If I’m an utilitarianist, wouldn’t that make me a believer in something similar to a higher power?

[Hejsan]

Hello everyone! I’m an atheist and I don’t believe in some sort of higher power, and especially not in religions. What I do believe is that we should live our lives to maximize the total happiness and minimize the total suffering in the world. I’m an utilitarianist.

When I was in a debate with a theist a couple of days ago (that was not believing in any sort of creation or all powerful God, but still in an higher power) he brought up a very interesting question; If I do believe that happiness is good and suffering is bad, wouldn’t that make me a believer in something similar to a higher power? What I meant by that is that if I believe that something is morally preferable (happiness) and something is not (suffering) and have no evidence for that it is so, does it make me a theist and a believer? And I really feel that happiness is something real and not something that the evolution has just brought us to think because the human race like, have less depressions and kill less if they believe in some moral values. I think happiness was an effect of evolution, although.

When I tried to argue against it I didn’t have any really good response. I said things like “Happiness is something all humans (and all sentient animals) feel and value, so it must be morally right”, but isn’t this just an appeal to popularity? I also said “Happiness and God is two different things. You can be sure that happiness is real and has value, because the only thing you can be sure about is what is happening is your mind, and even if happiness is an “illusion” it’s still happiness. God on the other hand could just be an illusion in your mind and probably just a trick your brain plays to make you feel happier in times of depression. God isn’t real if it’s an illusion, happiness is.”

Does those arguments work? Do you have to believe in something that isn’t just matter to make your life work? And doesn’t everybody believe that happiness is good and suffering is bad, even if you’re an atheist?

I think those questions is essential for the atheist debate.

… and you have to excuse me for my poor grammar. I’m only 13 and my native language is Swedish.

[Jebus]

Hejsan Hejsan,

You should write an introduction post.

I don't think that the belief in objective morality must require us to believe in a universal ethical code. Non-human animals tend to be amoral although human beings have a tendency to categorize what constitutes moral vs. immoral behavior. How they make this categorization will often depend on whether they are deontological (mainly religious people) or consequentialist (like you). This is mainly why humans arrive at different conclusions of what is moral or not.

Perhaps Brimstonesalad can give you a better explanation of how one can believe that happiness is better than suffering without believing in a universal ethical code.

[brimstoneSalad]

If I do believe that happiness is good and suffering is bad, wouldn’t that make me a believer in something similar to a higher power?

No. A power acts. This is a principle, and a principle is enacted -- it is enacted by humans. The only thing that engages in morality is a very mortal and mundane power (human power), which is in no sense "higher" than humans -- it IS humans.

It is, however, a collective power, because it's something we do together. That doesn't make it higher, just larger, broader; but it's very much on our level.

What I meant by that is that if I believe that something is morally preferable (happiness) and something is not (suffering) and have no evidence for that it is so, does it make me a theist and a believer?

No. It means you have moral values.
Theism is supernatural in nature.

It does mean that you believe (in the sense of regard positively and with hope) in those values -- but that is not the same as believing (in the sense of regarding as physically real) in a supernatural entity that does stuff. Morality is an idea, an ideal, a principle. When you conceive it, it is inherently real as a concept.

Believing in a magical invisible flying pink unicorn does not make that thing exist. But believing in and practicing morality DOES make that thing exist in our world as a force (your force), because it's something you do. YOU make it real by enacting it.

And I really feel that happiness is something real and not something that the evolution has just brought us to think because the human race like, have less depressions and kill less if they believe in some moral values. I think happiness was an effect of evolution, although.

Will is created by evolution, but it is intrinsically valuable because value is intrinsically a product of will.

Value doesn't exist without will.
Happiness is just part of will (something we often want to achieve).

“Happiness and God is two different things. You can be sure that happiness is real and has value, because the only thing you can be sure about is what is happening is your mind, and even if happiness is an “illusion” it’s still happiness. God on the other hand could just be an illusion in your mind and probably just a trick your brain plays to make you feel happier in times of depression. God isn’t real if it’s an illusion, happiness is.”

Yes, in a sense. Happiness is a qualia; it is a feeling in itself, because you experience it, and it only refers to the experience. God is an entity that has to be empirically real outside of your feelings about god; so, not a qualia.

In terms of what sounds like an "appeal to popularity", you need to reword that to talk more about the definition of value, as I did above.

… and you have to excuse me for my poor grammar. I’m only 13 and my native language is Swedish.

Colour me impressed. Your English is excellent.