Top products from r/askanatheist

> (1) your and my actions are more consistent with belief in moral realism than not

They aren't. Our actions are consistent with having common goals and reality being such that similar things are often similarly effective in the pursuit of those goals.

> (2) moral realism better explains the data raised in these arguments than does moral non-realism.

Again, explanatory power does not equal truth if the explanations lack justification. Zues throwing lightning had the most explanatory power for lightning for a long time. That didn't make it true. And even being the "best explanation at the time" didn't warrant belief because the explanation lacked any justification.

> I do not see where in (P1) or (P2) moral realism is presupposed.

Because it paints a black and white fallacy of moral beliefs being true.

> I think docking a student for claiming "torturing children for fun is true" or putting a man in jail for "torturing children for fun" is more consistent with "moral realism" than not. This does not go to establish moral realism, it shows you act consistently with moral realism.

No. It's just as consistent with "torturing children is bad for society and goes against biological empathy which informs our social norms." The big difference here is this explanation doesn't rely on an indemonstrable metaphysical moral truth.

> The statement "torturing kids for fun is wrong" is objectively true, or it is not. This is a valid dichotomy as it takes the form of either A or not A.

The black and white fallacy is that you are saying it is either: True that it is wrong, or True that it is right.

"Red is the best color." Is this true or false? It's neither. There is no truth value in something subjective.

> Provide some examples of convergence of subjective preferences (other than moral ones). You can't just assert it. I provided examples.

I'm sorry, I didn't suspect I would have to explain something so obvious to you.

There are many cultures that didn't interact that independently came up similar theistic religions and folk tales, there are many who independently decided that colors represent certain things, there are many cultures that developed similar culinary preferences, economic systems, political structures, family structures, weapons, etc. It's no surprise that a species sharing the same biological history interact with the world in similar ways.

> Again, this is a straw man objection. (P1) is completely consistent with many subjective beliefs converging. Your objection only works if I said "only true beliefs converge".

It isn't. You said "they do not generally converge" which is fundamentally false. Moreover, you're using generalities in your premises, which is laughable.

> First, I certainly do not say that it "must be an objective truth". I say that beliefs are more likely to converge towards something objectively true than they are likely to converge on something that is subjective.

A statement which has no justification other than "you feel like it's probably more likely."

> Another straw man objection.

Again, not a straw-man. You can claim that all you want, it doens't make it true.

> Convergence on beliefs around science, history, math, etc. occurs worldwide at a much faster pace and depth than convergence for things like music or food preferences. I think morality is like this.

Yes! You're right! Because there IS an objective component to morality! Things that are BETTER for society tend to be consistent given similar situations. And we converge on that because of our biologically developed social tendencies.

If we can agree that morality means "the human species' goal of creating a prosperous society" then I would agree with you that there is objective morality.

Cosmic Skeptic and Rationality Rules had a GREAT conversation on this just yesterday. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yrYLvaXCokg

> But, I now also finally know your position. "Moral beliefs are social functions... which create... prosperous society". They serve a social purpose but are not true in any real sense of the word.

I thought I made this clear a long time ago. My apologies if I did not.

> Now then, I refer back to the Argument from Expectation. Do you expect people to abide by beliefs that "serve a social purpose but are not true in any real sense of the word"?

Yes. Because that is how we create the best world for ourselves.

> If we shouldn't expect people to, then why do you (presumably) support candidates who enforce OTHER beliefs with social purposes that aren't true, like moral prohibitions against murder and rape?

I do expect people to. Prohibitions against murder and rape DO have social purposes... Am I misunderstanding you here?

> This is the most commonly cited argument in favor of mathematical realism. It basically says that we should accord ontological status (real/existing) to concepts that are a part of our best explanations. So, if math is required for us to provide scientific explanations, then we consider math real. Similarly, if the best explanation of something requires a moral claim be true, then we should accept the claim as true.

Okay. But it's not the best explanation. I've provided an explanation that makes perfect biological sense, that we've observed, without appealing to anything metaphysical.

Again, I'll recommend this book: Neurobiology and the Development of Human Morality: Evolution, Culture, and Wisdom It's a great read, honestly.

