@Jared:We’re going to take a little detour on the blog today because I’ve been taken to task, and perhaps rightly so, for my sloppy use of language in a post I wrote a while back concerning what I perceived as a paradox in the atheistic worldview.
Thank you for recognising your use of sloppy language Of course now the burden is on me as well as you, for us to avoid this as we proceed Still a point to remember here is there no such thing as an atheist nor theist worldview. There are many worldviews absent a deity as there are other many worldviews with a deity but there is no such thing as the atheist worldview or the theist worldview. All they say is that one believes in god or does not. Once cannot derive a worldview from just this one data item. You alleviate this confusion somewhat by stating that:

@Jared:And just to avoid yet another round of confusion, what I mean in this context is the belief (typically Western) that the material world is all there is and a supernatural creator or spiritual entity outside of the universe does not exist. This is in contrast to some forms of atheism (typically Eastern) that do not explicitly deny the existence of a non-material realm or a spiritual aspect to reality.
Accepted

@Jared:Now, in my original post, I stated in so many words that it was impossible to live according to the tenets of atheism and that atheists who were honest about their lives would admit as such.
Even granting a materialism this is distinct from atheism per se, and there are no such tenets of atheism. Atheism is by definition a lack of belief in god(s) and a tenet is “An opinion, doctrine, or principle held as being true by a person or especially by an organization.” The point I am balking at now is the implication of an organisation (or nominal group). No organisation speaks for me nor for most naturalists that I know (that is not to say I agree and endorse to some degree various activist groups and some writers but that is a different point). Is it true that I have a lack of belief in god(s)? Trivially yes but that itself is not even a tenet. If on the other hand one asserted - which I do not - that it is true there is no god, then this, I agree, is a tenet but a rather trivial one given that it is a rather stronger definition of a sub-group - and only a sub-group - of atheists. I conclude that there are no tenets of atheism.

@Jared: My sloppiness came in my not clarifying what such a remark meant and why it was not a form of bigotry as some critics have called it. In particular, commenter Martin Freedman took umbrage at my statements, and so I decided that rather than ignore the issue, it would be beneficial for me to response in as polite and as concise a manner as I am able.
Thank you for responding this way to a question from the studio audience! Please, other commenters, do not let this stop you participating and correcting me where I err as well as Jared ? In particular I was impressed with some of the original (to me) points made by “M” in the original thread and would welcome M’s insight here as we proceed.

@Jared:First of all, when I say “honest atheists”, I am referring to statements I’ve read by several authors who acknowledge that the logical conclusions of their atheistic beliefs lead them down a moral or ethical path that they are unwilling to take because it provides too bleak or nihilistic a picture to function properly in society.
Hmm, you seem to be defining “honest atheists” on the basis of an admission by a few unnamed authors that this “leads to a morality that they are unwilling to take”. For the purposes here I am an atheist because this the best and only honest and ethical position I can take on the matter. I know quite a few who come from roughly similar views and none of whom would say this leads to a nihilistic conclusion. I am very dubious of your use of “honest atheists” here, thinking this an application of hasty generalisation and confirmation bias. Just because some say they do not like their moral conclusions, which is indeed an expression of honesty on their, but only their, part - whoever they are - does not mean that only such atheists are honest.

@Jared: Therefore, their personal sense of love, responsibility, duty, beauty, or purpose in life takes precedence over their basic atheistic philosophy concerning life.
Again I balk at this peculiar “basic atheistic philosophy concerning life”. If you mean materialism as you implied above– whatever you mean by that – then say so. Otherwise I cannot help wondering if you are selecting the atheists you criticise on this basis, or at least your interpretation of their positions, and making the erroneous assertion that this generally applies to larger group of “atheists” – that is any who lack a belief in god(s) and do not hold other supernatural views?

@Jared:I apologize profusely that I’m unable to give you a direct reference — chalk it up to my annoying habit of forgetting to bookmark interesting Web sites I read. At any rate, I appreciate the open-minded willingness on the part of these authors to write about the paradox they encounter as they contemplate the implicit meanings contained within their worldview.
Apology accepted as I am quite sure there are such people. However whoever they are does not alter any of my points made above. It is completely unacceptable to define “honest atheists” on this basis.

