Atheists and values - FB conversation

FB friend B.R. posted this:

Yeah, I'm totally cool with this. In fact, when a declared atheist is elected to office, I hope he/she takes their oath over whatever book brings them the most inner peace and faith in humanity.

America's First Ever Hindu Congresswoman Will Take the Oath of Office Over the Bhagavad Gita jezebel.com

Me: I notice your two provisos for atheists, inner peace and faith in humanity. Why should they value them?

B.R.: Why shouldn't they? Belief in a determined God-figure is not required for inner peace and faith in humanity. I know many atheists who possess both provisos, and a few folks who believe in God but have neither.

Me: You miss my point. On what basis would you suggest that an atheist value the things you value? What other people possess is not relevant.

B.R.: Oh. Well. Then you can consider it wishful thinking. I pray that all human beings find inner peace, but obviously it's not a prerequisite for being an elected official. I would hope that elected officials have faith in humanity, but again it's not for me to say whether they do or not. Basically, I assume that Christians take the oath of office over the Bible because it represents their set of beliefs. Since atheists inherently have different beliefs, I hope they would choose a bound book that represents those beliefs. Inner peace and faith in humanity are just the ones I think are important. They can choose for themselves.

Me: Well said. You should have no expectation that they assent to the same values as you, or any values at all. But even to suggest that there is desirability for an atheist to select a symbol representative of their beliefs is in itself a moral imperative you are imposing. Further, to suggest that an atheist has any beliefs that should be explained or be adhered to is presumptuous. An atheist's values are of no interest or value to anyone other than the atheist.

D.G.: I disagree, Rich. A candidate's values are significant to me. I don't care what belief system those values arise from, and some values--e.g. prizing knowledge & accuracy--are often unrelated to belief systems that are traditionally considered religious or moral. But a candidate can't specify in advance how they'll respond to every possible policy issue, so their values are quite relevant to their performance in office.

B.R.: Thanks, I agree that it's foolish to expect them to have the same values. However, I'm completely satisfied to imposing an imperative that an elected official should take the oath of office by using a book that means something to them morally.

"Further, to suggest that an atheist has any beliefs that should be explained or be adhered to is presumptious." - Life has led me to understand that everyone has beliefs they adhere to, regardless of their religious commitment or lack thereof. I've never met someone without beliefs.

"An atheist's values are of no interest or value to anyone other than the atheist." - Why not? Why are they of any less value than a religious person's, especially in the scenario that they're an elected official?

Me: D.G., I quote agree, a candidate's values are significant to me as well. But we are talking specifically about atheists. An atheist's values, if any, are chosen based on whatever criteria he might deem important, and abandoned or modified in the same way. You or anyone else who might place expectations on an atheist to value something or perform or believe in a certain way is an imposition of your values upon the atheist. The atheist as well has no moral imperative to impose his on you. One might justifiably wonder how an atheist can govern without imposing values.

Me: B.R., it is true that everyone seems to have values. This is not being disputed. It is the nature of those values, how they are arrived at, and the obligations we might put on ourselves to act or not act on them that is the issue. If values are personal and individually determined, embraced, modified, and rejected, then they are only relevant for the individual.



I did not say that they were less valuable than a religious person's. I did not even mention religious people. I simply pointed out that personally determined values are not relevant to anyone else but the person.

B.R.: Wait. "a candidate's values are significant to me as well"..."personally determined values are not relevant to anyone else but the person". Can you clear this up for me?

D.G.: Not really sure I follow you, Rich. (FWIW, I'm an atheist myself, if that matters.)

An atheist can change their values, so can a religious person; people change religions, and people arrive at a different understanding of their own religious tradition through study and experience.

As far as imposing values, any candidate--religious or not--is democratically justified in governing according to their values; that is what we elect them for. Part of the election may involve the candidate discussing which of their values they believe apply to them personally, versus which they believe are broadly applicable; that way we can choose to elect people who will govern according to our values, even if they hold some additional private values that we disagree with.

