Question for an Atheist

[ant]

@Johnson

Sorry, most of my replies are from my IPhone, Johnson.
Your last response caught my eye, particularly for its laser beam honesty

You wrote;

"It is the product of intelligence. My son's value is not universal. But it is objective. It is a real thing. It is the real existence of the subjective value all his friends, relations, pets, and admirers place on him"

Please explain how anyone's (let's speak generally here) "value" could be objective in a cold and indifferent universe where consciousness arose to give the universe subjective meaning.

[johnson1010]

Ant:

Johnson:
"It is the product of intelligence. My son's value is not universal. But it is objective. It is a real thing. It is the real existence of the subjective value all his friends, relations, pets, and admirers place on him"

Please explain how anyone's (let's speak generally here) "value" could be objective in a cold and indifferent universe where consciousness arose to give the universe subjective meaning.

What do I mean by subjective value being objective?

Lets talk about anything someone might value. A loaf of bread for instance.

Bread is not more important to the universe than a lump of granite. An intelligence can value a loaf of bread much more highly than a lump of granite, and this is how the concept of value is introduced into the universe. One person might be very hungry, and another well fed. Both might want the bread, one for immediate consumption, the other to hold onto for later. Both will put different value on the loaf of bread, and this is the subjective part. What is objective is that they both want the bread.

Exactly how they quantify that, the words they use to describe the feeling, how emotional they get about it, whether they might be willing to give it up are all subjective expressions of their mental state. We are left with a fact here however, and that is the objective state of their both wanting the bread. They will respond to the bread with objectively verifiable states of the brain, observable actions such as taking the bread, eating it, preserving it etc.

Now, both of these people put different levels of value on the same object. It is entirely true that their assignment of value is dependent on physical realities. The fact that they need to ingest that kind of material to survive, how recently they have eaten, how much experience they have with bread, and thus whether or not they prefer that kind of food. These realities are all relative and their interpretation is subjective. The value of the bread does not exist independent of some intelligence which can assess that value. There is no inherent value, no universal, or physical law that stipulates that the bread is valuable.

All the same, the lack of there being some over-riding universal value of the bread does not make it worthless. It is objectively valuable to the people even though they express, and experience that fact through a subjective lens.
So what this is saying is that you have to speak of value in relative terms. To certain things other things are valuable and to other things it makes no sense to frame the question in terms of value. When you are talking about a person and you ask “Is your family lovable?”, you have asked an objectively verifiable question which will yield subjective responses from the person you asked. They will say “yes I love them.” Or “They are my family, so I have to love them.” But there is objectively verifiable activity in the brain which is a direct response to that question.

That question can only make sense when posed to something with intelligence capable of making that analysis. You could broadcast that question at the sun, but it makes no sense to do so. The sun is incapable of assessing “lovable”.

So if they say “yes I think they are lovable.” The objective fact is that this person holds a subjective feeling toward their family. They really do value their family. So, is their family REALLY objectively valuable? Yes. This person values them.

This person could be asked a series of questions like, “if you could do something to save a family member but it would result in losing your house, your car, your job and your retirement savings, would you go through with it?” How they answer is a subjective response indicating an objective fact that they value that person.

Many people, unfortunately, are actually faced with the above scenario when a loved one comes down with a terminal disease which costs huge amounts of money to treat. They do lose their houses, cars, savings and even their livelihoods in the pursuit of cures. They sacrifice the other things which they say they value for another thing they value even more, their family member. These are objectively verifiable behaviors which indicate the subjective response they gave does represent the objective fact that they DO value that person.

[ant]

Johnson,

I follow you regarding human beings adding subjective value to any item the universe may contain based on experiential circumstances at a given moment.

However, I believe you can agree that there is no special purpose endowed to human beings at a base level. Our subjectivity which assigns a value to us is illusory (I say again) from a cosmological perspective. An atheistic world view, at it's core, understands human value to be purely subjective.
Therefore, existence itself is valueless from a purely objective evaluation.

That is what you have said, in a nutshell. Through an objective lens, science does not "value" what it observes. It's purpose is to explain the workings of what it has observed. Religion, adds value to life, based on subjective eye wear.