@Jared:Secondly, when I refer to a “true atheist”, I mean someone who logically and consistently rejects all forms of theist thought whether explicit or implicit. Some people vaguely say they don’t believe in “God” without actually thinking through the ramifications of such a position, or they reject the Judeo-Christian “God” without denying there might be some “higher power” out there. I’m sure we can all agree that such people are probably more precisely called agnostic than atheistic.
I will let people label themselves to the degree they want to. There is some variability in one’s lack of beliefs but most atheists take to this to mean a lack of belief in any god(s) period. Why invent “true atheists” when, to the degree there is a “we”, it is typically (but not always) accepted that this as a minimal and most encompassing definition of atheism. (Personally I dissent and think an atheist is anyone who finds god(s) completely irrelevant in their life but lets not confuse things here)

@Jared:So, with those two clarifications out of the way, I want to delve into Martin Freedman’s particular criticisms of my position. He asked me to response to 15 questions he had presented recently, and while I wasn’t able to find quite that many, I tried to do my best in addressing all of the points he raised in several comments. Note that I’m including some of the thread I had engaged in so you can get the proper context. Here it goes.
OK the order here is generally in ascending order of importance and relevance to your original thread. Still I will answer these as presented. (Note without a preview function I do not know what HTML code works here. When I reference Jared and myself in quoting Jared post I will prefix these with a double @@ and if any of this formatting goes out of sync I would be grateful if you could correct it)

@@Jared: “Martin, how is it that a universe born out of spiritual mind, not dead matter, would not have a moral obligation to follow the spiritual laws established by such a mind?”

@@Martin:This is a loaded question and the best answer is to say can you restate this impartially, without bias, then we can proceed to answer the question.

@Jared:if you go down the road of concluding the universe must have been wrought from an incredibly powerful and complex intelligence outside of the bounds of the universe itself, then the next logical question is, what is the intention that this mind has for the humans he/she/it has created (whether directly or through some kind of evolutionary process)?
Not surprisingly I do not go down this road but…

@Jared:The extent to which this mind cares about our individual actions depends on whether you lean in a deist or a theist direction, but either party would no doubt conclude that if there is purpose to the universe and our place in it, we therefore have a moral imperative to fulfill the purpose for which we were made.
I specifically fail to see what this moral imperative is. Granted all the above here, what if this god was the equivalent of a teenager who delights in playing a first person shooter game – and invented our universe for an equivalent reason - or who delights in building an ant farm and then destroying it by starving the ants to see what happens or make up your own equivalent. I see no moral imperative in playing the role designated in the game or equivalent. Far from it, one could consider it a moral imperative to reject the will of such a designer. Just because the world might be designed does not mean we should fulfill the purpose of such a design, allowing there is nothing in such a design that cannot prevent our morals from being better than the designer our morals might reject. The question is why should one fulfil such a purpose – even if not as negative as I portrayed just now – but to answer this moral question you here are deriving an ought from an is and it cannot be answered, as you have, by reference to the existence of such a designer. Hume dealt with this 350 odd years ago.

Jared: Now you could argue that we might have been created to serve no purpose whatsoever, but in light of such a whimsical and inscrutable opinion of the creator, one might as well decide to be an atheist.
Contrary to the above Deists might disagree with your point here. Anyway if we have not been created – as most atheists would presumably argue – it does not follow that we serve no purpose, just that there is no purpose to serve a non-existent creator obviously.

@@Jared: “BTW, slavery is wrong and many of the people who fought vigorously against slavery over the centuries were Bible-believing Christians.”

@@Martin:And surely you cannot deny that who fought vigorously for slavery over the centuries were Bible-believing Christians? If slavery is wrong it is in spite of what has been said in the bible hence you cannot be a true theist which my point in that inversion of your quote. Regardless this is a diversion from the main point.

@Jared:Yes, this is somewhat a non-sequitur in the overall scheme of things, but let me just say that anyone can say they believe the Bible and go on to commit all kinds of heinous acts.
No argument there!

