Skip to main content

Moral atheism? The oppositions to narrative theism and to natural theology

Why does one call oneself an atheist?

One reason might be because one is opposed to the narrative of theism (OT stories, Inquisition)?  In as much as one could reject theism on this basis alone then one is a reactionary, inasmuch as one is opposing the theism of the Abrahamic faiths.

Or is one an atheist for principled, philosophical reasons (problem of evil; the alleged incoherence of the very notion of a transcedent personal being)  In such a case, one would also have to be a materialist.  But such an anti-metaphysics makes no room for a notion of the common good that would be adhered to by any virtuous person.  But atheists need not see this logical implication.  And inasmuch as they do not see it, they are inasmuch as they have virtuous convictions, inconsistent with their materialist convictions.  But inasmuch as they are consistently materialist (and I means consistent), they are either manifestly wicked OR the basis of their morality looks more like that of Thomas Hobbes (which leaves no room for nobility of spirit).  But we humans are not consistent.

By the way, while I grant that atheists may have some commendable moral convictions I would argue that what is commendable in these convictions is inconsistent with their atheism

So there are three ways of being atheistic: reactionary, selfish and inconsistent.
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

response to friend who suggested that the self is a democracy of neural parts

This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level.  No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies.  None of them thinks about the whole as such.  And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist).  None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well?  And why not parts of these parts, et...
6 comments
Read more

what is an organism?

How about defining it as an instance of functional complexity? And treating the list of properties as following necessarily from this definition? Okay, this is very diamond-in-the-rough (or perhaps zirconium...) but here goes my thoughts on the matter: (Complexity) Many diverse parts (functional) acting for the sake of the whole I think I need to add something like "not as the instrument of another" or something like that. Given that they act together as one whole and given entropy, etc., the organism will need to posses more order than its surroundings (homeostasis). It will therefore need to take in energy (nutrition), which it will use to sustain its readiness to interact with its environment so as to preserve its own being (homeostasis again?), but which will eventually break down (death), so that in order for that life form to continue it will need to duplicate itself (reproduction), which, upon occurring, will involve both development (growth) to maturity and...
13 comments
Read more

P F Strawson's Freedom and Resentment: the argument laid out

Here is a summary and comments on the essay Freedom and Resentment by PF Strawson.  He makes some great points, and when he is wrong, it is in such a way as to clarify things a great deal.  My non-deterministic position is much better thanks to having read this.  I’ll summarize it in this post and respond in a later one. In a nutshell: PFS first argues that personal resentment that we may feel toward another for having failed to show goodwill toward us would have no problem coexisting with the conviction that determinism is true.  Moral disapprobation, as an analog to resentment, is likewise capable of coexisting with deterministic convictions. In fact, it would seem nearly impossible for a normally-constituted person (i.e., a non-sociopath) to leave behind the web of moral convictions, even if that person is a determinist.  In this way, by arguing that moral and determinist convictions can coexist in the same person, PFS undermines the libertarian argument ...
Post a Comment
Read more