Atheists assign value to life by subjective means, MINUS a religious lens.
Religion assigns value to life through a religious/spiritual lens - also subjective.

Kuhn's "Scientific Revolutions" states that science can not escape subjectivity because the people that do science bring their personal histories, belief systems, bias, experience, etc to science.

When science attempts to devalue religion, it is does so by claiming that science is the only true objectivity that exists, when it actually is a subjective experience.


Science can never quench Man's desire to know why he exists, the purpose for his existence beyond the base desires he wishes to satisfy. Is there more meaning beyond the struggle to survive? The atheist would say "No."

It is a curious thing that creatures are born with desires that are able to be fulfilled. Creatures would not be born with desires that could NOT be fulfilled. Would you say that is a true statement?

A desire for food is satisfied by eating.
I desire for thirst can be met by drinking water.
A desire for sex can be met by having sex.


Neuroscience has suggested that belief is hardwired to the brain.
There are more believers in a Creator than non-believers, on a global scale.
Believers have a deep seated desire to unite with something greater than themselves. It is a loneliness that has a desire to be comforted
It goes beyond the basic need to unite with a human mate.
We can actually say that this desire would not be an innate one unless there exists something to satisfy it. Something that transcends a material satisfaction. For the sake of the argument, let's call it "God."

Now naturally an atheist does not have this desire. He has shed himself of a transcendent desire by a rational and critical world view. Or so at least that's the claim that is made about a deep desire to believe in something he wishes to unite with that is greater than he.

If the psychoanalytical explanation for belief in a protective parent like God (or "Father") stems from wish fulfillment during infancy (the wish to be protected by a powerful parent figure in a cold and indifferent cosmos) then there is an explanation here as to why an atheist would choose to feel indifferent or ambivalent toward any notion of a father figure like "god." It would no doubt stem from his early relationship with his prominent parent figure.

Atheists seem to not want to be bothered by a God. They want to be left alone. They seem more angry than anything else, actually. It is a conflicted relationship they have - one that can not be denied, wish to reconcile, but at the same time remain ambivalent toward.
Atheists are more like angry children than anything else.

A hardcore militant atheist like Sigmund Freud was conflicted in this way. The majority of his publications were not purely scientific. They were largely opinions expressed about the foolishness of religion and his psychoanalytical explanations for its origin.

Freud's daughter was known to have said that if you want to know Freud you need to look at the numerous letters he wrote.
His letters betray his hardline militant stance against the "illusion" of religion. He was highly conflicted about his own desires to believe in a creator.
And ironically enough, Freud had a turmoil infested relationship with his biological father. He wrote in one of his writings that he was actually ashamed of him as a young man. I am NOT saying here that Freud was a closet believer. I am stating what the record shows.

From a scientific perspective, and I believe I've said this before, I'd bet that atheist's rigid, angry rantings against religion, and their thoughts of the existence of a "heavenly father" are based on shame, anger, and a rebellious disposition toward ANY authority figure.

Frued's view was that feelings and attitudes toward authority figures significantly affect his concept and attitude toward god. They determine whether or not his mind remains opened or closed to the possibility of a ultimate creator.
Militant atheists are very closed minded toward the idea of a creator. That is a fair statement.

[johnson1010]

Ant:
However, I believe you can agree that there is no special purpose endowed to human beings at a base level. Our subjectivity which assigns a value to us is illusory (I say again) from a cosmological perspective. An atheistic world view, at it's core, understands human value to be purely subjective.

Therefore, existence itself is valueless from a purely objective evaluation.

I agree there is no special purpose or shall we say Essential purpose endowed to us. It is our own subjective self-interest which assigns value to ourselves, and the things which we are interested in. We, as a part of existence, are assigning value to the things we find interesting. Those things are thereafter of value to US. That doesn’t make them of value to other things, so they remain devoid of any Essential value, but all the same they have thereafter gained special consideration from other objects in the universe (humans) which will attempt to cultivate them in whatever way possible. Gold for instance. We will attempt to care for gold, removing it from burning buildings, thieves take from the tombs of pharos etc. to ensure it stays with us. It is not Essentially more valued, but it is objectively more valued, by subjective intelligence.