@Jared:That proves nothing about whether God exists or the veracity of the historical narrative contained within the Bible.
I disagree, surely god was capable of writing or dictating a text such that it would be very difficult to make such interpretations. Clearly it did not which I count as evidence against an Abrahamic god.

@Jared: On the other hand, saying that people who fought vigorously against slavery believed the Bible proves nothing either, and I realize that. My point was that there is no inherent justification in saying that if you believe the Bible, you naturally must condone slavery, which was your original proposition.
Hmm, this is slightly out of context for those who have not read the original post/thread and I hold it still makes sense with my original inversion rhetoric response to your post. Can we both agree it is diversionary and agree to disagree and move on to more relevant points?

@@Jared: “I’ve already refuted Margin’s argument, and there’s nothing left to respond to.”

@@Martin:You never refuted it in your first response and you have not replied to any of my questions in my second response. How can you claim that you are moral when engage in purely rhetoric with no argument or evidence in support?

@Jared:This is probably going down another rabbit hole, but let me just say that engaging in pure rhetoric without evidence can only be immoral if you consider arguing based on solid evidence to be moral. Question: how do you come to that conclusion? I can see no biologically-derived reason why arguments must logically be made based on truth claims gleaned from careful analysis of facts, whether it “feels” right or not.
You have added a few interesting points here. (Damn! I am trying to write less than you, oh well… ) First, I am not claiming that “engaging in pure rhetoric without evidence” is immoral. It is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition to qualify as immoral. What I am claiming is that your specific piece of “rhetoric without evidence” – I am glad you admit it for what it is!! :-) - self-refutes your claimed higher moral position. We expand on this below so lets continue with your two new points.

I do not consider arguing based on evidence to be moral. It is not a sufficient condition to qualify as moral. Honest yes and so, indirectly, to the degree one values honesty as a moral virtue – and I do – then it is moral by proxy. Again it depends on what the content is and when one is arguing morals if there are relevant facts they should be taken into account and not summarily rejected if inconvenient – that would be immoral…

As I have not been making such a “feels” argument I cannot see that your question requires an answer (and I am running out of time). Start another thread on this if you want to pursue this further please. Lets get a move on ?

@@Jared “The issue is clear: moral laws and spiritual laws require a lawgiver.”

@@Martin:This is your claim, where is your evidence? There is no evidence that the “laws of nature” require a lawgiver, indeed they were primarily found by making no such assumption, so, by extrapolation why should “moral and spiritual laws” - they most probably do not either. With respect the spiritual laws I suggest you consult Buddhists and Taoists etc. who would specifically disagree with you on this point. As for “laws” you appear to be equivocating as human made “laws” - better put as rules to avoid confusion - generally do require some form of rule-giving and human process, on the other hand scientific laws are specifically not rules and are a different category entirely and do no require a lawgiver, similar for your claims over moral and spiritual laws.

@Jared:Actually, the question of where physical laws come from has become a topic of heated debate within the scientific establishment. The question of why those laws are the way they are or why they are there at all is of prime importance as we continue to discover that these laws seem to be fine-tuned in such a way as to permit organic life as we know it to exist. If you want to just wave your hand and say “the laws are there, and that’s that”, then why is it wrong of theists to wave their hands and say “God is there, and that’s that” without further explanation?
Given you are talking about the fine tuning argument, my view is that many are running before they can walk on this and there are already interesting models that deal with this.

Although I do not wave my hands and say “the laws are there, and that’s that” if one was given a choice between that and saying “God is there, and that’s that” then I would reject the latter on the basis that inventing a new entity that explains nothing - explains nothing! so why invent it? That is using god here is question begging as now that needs to be explained and how can a more mysterious entity and a lesser known one explain a less mysterious and better known one? A very peculiar form of argument, albeit quite popular – which is no justification of course. And yes, this is an application of Occam’s Razor.

@@Jared: “Laws don’t create themselves.”

@@Martin:An empty assertion, where is your evidence for this?

@Jared:No evidence. Yet there’s no evidence that laws create themselves. We’re both in a philosophical quandary here. I’ve decided which belief makes the most logical sense, and you beg to differ. Fair enough.
Having worked on self-organising systems in the past I beg to differ but agree that pursing this is diversionary so lets leave it. Fair enough.