> If a weakly defended belief (ie: the arguments in favor of anti-moral realism) forces you to give up a strongly held belief, then yes, it is a pathway to truth.

It's not a weakly defended belief.

> Again, though, this is a straw man objection. I of course reject the premise that "if I believe something strongly, it must be true"

So maybe this one was a straw-man, but not intentionally. Perhaps I misunderstood your argument.

> but I don't reject the premise that "generally, things I believe strongly are more likely to be true than things I do not believe strongly".

Okay? So where does that get us? I believe strongly that moral realism is not true. I guess that means it's more likely to be false.

> Are you saying your weakly held beliefs are just as likely true as your strongly held ones? How strongly do you believe people shouldn't torture babies for fun?

I wouldn't claim to differentiate between my beliefs like this. But perhaps this is a topic worth more discussion. I don't think I have any "weakly held beliefs."

> Another straw man. My argument, again, is not that "because everyone believes X, X is true". My argument is that "because everyone believes X, X is more likely to be true".

Again, it doesn't get us anywhere. Many years ago people believed using marijuana was immoral, that slavery was okay, and that being gay is immoral. All around the world, these beliefs are held, and many are likely still in the majority. It gets us no closer to truth, and if anything, moreso supports the idea that moral realism is false.

> Also, the red car argument makes no sense since the belief is not held uniformly.

Red is the most popular car color. Moral beliefs are not held uniformly either.

> I agree that (P1) is based on a counterfactual claim. However, I think the claim is self-evidently true.

Perhaps, but only because you are defining it as such. At best, it's a tautology.

> Uhhh, because it can? It can be used against the Argument from Disagreement, the Argument from Queerness, the Open Question Argument, etc. Can you provide an argument against the existence of moral values that couldn't also be reframed against the physical world?

Yes, and I have. We have observed the development of morality in humans, and it has basis in the physical world.

> LOL this is in the argument section that supports anti-moral realism. Good, so you reject this argument against moral realism. So we agree!

Yes. I would never utilize argumentum ad populum as an argument. Talk about a straw-man.

> This is one of the most prominent arguments AGAINST moral realism. I'm glad you agree that this argument fails.

I didn't say the argument fails. I'm only saying it fails to provide a case on moral-realism or moral non-realism. If X is good, then we should do X because we define "good" as "that which you should do." I agree with that, but it says nothing about moral-realism.

> Ok, so maybe you build your position by using epistemology to attack ontology (this almost never ends well)

I don't need to. If moral-realism were true, we couldn't truly know. It's unfalsifiable, and unverifiable. Such claims are entirely unnecessary when we have physical explanations.

> Why aren't you just agnostic? Why are you so sure there's no God or Higher Power?

Most atheists aren't absolutely sure, and I think many people, if they think about it, will realise there's very little of which we can be absolutely sure.

Humans have believed in a lot of gods over the last 10,000 years or so. We have lots of good evidence, especially for high-profile gods like Yahweh, that they are the product of human invention. Yahweh, specifically, has a history, and we can trace changes to the documents that would become the Old Testament and the New Testament, to the point that it's hard to accept that any of the writers of these collections of books really knew what they were talking about when it came to supernatural claims. For reference, see A History of God.

On top of that, there are the claims that many religious people make about their deities. Many claim that prayer has healing ability, for example, but so far, there is no clear evidence of this being true beyond the effects of placebo. In fact, there are cases where people who know they are being prayed for actually experience a nocebo effect, in that they take longer to heal. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Studies_on_intercessory_prayer

When it comes to deistic gods that wound up the universe and let it run, I can be less confident, simply because I have less evidence either way. I would say that, when it comes to deistic gods, I'm an agnostic atheist, whereas with gods that humans have invented, like Yahweh, I am more of a gnostic atheist.

Ultimately, though, one does not need to know or be confident that no gods exist in order to be an atheist. All one needs in order to be an atheist is to not be a theist. If you took all the people in the world who say "I believe a god exists" and you put them in a big room, then everyone not in the room would be an atheist. This would include small children who do not yet have the capacity to evaluate the god-claim. Every human, when they were very young, was an atheist - being sure that no god exist isn't needed.

