18 ms·

> usually start from an assumption that the core tenets are more or less true. You use this as a criticism of religion but I find it's true of secular people a

> usually start from an assumption that the core tenets are more or less true. You use this as a criticism of religion but I find it's true of secular people as well who have baseless beliefs that are just as deeply ingrained. Telling someone on hackernews you are religious you will probably get a ton of criticism and downvotes. You know what will get the same reaction? Telling someone you are a moral nihilist. Why is murder evil? Why is stealing evil? Why is anything evil or good for that matter? At least religious people have answers to these questions. (Although I don't think they are necessarily good answers, why is something good because some omnipotent being said so? what if that omnipotent being was evil?) I feel like I'm screaming at windmills but everything people get hysterical over in our modern world is baseless. All values do not stand up to scrutiny and can be argued against using the one word question "why?" edit: I was predictably downvoted, please don't take this as me complaining and trying to claim victimhood because it truly doesn't affect me. I just find it funny how uncomfortable my comment makes people that are supposedly open minded and critical of their beliefs but surprisingly share the same beliefs as their entire social group.

TimPC 5y ago
There is an entire branch of Philosophy called Ethics that gives us better answers to these questions and a better framework for grappling with them then religion ever has. It is quite arrogant to assume that atheists have no answers at all to these questions.
- friedman23 5y ago
  Ah yeah, good argument, a field of study exists. Given you are a well educated atheist you can explain the underpinnings of your morality right?
  - andrepd 5y ago
    Yes. A set of ab initio values and the golden rule as a base, and societal consensus to work out the finer details.
    - friedman23 5y ago
      Yeah, I wasn't asking what your beliefs were. I was asking why your beliefs are the "true" beliefs.
colinmhayes 5y ago
People have spent millenia thinking about rational answers to those questions. It's easy enough to find answers, but much like with religion there is no consensus. The answers follow a much more rigorous logic then "god said so" though. I'm not a moral nihillist because that's not a thing, but I am a moral anti-realist because it's clear that there are no intrinsic moral laws. It's all preference based.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  It is not all preference based, as very few moral systems lead to thriving societies that are stable and able to self-reproduce rather than collapsing back into chaos. In fact, almost none do. Take a look at the ten commandments. "Honor thy father and mother so that it may be well with you and you may live long in the land". What happens when generation n+1 thinks they are morally superior to generation n? The same also holds for n+2, and so you do not have a stable society, you have a disintegrating society. Or half the commandments banning envy. Why ban envy and wanting what your neighbor has? Because envy-based moral systems lead to less successful societies than charity based moral systems, where the rich are told they should be generous to the poor versus telling the poor that they have a right to something possessed by the rich. It is not arbitrary -- some ethical codes lead to stable, successful societies and others do not. One of the problems with modernism is that we have thrown away this notion of reverence and replaced it with a belief in moral progress, which has only led to an ocean of murders and social disintegration. In 10 generations, there will be no modernism left, it will be re-absorbed into more traditional societies, because modernist societies aren't able to reproduce themselves. Not biologically, not ethically, not economically. Yes, there are a few Gene Roddenberry holdouts that believe in generic liberalism as a system on which a society can be based. But the voice of LaFayette is always drowned out by the voice of Robespierre. Lafayette was a fool, thinking that whatever seemed right to him could be the basis of a society. So it's not so much that I believe I can win an argument with someone who believes moral systems are preference based, but that those who do believe that will simply be outcompeted. Societies in which large numbers hold to such views will be unable to reproduce themselves and they will be eclipsed by societies that adopt ethical codes that form specific templates. A painter can paint a picture of any creature, but actual living, successful organisms are under strict constraints. A philosopher can imagine any moral code, but living, successful societies have to stick to what actually works.
mEATsack 5y ago
> Why is murder evil? Why is stealing evil? Why is anything evil or good for that matter? These are covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Evil in this context is any violation of rights as defined by the UDHR https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma... Why resort to a religion when you can have empathy for your fellow human, seems like a waste of time :)
- jturpin 5y ago
  The UN does not decide what is _evil_ or not, and empathy is not some self-evident trait from which all objective morality comes from. You could possibly argue that empathy is evolutionary and aids society and in that way has some objective merit, but the GP is right, we have to accept that our moral systems are rooted in some assumptions.
jart 5y ago
When I think of religion in the context of Hacker News I think of things like Michael O. Church evangelizing functional programming or the people who challenged the epistemological paradigm of the cladistics journal which must be parsimony. So I feel confused when I see the other kind of religion here. One way you could make us feel even more uncomfortable is by sharing information we haven't considered, like a weakness in a computer system or a contradiction in a generally accepted practice.
mLuby 5y ago
> Why is murder evil? Why is stealing evil? Why is anything evil or good for that matter? At least religious people have answers to these questions. Hard to answer without first defining evil (ideally avoiding Godwin's law).
kazoomonger 5y ago
It's actually very simple. There is no such thing as objective morality. However, social norms are explained by people acting in their own rational self-interest. For example, I want to live in a society where I don't get murdered. Therefore, I want to live in a society that criminalizes murder. That's all there is to it. That is your "Why?" answered. To go one step further, the why of questions like "Why don't you want to get murdered?" are because I come from a long line of organisms that didn't get murdered because of a high drive to not get murdered. The ones without that drive got weeded out. There's still no morality involved, I just axiomatically don't want to get murdered.