Me: We all seem to agree that values are important and ought to be presented to us in order to ascertain what sort of person the candidate is. It is a mistake, however, to expect reciprocity.

The point I'm trying to make is that for a person who selects their values, those values have no objective measure. If, for example, someone decides to select a value like "stealing is wrong," it is quite different to then say, "since I believe stealing is wrong, no one should steal." That is an imposition of values on the basis of a moral imperative that has been personally determined.

Me: D.G., the fact that you are an atheist doesn't really matter to me, but perhaps I might jump on the opportunity by questioning you a bit, if you're agreeable. What are some of your most important values, and how did you decide them?

D.G.: Rich: with all due respect, you seem to falling into the common fallacy of assuming that secular values are particular whereas religious values are general. The paradox this raises has been known since the time of the Greek philosophers: is God good because He is moral, or is morality good because it is Godly? If the former, then the secular are just as entitled to define universal values as the religious; if the latter, then morality is arbitrary, and the religious are no more justified in defining it than the secular. And of course, even assuming a divine morality, any human can only pursue their imperfect understanding of that morality, hence the religious are subject to the same uncertainty as the secular.

As for my values: I derive from a mix of general reason, and acceptance of the values of my culture and community. Which IMHO, is also what religious people do. :)

Me: I have made no mention of religious values, and this is the second time I've pointed it out. If you're referring to the Euthyphro dilemma, "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods," I find this among the most disappointing and intellectually weak example of the Socratic method.

Again, I have not invoked religious values, so comparing the utility of religous values to secular values is not relevant. However, regarding arbitrary morality, indeed, you have cogently defined the problem. And this is what I'm trying to get to. Arbitray morality is not morality at all, but instead a bunch of pretty ideas that are impossible to distinguish between for their value. For what criteria would you use to judge, since your judgment would be appealing to some sort of extant value set?

Why do you value reason as tool for determining values?

D.G.: The reason I've mentioned religious values is that you've made several statements about atheists, and so I assumed an implicit contrast between atheists and theists. If I was wrong, and your statements about atheists also apply to theists, then I apologize for my misunderstanding.

If you believe Euthyphro's dilemma is not actually a dilemma, then I would love to know how you answer it.

And I fully agree with you that the choice of reason as a tool is itself an arbitrary value. That's my point--theist or atheist, our values must fundamentally be based on some arbitrary assumption, there is no other choice.

If you disagree, then let me reverse the question. What basis is there for any universal values? If that basis is God, and you know God through reason, then isn't your choice to respect reason just as arbitrary as mine? Or if you know God through faith, then isn't your faith just as personal and subject as my values?

Me: I've centered on atheists because Ben brought it up. The idea that atheists should present their values seemed a bit odd to me. There is no implied contrast, and no need for one. The evaluation of atheist values stands on its own.

As we've dug into the concepts, we have discovered that values are arbitrary. This means that no one value can be deemed better, important, universal, or desireable. Morality is meaningless. Murder = good is just as valuable as peanut butter = good. That is what we are left with, and any discussion of them becomes likewise meaningless, because our discussion itself relies on rules of logic and reason, which in themselves must be meaningless. We cannot even say that "everything is relative," because "everything" is an absolute, making the assertion an absolute that self contradicts.

Ok, for some reason you insist on discussing religion, so let me take a crack at it. The practice of religious morality, whether imperfect or not, does not impugn the religion, only the adherents. The fundamental basis of most religions is an objective standard. It may or may not be difficult to discern, but that is not relevant. The fact is, that standard exists. Therefore, values can be evaluated according to this standard, however imperfectly. Some values, then, are better than others. This makes moral statements meaningful, because they now have context. Without context there is no meaning.

For the atheist, there cannot be meaning except for the meaning they construct. There is no context, apart from immediate environment. Their morality, then, is a second hand one, appropriated from prevailing culture. They must manufacture a reason for existence without possessing the tools to determine if indeed it is meaningful.

