Hacker News Reader

Comment by cwtann | Hacker News Reader

I like his take on this. I normally describe myself as an atheist but only because I don't believe that any of the religions I've studied are true. But I am open to other possibilities and I think this guy describes that well.

View on HN

Is there anyone outside of a mental institution who isn't open to other possibilities? There has to be something seriously wrong with you if you are willing to state a priori that you will not consider unequivocal evidence of a new phenomenon, should it appear.

While it's true that few would explicitly state that, there are certainly people on both sides that feel free to ignore inconvenient evidence.

Not exactly a shocking revelation, but humans aren't purely logic-driven beings.

Could you name some inconvenient evidence that people on the atheist side tend to ignore? I'm not claiming that there isn't such evidence, but often when people criticize "people on both sides", they're committing an equivocation fallacy because it sounds wise. I'm curious to see if you did, too.

The argument from morality is the first that comes to mind. Few atheists are willing to really embrace the moral nihilism that a materialist philosophy seems to require.

Few atheists are willing to really embrace the moral nihilism that a materialist philosophy seems to require.

My dog does OK with a philosophy of pure materialism, I figure I can, too.

Unless your dog is uniquely talented, it is incapable of holding any philosophy, materialist or not.

And yet he doesn't kill and eat my family the moment I turn my back. He doesn't need philosophy as a source of morality, and he doesn't need faith... he only needs socialization.

I think you're confusing moral nihilism (the philosophical proposition) and moral/immoral behavior. The two are not directly correlated.

Perhaps; can you elaborate on the difference? What exactly would be the property of a social animal -- dogs, humans, whatever -- that allows it to restrain its own baser instincts? In humans the term morality is often used to describe this property, but I'll admit I don't know how correct that is.

Well, to cite Wikipedia, "Moral nihilism is the meta-ethical view that nothing is moral or immoral."

The primary opposing viewpoint is moral realism, which holds that statements like "Intentionally killing an innocent person is immoral" are both meaningful and capable of being evaluated as a truth claim.

In general, I believe the ability of a social animal to restrain "baser" instincts would be referred to as social cooperation. For humans, a moral realist would say that while morality is closely related, it also can't be reduced to merely social cooperation.

For humans, a moral realist would say that while morality is closely related, it also can't be reduced to merely social cooperation.

Sure, I'd buy that. But I will also stand by my assertion that what you're calling "social cooperation" is sufficient for a workable morality to emerge. At no point is there a necessity for religion.

There are lots of people like that. It's very common and normal. Regardless of what people are willing to state, many will simply not consider unequivocal evidence of new phenomena if it contradicts their beliefs. They may recognize that the popular thing to do is claim to be open minded, and then disregard the evidence anyway. They may not even realize they're doing it.

There are loads of Christians who proudly proclaim that there's nothing, absolutely nothing, that could possibly change their minds about anything related to their faith. Even peripheral doctrinal issues, like whether or not prayers for healing work. They see this as virtuous, an ideal of unwavering faith to which they should all aspire.

(Note that I'm not saying this is unique to Christians, or that it applies to all or even most Christians. Here endeth the disclaimer.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com