Does Atheism Necessarily Imply Subjectivism?

I want to begin by laying my cards out on the table. I call myself agnostic technically, but I am honestly more confused about the whole God question. I am continuing to mull it over in my head and when I feel confident I will either pronounce myself a theist or an atheist. My only purpose for laying this out is to let the readers know where I am coming from.

Now, the question I am asking is whether atheism necessarily implies subjectivism when it comes to morality. In his book, Existentialism and Human Emotions, Jean Paul Sartre takes the position that yes, it does. He says some atheists try to say values exist a priori but that just isn't the case. I'll now provide the relevant quote.

--------------->"The existentialist, on the contrary, thinks it very distressing that God does not exist, because all possibility of finding values in a heaven of ideas disappears along with Him; there can no longer be an a priori Good, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it...Indeed, everything is permissible if God does not exist, and as a result, man is forlorn, because neither within him nor without does he find anything to cling to. He can't start making excuses for himself."<-----------------------------

A priori is just a fancy philosophical word meaning prior to sense experience. Usually an example cited for this is math. However, these is debate over whether it actually exists, but that is all Sartre is referring to here.

Anyway, now I want atheists and theists to answer this question. If you are an atheist, can objective moral values exist or is Sartre right that atheism implies subjectivism? And if you are a theist, do you agree with Sartre (which most of you probably will) or can atheists somehow have objective moral values?

A quick thought experiment for the theist to prime the pump. If God did not exist, would you kill and plunder with ease, or would you refrain and accept some type of morality without God?

 

Forgot to add, Sartre is an atheist!

 

Evolution provided our morality.

 

If 'evolution' provided morality; When and where did that morality first appear and who was the first recipient of such a morality? Can morality still be found in its natural condition [in nature](as it first appeared) without the involvement of man or other animals? Please show an example of an inanimate morality.

 

Nothing you said had anything to do with what I said.

As I keep saying you are willfully ignorant of science.

 

Sooner28, you are a breath of fresh air on a forum where the typical debate with an atheist devolves into discussions of the "flying spaghetti monster." At last, someone intelligent to talk to!!! Welcome to Religion Forum!!!

It seems obvious to anyone who believes in God that if he does not exist, then the Ten Commandments have no validity or force.

Without God, the Ten Commandments are not any more valid than any other set of rules. It is certainly true, that most of these rules are in effect in non-Judeo/Christian societies, but not all of them. And the break down is along the edges, where the rules are not so clear cut. For example, outside the world of Judeo/Christianity, exposing babies to the elements, or drowning them, is generally accepted and practiced. In our society, abortion is widely practiced and not even all Christians agree it is immoral. It is a very rare atheist who will take the stand for life in all circumstances.

Without God, the Ten Commandments have no force. There is no one watching the individual at all times to make sure the Ten Commandments are complied with. Thus, there is no ultimate justice. If a person can commit murder in secret, and not get caught by the police, then he has truly gotten away from all punishment for the crime. He need not even repent, because there is no purpose in repentence.

Studies have been shown that the most honest and ethical societies are those where fear of hell is greatest. This is not necessary a corrollary to religiousity, because there are cultures where God is considered merciful and he will not really send people to hell for minor acts of stealing. Japan is a startling exception to this rule, a country where people have no fear of hell, and yet is far more honest than any Christian country. On the other hand, Japanese believe that suicide is honorable, whereas in Christian countries suicide is considered a grave sin. I must assume the Japanese believe in some sort of moral code with consequences for non-compliance.

The atheists on this forum like to beat the Christians with the Crusades and the Inquisition, but they will not own up to such atheist atrocities like the Reign of Terror, Stalin's purges, and the Killing Fields of Cambodia. It is all a bit one-sided. Any serious discussion is nearly impossible, since it quickly devolves as cartoons and videos are posted showing the "flying spaghetti monster" and other such nonsense. I am glad to see someone serious joining the forum. Welcome!!!