Me: Gawd can I jabber on and on, or what?

D.G.: Rich: Ben explicitly mentioned atheism /in parallel/ with religions. With all due respect, you were the one who singled out atheists to suggest that their values are irrelevant.

My position is that theist values are just as arbitrary as atheist values; but we have to make some choices about values in order to live together as a society. Therefore public discussion of values is equally relevant for theists and atheists.

We seem to both agree that atheist values are arbitrary, so I guess the only remaining topic of disagreement is whether theist values are also arbitrary. :)

Pardon me if I missed it, but I still haven't seen an actual response to Euthyphro's dilemma, other than mere dismissal. Let's say we accept, for the sake of argument, that there is a God, and that God endorses a particular set of moral values. Why should we follow those values?

Enjoying jabbering with you. :)

Me: I think regarding Euthyphro I'll just refer you to a favorite blog, Vox Day. He's a Christian libertarian Mensa member that will certainly provoke you. But I caution you to spend about 6 weeks there before posting comments. It took me longer than than that, and I still got my hat handed to me. His regular posters are ruthless and don't suffer foolish statements gladly. http://voxday.blogspot.com/2007/02/non-dilemma-of-euthyphro.html

Me: I don't know that anyone should follow God's values. I would hazard to say that that isn't even the primary issue when it comes to religion. But in any case, God's game, God's rules.

D.G.: That post is an interesting contextualization of the Euthyphro dialog! But it doesn't seem to do anything to answer the question of why we should obey God (again, assuming even that there is one and that we know what He/She/It wants).

You say "God's game, God's rules", but why? Is it because God will punish me if I don't follow? That's self-interest, not morality. Is it because God knows what's best for humans? That assumes I want to do what's best for humanity, not just for myself. Is it because morality must mean something beyond self-interest? That's already an arbitrary assumption, right there.

Hence my argument. I make an arbitrary assumption that we should listen to some of the innate values that have enabled humans to form societies; that doesn't answer all questions, but it provides a starting point. You make an arbitrary assumption that we should listen to God; that doesn't answer all questions, but it provides a starting point. How are we different?

Me: Euthyphro isn't about why we should obey God. Actually gods.

You will recall that I said that I don't know that anyone should follow God's values. But if there is a God, it's his game and his rules. There is no moral imperative there. Don't follow God's rules, God does what he does. Follow God's rules, God does what he does.

Vox Day is a high level video game designer. He created universes and beings and planets. He created the rules by which the game functioned. They weren't arbitrary, they had to be consistent for the universe to work. That made him God of that universe, and what rules he installed were there because it was his game.

If values are arbitrary, there are no innate ones. Humans have formed cruel and inhumane societies (two arbitrary value judgments there), societies that perpetrated all sorts of atrocities (another arbitrary value judgment). I see no innate morality at work anywhere.

I made no assumption we should listen to God. I stated just the opposite.

D.G.: Fair enough, let's try and unwind the discussion a little. :)

You originally stated that "You should have no expection that [atheists] assent to the same values as you, or any values at all." Given that the context was a parallel between atheists and theists, I am going to take your statement to imply that it is reasonable to expect theists to have values; please correct me if I'm misinterpreting you.

I do agree that is reasonable for theists to have--and publicly discuss--values. I would argue that since theistic values are based on an arbitrary assumption (that we should obey God), it is equally reasonable for atheists to have and discuss values based on different assumptions. Do you agree with that?

Alternately, I can see an argument that since values are ultimately arbitrary, discussions of values are meaningless, at least outside communities that share common assumptions. I.e. it's fine to discuss them at church or in the family, but it's pointless to discuss them in politics or philosophy. Is that your view?

