Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

PDN · 24-05-2011 3:38pm

pts wrote: »

What was redefined? What was the original definition and what is the new definition? I don't think your point makes sense.

The original definition of right and wrong, as used for centuries, is that something is closer to or more distant from an absolute moral standard.

So, for example, 2x6=432 is wrong, not because it is a matter of opinion, but because it is objectively untrue. Any heuristic concerning moral rightness or wrongness, unless based on an objective moral truth, has lapsed into subjectivity where words mean whatever you want them to.

Any heuristic you may propose is more a case of x+y+z which, of course, can always be true where x,y and z have no objective meaning except where you arbitrarily give them a meaning that gurantees the equation will work.

Zombrex · 24-05-2011 3:43pm

PDN wrote: »

Ah, not so fast. Right and wrong are opinions if we accept your initial atheistic assumptions.

Line 100 people up, be they Christians, Muslims, Hindus or Atheists and ask them a moral question and you will get 100 different opinions back.

PDN wrote: »

So, the position being advanced by atheists to Christians would seem to be that science can determine right and wrong if you begin by accepting the atheist's conclusion as a premise.

No, but nice straw man :rolleyes:. I don't agree with Harris but that isn't Harris' position to start with. That position seems to exist only in your head, and needless to say I've no desire to argue with such ignorance.

When you understand what the heck we are talking about, irrespective of whether you agree with it or not, get back to us.

PDN wrote: »

In my book, however, right and wrong are absolute concepts.

I can't begin to explain how utterly irrelevant what is or isn't in your book is to me or I imagine Sam Harris.

pts · 24-05-2011 3:58pm

PDN wrote: »

The original definition of right and wrong, as used for centuries, is that something is closer to or more distant from an absolute moral standard.

You could define morality in that way. We can say that there is a scale which goes from -10 to +10 and all moral decisions can be plotted along that scale and the morality of a decision is a function of the distance to 0.

However it is useless unless you have a way of measuring how far a moral decision is from 0. In your opinion the distance between murder and 0 could be -10. However the point is that there isn't a universally agreed way of measuring this distance. So even if the scale exists, there isn't a way of measuring the distance which isn't based on a person or set of peoples opinions.

PDN wrote: »

So, for example, 2x6=432 is wrong, not because it is a matter of opinion, but because it is objectively untrue. Any heuristic concerning moral rightness or wrongness, unless based on an objective moral truth, has lapsed into subjectivity where words mean whatever you want them to.

2x6=432 is not true because the relationship between those numbers are defined in such a way as to make it not true.

PDN wrote: »

Any heuristic you may propose is more a case of x+y+z which, of course, can always be true where x,y and z have no objective meaning except where you arbitrarily give them a meaning that guarantees the equation will work.

This relates back to my first point on distance measures.

I'd love to stay and discuss this, but I can't. I'll be back this evening to see what progress has been made and how many conversions we've had

.

Fanny Cradock · 24-05-2011 4:02pm

pts wrote: »

While I don't disagree with your point, I do believe there are gray areas such as abortion. We can try to record the scientific facts about when a fetus feels pain, develops a working brain etc etc yet this scientific knowledge is unlikely to change his/her opinion on the moral choice of abortion.

Probably because it isn't a scientific question.

Fanny Cradock · 24-05-2011 4:05pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Why pick one over the other?

Presumably because philologos, like the rest of us, is of the opinion that not all hypothesis are of equal value.

Zombrex · 24-05-2011 4:10pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Presumably because philologos, like the rest of us, is of the opinion that not all hypothesis are of equal value.

Yes I know that, I'm asking why pick the one he picks. I assume it wasn't just arbitrary (though my word sometimes I wonder)

CerebralCortex · 24-05-2011 4:12pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes I know that, I'm asking why.

Because he'd like it that way.

PDN · 24-05-2011 4:26pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Line 100 people up, be they Christians, Muslims, Hindus or Atheists and ask them a moral question and you will get 100 different opinions back.

And that is massively missing the point. Just because people disagree on something does not mean that the subject of their disagreement has no objective value.

