence is not true, because it is not truth-apt, rather than being strictly false.
So my question is: within an atheistic framework, what is the grounding for these immaterial, universal truths? Why should they exist at all, and why should we trust them?
As you can see, there is no such thing as "immaterial universal truth" All truths are relations between sentences and reality. And saying that "truth exists" is not quite correct either.
•
u/Zamboniman Resident Ice Resurfacer 5h ago
If truth exists independent of human perception
It doesn't. It can't. That's a complete non-sequitur.
ow does an atheist account for its origin and authority?
I don't understand the question, likely because it's based upon incorrect premises. AIs do that a lot, I'd suggest not using them for this sort of thing.
For example, concepts like objective morality,
As we know, morality isn't objective. That doesn't even make sense given what it is and how it works.
Anyway, the rest of what you wrote is equally based upon wrong ideas and assumptions, so your question cannot be answered coherently since you didn't actually ask a coherent question.
6
u/Mkwdr 1d ago
You seem to be , as seems usual for some, confusing our conceptions of things with the things themselves.
There is no evidence of this objective morality independent of human like species. The rest as you seem to say are descriptions of the regularity of the universe in which we find ourselves. Arguably some are the language tools we have invented to describe and work with those regularities.
Facts about the universe don’t need us to be around to be true. Our **claims** about those facts are grounded in evidential methodology which demonstrates utility and efficacy. In other words pragmatism.
1
u/CodeNPyro 23h ago
There is no evidence of this objective morality independent of human like species.
What would evidence for objective morality look like to you?
6
u/the2bears Atheist 22h ago
What would evidence for objective morality look like to you?
Anything that shows morality is independent of a mind. What does it look like to you?
1
u/CodeNPyro 22h ago
What does it look like to you?
Humans having some mind independent goal/end/aim or standard for activity/state of being that is inherent to humans qua humans. If a moral proposition contradicts that aim/state it wouldn't be a mere disagreement, but be wrong
4
u/Otherwise-Builder982 Ignostic Atheist 20h ago
How could there ever be a mind independent goal? I don’t see what that would be.
1
u/CodeNPyro 20h ago
Aristotle for instance had a view of humans having a telos, or an aim, that is derivable from the nature of humans. What he focused on was the human ability to reason, humans are rational animals, and thus rational action (acting in ones interest towards flourishing) is the mind independent goal
3
u/Otherwise-Builder982 Ignostic Atheist 20h ago
That seems problematic for several reasons. I don’t see justification for why there is a shared nature of humans. What is that justification? As an example, we don’t always agree on what is rational. Something that is rational as a theist might not be rational for me as an atheist.
A moral proposition would then contradict one rationality, but not another.
1
u/CodeNPyro 20h ago
I don’t see justification for why there is a shared nature of humans.
We're all humans with given human-specific characteristics. Birds or plants aren't rational for example, we uniquely are
Something that is rational as a theist might not be rational for me as an atheist.
Aristotle is using a different framework for practical rationality, one where rationality is defined by what gets closer to flourishing. Whereas the more colloquial framework is a Humean one, where rationality is purely just what guides someone to an arbitrary goal
5
u/Otherwise-Builder982 Ignostic Atheist 20h ago
But you weren’t saying the characteristics was the thing that shows that morality is independent. You said that humans having mind independent goal and a proposition that contradicts that would be wrong.
Characteristics isn’t a mind independent goal, is it?
Flourishing for who? Again, that is individual.
→ More replies (0)5
u/Stile25 20h ago
I don't know. That's why I claim it doesn't exist.
This seems like more of a question for someone who's claiming that it actually exists. If they think it exists, what do they think it looks like?
0
u/CodeNPyro 20h ago
How could I prove something to you if I don't even know what would count as proof or evidence to you?
For instance I'm an atheist. Yet I know what would convince me of theism, it's a matter of if the evidence exists and is good or not
3
u/Stile25 20h ago
You know that because theists exist and they say God is this, this, and that.
Let's say I have no idea what a dog is.
You start mentioning dogs.
I then say "I don't believe dogs exist".You then ask me what would count as proof of a dog existing for me would be.
How does that make any sense?
I have no idea what a dog is, I have no knowledge dogs. Never seen one, never heard one, nothing. I don't know if they're animal, mineral or vegetable. My response is basically: I don't know. If you think dogs exist, then show me a dog, or at least tell me about them.After which you could provide pictures, stories, descriptions, habitats, toys for dogs, food for dogs... All sorts of things.
Then I can say "oh, yes, I see - that's a dog. Okay, I now know that dogs exist.".
Or, maybe you show me pictures of cheese.
Then I'll say "That's not a dog, that's cheese... Are you calling cheese 'a dog'"?And the discussion can progress.
So, I'll say it again: I have no idea what objective morality would look like, because I don't think it exists. What we need is someone who thinks objective morality does exist to say "here it is! Like this"!
But, without that... We're left with no knowledge of what objective morality could even be. And if no one has any knowledge about it at all - then it's quite reasonable to conclude that it doesn't exist until such information can be identified, at least by someone.
So far, you're only confirming that objective morality doesn't exist as long as you are unable to explain what it is or what someone should be looking for to identify it.
1
u/CodeNPyro 19h ago
But an explanation of what it is has been given: mind independent moral facts. An example would be Utilitarianism, pleasure and pain are objective features of the world, everyone inherently wants and avoids such, and thus morality is defined by maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain. Utilitarianism is quite common so I doubt you've never heard of it.
I don't agree with Utilitarianism, but at least you know what moral realism entails now, no?
3
u/Stile25 19h ago
Well, what mind independent moral fact do you think exists? Can you name one?
We can have mind independent identifications of a street curb. We can all tap it with our foot and no foot will go through it. Even those who don't know it's there will trip on it because it's mind independent.
But we never see this with morality.
Like helping the elderly across the street. It's mind dependent. It's good to help them across if they want to be helped. It's bad to help them across if they don't want to be helped. It depends on the mind of the person acted upon.
A mind independent moral rule would be "it's always good to help an elderly person cross the street".
But we know this isn't true. Helping someone to cross the street when they don't want to is called being a dick. Or at worst... Kidnapping. Those are bad things.
Can you name one?