That is what you have said, in a nutshell.

So to repeat what I’ve said before, yes the value assigned to gold is subjective, but real world efforts to steward gold are made, and that is an evident fact that it IS more valuable than say dirt. It is sort of an un-natural selection applied to the gold by humans which has real objective ramifications for the gold.

This is the part I am attempting to explain. We both agree, I think, that value is given to things by intelligence (people). But what I am at pains to illuminate here is that our subjective valuing of a thing results in objective behaviors which preferentially preserve the things we value.

Atheists assign value to life by subjective means, MINUS a religious lens.
Religion assigns value to life through a religious/spiritual lens - also subjective.

I agree.

Kuhn's "Scientific Revolutions" states that science can not escape subjectivity because the people that do science bring their personal histories, belief systems, bias, experience, etc to science.

This is true. Scientists have tried to mitigate such bias through peer review, which is the systematic process of testing claims made by scientists by other scientists who do not share the same personal desire for the first scientist to have discovered something important, by people who are often in competition for the same monies and prestige.

Scientists can be as prone to self deception as anyone else. That is why we take pains to never believe things in science based on who said something, but rather how closely what they said matches reality. A good scientific presentation not only provides the evidence which supports the things they are trying to say, but also goes out of the way to introduce any possible flaw they see in their own findings, their processes, and how one might best go about disproving them, to the best of their knowledge.

It isn’t enough, in other words, to simply not lie. As an example saying simply, “this vegetable oil doesn’t soak into food” is not a lie, but it is not the whole story. No vegetable oil soaks into food when used under certain temperatures. But all of them do when you exceed a certain threshold, and that includes the oil that was being defended to start with.

When science attempts to devalue religion, it is does so by claiming that science is the only true objectivity that exists, when it actually is a subjective experience.

I take issue with this. Science has no agenda. It is simply the exploration of the way the world can be demonstrated to work. We who use science use it to find the most accurate description of the world because having a good understanding of reality obviously pays dividends in our ability to anticipate and control our surroundings.

Science works through objective means because that is the referee of the game. When one scientist tells another that THIS happens when you do THIS, it isn’t a matter of having to believe what he said. The second scientist goes and does the experiment and gets the same results, confirming objectively what the first scientist did.

There is no trust needed. No belief. No faith. Nothing is taken on authority. Observing the collision of particles in the LHC is not subjective. It yields facts which must be accounted for.

Religion often gets short shrift from the scientifically minded because it does not rely on objectively verifiable data, but instead REQUIRES faith. For me this is a fundamental disconnect. If you are right about something, then it won’t require that I believe what you said. The facts will bear it out regardless of what I would want to believe.

Science can never quench Man's desire to know why he exists, the purpose for his existence beyond the base desires he wishes to satisfy. Is there more meaning beyond the struggle to survive? The atheist would say "No."

First, “why man exists” is a question that cannot be answered properly with a “here’s why” answer. Why questions are inevitably answered with “how’s”. An example I used on this site before is “Why does it rain?”. “Because plants need water” is a “here’s why” answer which assumes a cart before the horse relationship of plant to water, and also imposes anthropomorphic rational behind natural water activity. The “how” answer to “why does it rain” talks about molecules being heated until they expand into a gas, which is pushed upward by the denser molecules surrounding it until it cools enough to condense back into a liquid which is then pulled to the earth by gravity. In explaining “how” it rains I have much more accurately explained “why” it rains and also given the basics of how one might create a steam engine.

Knowing how answers more than the question you asked to start with.

As to the second part, I am an atheist, and I don’t say “no.” I value many things which are not directly tied to the struggle to survive, and that includes crazy things like black holes, the expansion of space, and any number of other things which I appreciate and value because they are beautiful. It’s absolutely true that I value these things because of what I am, and the environmental circumstances of my life. This value is contingent on intelligence, in other words, but as I say, it is an objective value which can be demonstrated, applied by a subjective mind.

It is a curious thing that creatures are born with desires that are able to be fulfilled. Creatures would not be born with desires that could NOT be fulfilled. Would you say that is a true statement?