For example, 100 people might disagree about how old the earth is. It does not logically follow that the age of the earth is no more than a matter of opinion. The earth still is a particular age, irrespective of how many people know or don't know it.

No, but nice straw man . I don't agree with Harris but that isn't Harris' position to start with. That position seems to exist only in your head, and needless to say I've no desire to argue with such ignorance.

When you understand what the heck we are talking about, irrespective of whether you agree with it or not, get back to us.

Well, if you're just going to get personal any time someone doesn't share your assumptions then this thread will go the same way as the BC&P (which is fine by me, so long as you keep your nonsense out of the rest of the forum

).

I can't begin to explain how utterly irrelevant what is or isn't in your book is to me or I imagine Sam Harris.

In that case you'd probably be better off slapping each other's backs and agreeing with each other in the A&A Forum rather than pretending to engage with people like me.

And I couldn't care less what is relevant to Sam Harris. Unless, of course, he starts posting in the Christianity Forum.

Zombrex · 24-05-2011 4:42pm

PDN wrote: »

And that is massively missing the point. Just because people disagree on something does not mean that the subject of their disagreement has no objective value.

Which is utterly irrelevant to the point, as I've already explained. Whether people believe their opinion is subjective to them or in line with the objective moral truth of the universe, it is still opinion and can be shared or rejected by others.

No one is redefining any words.

PDN wrote: »

In that case you'd probably be better off slapping each other's backs and agreeing with each other in the A&A Forum rather than pretending to engage with people like me.

I'm not pretending to engage with people like you at all, I don't remember coming to you with anything. You came on to this thread misrepresenting Harris' view, ranting about the English language, proceed to jump from that to claiming atheists are advancing this position to Christians as if we all actually agree with Harris and then threw your toys out of the pram when you were called on this.

I was having a discussion with Jakkass about the nature of morality before you decided to jump in and share your particular unique perspective about atheists and how terrible we all are. The flaws in this were pointed out, the straw man was exposed and now you are having a hissy fit.

If you have anything relevant to the discussion to add I'm all ears. If you want to rant about how you control the Christianity forum and how much you don't like atheists, well frankly you can save your breath. :rolleyes:

philologos · 24-05-2011 5:15pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Right and wrong have always been opinions, no redefinition of these words is required to get to Harris' argument.

So now we are backing away from the idea that objective moral rights and wrongs can be determined via science?

PDN · 24-05-2011 5:18pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Which is utterly irrelevant to the point, as I've already explained. Whether people believe their opinion is subjective to them or in line with the objective moral truth of the universe, it is still opinion and can be shared or rejected by others.

And nobody is disputing that it can be shared or rejected by others. However, there are opinions that are true and opinions that are untrue.

You can't have your cake and eat it. If morality is subjective and nothing more than a matter of opinion then you can't measure it scientifically.

No one is redefining any words.

They are if they assign an arbitrary value to right or wrong that is not grounded in objective truth.

When, for example, people say that paedophilia is 'wrong' - they are not saying that paedophilia has no objective moral value or evil, is simply divergent from an arbitrarily chosen set of values, and if we choose a different set of values then that will make paedophilia morally 'right'.

That might be how you view it, but I doubt if the majority of people who use language will be content to let a minority of atheists hijack the words 'right' and 'wrong' and then say, "Oh look how clever we are, now we can measure right and wrong scientifically."

I'm not pretending to engage with people like you at all, I don't remember coming to you with anything. You came on to this thread misrepresenting Harris' view, ranting about the English language, proceed to jump from that to claiming atheists are advancing this position to Christians as if we all actually agree with Harris and then threw your toys out of the pram when you were called on this.

Actually I addressed a point by pts about defining a heuristic (he had merely used Harris's suggestion). I made no comment about Harris - and just because someone expresses a view different from yours that in no way constitutes a rant. Stop acting the drama queen.

When you've calmed down you might remember that it was you who engaged with me and came to me by responding to my post (the one I had addressed to pts)

I was having a discussion with Jakkass about the nature of morality before you decided to jump in and share your particular unique perspective about atheists and how terrible we all are. The flaws in this were pointed out, the straw man was exposed and now you are having a hissy fit.