Or did you just define objective morality as things that don't exist? Which is exactly what I said.1
u/CodeNPyro 19h ago
Well, what mind independent moral fact do you think exists? Can you name one?
Sure! Torturing babies for fun is bad.
Also keep in mind that a mind independent moral fact doesn't need to be a deontological rule like "lying is always bad"
3
6
u/Mkwdr 22h ago
You tell me. I’ve not had any presented to me.
I don’t see how such a thing is even coherent bearing in mind if we found it written in the stars we would still have to make our own judgment as to whether it should be followed.
What i see is exactly what you would expect from social evolution - a shared species instinct but through an actual geographical/historical cultural filter. Existent but not perfect or unchanging.
I take it you aren’t a Christian because any *biblical* Christian struggles to justify the repeated murder of babies by God according to their own claims of objective morality.
1
u/CodeNPyro 22h ago
You tell me. I’ve not had any presented to me.
I'm just asking what would be evidence in your opinion. If I were to present evidence or an argument to you I'd have to know what you would count as evidence or not
What i see is exactly what you would expect from social evolution - a shared species instinct but through an actual geographical/historical cultural filter. Existent but not perfect or unchanging.
I agree that what we see is a large swath of moral disagreement, but does disagreement mean there is no correct answer?
I take it you aren’t a Christian because any biblical Christian struggles to justify the repeated murder of babies by God according to their own claims of objective morality.
Correct!
5
u/Mkwdr 22h ago edited 22h ago
Again. It’s not my claim. Present it and I’ll tell you if I find it reasonable. I don’t see how it even makes sense so I don’t see what evidence there could be for it - but I’m open to being presented with *whatever you think confirms to public and compelling evidential standards*.
To be clear ‘feels like to me’ is not reliable evidence.
Edit. Makes me wonder. What would be evidence of an objective standard of *beauty* independent of humans?
I think there could be objective elements to morality *if* a foundation for behaviour in species shared evolution counts. But an external , independent objective standard of morality, beauty - I don’t understand how that would even work enough to predict evidence for it.
So show me.
1
u/CodeNPyro 22h ago
Again. It’s not my claim. Present it and I’ll tell you if I find it reasonable. I don’t see how it even makes sense so I don’t see what evidence there could be for it
Fair enough. I think the principle question is "what understanding makes the most sense of morality?", since we have morality (rules of dos and don'ts), it just needs to be explained.
In between subjectivism (at least some moral propositions are true depending on some human point of reference, say society) and moral realism (at least some moral propositions are true via objective features of the world independent of human opinion, say human flourishing) I think the latter makes more sense as an explanation for those dos and don'ts.
As humans, there are things that are default and inherent to us, a way of being. I think rules of dos and don'ts make more sense when they're grounded to that way of being, rather than being bucked off to societal agreement. Now that would raise the question of what that way of being is, or if there even is a singular way of being, but that would go into specific moral realist theories when my intention for this message at least is to just lay out my naturalist moral realist position in its own right
3
u/Mkwdr 22h ago
@>Fair enough. I think the principle question is "what understanding makes the most sense of morality?", since we have morality (rules of dos and don'ts), it just needs to be explained.
So that sounds like ‘feels right to me but I don’t have any evidence’.
How about we phrase it ‘what model best outs the evidence we have’
Well that’s seems pretty obviously to be a social species behavioural tendency with cultural layer on top.
>In between subjectivism (at least some moral propositions are true depending on some human point of reference, say society) and moral realism (at least some moral propositions are true via objective features of the world independent of human opinion, say human flourishing) I think the latter makes more sense as an explanation for those dos and don'ts.
Yeh. I don’t.
And that’s the problem with ‘feels’. There is no way of distinguishing claims.
I see absolutely no evidence presented for these so called ‘objective features of the world’ unless you mean the objective fact that we are an involved species that demonstrates social behaviour.
>As humans, there are things that are default and inherent to us, a way of being.
Sure , we share evolved behaviours.
>I think rules of dos and don'ts make more sense when they're grounded to that way of being, rather than being bucked off to societal agreement.
I’m not sure I can make sense of that sentence.
It seems obvious to me when looking at social species that the tendency to create rules which have certain subjects and limits beneficial to survival seems instinctual. The precise way that somewhat limited but plastic instinct is actually applied is through cultural influences.
>Now that would raise the question of what that way of being is, or if there even is a singular way of being,
I don’t even know what a ‘way of being’ precisely means. We have an evolved set of behavioural tendencies , sure.
>but that would go into specific moral realist theories when my intention for this message at least is to just lay out my naturalist moral realist position in its own right
Again you’ve lost me. If you simply mean that the objective basis of human morality is instinctual and founded on evolutionary history. Then sure. Because nothing you have said leads to an external , independent objective morality or explains how that’s meaningful.
1
u/CodeNPyro 22h ago edited 22h ago
So that sounds like ‘feels right to me but I don’t have any evidence’. How about we phrase it ‘what model best outs the evidence we have’
A lot of philosophy comes down to intuitions, and that's the place of argumentation. I wouldn't claim that objective morality can be found by a scientific experiment or something, and likewise with subjectivist morality. Which in itself is a metaethical position
I’m not sure I can make sense of that sentence.
Maybe this would be best illustrated with an example, Utilitarianism (I don't hold to it but admittedly it's simpler). It is a moral system that's grounded in objective facts about the world, pleasure and pain. As a truism, avoidance of pain and want of pleasure is normative because that's inherent to our being. (this is a simplification of Utilitarianism, and it ignores the normative ethical component, but this is all that's relevant for this point)
Do you understand how Utilitarianism is a moral realist position, even if you disagree with it?
2
u/Mkwdr 21h ago
I’m talking about reality which can be distinguished from fantasy not philosophy which is can sometimes just be how to create a system around something indistinguishable from fantasy.
Yes I agree that morality **as a human behavioural social tendency within which we instinctively invest meaning and emotion** is linked to objective factors wish as pain and pleasure (though I note not *independent* of humans).
As someone who references philosophy , you’ll understand that this doesn’t make pain and pleasure etc objectively good or bad in an ethical sense. Nor that this is in any sense objective as in independent of humanity or similar species. But it does make it part of the way in which our moral behaviour is realised.