TimPC 5y ago

There is an entire branch of Philosophy called Ethics that gives us better answers to these questions and a better framework for grappling with them then religion ever has. It is quite arrogant to assume that atheists have no answers at all to these questions.

friedman23 5y ago
Ah yeah, good argument, a field of study exists. Given you are a well educated atheist you can explain the underpinnings of your morality right?
- andrepd 5y ago
  Yes. A set of ab initio values and the golden rule as a base, and societal consensus to work out the finer details.
  - friedman23 5y ago
    Yeah, I wasn't asking what your beliefs were. I was asking why your beliefs are the "true" beliefs.

colinmhayes 5y ago

People have spent millenia thinking about rational answers to those questions. It's easy enough to find answers, but much like with religion there is no consensus. The answers follow a much more rigorous logic then "god said so" though. I'm not a moral nihillist because that's not a thing, but I am a moral anti-realist because it's clear that there are no intrinsic moral laws. It's all preference based.

rsj_hn 5y ago
It is not all preference based, as very few moral systems lead to thriving societies that are stable and able to self-reproduce rather than collapsing back into chaos. In fact, almost none do. Take a look at the ten commandments. "Honor thy father and mother so that it may be well with you and you may live long in the land". What happens when generation n+1 thinks they are morally superior to generation n? The same also holds for n+2, and so you do not have a stable society, you have a disintegrating society. Or half the commandments banning envy. Why ban envy and wanting what your neighbor has? Because envy-based moral systems lead to less successful societies than charity based moral systems, where the rich are told they should be generous to the poor versus telling the poor that they have a right to something possessed by the rich. It is not arbitrary -- some ethical codes lead to stable, successful societies and others do not. One of the problems with modernism is that we have thrown away this notion of reverence and replaced it with a belief in moral progress, which has only led to an ocean of murders and social disintegration. In 10 generations, there will be no modernism left, it will be re-absorbed into more traditional societies, because modernist societies aren't able to reproduce themselves. Not biologically, not ethically, not economically. Yes, there are a few Gene Roddenberry holdouts that believe in generic liberalism as a system on which a society can be based. But the voice of LaFayette is always drowned out by the voice of Robespierre. Lafayette was a fool, thinking that whatever seemed right to him could be the basis of a society. So it's not so much that I believe I can win an argument with someone who believes moral systems are preference based, but that those who do believe that will simply be outcompeted. Societies in which large numbers hold to such views will be unable to reproduce themselves and they will be eclipsed by societies that adopt ethical codes that form specific templates. A painter can paint a picture of any creature, but actual living, successful organisms are under strict constraints. A philosopher can imagine any moral code, but living, successful societies have to stick to what actually works.

mEATsack 5y ago

> Why is murder evil? Why is stealing evil? Why is anything evil or good for that matter? These are covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Evil in this context is any violation of rights as defined by the UDHR https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-huma... Why resort to a religion when you can have empathy for your fellow human, seems like a waste of time :)

jturpin 5y ago
The UN does not decide what is _evil_ or not, and empathy is not some self-evident trait from which all objective morality comes from. You could possibly argue that empathy is evolutionary and aids society and in that way has some objective merit, but the GP is right, we have to accept that our moral systems are rooted in some assumptions.

jart 5y ago

When I think of religion in the context of Hacker News I think of things like Michael O. Church evangelizing functional programming or the people who challenged the epistemological paradigm of the cladistics journal which must be parsimony. So I feel confused when I see the other kind of religion here. One way you could make us feel even more uncomfortable is by sharing information we haven't considered, like a weakness in a computer system or a contradiction in a generally accepted practice.

mLuby 5y ago

> Why is murder evil? Why is stealing evil? Why is anything evil or good for that matter? At least religious people have answers to these questions. Hard to answer without first defining evil (ideally avoiding Godwin's law).

kazoomonger 5y ago

It's actually very simple. There is no such thing as objective morality. However, social norms are explained by people acting in their own rational self-interest. For example, I want to live in a society where I don't get murdered. Therefore, I want to live in a society that criminalizes murder. That's all there is to it. That is your "Why?" answered. To go one step further, the why of questions like "Why don't you want to get murdered?" are because I come from a long line of organisms that didn't get murdered because of a high drive to not get murdered. The ones without that drive got weeded out. There's still no morality involved, I just axiomatically don't want to get murdered.