If you want to have a private conversation with the poster formerly known as Jakkass then boards.ie has kindly provided you with a Private Message facility for doing so. If you post on an open forum then you may expect others to contribute and, shock and horror, the Charter actually permits people to express views that differ from those of Wicknight. Terrible thought, perhaps, but you're going to have to learn to live with it.

I didn't address you, or philologos. I commented on a post by pts and you were the one who threw a hissy fit. Now calm down for goodness sake.

If you have anything relevant to the discussion to add I'm all ears. If you want to rant about how you control the Christianity forum and how much you don't like atheists, well frankly you can save your breath.

I made no comments about anyone controlling the Christianity forum, nor did I make any comment about liking or disliking atheists.

I am requesting you to either demonstrate where I ranted about not liking atheists or retract your false statements about me. I find some atheists quite charming - but I don't much like people who resort to untruths.

Fanny Cradock · 24-05-2011 5:23pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes I know that, I'm asking why pick the one he picks.

Two men stare from behind prison bars, one see dirt the other sees stars.

Morbert · 24-05-2011 5:29pm

The axiological argument is an attempt to show that atheism is inconsistent. In this regard it does not succeed. Atheists can consistently assume moral values are subjective, and merely reflect people's opinions towards certain issues.

Morbert · 24-05-2011 5:34pm

While M-theory is not properly formed, and a speculative hypothesis at best, it is sufficient when addressing the cosmological argument, which assumes the universe must have begun from literally nothing if there was no God. Creatio ex nihilo has not been established by science, nor is it suggested by research in fields like quantum gravity.

Zombrex · 24-05-2011 5:36pm

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Two men stare from behind prison bars, one see dirt the other sees stars.

Nice, but I'm not sure you quite following the discussion Jakkass started

The question lies more in terms of probability. What is more probable than the other? Is it more probable that there is a God who has created the world or that the universe came into being of its own accord?

Zombrex · 24-05-2011 5:39pm

philologos wrote: »

So now we are backing away from the idea that objective moral rights and wrongs can be determined via science?

I was never moving towards it. Harris doesn't even believe in objective morality in the Christian sense, and most people here seem to not even agree with Harris' notions on science helping determine right from wrong.

The only thing people are backing away from is some serious theist straw maning of what Harris was saying.

philologos · 24-05-2011 5:48pm

In the Moral Landscape according to a review I've read it seems that Harris is a moral absolutist. It almost makes me want to find a cheap second hand copy of the book to read.

The most compelling strand in “The Moral Landscape” is its unspooling diatribe against relativism. Harris insists that there are correct answers to all questions of right and wrong, regardless of anyone’s culture or religion. And, though some questions may escape our inquiries, many can be answered by science; none, he appears to think, can be answered without it.

Zombrex · 24-05-2011 5:57pm

PDN wrote: »

And nobody is disputing that it can be shared or rejected by others. However, there are opinions that are true and opinions that are untrue.

You can't have your cake and eat it. If morality is subjective and nothing more than a matter of opinion then you can't measure it scientifically.

Yes PDN, that is the point :rolleyes:

The rest of your post is just more ranting about how horrible we all are. Nothing to do with the topic so you will forgive me if I ignore your usual chest beating. Otherwise we will be here all day.

Morbert · 24-05-2011 6:01pm

philologos wrote: »

In the Moral Landscape according to a review I've read it seems that Harris is a moral absolutist. It almost makes me want to find a cheap second hand copy of the book to read.

It is almost an urban legend that atheists are relativists in any operational sense. We believe morality and ethics are like maths. The foundation is arbitrary, but the consequences and inferences from the foundations are not.

philologos · 24-05-2011 6:20pm

I don't think you can say we in any substantive sense. Many atheists such as Peter Singer are complete advocates of moral relativism. I think most atheists would say that morality is subjective in some sense whether that be to individual, culture, or time.