Me: D.G., I don't know you, but I am appreciative of the fact that you are willing to explore the issues in a thoughtful, respectful way. That is rare in my experience with atheists. So I hope you don't mind if I am direct at times. Hopefully we've built enough of a platform of mutual respect.

I'm having some trouble retaining the focus. And that trouble is one I seem to have with many atheists in discussions, that is, everything atheists propose to discuss is in the context of comparing it to religion. "Yeah, well, religion does it too" or "religion sucks at that" is not a philosphy of life.

If you define your atheism in the context of religion, then your life is based on reactionarianism. Thus, religion always guides your morals, but sometimes you agree and sometimes not. Regardless of the nature of religious values, you still have to live with your own. But they're not really yours if they must always be defined by religion. Beyond that, if they are arbitrary and meaningless, then ultimately you cannot measure your life. This is problematic, and it has nothing to with what religionists do or say or believe or if their morals are also arbitrary.

I decided to reluctantly indulge your fixation on religion, but you seem to want to force me to defend religion. But I want to compartmentalize religion and atheism. I would hope that atheism can stand on its own, without invoking that which you dislike so that what you do like might make more sense in comparison.

Me: Crap, ok. Let me lay it out. Most religion is based on absolute, transcendent morality. Therefore, part of what the religionist is charged with doing is to grok this out. Since there is a transcendent morality, by definition it isn't arbitrary. You seem to suggest that our choice whether to adopt it is arbitrary, but I don't think that is an accurate characterization. In any case, that would be a separate transaction.

The rules of the game make the game work. If we can make up the rules or vote one them, then when the rules change, the game changes. If gravity doesn't work any more, then we have a problem. If morality becomes irrelevant, either through choice or majority vote, then anything goes. Murder = good is meaningless.

There might be some sort of freedom one experiences when they can make up their own rules. However, I would suggest that it isn't freedom at all when one is a slave to their own passions. There is true freedom in knowng that today's rules are the same as yesterday's and tommorrow's. Not having to guess is liberating. Or would you like to play poker with me if I can change the rules anytime I want?

D.G.: Thanks to you as well for helping me understand where you're coming from. :)

I feel like we're jumping between two realms of discourse: epistemology and ethics. To me, as an atheist, with no reference to religion, epistemology says: it is not possible to have absolute morality, absolute values, etc. Ethics says: maybe so, but here are a set of principles that have worked for humankind for millennia; let's explore them, and see how we can make them better.

You say: atheists can't have ethics, because of epistemology. I say: you and I are in the same boat. The reason I keep harping on religion is to point out that you and I are alike. We both base our values on assumptions that we can't fundamentally justify. And that's okay! Values are still important and worthwhile.

Me: Not quite. I assert that the ethics atheists possess are either meaningless and therefore irrelevant, or they are derived from from religion, which provides a stable frame of reference.

Once again, the nature of transcendent morality is not arbitrary by definition. The adoption of those values is separate transaction, which of course you do describe as arbitrary. However, this is incorrect, because the fundamental transaction between man and religion is not a values adoption, it is an assent to enter into God's game on his side. From that transaction there are a number of other assents, which eventually will yield a decision about morality. But that is not the first transaction, or even the most important one.

It's at this point I want to distinguish between religion, which is a system of rules and understandings, and faith, which is an assent to certain propositions that are not based on empirical data. Everyone possesses faith, but not everyone with faith is religious. In fact, those whose faith expression is in God are increasingly rejecting religion (i.e., the systemized practice of religious duties). You may count me amongst those.

I repeat, everyone exercises faith. Whether it is the faith that gives one assurance that the bridge they are diving across warrants the unfounded trust that it hold underneath them for one more day, or the faith that God is out there somewhere and kinda digs us, faith is the certainty regarding which cannot be known.

I do agree, then, that we are in the same boat. We both have faith in various stuff that cannot be proven. Since we are both men of faith, the only thing that we differ in is what we put our faith in. I'm cool with that.