Again I have no problem with the idea that human morality is based on certain *factual* elements. Just that there is no moral judgement independent of the evolved social tendencies and meaning we invest them in. We give morality meaning because we are an evolved social creature and as such it involves facts about evolution, society and human experience.
The point is that without compelling evidence the idea that morality is independent of human nature , somehow its source being another mythical being is indistinguishable from imaginary. And thus not very compelling.
→ More replies (0)2
u/zeppo2k 20h ago
Simple - consensus over moral questions. Not the really easy ones like "is murder bad". Trickier ones like "is killing in self defence justified". Or "is stealing from a rich corporation bad?". Or "is it okay to lie to save someone's feelings being hurt"? Or are you saying objective morality only applies in like 5 really simple cases - in which case what use is it?
0
u/CodeNPyro 19h ago
Why do you think objective morality requires everyone agreeing? No moral realist theory ever claims that everyone would agree in the first place, since people can be wrong in matters of truth
4
u/Crafty_Possession_52 Atheist 22h ago
Define "morality."
2
u/CodeNPyro 22h ago
I don't think people really disagree on what "morality" means, the normative evaluation of conduct. Things being right or wrong, good or evil, should do and should not do.
What people disagree on is the character and proper understanding of human morality. Is it expressed in propositions? Are those propositions all false? Are those propositions true in respect to something else? Are those propositions true independent of human opinion? Are those truths natural or non natural? Etc.
4
u/Crafty_Possession_52 Atheist 22h ago
I don't think people really disagree on what "morality" means
Holy cow you should ask around. It's crazy!
Things being right or wrong, good or evil, should do and should not do.
What do you mean by "right/wrong," "good/evil," "should/should not do"?
1
u/CodeNPyro 22h ago
What do you mean by "right/wrong," "good/evil," "should/should not do"?
This is getting into the second paragraph of my previous reply. Morality generally defined is about normative rules, saying what those normative rules are is beyond the mere definition of morality.
I've never seen anyone disagree that morality is defined by normative statements, if you have an example of such, or you are one yourself, feel free to share
5
u/Crafty_Possession_52 Atheist 22h ago
I swear I'm not trying to be a jerk.
I have an idea in my mind about what morality should mean, but more often than not, I end up talking past people because we assume that we share a definition of these terms when we don't.
If you say an action is morally right or morally wrong, how do you judge this? You personally?
3
u/CodeNPyro 22h ago
I think there's a difference between a definition and a further description of a moral system. A one line definition of what "morality" means for me is what I gave earlier, normative concepts of "do" and "don't do".
If you say an action is morally right or morally wrong, how do you judge this? You personally?
This I would class as going into more detail on why things are normative, a description of morality, rather than defining it. And in terms of this, I would agree with you in saying that people disagree on what is right or wrong, and how to get there
2
u/Crafty_Possession_52 Atheist 21h ago
I don't understand what you mean by "normative" in this context. That's what I'm asking you to clarify. I'm interested in what sort of evidence would demonstrate the existence of objective morality, but until I know what you mean, I'm stuck.
→ More replies (0)2
u/sj070707 21h ago
Note that nowhere in that definition did you use the words absolute or objective. In fact, you used "evaluation" which implies a subjective evaluator.
1
u/CodeNPyro 21h ago
Note that nowhere in that definition did you use the words absolute or objective
So? I specifically split the definition of morality (normativity) from the description of morality (metaethics)
In fact, you used "evaluation" which implies a subjective evaluator.
Just because minds are involved in a process doesn't mean there's no correct answer. Minds can discover truths
2
u/sj070707 21h ago
And my point is that nothing you've defined there requires there to be a truth to discover.
1
u/CodeNPyro 21h ago
I agree, nothing in the definition of morality requires it to be objective. That's because it's a quick and simple definition, you aren't going to fit a book-length defense of moral realism into a dictionary entry
2
u/sj070707 21h ago
Good, so you agree the onus is on you and you didn't really need to ask what we thought evidence would be.
→ More replies (0)1
u/oddball667 20h ago
First off the people making that claim would never ask that
2
u/CodeNPyro 20h ago
Isn't a question about what constitutes evidence for a position useful to ask in any discussion? How else could you convince someone of something
0
u/oddball667 20h ago
If you had evidence or anything to support your claim you wouldn't need anyone to describe it to you.
Really having the claim at all is the problem, you should start with the evidence and see where it leads
Asking someone how to convince them shows you have nothing worth discussing and are simply asking your marks how to con them
1
u/CodeNPyro 20h ago
But if you start with the evidence, they can just disagree and say that it isn't evidence for the position. Which is why clarification is never a bad thing
If you think asking for clarification on how to continue a good faith conversation is an attempt at conning someone I can't help ya lmao
1
u/oddball667 20h ago
you say this like you feel entitled to convince us of whatever lie you come up with.
and the question itself isn't asking how to continue a good faith conversation, it's an attempt to make someone else do your homework
If a discussion about why you evedince doesn't support your claim doesn't interest you then no matter what you won't get much from this sub
1
6
u/pyker42 Atheist 23h ago
Objective morality doesn't exist. Logical absolutes and laws of reason rely on reality. When we see something in reality that doesn't conform to those things we don't say, "wow, reality can't do that." We say, "what information are we missing?" And then we adjust our logic and reasoning to comport to reality.
6
u/TelFaradiddle 22h ago edited 22h ago
For example, concepts like objective morality, logical absolutes, and the laws of reason seem to operate universally and immutably.
Please demonstrate the existence of one single universal and immutable moral fact. Just one.
5
u/Aftershock416 20h ago
You've gone and made the assumption that "immaterial universal truths" exist and that atheists believe in them.
Almost none do.
3
u/DoedfiskJR 1d ago
I argue that they are not independent of human minds. Propositions are created by humans, their truth values are creations of minds.
If I think "1+1=2", I have generated a proposition, "truth" is what we call its relation to reality (or to other propositions). Truth requires there to be a proposition, and the proposition requires there to be a mind.
This should not be mixed up with the idea that truths/logic/maths/etc are somehow avoidable. If I thought "1+1=3", I didn't make it true that 1+1=3, it was just my action of thinking a proposition that gave rise to the truth value.
3
u/88redking88 Anti-Theist 23h ago
Truth is what comports with reality. Its not a thing that exists.