@@Jared: “The logical picture of a universe that was wrought from a non-material entity outside of the limitations of time and space is that it would be expected to adhere to the rules that were established at the point of creation.”

@@Martin: Why would it be expected to? Now you are using the term “rules” not laws. Could you please not equivocate and be consistent. Many other question but your statement is diversionary and I won’t pursue it further.

@Jared:By laws I’m not referring to the precise scientific definition of laws as in, the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I’m referring to rules, parameters, boundaries, etc., in the colloquial understanding of such terms.
I answered the substance of your original claim above. You are making quite a specific claim - I see no such immaterial “rules” in the universe nor if they do exist why we logically should follow them, which is what you are implying. I am requesting that you show me the logic of this argument rather than assert it is logical. You are again trying to derive an ought from an is.

@@Jared: “Any deviation from those rules will produce decay and chaos.”

@@Martin:It is not possible to deviate from scientific laws, that is why they are laws. If you are implying that it is possible to deviate from moral and spiritual laws, then these are not laws.

@Jared:Again, you misunderstand me. If you drink at the age of 12, you’re breaking the law. If you murder a human being in cold blood, you’re breaking our civil law, and I also say you’re breaking absolute moral law. I could even argue you can “break” physical laws. Jump off a tall cliff without a parachute, and you’ll quickly find out that ignoring the “law” of gravity is rather foolish. Remember, I’m talking colloquially here rather than using strict scientific terminology.
Granted you were specifically using rules here not laws, still I fail to see why breaking these rules will produce “decay and chaos”. It depends what these rules are and what their purpose is and how can anyone know the purpose of a “non-material entity outside of the limitations of time and space”? Any speculation is just speculation and given its origin it is impossible to resolve. How do you know whether this entity still exists in some sense – maybe it destroyed itself in the Big Bang? Maybe this is why it is outside space and time and non-material, it is nothing? Indeed as far as I can see that is pretty much what you are describing - nothing.

The point of physical laws is that you cannot break them, within their specified constraints. Your jumping off the cliff example completely contradicts your claim that one could break laws! A rather bizarre example if I may say so!

@@Jared: “The concept of morality is rendered meaningless in a universe without eternal, conscious significance.”

@@Martin:Again an empty rhetorical claim, where is the logic and/our evidence for this?

Jared:Well. if there is no eternal, conscious significance to the universe, then it’s perfectly permissible for you to act in whatever manner you deem necessary to achieve the maximum possible level of personal happiness and fulfillment while you are alive.
Says who? A side point is how do you get from a “non-material entity outside of the limitations of time and space” to an “eternal, conscious significance to the universe”? Whatever they are they look radically and qualitatively different entities – if they exist at all. (Of course if neither exist then they might be the same but saying 0=0 is not saying much :-) )

Directly, this looks like a no-sequitur I fail to see the connection between the premise and the conclusion. Pleas explain.

@Jared:Such actions are inherently selfish and self-serving in manner, whereas behaving in moral and ethical ways often requires selfless and sacrificial behavior.
This also does not follow from your previous conclusion – taken as a premise here - in the previous line. Anyway granted (which I don’t) that one can “act in whatever manner you deem necessary to achieve the maximum possible level of personal happiness and fulfillment while you are alive” does not mean these actions are inherently selfish. There is a difference difference between interest in the self and of the self. Given this it is logically possible that “the maximum possible level of personal happiness…” could require some selfless and sacrificial behaviour. You are inventing a false dichotomy and therefore a misleading and loaded categorisation of “moral and ethical ways”.

@Jared: And before you argue that following the golden rule and having empathy for all living creatures, etc., works out great for atheists, let me just say many people who believe in nothing other than themselves find a lot of “pleasure” in achieving their ambitions on the back of massive human suffering. Such actions, which you personally might find repugnant, nevertheless are logically permissible in a godless universe devoid of lasting meaning or purpose.
Well your specific argument prior this is as far as I can see incoherent or at least not remotely valid. I am not making an argument, you are and I am questioning your claims for clarification. Sorry but with all due respect, until you make a somewhat coherent argument there is nothing for me to answer here.