D.G.: I'm with you on the last point. I've heard some people claim that atheism itself is faith; I disagree with that, I think it's a matter of reason (whether or not you agree with it). But I do think that choosing to adopt some way of looking at the world--any way--is a matter of faith; so yes, I am a man of faith. That's where I depart from the highly positivist atheists (e.g. Sam Harris).

So this may be a fine place to end the discussion. But if you feel like continuing to chat, let me probe on your last statement. Why must a discussion of ethics be based on transcendent morality in order to be meaningful?

Me: Actually, you have faith in reason :) What I said (or meant to say) is that an unchanging standard is needed to take something from the arbitrary into the realm of meaning. Example. How do I know how long something is? I use a ruler. How do I know if the ruler is accurate? Because there is a universal, unchanging standard that I can compare against. A meter is "...the length of the path traveled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second."

Now, my analogy does fail at the point of recognizing the standard was arbitrarily adopted. However, if we assent for the moment to the proposition that God is the author of morality, then the analogy holds since he is an intelligent being, in the manner of the scientist, and he installed certain standards that we might describe as arbitrary. But we would only call them arbitrary due to our limited perspective. Not knowing the reason is not the same thing as there being no reason.

If I don't have a standard, then what I measure out as 3 cm. might not be even close. I may determine it is right for me, but I can't be assured of anything beyond that. As such it is meaningless. For what use is something that is supposed to be 3 cm. but isn't?

It is that transcendent standard that assures me that out there in the universe somewhere is the the possibility of coming to grips in some fashion with truth, a truth I can compare myself to. Aside from its obvious utility, it is something of, dare I say, eternal worth.

D.G.: Goedel proved that no axioms of mathematics could establish their own consistency. Before him, there had been a hope to establish the single true, correct set of axioms of mathematics; he proved that was impossible. But that doesn't mean that math is meaningless. We choose axioms that enable us to do useful things; and when working with a given set of axioms, we apply them consistently.

I see secular ethics as being similar. Unlike mathematics, reasoning about the real world is fuzzy. But the idea is the same: we choose a set of principles and try to reason consistently from them.

Just like in math, where different axioms can produce varying but equally valid results (e.g. planar vs spherical geometry), different moral assumptions can produce varying outcomes. And just like in math, if you choose axioms that lead to contradiction, the mathematical community will reject your work; so in human society, if you choose morals that are incompatible with group coexistence, the human community will exclude you.

Me: I think we are winding down, but you brought up a new point I'd like to address. Will human society really exclude immoral behavior? I don't think so, for several reasons: 1) present-day immorality is celebrated as cutting-edge, courageous, and an expression of freedom; 2) Not all societies have the same morality, like people groups in South America who engage in cannibalism; 3) most morality never expresses itself in behavior, since morality tends to be a restrainer against undesirable behaviors that would otherwise be engaged in; 4) morality is always in flux, particularly for the very reasons we are having this discussion: it's arbitrary nature when decoupled from a universal standard.

D.G.: I think morality is as much an impelling as a restraining force, although I suppose the restraint aspect is more critical for basic coexistence.

And I'd say there's two forms of exclusion--social disapproval, and criminal sanctions. In both cases I agree they're definitely variable by culture, time, etc. But since I don't believe in absolute morality, I don't see that as inherently a problem.

Me: Curious. You are nothing more than the product of unguided forces, and random assemblage of atoms with no meaning, here today, gone tomorrow. Yet you live your life as an absolutist. You expect people to follow the rules. You shamed me for putting up a commentary that violated your sensibilities. You probably get mad when someone cuts you off in traffic.

You live, breathe, and act as if there is absolute morality. Yet it is not inherently a problem? What? So if cannibalism is the prevelant practice in your neighborhood, you're cool with that? How about sex with children? People handing out Bibles on the street corner? People taking a crap in your living room? It's all good as long as it's the prevailing social practice, right?