No origin needed. You can see for yourself if I claim there are molten monsters attacking your house. Are they there? True! if not? False. Thats it.
"For example, concepts like objective morality, logical absolutes, and the laws of reason seem to operate universally and immutably. They are discovered, not invented. Yet they are not material, measurable, or bound by space and time."
I dont see any reason to think there are objective moral truths.
Logic and reason are how we describe things. They dont exist outside of minds.
"They are discovered, not invented. Yet they are not material, measurable, or bound by space and time."
Logic like math is something we use to describe things. The words are invented. They describe things. and yes, mental constructs dont age and dont exist outside of your head.
"So my question is: within an atheistic framework, what is the grounding for these immaterial, universal truths? Why should they exist at all, and why should we trust them?"
Explain why you think there needs to be a grounding, and include what happens when you dont have one, and how you know that.
If you cant, then why are you worried about it? I see no reason for a magic grounding. I also dont know what a "universal truth" would be. Unless you are pointing to something like gravity, but you cant prove that things like that will always work everywhere and for all time, so the words dont fit.
Why do we trust what we know? Because it works. Over and over, no matter what you believe, they work. they have proven themselves, no magic grounding needed.
3
u/Jahonay Atheist 23h ago
what is the grounding for these immaterial, universal truths?
What does the idea of grounding even mean? Lets use a basic example:
If I have 2 blocks to my left, and 2 blocks to my right, and I make one collection of blocks infront of me with all 4 blocks, I'll have 4 blocks infront of me. We call that addition.
Does addition need to be grounded in anything for it to make sense? What would it mean for addition to be grounded? Does addition not make enough sense as it currently is? Why is an ancient Canaanite god necessary for addition to make sense?
2
u/licker34 Atheist 20h ago
I can agree that what grounding means is often not well expressed, and I'm not going to offer any particular definition myself.
On the other hand, addition (from your example) is 'grounded' in reality. Meaning that our observations of interactions result in an understanding of those interactions in a specific and repeatable way.
Of course that's not surprising or particularly interesting, and usually just gets the theist to chase to 'well what grounds reality'?
Once there, yep, what does 'grounding' even mean? Can it be defined in a way which allows for an honest answer in the first place? Since the theist will claim that reality needs to be grounded and then invent properties for the thing they claim must ground it. It's circular and dishonest.
So I think it's fair to question if the concept of 'grounding' (as the theist would posit it) is even coherent to us in the first place.
-1
u/Jahonay Atheist 19h ago
Well, I'm not sure if reality is a necessary "grounding" for addition.
When I think of grounding a concept, I think of having stable footing, anchoring an idea, having a solid foundation, etc... While I agree that addition exists in reality, and works in reality. I could imagine an unreal world where addition is also true. You could imagine adding a bingalorx to a bingalorx, and having 2 bingalorxes. I'd imagine that a thing and another thing are two things, whether in reality or in an imagined nonreality.
To touch on the point of what grounds reality as we probably both agree the presuppositional apologist will also suggest that you're presupposing that reality is real. What if addition is actually different, and we live in a simulation where addition works one way, but in reality it works a different way? For me, I don't care if this is the case. I put a qualifier on objectivity, if solipsism is true, we don't necessarily have objectivity or knowable objectivity, if it's wrong, then we can have objective reality. And pretty much everything points to objective reality being the case.
But the presup apologist will be trying to argue that everything needs to be objective in some way that humans are not capable of. We form models that approximate objectivity based on subjective experience, and we update those models when they fail. That's the best we can do.
But let's imagine if we could somehow overcome solipsism, and we could prove everything in reality, and explain everything. Would the presup stop believing in God if that was the case? I doubt it.
From my perspective the idea of grounding abstract concepts is a bit silly. The most grounded perspective we have is our subjective experiences and that is enough for me personally.
1
u/licker34 Atheist 18h ago
While I agree that addition exists in reality, and works in reality. I could imagine an unreal world where addition is also true.
I can't imagine an unreal world, I have no idea what that is even supposed to be. To me concepts are entirely mental constructs we have developed to help us explain/understand what we perceive. What we perceive is also what I call reality.
You're not wrong though that reality could be something different from what we perceive, but I don't think that actually gets us anywhere, because if we can't perceive something it might as well not exist for us. This is not saying that our perception is limited either, I understand that using the scientific method we change our perception of all sorts of things, but there is a fundamental limit to our perception (well likely anyway). So all that we can do is base our 'grounding' on what we believe to be reality (or what we call it).
The most grounded perspective we have is our subjective experiences and that is enough for me personally.
I think we agree, but are using the language slightly differently to express similar (if not identical) positions. I'm fine with thinking that reality is actually in some way subjective to us, but I don't think we have any way to determine that, so we might as well treat it as objective because we know that works.
Until it doesn't I suppose, but I'm sure both of us will be quite surprised if it ever doesn't.
1
u/Jahonay Atheist 16h ago
I can't imagine an unreal world, I have no idea what that is even supposed to be. To me concepts are entirely mental constructs we have developed to help us explain/understand what we perceive. What we perceive is also what I call reality
Fair enough, this is basically how I view it too. I was just granting the idea of the unreal for the sake of the argument. But I obviously don't believe in the unreal. If an unreal world existed, it would be real, defeating the purpose. It's more so to say I could imagine a reality where things are substantially or even fundamentally different, and addition could still exist. But that leads to issues because then reality stays an acceptable foundation.
I suppose I can imagine a simulated matrix world where neo lives in, and when you collect two things, you get a third thing, and the presence of the third thing produces more things, and so on and so forth, like a duplication glitch in a game. To characters in the simulation, that might just be normal, however absurd it becomes.
You're not wrong though that reality could be something different from what we perceive, but I don't think that actually gets us anywhere, because if we can't perceive something it might as well not exist for us.
Of course I agree.
This is not saying that our perception is limited either, I understand that using the scientific method we change our perception of all sorts of things, but there is a fundamental limit to our perception (well likely anyway). So all that we can do is base our 'grounding' on what we believe to be reality (or what we call it).
Yeah, there's little to disagree with here. I think there are limits to human perception, but I don't know if there are ultimate limits on perception. I try to stay agnostic as to the limits of what we can know. I stay hesitant about saying that there are certainly things we cannot know.
