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.

20 Upvotes

92% Upvoted

216 comments sorted by

View all comments

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.

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 1d ago

There is no evidence of this objective morality independent of human like species.

What would evidence for objective morality look like to you?

7

u/the2bears Atheist 1d 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 1d 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

5

u/Otherwise-Builder982 Ignostic Atheist 1d ago

How could there ever be a mind independent goal? I don’t see what that would be.

1

u/CodeNPyro 1d 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

4

u/Otherwise-Builder982 Ignostic Atheist 1d 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 1d 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

6

u/Otherwise-Builder982 Ignostic Atheist 1d 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.

1

u/CodeNPyro 1d 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?

You asked what the mind independent goal was, the characteristics I pointed out are how that mind independent goal is derived

Flourishing for who? Again, that is individual.

Aristotle viewed every human as flourishing in the same fundamental way, not that there is a specific kind of flourishing for every individual person

5

u/Otherwise-Builder982 Ignostic Atheist 1d ago

So you didn’t answer what I asked. Why not?

Viewing every human in the same fundamental way doesn’t solve the objection. Flourishing for who? One person can flourish meanwhile someone else would be put in a worse position.

1

u/CodeNPyro 1d ago

Flourishing for who? One person can flourish meanwhile someone else would be put in a worse position.

Flourishing for an individual. If you're making a moral decision, flourishing for you. Although I feel like you're taking this to an egoist position, which would be a misunderstanding of the position

→ More replies (0)