No. I also desire to live forever, to fly like superman, and to explore the deepest reaches of space. I have plenty of desires which cannot be satisfied. It is evident you are pushing toward a conclusion here, rather than stating things as they are.

Neuroscience has suggested that belief is hardwired to the brain.
There are more believers in a Creator than non-believers, on a global scale.

This is true. Belief is a handy short cut to having to figure everything out for yourself. We are hard-wired to follow the person with the most authority. That is our parents at a young age, and then those who are perceived to have more experience later. This tendency has been hijacked by religion to a large extent, the way that a moth’s tendency to fly by the light of the moon is hijacked, to dangerous extent, by it’s urge to circle in on camp fires. These are hyper-natural stimuli that our brains are not able to deal with easily. God is the hyper-natural authority figure, chocolate cake is the hyper-natural fruit, cocaine is the hyper-natural endorphin rush.

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_dennett_cu ... funny.html

Now naturally an atheist does not have this desire. He has shed himself of a transcendent desire by a rational and critical world view.

There is nothing fundamentally different about the wiring of an atheist vs. a believer. We also are prone to follow leaders, enjoy chocolate cake, and stare raptly at giant plastic boobs. We are as subject to awe and transcendental moments as the religious, but personally I don’t associate it as any kind of gift from a magical creator. I am blown away by the aurora because it is beautiful. But I don’t see it as god telling me he wants me to do anything in particular. Instead I think about the sun burping ions at our planet, and how amazing it is that our magnetic sphere protects us from that harmful radiation. That curtain of green brilliance would have been radioactive death had it not been for the earth’s iron core. That blows my mind, and gives me the equivalent of the religious god-smack.

Atheists seem to not want to be bothered by a God. They want to be left alone. They seem more angry than anything else, actually. …
Atheists are more like angry children than anything else.

I don’t have any daddy issues. I don’t rebel against authority out of habit. I am not particularly angry.

A hardcore militant atheist like Sigmund Freud was conflicted in this way. The majority of his publications were not purely scientific. They were largely opinions expressed about the foolishness of religion and his psychoanalytical explanations for its origin.

I never looked into Freud very much, but what I’ve heard of him from a couple philosophy and psychology classes in college did not impress me at all. I think he had some issues, and he didn’t show any aptitude with actual scientific research. He based his craziness on only a few cases and much of what he came up with seemed to me centered on his own strange focus on genitals and butt-cracks.

From a scientific perspective, and I believe I've said this before, I'd bet that atheist's rigid, angry rantings against religion, and their thoughts of the existence of a "heavenly father" are based on shame, anger, and a rebellious disposition toward ANY authority figure.

This does not resemble any atheist that I know. Shame? You mean to say that you think we ought to feel shame? That you suppose we must be angry and rebellious? I can tell you I don’t feel that way. Others may feel differently, but from my interactions with non-believers I can’t account for where you are getting these descriptors.

[Interbane]

Ant:

However, I believe you can agree that there is no special purpose endowed to human beings at a base level. Our subjectivity which assigns a value to us is illusory (I say again) from a cosmological perspective. An atheistic world view, at it's core, understands human value to be purely subjective.
Therefore, existence itself is valueless from a purely objective evaluation.

Don't let me derail the great conversation you two are having, I'm enjoying reading it. But I have a comment for the above.

I think you're exactly right in your assessment ant. But I also think that it's a necessary assessment due to the definition of the terms. If you evaluate anything from a purely objective perspective(if that's possible), then by definition that excludes subjectivity. Unless subjective experience is what you are analyzing from an objective perspective. If that makes sense.

Human value is subjective, because the values lose their meaning without the human to experience them. That is the definition of 'subjective'. I don't see it as a negative, I see it as a sort of necker-cube, as understanding of the concepts is refined. Especially when discussing objective/subjective distinctions, it's extremely easy to have our conceptual definitions diluted by lay-speak. Once we really understand what the concepts refer to, they snap into place.

[Penelope]

Interbane wrote:

I see it as a sort of necker-cube

What is a necker-cube? Or would that mean our conceptual definitions diluted by lay-speak.