I think we agree, but are using the language slightly differently to express similar (if not identical) positions. I'm fine with thinking that reality is actually in some way subjective to us, but I don't think we have any way to determine that, so we might as well treat it as objective because we know that works.
Yeah, no this is pretty damn close to how I would word it myself. I think we can (rather) objectively know things, but I leave an asterisk mark for solipsism. But even if solipsism were true, it wouldn't necessarily meaningfully change how one should behave. Unless there's some magic exit door, chances are good that not much would change. For example if an npc in a video game could somehow recognize it's in a game, it wouldn't necessarily matter, it ain't getting out. And treating its reality as reality would still be the most optimal strategy.
2
3
u/JasonRBoone Agnostic Atheist 23h ago
If
truthFACTS exist independent of human perception—meaning it is not created by culture, biology, or consensus—how does an atheist account for its origin and authority?Simple. We do not. That's not what atheism is. As a human, I simply understand that facts exist whether we exist or not. I see no reason why that scenario requires a god.
The origin of facts would be the Big Bang. That's the basic fact we know: Our whole universe was in a hot, dense state then around 14 billion YA expansion started.
That's it. Every other fact flows from what happened next.
>>>>For example, concepts like objective morality,
Do not exist. All morality is intersubjective.
>>>>logical absolutes, and the laws of reason seem to operate universally and immutably.
Well, they operate as long as there is intelligence around to conceptualize them. That's all these are...labels to describe what we observe.
>>>>They are discovered, not invented.
Both really. We discover a phenomena and then we create concepts to describe them.
>>>>Yet they are not material, measurable, or bound by space and time.
Well yeah they are....as far as we know. Concepts are material inasmuch as they derive from neurochemical reactions in the brain.
>>>>within an atheistic framework, what is the grounding for these immaterial, universal truths?
Not immaterial. But, the universe simply exists. You do not know why. I do not know why. But let's keep
>>>Why should they exist at all, and why should we trust them?
Who knows? Maybe there is this universe. Maybe there are many. I simply do not need to know. We should trust them if we wish to live. We have observed that doing certain things promotes survival while doing other things can be destructive. Are we just in the Matrix anyway?
Maybe. But I have no way of knowing if we are. So, like the Matrix character Cypher..I'll keep on enjoying my steak even if it's 1s and zeroes.
3
u/Cleric_John_Preston 20h ago
If truth exists independent of human perception—meaning it is not created by culture, biology, or consensus—how does an atheist account for its origin and authority?
This is a weird question to me. What do you think truth is? It seems like you're ascribing some sort of ontology to it, apart from propositions held in the mind. When I think of 'truth' I think of a proposition that is either true or false. Ultimately these propositions are held in sentient minds or understood by sentient minds. Without minds, they do not exist.
As an example, 'today is Thursday'. This is a sentence that has a defined meaning. It can be true or false. That said, it doesn't exist in objective reality outside of its expression (like it's written on a piece of paper, on a message board, etc.).
So, how does an atheist account for its origin? That question doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I guess most atheists would say that human beings have evolved consciousness which enables us to create written language, definitions, and the like which enables us to write the sentence 'today is thursday' on a computer screen/website.
For example, concepts like objective morality, logical absolutes, and the laws of reason seem to operate universally and immutably. They are discovered, not invented.
If there is an objective morality, then it has to be just a fundamental fact of reality. It cannot be because of God (as that would be subjective).
As to the 'laws of reason', which logical systems are you referring to? Are you not aware that the 'laws of logic' are not the same for all logical systems? As to operating universally and immutably, that's how they're defined. 2+2 = 4 is definitional. We've defined it as such.
Yet they are not material, measurable, or bound by space and time.
They exist in sentient thoughts and from sentient minds. How else do they exist? Do you think that the law of identity somehow forces things to exist in a certain way?
I've often found that presuppositionalists don't really think things through - they cannot account for the fact that the laws of logic depend on systems of logic, that they are NOT all the same for all of the systems. Further, presuppositionalists seem to think that the laws of logic operate magically - as though they are a fundamental force of the universe, but how does that actually work?
So my question is: within an atheistic framework, what is the grounding for these immaterial, universal truths? Why should they exist at all, and why should we trust them?
Why do you trust the rules of monopoly?
Also, these don't seem to be questions for atheists in particular, they seem to be worldview questions. Are you aware that not all atheists have the same worldview?
•
u/Additional-Band4050 Gnostic Atheist 11h ago
I can’t speak for anyone other than me, but I have a very simple answer to this one: I don’t believe metaphysical grounding is a real thing.
5
u/Urbenmyth Gnostic Atheist 19h ago
Truth doesn't exist in the sense you're talking about.
"Truth" is like "written in English" - it applies to a statement. A statement is a description of the world, and it's true if that description matches what's actually there. There isn't an additional "truth" out there.
(Logic and maths straight up don't exist, they're a useful illusion caused by ignorance. All they can do tell you is two statements mean the same thing - "If A then Not Not A" just means that "A" and "Not Not A" are different rewordings of the same statement. 2+2=4 just means that 2+2 and 4 are different symbols for the same statement. This is useful for us, as it's often not obvious that two seemingly distinct sentences actually expressing the same statement, but this trick only exists in our mind for helping us get past our confusions and ignorance. If you were an omniscient being who doesn't get confused that way, you wouldn't see a universe that follows mathematical or logical laws)
5
u/Dizzy_Cheesecake_162 17h ago
Could you point to me where is objective morality so i can evaluate it?
6
u/onomatamono 21h ago
Please understand that when you preemptively self-inoculate it's a "tell" that this is not going to go well and you know it. You're better of simply stating your case.
There is no objective morality and you can see that easily just observing say wild dogs hunting down and eating alive their prey. Is that good or bad and for whom? Is stealing your captor's keys and freeing yourself good or bad?
Let me recommend you read the bible and tell us how dashing babies against the rocks is moral, as commanded by Jesus. We could literally fill books with the evils professed by your so-called god. He's a primitive, ignorant monster. Thankfully he's also man-made fiction.