 

Evolution wiped out the slow and stupid, like the Neaderthals. Evolution does not wipe out the immoral. On the contrary, history has shown that people willing to act immorally have a survival advantage over people who don't. Look at the leaders of our country. How many honest men are in Congress? You could count them on the fingers of one hand.

 

If you kill other members of your group then your group won't survive and/or they'll kill you and your genes won't get passed on. It IS that simple.

 

is the basis of morality. Fear of something in this life (i.e. another person or government) or the afterlife ("God", whatever form that is). Morality does not exist in the absence of fear. Many will try to convince themselves that there is "intrinsic good nature" or "intrinsic evil nature". Nonsense. Look deeper.

 

Every question I posed and every statement I made was relevant to the topic and relative to science and nature and 'evolution'.

I do believe that you have just exposed your own ignorance.

 

No, nothing you asked me made any sense whatsoever.

 

What was the last grade you attended in grade school?

 

Grade 7 was the last I attended in primary school.

 

Did you move forward from there?

 

Yes, on to high school.

 

No, though many atheists accept subjectivism.

Sartre is speaking of existentialists, and from the existentialist perspective. Some existentialists are atheists. Most atheists are not existentialists. I would propose that most atheists are probably positivists of some form or another. Positivism is rather starkly opposed to existentialism, and they definitely have a foundation for objective moral beliefs (namely, the world around us as a source of morality).

I think you're severely misunderstanding Sartre's perspective and how that is distinct from positivists. He operated under the assumption that sense experience is inherently subjective, while positivists would assert that even if our senses can be fooled, there are still commonalities in the external world about which multiple observers can agree, and these commonalities can form the basis for moral beliefs. Sartre is using this philosophical jargon in the existentialist manner, which is unusual, to say the least.

Personally I feel that both are profoundly wrong about the origin of objective morality, which little more than a constructed morality held by multiple people. Despite what Christians say when they claim objective moral standing, there is no actual support for the idea that god enforces moral laws. The only basis for their claim of objectivity is that their morality is written down in a book and held by large groups of people--which is the only actual requirement for objective morality.

Sartre is mainly implying that existentialism implies subjectivism, and poses a false dilemma relating to his own existentialist bias. There are other perspectives on the matter, often perspectives relating to one's own definition of objectivity. If there's a moral code written down in a book, you can objectively compare your actions against that moral code. It doesn't matter if there's some grand omnipotent being there to enforce moral laws.

What on earth would make you think it would be easy for subjectivists to kill and plunder, or that objective moral values are required for moral activity? A moral person is a harsher judge of themselves than any god would be.

 

I believe that atheism implies subjectivism for the same reasons stated by Sartre, or Nietzsche. Some atheists (Sam Harris for example) say that moral objectivity is possible without god, and he makes some very compelling arguments, but they are not persuasive, in my opinion. He claims that whatever maximizes human well being is objectively good, but I argue that if earth was sucked into a black hole and destroyed, it would not be good or bad because none of us would be here to make that judgement. It would be an amoral event.

However, I think most people will live "moral" lives and cooperate with each other as long as it is rewarding to do so, whether they believe in god or not. But morality changes as the environment, time and conditions change. Take our neighbors across the pond in Europe. After the riots in England, France, and Greece, it's clear they have been knocked supine from the moral high horse they sat upon when they criticized the people in the US for shouting at town hall meetings. And we are just seeing the tip of the iceberg. I wouldn't be surprised if they go cannibal in a year. (Not literally...I think.)

 

Did you graduate?

 

Yes. The question is did you?

 

Except he/she's not an atheist.

 

I didn't say he was.

But he has said he is an agnostic, and willing to listen.

 

You implied it.

Do you think you are going to change his mind?

 

No, I didn't.

I have no idea.

 

Is/Aught Fallacy. You really are proving the OP's point by using an argument like this.

 

Fear could never, ever, ever, EVER possibly be the basis of morality. Fear isn't rational, and no form of it is. Fear is a negative value, but negative values don't exist; only positive ones do. Why would you ever be scared of anything if you didn't think you first had something good worth keeping, worth living for?

This has got to be one of the most abhorrent posts I have read on this forum in a long time.