@@Jared: “Martin, I am going to ask you one, simple, and direct question. I will repost my original paragraph that you took exception to, and I entreat you to explain, in a simple and concise manner, what immoral bigotry is contained within my statement.”

@@Martin:Fine I will but can you reciprocate and do me the courtesy of answering the 15 or so question I have asked you.
I accept you have made an honest attempt to do so and even if you have missed some we are finally getting to the nitty gritty so lets stick to this!

@@First what is bigotry? It is taking an aspect of a person and assigning them as a member of a group (whether they agree with this, chose this or not), then negatively and inaccurately describe an aspect of this group and irrationally asserting that any member, as one has decided, has this characteristic and condemns them, or worse, for it.

@Jared:I apologize for snipping out your subsequent paragraphs, but in the interests of time, I have to move on. I just want to say I feel I’ve addressed the bigotry claim already by explaining what I meant by the terms “true atheist” and “atheism” in the context of my original post. I’m not trying to lump individuals into some kind of group simply so I can throw stones at them, and I’m sorry my original post was unclear in that regard.
I would like to accept your apology but I still have issues below. On the other hand it is not about me (or anyone) getting an apology or not. I am just querying some statements you published on your blog. Hopefully we are both learning from this.

@Martin:Different atheists have differing moral views most of which are vastly superior to your morality - which was fatally disproved 2500 years ago - and is one of the worst type of moral systems imaginable. The mere fact that you are coming up with these falsehoods is further evidence of the immoral grounds of your worldview.

@Jared:Again, I’m pressed for time, so I’m skipping some of the context here,
The feeling is mutual

@Jared:but what you are saying here is extremely loaded, biased, and possibly bigoted — which is unfortunate considering you have been trying to criticize me on the same grounds.
OK an interesting point. I cannot see how it is bigoted – given my definition above which you appear to accept - as I am addressing you and your claims and no-one else. As for loaded and biased you continue…

Jared: What possible evidence can you use to show that my particular morality based on the truth claims of the Christian Bible were (a) fatally disproved 2500 years ago (which was before Christ was even born),
Socrates’ Euthyphro dilemma of course!

Jared: and (b) one of the worst type of moral systems imaginable (especially when compared to the moral system in vogue at the height of the Roman Empire)?
I am talking about today not then. Both you and I exist in the 21st century (well at least I do sorry it is getting late and I am tired). Well I cannot imagine something worse than a god who creates this whole magnificent incredible universe all so that many people will be tortured for ever and ever without reprieve. That is the greatest evil imaginable (at least to me maybe you can do better ? ) and one of the basis – along with gods “love” of course – for this moral system. M asked you particularly pertinent questions on this point.

Another way of looking at it is to look at the Euthyphro dilemma. “Is it good because god says so or does god say so because it is good?”. As far as I can tell you are taking the first horn of this dilemma. Then there is no objective criteria from which good and bad are derived, internal or external to god. It is quite arbitrary as to what good is. One could say “This follows from the realization that if morality is simply an arbitrary system … to organize society, then morality can be manipulated, ignored… by man at any point in time without any objective consequences. Morality then becomes a convenience, a contract agreed to by people as long as it brings them appreciable benefit. I find that view to be unconscionable.” Oh that is a quote from you huh :-)

Is this loaded and biased? I cannot see this as I am giving you considered arguments to each and every points including this one. I do accept it could appear inflammatory and I apologise if you took it that way.

@@Jared: “the commonly understood ‘pop’ view of Western materialistic atheism is a worldview that encompasses the logical conclusions derived from the opinion that there is no god/gods or supernatural order and therefore humans must create their own meaning for existence.”

@@Martin:Oh dear. Now you have changed the subject to “the commonly understood ‘pop’ view of Western materialistic atheism”. Well I and others dispute this is what is commonly understood as atheism. Anyway you have the opportunity to converse with real live “atheists” here and so disabuse yourself of these supposed “pop” views. Further this is a classic way in which one can encourage and spread bigotry and discrimination. Perpetuating common or pop views regardless of the facts. For example, one can hark back to so-called common and pop views of “blacks” in the 20th century (or chose your own example). What is the difference to what you are doing with “atheists” now? None that I can see.