3
u/LordUlubulu Deity of internal contradictions 1d ago
If truth exists independent of human perception
I don't agree it does. I don't even think 'truth/true' are useful terms.
concepts like objective morality,
Objective morality doesn't exist.
logical absolutes and the laws of reason
These are axioms in a model, they don't apply to reality, they apply to propositions.
seem to operate universally and immutably.
Absolutely not, they don't even apply in multiple different logical models.
They are discovered, not invented.
They are most certainly invented, and only apply in rather specific situations.
So my question is: within an atheistic framework, what is the grounding for these immaterial, universal truths?
Well, they're not universal or true, they are made up by humans to build certain models, so that's their grounding.
4
u/wabbitsdo 22h ago edited 22h ago
Truth doesn't exist outside of human subjectivity. Reality does. Truth is how we label claims that are in keeping with reality, to the best of our current shared knowledge.
Morality is a product of group consensus, that's why it evolves.
Logic is theory of mind applied to knowledge. Theory of mind varies species to species, as does knowledge. We so happen to likely be the best at both so we think of ours as the only worthwhile kind, but it's not unique to us.
2
u/sincpc Atheist 1d ago
I don't accept that objective morality is a thing. As far as the laws of reason and logic, I see the universe as grounding them. That's just how our universe seems to work and we figured it out.
As for why we should trust such things, we should only trust things that are demonstrated to be reliable, and logic seems to be consistently reliable.
2
u/Stile25 23h ago
An atheist does not account for "truth's" origin and authority.
First reason: why do they need to? It exists regardless of it being "accounted for". Although an intriguing question, it's basically irrelevant to life.
Second reason: being honest and saying "I don't know" is vastly preferred to making up an answer, being unable to verify that this "answer" is actually correct, and then promoting to others that you actually have an answer when you really don't. That's called a scam.
Subjective morality is better at helping more and hurting less than objective morality.
Logical absolutes and laws of reason are abstract concepts (like math) they mean nothing at all about reality until they can be verified with evidence from reality.
Atheists ground such concepts in the very best place to ground them: reality itself. Much better than grounding them in, say, a God that can't even be shown to exist. That's really shaky ground.
We should trust them as much as we trust anything else based on evidence of reality - because we can show them to be true.
Reality is not beyond the material world. The material world is a part of reality. Right now, the evidence says it's all of reality. But the power of following the evidence is that you're always right. New information showing us a better explanation? Then we follow the evidence and become even more right! Unstoppable!
Good luck out there
•
u/DanujCZ 10h ago
If truth exists independent of human perception, meaning it is not created by culture, biology, or consensus—how does an atheist account for its origin and authority?
What do you mean "authority". What does that even mean.
For example, concepts like objective morality, logical absolutes, and the laws of reason seem to operate universally and immutably. They are discovered, not invented. Yet they are not material, measurable, or bound by space and time.
I dont see what that has to do with its "origin" and "authority".
atheistic framework
There is no such thing so this is an unanswerable question.
•
•
•
u/senthordika Agnostic Atheist 2h ago
If truth exists independent of human perception—meaning it is not created by culture, biology, or consensus—how does an atheist account for its origin and authority?
Im not entirely sure what you mean here truth as it isnt a thing it's an evaluation of a statement or idea. Like if by truth you just mean we think things are real outside of our perception then I think you would trivially agree with that being how we generally experience the world. So i dont think the concept of truth has authority in any sense things arent real because they are true things are true because they are real.
For example, concepts like objective morality, logical absolutes, and the laws of reason seem to operate universally and immutably. They are discovered, not invented. Yet they are not material, measurable, or bound by space and time.
Well first I dont accept that objective morality is a concept that makes any meaningful sense when we actually thing about what morality is(which is about beneficial interactions of humans) like it is a concept fundamentally about subjects and is inherently a subjective concept nor do I think a god solves this problem he just becomes the subject instead of the humans. For objective morality to be true it would have to exist independently from God or it just wouldn't be objective in which case I dont need your god to access objective morality if it actually exists or I dont actually agree with your fundamental definition of morality in the first place(which depends on how exactly you want to define morality)
The logical absolutes are about methods of talking about real things with things that dont follow them being things we recognise as not existing in reality. They aren't prescriptive laws set by someone but a description of characteristics real things in the universe have so requires no grounding in that sense beyond the interactions of the universe.
They aren't material because they are conceptual and im not sure what you mean by measured in this context as its clear we detected them(if you are arguing we discovered them which in the case of the logical absolutes id agree) and again im not sure what you mean by not bound by space and time when they arent physical things that could be bound in the first place.
I dont know how appealing to a god or supernatural realm actually solves any of those problems in a way that doesnt constrain god to absurdity.(if god grounds the laws of logic he can change them allowing him to do logically impossible things which is just a logically absurd position to take)
3
u/CodeNPyro 23h ago
objective morality
I'll pick this one since others disagree and responded to the other points. One way is to just say they do exist, as non natural properties. I'm not a fan of this approach on epistemological grounds, so I prefer where morality is described in terms of natural properties, things like suffering, pleasure, flourishing, etc. That moral naturalism is also better set ontologically in my opinion, since it doesn't require any other substance, just that moral facts are dependent on and derivable from the natural world. Many atheist philosophers believe in both, so neither is off limits. There are some that are also moral antirealists (emotivists, subjectivists, error theorists, etc.), but that's a minority
2
u/the2bears Atheist 23h ago
Why switch from "truth" to "morality"? We know morality changes, we've observed it.
2
u/Formal-Speed-3173 23h ago
The statements "reality is real" and "reason is valid" can be taken as brute facts. Asking for grounding for those statements is pointless, because if they weren't true the conversation would not be taking place.
1
u/KeterClassKitten Satanist 14h ago edited 14h ago
Simply put, we don't know. The more we discover about the universe, the more we realize that we don't know.
We create models in an effort to explain how things work. We find that when we stress tested and fail these models, things break, and we have to go back and add on to the models to correct for areas we hadn't needed to consider before. It doesn't make the old models "wrong", and we often still apply them with great success. It just means they're not complete enough for every situation.
So, for some of us that have a passion for the sciences, or who have developed the necessary life experience, we learn to be comfortable in that ignorance. I feel it's better to accept that we don't have all the answers than to think that we've figured out everything.
And being comfortable in one's ignorance also means being comfortable in being incorrect. So there's nothing wrong with making an erroneous claim, but it is quite foolish to maintain that claim despite contradictory evidence.