D.G.: My prime goal in life is to be happy. As a social creature, I am made happy by living in a society where others are also happy; even for my individual happiness, I want the society around me to operate smoothly so that I can benefit from it.

To support this goal, I promote a moral code that I believe maximizes the happiness of our society. If others disagree with this code, they are free to flout it; depending on what I believe the impact of their divergence is, I may attempt to dissuade it, either through persuasion, social ostracism, or voting for government sanctions on their conduct.

If I had been raised in a different culture I might have a different moral premise, or different conclusions based on the same premise. If another person and I share some premises, we can argue who is right or wrong based on our shared premises.

If we share no premises, then ultimately it comes down to force. In our society, we call people with whom we share no moral premises 'psychopaths'; and we physically coerce them to follow the basics of our moral code.

Me: Please don't patronize me. Wanting everyone to be happy is the bumper sticker equivalent of "Visualize World Peace." Happiness is nothing more than an enhanced chemical state in the brain, and has no particular virtue. Yet you find it desirable to impose this value by the force of law if necessary.

I am incredibly disappointed.

D.G.: I didn't say that it was easy to figure out what makes everyone happy. It's not even easy to figure out what makes one person happy! But we've got to start with some basic premises.

Why is murder wrong? Partly because it saddens the people who are left behind. Partly because it saddens all of us if we have to live in fear for our lives. Partly because if people can't be confident in their physical safety, it makes it difficult to build a society; and building a society is necessary to all sorts of things (economic security, personal development, etc.) which lead to human happiness. The Founders of the United States didn't think that happiness was trivial; that believed that the pursuit of happiness was one of the cornerstones of human rights, along with life and liberty.

All human experiences are chemical states in the brain; if those have no particular virtue, then all human experience is meaningless. Even if your personal sense of meaning comes from a connection to what you believe is an external transcendence, that still expresses itself physically as a chemical state in your brain.

Me: Indeed, why is murder wrong? By extension, why is saddening people wrong? Why is it bad to not be confident in your physical safety? Why is it bad for it to be difficult to build society? Why is economic security good? Why is what the Founders had to say of any merit? You might answer because *this* or *that*, but then I will ask for your premise for those statements, and so on until we get to your fundamental value. If that isn't an absolute value, then we have to continue to ask for that premise.

Why do you think chemical reactions in our brains have virtue? What it the trail of your premises that we can trace that leads us to a fundamental, authoritative value that can be declaratively stated? Meaningless? Yes, indeed, that has been my point all along from the very beginning. Unless you can anchor yourself to a basic, indisputable values premise, an appeal to something you don't establish yourself as the highest judge of, there is no meaning beyond what you happen to attribute to it at the moment. And no one else can be required to find merit in it since they also determine their own values as they please.

There is no meaning without rules that prevail over our chemical reactions.

D.G.: Okay, now we're just going in circles. So I'm going to rephrase my question from earlier in the thread: why is the arbitrary premise "we should obey God" a more solid foundation for morality than any other arbitrary premise?

The need to choose axioms is simply an inescapable part of human reasoning. It is true of my belief system, your belief system, and any belief system that is even colorably related to logic. (And even the validity of logic is itself an axiom, as you noted earlier in the thread.) If that's meaningless, then so is the whole enterprise of human reason, including this conversation.

Me: Not circles, we're peeling the onion's layers to see what's inside. I'm wanting to see what's in the center of yours. If there's nothing there, then yes, most certainly the whole enterprise of human reason is futile. Which is precisely the whole point.

Yes, you are quite right once again. Humans must have a reason, a purpose. That's how we are built. Nothing, and I mean nothing, makes sense without a purpose. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn_HupY6pkk&feature=fvwrel



If we are a result of unguided forces, by definition we have no purpose. All we have left is our pitiful attempts to impose some sort of reason for being when there cannot be. The universe doesn't care about you or me, Dan.

Once again, I did not make the claim that we should obey God. No one has that obligation.