@Jared:I’m not encouraging bigotry, I’m simply trying to respond to a belief system that is being espoused by a significant bloc within Western society. If you fundamentally disagree with major aspects of this common belief system, that’s fine. I’d be interested to hear your disagreements, actually.
I am still unclear as to what this “significant block” is that you are talking about. This has been the whole point from the start. A few unnamed blog and web site authors? The “New Atheists” four books whose sales are massively dwarfed by many evangelical writers is hardly a significant bock, especially because they have been read by a couple of million people does not mean all those readers agree with them? Materialists? Who exactly are you talking about?

@@Jared: “Simply saying ‘I don’t believe God exists’ may strictly qualify the speaker as an atheist, but that doesn’t leave a whole lot of room for discussion about the issues involved.”

@@Martin: For once you are quite correct! And this is the whole point. If you had written your article condemning the “New Atheists” which would include anyone who wholeheartedly agrees with them - not me for one - then this whole thread would have been quite different. You made the equivocation/obfuscation can you now retract your original post and update it in the light of your modification as to whom you are condemning?
Sadly it still seems there is unclarity on this key point.

@Jared:This entire post is an update of my original post, and I’ve prominently linked to it from my original post, so hopefully this helps remove any perceived obfuscation in my position. If not, then I really am at a loss on how I could clarify what I’m trying to say any further.
Thanks and acknowledged.

@Jared:I want to close with one final question which I’d love to hear you answer. In a universe devoid of ultimate meaning, purpose, or significance, how do we evaluate, without resorting to a simplistic appeal to biological group survival, human behavior?
This is a different topic and I have run out of time. Try http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com

@Jared:It seems you (and it’s not just you) are not willing to acknowledge that a statement of belief/non-belief in the existance/non-existance of God/supreme being/eternal mind/whatever affects much, much more than just that one idea.
I am not saying it does not affect ones worldview. It does. However one cannot know from the binary status of that data item how it affects a particular worldview. There is no asymmetry here either. For example a deist could have a pretty much identical worldview to someone who is an atheist. You simply do not know and it is nothing to do with the nuances of philosophy.

@Jared:If one believes in God, one cannot be a materialist.
Disagree - see my example above

@jared: If one does not believe in God, one may or may not be a materialist,
Agree

@jared: but since many atheists, particularly in the academic and scientific fields, are inherently materialists — and are so as a direct result of their atheistic perception of reality — the two regularly go hand in hand.
Disagree. Yes this is possible but it is just as likely that you have this upside down. Many are materialists first - as the only type of worldview that makes sense - and atheists second or as a consequence.

@jared: I made a mistake in failing to qualify my criticism of atheism as being of the materialistic kind
Agreed

@jared but I will not accept that it’s a mistake to criticize atheism for its encouragement of the materialistic view of reality.
It is not that “atheists” (not atheism) encourage this - “they” can reactively offer a meaningful version of the world we live in when challenged by theists, which is what I think you mean by materialism. The point is these are only needed to in response to challenges by certain theists who hold a dissenting view. Without these challenges there is simply noting to argue. When we want truth we look for the best means to achieve this and the result is what you call materialism (I would call it naturalism - there is a difference - but maybe this is not relevant here. I do not call myself a materialist).

@jared: Atheists criticize theists for accepting spiritual faith,
A few do yes, so what? Just knowing someone is an atheist - and they may not call themselves that nor find it a useful label - cannot tell you whether they are actively anti-faith or don’t care or recognize that some people want faith and think that is fine provided they do not interfere with society or something else. As I keep on saying you simply to do not know and to paint all “atheists” with this is the error I and others have been pointing out from the beginning of the previous thread.

@Jared: even though technically one can be a theist without having spiritual faith of any kind
Agreed

@Jared: so I say it’s perfectly permissible for theists to criticize atheists for accepting materialism
Of course theists do this, I am having an online conversation with one It is not a question of permission. I fully support free speech (I hope you do too). The point I was making is to whether it was morally permissible to do it the way you did given your self-proclaimed moral position.