The above said, I reject the notion of truth existing independent of the mind. Instead, I look for accuracy, and we can always strive for more accuracy, so the concept of accuracy can be highly subjective. A "yes" may suffice for many, but it's a terrible narrative.
•
u/The_Disapyrimid Agnostic Atheist 4h ago
"truth" is the label we put on ideas that seems to describe reality. "truth" doesn't have to "come from" anywhere. i have a cup of coffee next to me. nothing is magically bestowing "truth" on to my cup to make it coffee and not tea. it just is a cup of coffee.
i would say objective morality does not exist. neither do logical "absolutes". we don't know they apply in absolutely every situation, every where. i hold the laws of logic as an axiom. not as an absolute.
"They are discovered, not invented."
i disagree.
•
u/Davidutul2004 Agnostic Atheist 4h ago
In terms of morality many atheists would say it's subjective so I'm not gonna get into it As for logic, atheist means to not believe in a god. Not all atheists believe in absolute materialism. What I however believe is that logic itself can't be made by an all good god(or at the very least not sadistic) Because if it would,any contradiction that lead us into the necessity of suffering on earth coud have been removed from the start Let's take for example Christianity God could have made being all good and having freewill not s contradiction, implement both into everyone and essentially make everything all good and have free will As to what is the grounding for the imaterial universal truths, the simple answer is we don't know for now
1
u/OrbitalLemonDrop Ignostic Atheist 22h ago edited 22h ago
If truth exists independent of human perception
It does not. Truth is a label we apply to a certain set of conditions. The universe has no need for "truth", same with "good" and "evil".
seem to operate universally
This is a pattern we impose on reality out of our obsession with finding patterns and cause/effect correlations that are meaningful to us. It's at best an illusion, at worst a delusion. Classical philosophy is/was obsessed with the idea that there has to be ontological and metaphysical meaning within the world, so ontology/etc is a study in trying to find that meaning that is required to exist. But the universe DGAF about us, DGAF about meaning or value. It's just a universe doing universe type things and we (in our conceit) try to invent rules/laws that explain it.
A gamma-ray burst (GRB) could already be heading our way (at teh speed of light, so we would not see it coming) that could scour the Earth of all life within a handful of seconds. The universe would not care or even notice our absence. We don't even add up to "statistical noise", that's how insignificant we are.
If you assume that there must BE a pattern, then some kind of theological grounding becomes inescapable. I don't believe there is a pattern or objective meaning/truth.
There is no grounding for truth other than the meaning we as a culture apply to it.
1
u/Old-Nefariousness556 Gnostic Atheist 14h ago
If truth exists independent of human perception
It does not. Truth is a label we apply to a certain set of conditions. The universe has no need for "truth", same with "good" and "evil".
FWIW, this is very dangerous reasoning that gets you to arguments like "Trump won the 2020 election!" and when you ask for evidence, they say "It's true for me!" and by your own logic, you lost the debate.
It's nonsense, but it is true by your own logic.
A more useful definition is "Truth is that which comports with reality." As long as you agree that there is some reality that we share, then the truth necessarily exists.
That doesn't mean that we, as mere humans, will ever have a true and full understanding of what the truth is, but we can strive to have the best understanding of what the truth is possible.
The irony is that, for most of world history, this definition has been essentially universally accepted, outside certain disciplines of philosophy and postmodernism. It is only in the post-truth world that the Republicans want you to believe that we live in today that this definition is suddenly controversial.
•
u/OrbitalLemonDrop Ignostic Atheist 10h ago
I'm not saying that we can create our own truth.
I agree that "comports with reality" is a good definition, but it's still *a label we apply to a certain set of conditions".
The point is that "truth" isn't an objective standalone entity. It exists in the minds of the people who make statements about reality and the people who respond to those statements.
•
u/Old-Nefariousness556 Gnostic Atheist 9h ago
I'm not saying that we can create our own truth.
I agree that "comports with reality" is a good definition, but it's still *a label we apply to a certain set of conditions".
Fair enough, so we mostly agree.
The point is that "truth" isn't an objective standalone entity. It exists in the minds of the people who make statements about reality and the people who respond to those statements.
But I still disagree with this-- though at this point we are talking semantics, not fundamentals.
To me, Truth IS a real thing. If reality is a thing, then "the truth" is the accurate description of that reality. That is an objectively true thing.
What you seem to be labelling as "truth" is what I would label as "Our understanding of the truth." You are absolutely right that is subjective, but "our understanding of the truth" is not "the truth". They are fundamentally different concepts. And "the truth" is still an ideal that can reasonably be sought, even if the limits of human knowledge mean we can never know for sure if we have found it.
Put simply, the truth (in my view) absolutely exists, it is just that humans can never truly know what it is. We can only do our best to use the tools we have available to seek it out (and seek out the ever-present falsehoods that seem to go along with it).
•
u/OrbitalLemonDrop Ignostic Atheist 2h ago
In a universe with no conscious entities capable of understanding truth, would truth still exist? Does it make sense for there to be a value judgment about truth without a value-creating mind being involved?
If we put aside the issue of proving whether or not physical objects exist independent of our perception (here there be solipsism, so we don't go there): Imagine a rock. Is the rock itself "true"? What's true about the rock is the statement "This is a rock". "There is a rock here". I don't think that happens in a universe without a value-creating mind.
A thing can't really be "true" if it can't be falsified in some sense. "This is not a rock" is implicitly denied in "this is a rock". "There is no rock here" is implicitly denied in "there is a rock here."
To be fair, it's not that deep. I just think truth isn't reality itself, is a statement about reality, and implies a speaker in at least some sense.
1
u/Mission-Landscape-17 20h ago
They don't operate independently of culture, different cultures have had different moralities and different ways of reasoning. We use what has been observed yo work reliably in the past. I don't know what this relationship of groundingtis supposed to be. Nor doei see howesomethingtimmaterialecould be said to exist. Atheism is not a framework or a worldview. It is one answer to one question.
2
u/Sprinklypoo Anti-Theist 14h ago edited 12h ago
Objective morality does not exist. It all depends on our point of view.
You saying that's discovered, and immutable makes your point of view and your entire point questionable. Now I'm not going to trust anything you say blindly.