You can still sing lullabies! I personally have no singing voice, and I'd hum tunelessly, rock my daughters, pat their back, put on music or one of their favorite shows. Reading is also another great approach; my middle daughter's favorite books were actually the children's science-oriented books like Bang! though my oldest preferred books about fish, and my youngest is nonverbal and prefers to be held or just to have me nearby. Occasionally nightmares are bad enough that it's quicker to wake up and go back down to sleep than it is to try to get them to feel better from the nightmare.

​

I've been watching a lecture series from Sanford University, Robert Sapolsky's semester class about human behavior (link). It is utterly fascinating, but many hours long. The short answer to your question is both. And amazingly, they affect each other.

One lecture is a very basic overview of genetics with a quick introduction to the concept of epigenetics and how behavior of a mother rat for example, can affect the genes in her offspring. If you're more a book reader, you can read it here: Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst

You should direct most of these questions to r/evolution, since I think they are for the most part a little more informed and a lot more willing to answer questions on the topic. This should get you started though: talk origins archive on the matter of human evolution

edit: also wanted to add that there are plenty of fossil examples; a great book I would suggest is "Evolution" by Don Prothero. This book is great because it focuses almost entirely on the fossil record, which is oftentimes attacked as having "holes" or lacking transitional forms. Keep in mind that nearly every fossil found could be considered a transitional fossil between an ancestor and something else, the term is really a misnomer.

Look who’s never heard of the Soviet Unions infiltration of the Catholic Church

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/opinion/catholic-abuse-crisis-is-likely-no-accident-but-a-strategy-to-destroy-churc

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Catholicism_in_the_Soviet_Union

https://www.google.com/amp/s/catholicismpure.wordpress.com/2016/09/22/communist-infiltration-of-the-catholic-church/amp/

https://www.amazon.com/Aa-1025-Memoirs-Communists-infiltration-Church/dp/0895554496/ref=nodl_

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.catholicnewsagency.com/amp/news/former-soviet-spy-we-created-liberation-theology-83634

The preacher who used Christianity to revive the Ku Klux Klan


and

https://www.splcenter.org/20170925/hate-god%E2%80%99s-name#white-supremacists

and


Christian Identity (also known as Identity Christianity)is a racist, anti-Semitic, and white supremacist interpretation of Christianity which holds that only Germanic, Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Nordic, Aryan people and those of kindred blood are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and hence the descendants of the ancient Israelites.

and

https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/J2BCXTKZHIYOTF56L6IHXMP6CE.jpg

and

https://voices.uchicago.edu/religionculture/files/2017/07/scaleImage-1x50ymk.jpeg


and


To show how the Klan used religion to further its agenda of hate while appealing to everyday Americans, Kelly Baker takes readers back to its "second incarnation" in the 1920s. During that decade, the revived Klan hired a public relations firm that suggested it could reach a wider audience by presenting itself as a "fraternal Protestant organization that championed white supremacy as opposed to marauders of the night." That campaign was so successful that the Klan established chapters in all forty-eight states.

That should be a good start.

> What determines this?

The real world, which includes no gods. Crack open a book other than the bible once in a while.

The Magic of Reality: How We Know What's Really True

Damn you, you beat me to it.

This is a great point. Many atheists and theists alike conflate belief and knowledge. They are not the same thing, and it's much easier to justify a belief than a knowledge claim. More importantly, lack of belief in something is a type of belief regarding the truth of claims regarding that belief.

>Likewise, there could be a god that created the universe but since humans can't decide what that god is, what it wants or how to verify its evidence I have low confidence that we actually know it's there.

And this is a perfectly valid reason to believe the claims of theists are untrue or unjustified. Philosophers often discredit arguments by challenging the justification of the premises, which are in turn reasons to believe the argument is invalid or unsound.

I mean, it's depressing to me how many atheists claim they have no justification for atheism, or claim that it can't be justified at all. Yet here is an entire book by a philosopher attempting exactly that. If it were impossible to argue, why is a professional philosopher doing it? And it's not just him...Hume, Russell, and other philosophers all challenged various theistic claims. But apparently, according to reddit atheists, such arguments are invalid because "atheism isn't a belief."

It's absurd. It's a belief, and it's a justified belief. If atheists believed for no reason at all they'd have no rational basis for challenging any theistic claim. Obviously they do.