We 'lay' might be understanding more than you think.......or maybe less than we think??

[Interbane]

I didn't mean it as an insult Penny. I'm a layperson as well, with respect to many things. Just as you have your own specific expertise.

When we dig deeper into any specific field - philosophy in this case - many of the terms that are used with reckless abandon by the general public actually have very specific and very exacting conceptual definitions. I have no doubt I abuse many words throughout the day, not adhering precisely to their definition.

The concepts of objectivity and subjectivity are have amplified confusion due to how ambiguous and slippery they are.

By mentioning a necker cube, I meant that both an atheist and a theist can have definitions of subjectivity that don't seem congruous, yet after some discussion it turns out they match up exactly, with the only differences being in how they're explained.

[Penelope]

I wasn't insulted Interbane. I Googled necker cube and saw it was a familiar optical illusion, but couldn't imagine what you meant in this context. I do now. Thank you for explaining.

It is difficult to follow esoteric language, but I understand that it is necessary to classify the meanings of certain words and phrases in order to have a valid discussion among experts.

I glean what I can, and ask when I feel puzzled, since this is a public discussion board, I assume it is OK to do that.

[ant]

I am limited on my IPhone and intellect no doubt to do all the fancy cut and paste work, Johnson:

You wrote; "I agree there is no special purpose or shall we say Essential purpose endowed to us"

You see no essential purpose to "us," which is to say existence has no objective purpose but can only me measured in value according to a subjective examination. Hence, existential meaning is watery, with no REAlL substance

Exemplar:

Your son, the safarist extraordinaire stumbles upon a tribe far removed from "civilization."
He is considered an evil spirit based on his looks alone and must be sacrificed and eaten for their god .
That is their LAW. Is this abhorrently wrong?
This same tribe considers rape a natural process of mate selection.
Is this abhorrently wrong or is it purely a subjective matter?

Is there a "Real Morality" that exists? One that we all can say that is innate in each of us?
Like the raping of children/babies?

Germany was a highly educated nation durning Hitler's heinous period of rule.
The SS were an elite highly educated force that committed monstrous acts against an innocent people.
Their moral code suppored their atrocities. Do you believe this is all relative based on subjective experience?

I don't

Nearly the entire world knew the objective moral wrong being committed by the Nazi regiem
We can not explain this away by saying that the specie's evolutionary development was our moral guide here.
There is a clear distinction here between us and a loaf of bread that happened to develop consciousness

I agree that the moral law is passed down from our parents (hopefully) but concluding that to be its origin does not necessarily follow.

What is the sense in claiming the Nazi's were wrong when we all knew they were wrong including the Nazi' themselves? Do you think they knew deep down what they were doing was wrong?
If not, then their evil has been exonerated by people who believe everything is relative.

I believe in objective moral values.
I believe they are what differentiates us as a species.
I believe we are more than highly developed animals like atheists believe but when pressed dodge their claims.

Your Superman wish was silly. Take the question that led to that comment more seriously.

[ant]

We have become or are becoming more than simply an evolutionary process.
There is a clear "inner and outer" - matter and mind. Whether or not we are near or far from our understanding what bridges the two is inconclusive. Quite frankly, we appear to be eons away from understanding conciousness and its origin.
It is a spiritual world view. An existential wonderment can only be truly felt by someone who believes that our origin is spiritual in nature. As an atheist I can not have an existential crises by wondering if I can return to the Galapagos Islands.
As a believe in something grander, perhaps an evolution of mind fueled by an intellegence that was and always shall be a first Cause is worthy of consideration since there is much left to discover and consider.
School is not out because we have pieced together, or nearly have, the fossil record
That is arrogant presumption the part of Neo Darwinian closed minded materialists

Genius minds like Kant and Newton believed in spiritual reality.
Or were they too afraid to be burned at the stake?
Which atheist can arrogantly speak for these men who recorded their thoughts?
An atheist would claim, " oh but if they knew now what we know they would be atheists like us!"

These men were light years ahead of their time. If they could consider a spiritual view of existence why not our modern day science worshiping know it all atheists? Because to be an atheist is to be certain nothing else exists beyond the material relm and god most certainly does not exist.