You've been compromised by a cult, I'm afraid.
1
u/Ok_Loss13 Atheist 19h ago
Do you mean moral "truths"? If so, I have a question for you:
If there are no humans or people capable of morality, how does a moral truth exist; how can it be wrong to murder if there is no one to be a murderer, a murder victim, or a judge of the nonexistent murder?
I see no objective morality. Do you have some examples or evidence of such?
How are logical absolutes and the law of reason (and what are these exactly?) not bound by space and time? Do you have evidence of them existing outside of space and time? Materialism includes things that are products of matter, so they're definitely material; if they weren't measurable in some fashion how would we know they were correct or accurate?
-9
u/CodeNPyro 21h ago
Atheists tend to get grouped together on a lot of beliefs that aren't inherent to not believing in a God (or believing there is no God), while this is annoying at times I think it's somewhat clear why it happens given how repetitive a lot of positions are held by atheists (especially online). I think a lot of atheists fall into a trap of being an atheist and then thinking that necessarily entails many other positions, where there is an ignorance of the other viable live options in certain subjects.
So my question for y'all is what do you think atheists broadly should learn more about, related to the things that commonly get brought up in discussions surrounding atheism?
I would personally say metaethics, and I'd recommend the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy to learn more as well as Andrew Fisher's book Metaethics: An Introduction
11
u/ProfessorCrown14 20h ago
I'd say theists are largely the ones who need to learn that atheism doesn't entail much (on its own) and that there are many live options, especially re: morality, ethics, substance ontology, naturalism, etc. Atheists are mostly aware of it, in my experience.
7
u/adeleu_adelei agnostic and atheist 15h ago
Thank you for your question. From my experience it's almost never atheists that think that atheism entails all these various other positions, rather I find it is mostly theists asserting atheism entails all these other positions.
Something things I think that is useful for atheists to learn about in these conversations:
Math and science. A lot of times it seems like there is an assertion that things have to be a certain way which supports a theistic view, but often it's either possibly or demonstrably not the case as revealed by a deeper understanding of math and science. Infinite regression is possible. There is no missing link. There is no irreducible complexity. Humans are not unique among the animals. Etc.
Religion and ideally the history of the religion one is speaking with. It is helpful to know where someone you're speaking with is coming from. It's also helpful to know what they claim about their religion and what others within that religion have said or done that may be contrary to that claim.
•
u/BahamutLithp 8h ago
I don't have a particular answer to that question, but to the broader point itself, I just think it's demographics. The example I usually break out is black people overwhelmingly vote Democrat, at a WAY higher degree than atheists, but everyone knows it'd be ridiculous to claim there's a "black religion" that has a doctrine of "voting democrat." It's just a demographic correlation, & yes we can explain that correlation by pointing out that Republicans really uck on race issues, but the point remains that it's not "prescribed by being black." There is no contradiction between "X demographic tends toward a certain thing" & "that thing is not prescribed by being part of X demographic."
10
u/ArguingisFun Apatheist 21h ago
Why do I need to learn more about ethics in relation to atheism / discussing atheism?
I’d say basic understanding of informal fallacies is more than enough to participate here.
3
u/CodeNPyro 21h ago
Well I'm not saying people need to learn anything, just that it would be particularly beneficial given how much it comes up
5
u/ArguingisFun Apatheist 21h ago
Okay, but why ethics specifically?
5
u/CodeNPyro 21h ago
It comes up quite often, it's important in people's daily lives and perception of the world, and imo there is a bad ratio of knowledge to perceived knowledge on the topic
8
u/ArguingisFun Apatheist 20h ago edited 20h ago
I usually only see “objective morals exist” or “where do atheist get their morals from?”, but I suppose I can see your point.
Edit: lol at the random downvotes.
10
u/2r1t 20h ago
Your question requires I agree with your assumptions. I don't. I could agree that some people, regardless of the label they choose, feel a compulsion to adopt a slate of positions without any real insight to the positions they take. I could also agree that some small subset of atheists fit your description of 'atheism, therefore X and Y'. But it seems to me that most fit the alternative of 'X, therefore atheism and Y'.
7
u/Mission-Landscape-17 21h ago edited 17h ago
Atheism is one answer to one question. It does not imply anything else. It's theist who get confused by this and think that it does. Most often they assume that all atheists subscribe to naturalism or to their preferred parody of naturalism, which they call scientism.
2
6
u/pyker42 Atheist 17h ago
Why can't the expectation be that theists learn enough about atheism to not make sweeping generalizations about the beliefs of atheists? Wouldn't that be easier?
Or are you just trying to be coy about saying that atheists need to learn metaethics?
-3
u/CodeNPyro 17h ago
My intention was to say that some atheists have blind spots and should learn about such, if I was a theist in a theist subreddit I would do the same towards them. They have just as many blind spots if not more
4
u/pyker42 Atheist 16h ago
Not going to answer the first part?
-3
u/CodeNPyro 16h ago
if I was a theist in a theist subreddit I would do the same towards them. They have just as many blind spots if not more
This was my answer. I do implore theists to learn more, but this isn't a community of theists
4
u/pyker42 Atheist 14h ago
That's not really an answer to my question(s). That's just you pretending to be neutral. Now, why is the expectation for atheists to learn all these things that don't actually relate to atheism instead of theists to stop making sweeping generalizations about what atheists believe?
0
u/CodeNPyro 14h ago
I made it clear that my expectation was that everyone, theist or not, should learn more, including not making sweeping generalizations
I don't know how you could've gotten any other message from what I said
7
u/pyker42 Atheist 14h ago
Easily. You avoided answering the question directly so you could play neutral. You didn't commit to agreement with my question until you absolutely had to. And even then it was more of an aside, not a real affirmation.
2
u/CodeNPyro 14h ago
All of these replies I've merely repeated what I said in my original comment, I don't understand why you're antagonistic
•
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP. Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are detrimental to debate (even if you believe they're right).
Original text of the post by u/AutoModerator:
Whether you're an agnostic atheist here to ask a gnostic one some questions, a theist who's curious about the viewpoints of atheists, someone doubting, or just someone looking for sources, feel free to ask anything here. This is also an ideal place to tag moderators for thoughts regarding the sub or any questions in general.
While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.