Reconciling morality with atheism

[kahljorn]

and why would someone need to believe in a god to know that good actions have good results?

[sloth]

I'll try and keep it short because this could end up a huge post, but I think preechr's analogy with physics is mistaken. It is important to remember there ARE no 'laws of physics', only linguistic conventions that more or less approximate the way the universe is constituted. It is difficult to imagine because we are so firmly ensconced in language, but there is no extra-linguistic correlative to the laws of physics--no laws 'out there' that our laws 'in here' are progressing towards. It just is. One might be able to predict with greater accuracy the outcome of a certain event within a given discourse--quantum physics, astronomy and so on--but if anything, the best we can hope for is an asymptotic approach towards some condition of very marginal error. I think Lacan uses the example of Heisenberg's Principle as an example of a physics that acknowledges this hard limit to the capacity for science to explain the Real.

The concept of a law appeals to the notion of 'truth', which is a condition and inherent prejudice of language. With the introduction of language, something can lie; something can be other than it is. This is why laws fail, to be replaced with new and more comprehensive ones. The matter is complicated even further when you think that, as subjects of language, there are necessarily things that elude symbolisation. I couldn't even begin to imagine how to approach the issue of morality, but hopefully it might clear up the fallacy that anything might be considered an onward march towards some kind of absolute truth.

[Preechr]

I'm glad you managed to keep that short. I would have hated for you to spend a lot of time on it. I think you just misread my comments, either intentionally or accidentally... but again I'll take the blame and try to re-explain...

To paraphrase, you seem to be saying that what we call "laws of Physics" are only vague guidelines attempting to describe how things in nature really work. Unfortunately, I was not referring to vague guidelines attempting to describe how things in nature really work when I used the term "laws of Physics." I was talking about the way things really work in nature. The constants... what ever you wish to call them. Light, for example, behaves in a very consistent manner. We can observe that and try to describe it, but that language is, as you said, imperfect. The natural laws (or whatever you wish to call them) governing the manner of light, however, fits perfectly in with the larger body of natural laws that govern everything else in the universe. That's what I mean when I say Physics.

Again, if you would like to suggest a better term I'd be happy to use it.

Would you like to discuss what I was actually talking about now?

[kahljorn]

ghrsgrs