Sunday, 24 January 2010

Perfectly Logical Atheistic Thinking

During a discussion Here, I posted the following comment, seeking clarification on an atheist poster's thinking about standards of right and wrong. As I have posted elsewhere, (see my various posts on atheism or atheists) it is logically clear, to any person who analyses the matter sufficiently, that the atheist has no logical basis for assuming any objective standards of right and wrong, as opposed to standards dictated merely by subjective personal opinion, or by society, which is, after all, nothing more than the sum of the subjective personal opinions of a number of individuals.
My comment:
May we take it then that you believe that slavery, for instance, as practised a couple of centuries ago, was not wrong? That kidnapping African men and women, loading them into the holds of ships)where many died in passage), and forcing them into forced labour, was right because individuals and society agreed it was? Would the same go for any war, human or child sacrifice, genocide or mass slaughter in history was not wrong if the consensus of society was in favour?

Are you saying that child rape, for instance, is only wrong because society considers it wrong? In a society that considered child abuse acceptable, would it then be so?

If you agree, then, yes, at least your thinking is consistent.

The reply:
Well isn’t it? Every society has it’s own individual standards(consensus), for deciding what is right and what is wrong. It is different all over the world and has changed through out the times.

In each of those societies different things are seen as evil or good according to there cultural consensus. The second world war for japan is seen much differently than we in the west see it.

We as a society we create the objective standard for right and wrong. All the imaginary gods you come up with will never change it, just because you do not accept it, is not going to change it. Refusing to see reality as it is doesn’t make it invalid. it just makes you blind to it.

This commenter did rather avoid giving a direct answer, but ended up admitting exactly my point: that her/his thinking led directly to the conclusion that whatever was acceptable to a particular society at a particular time in history, was what was right.

So I suppose, if the thinking is completely logical, this commenter would approve of things like the holocaust, or any murder of any group by any religious majority, as long as it was considered acceptable by the majority at the time.

The logic is to be pitied, but it is entirely consistent.

Take Care

3 comments:

David said...

We as a society we create the objective standard for right and wrong.

I suspect the poster doesn't really understand the meaning of "objective", but, I agree, the thinking is rather sad.

John K said...

Sad, yes, and not a little scary!

Anonymous said...

Nice brief and this post helped me alot in my college assignement. Gratefulness you on your information.