D.G.: So if you don't believe that obeying God is the basis for universal morality, then what is its basis?

You've asked me over and over again for the basis of my morality, and I've said, in many different ways, that it ultimately rests on an arbitrary choice of axioms. You dismiss and deride that, which tells me that either: you dismiss and deride all morality; or, you believe that there is some basis for universal morality, a basis that is not an arbitrary axiom. So which is it? And if the latter, what is that basis?

Me: I appreciate your continued probing. It helps clarify my philosophy and thinking.

First, I have made no claim for universal morality, which I why I think there is no obligation to obey God. I made a claim for transcendent morality, a standard that is unwavering like the measure for determining the length of a meter. But this, judging only by simple virtue of its existence, cannot contain an imperative for being accepted.

I do not dismiss or deride your arbitrary standards. I only point out the lack of meaning and purpose inherent in such a position. Your insistence on finding meaning where there is none is the grand contradiction which you have yet to explain. You seem to stand firm on the idea that your random collection of molecules is important in some way. I don't get that.

I have not actually got to the point of explaining my moral structure, for which I am sorry. I have been a seeker of information on this particular thread, because this is for me is a unique opportunity to engage a atheist on a level I have never before been able to achieve. You are so unlike the smug, arrogant atheists I invariably encounter. So, I am tapping as deep as I can into your understanding of the way the world works.

Me: Kudos to B.R. for allowing this to continue.

B.R.: Kudos to you for continuing it. I'm sorry you don't feel like the universe cares about you. I believe we are one with the universe.

D.G.: Thanks again for explaining, Rich.

At a certain level, I think we agree. With a universal frame of reference, life is meaningless; the Universe is meaningless; this conversation is meaningless. By that standard, it's also meaningless to say that anything is meaningless; since if everything is meaningless, then meaninglessness is also meaningless.

To put things somewhat less tautologically: You say my belief system is meaningless. I ask you: compared to what?

I believe that the very notion of meaning is human and relative. Claiming that something human is meaningless because it is grounded in humanity is like complaining that air is gaseous or that leaves are organic.

A wonderful part of the human mind and human language is that we can describe--and sometimes even envision--impossibilities and contradictions. Transcendent meaning is one of those contradictions.

J.O.: Wow. You guys should publish this. Deeply fascinating. Hard to disagree with either.

J.M.: Epic debate.... Mahabharata sort..

Me: Meaningless in the sense that peanut butter = good. A statement of preference. No way to quantify. No better or worse than murder = good. By analogy, if you were to tell me how to visit you, you would need to know where I'm located, or at minimum, where you are located. Something more than an undifferentiated point floating in space that will provide context and meaning.

How ironic. You ask, "...compared to what?" There you have it. You are asking for a frame of reference that is needed but does not exist in the arbitrary morality universe you inhabit.

You are correct, we are what we are. But our existence is not self justifying. We are only an accident of unguided forces. But we are probably the only species on the planet that is self-aware. So we ruminate and think and expect to find meaning. I'm pretty sure my dog does not do that.

Therefore, the fact of "we" is also meaningless apart from context. The purpose we find in your universe is a construct, an illusion. Humankind, indeed, all of existence is rudderless, aimless, and empty, except for the shaky tower of purpose we build for ourselves in a pointless effort to become relevant.

Unless there's God. That changes everything.

D.G.: I don't expect to change your mind in this debate, but I do hope you understand my position better. And if there's one thing I want you to take away from this, it's that shared meaning is possible without universal meaning.

Even though we disagree on many things, you and I can have a conversation because we agree on shared principles of reason. Similarly, as a society we can have conversations about ethics because we accept certain shared premises, of which the value of human happiness is one of the most basic.

I believe that your search for transcendental meaning is futile and misguided. You believe that my adoption of premises not based on transcendental meaning is illogical and pointless. So be it. Via our differing approaches, we reach common ground--not identical, but overlapping--on which to build a society where we both can live.