Zombrex · 24-05-2011 6:21pm

philologos wrote: »

In the Moral Landscape according to a review I've read it seems that Harris is a moral absolutist. It almost makes me want to find a cheap second hand copy of the book to read.

Great. You appreciate that there is a difference between absolutism and objectivism though. I am also a moral absolutist, but I don't believe in objective morality.

Being a moral absolutist is one of the reasons why I wouldn't follow the Christian God even if I thought he existed. I believe that the actions described as being caused by God are immoral in of themselves. God doing them doesn't make them moral.

philologos · 24-05-2011 6:25pm

What makes something objectively immoral? I would consider objective and absolute to be much the same thing.

By objectively / absolutely moral I mean something that is worthy of the condemnation of all people. Something that is wrong irrespective of what people claim.

PDN · 24-05-2011 6:26pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes PDN, that is the point :rolleyes:

The rest of your post is just more ranting about how horrible we all are. Nothing to do with the topic so you will forgive me if I ignore your usual chest beating. Otherwise we will be here all day.

No, I never said how horrible "you all are". That is another blatant untruth.

Actually, most atheists I meet are polite, truthful, articulate, and able to engage rationally in discussion with others (as I would expect from a group which was predominantly raised on middle class values - as was I, I hasten to add). I would certainly never dream of judging atheists in general by your antics.

Morbert · 24-05-2011 8:24pm

philologos wrote: »

I don't think you can say we in any substantive sense. Many atheists such as Peter Singer are complete advocates of moral relativism. I think most atheists would say that morality is subjective in some sense whether that be to individual, culture, or time.

By relativism, do you mean normative relativism? I am not familiar with Singer's beliefs. Normative relativism implies moral systems are valid within the cultures that adopt them, and should be respected. I would wager that most atheists reject this notion.

Moral nihilism (which is what I would call myself) is the idea that moral systems can be internally consistent, but do not reflect any necessary truths. Arguments about a moral principle boil down to rooting out inconsistencies in differing opinions (e.g. Can you be both pro-abortion and anti-murder), but there is always an arbitrary foundation that must be implicitly assumed. Just as a teacher could successfully argue that 2+2=4, provided the arbitrary axioms of real analysis are accepted.

Christians believe there exists a moral system that isn't arbitrated by us, which is fine, but the atheist position on morality doesn't leave us open to any axiological argument against atheism.

strobe · 24-05-2011 8:28pm

PDN wrote: »

No, I never said how horrible "you all are". That is another blatant untruth.

Actually, most atheists I meet are polite, truthful, articulate, and able to engage rationally in discussion with others (as I would expect from a group which was predominantly raised on middle class values - as was I, I hasten to add). I would certainly never dream of judging atheists in general by your antics.

What are middle class values?

Zombrex · 24-05-2011 8:30pm

Morbert wrote: »

By relativism, do you mean normative relativism? I am not familiar with Singer's beliefs. Normative relativism implies moral systems are valid within the cultures that adopt them, and should be respected. I would wager that most atheists reject this notion.

Moral nihilism (which is what I would call myself) is the idea that moral systems can be internally consistent, but do not reflect any necessary truths. Arguments about a moral principle boil down to rooting out inconsistencies in differing opinions (e.g. Can you be both pro-abortion and anti-murder), but there is always an arbitrary foundation that must be implicitly assumed. Just as a teacher could successfully argue that 2+2=4, provided the arbitrary axioms of real analysis are accepted.

Christians believe there exists a moral system that isn't arbitrated by us, which is fine, but the atheist position on morality doesn't leave us open to any axiological argument against atheism.

Great post, summed it up nicely.

Zombrex · 24-05-2011 8:30pm

strobe wrote: »

What are middle class values?

Don't feed it, it will only grow ...

Fanny Cradock · 24-05-2011 8:34pm

Wicknight wrote: »

Nice, but I'm not sure you quite following the discussion Jakkass started

Sure. Consider the poem withdrawn until a more suitable time.

strobe · 24-05-2011 8:42pm

So the argument being put forward from the theist side goes like this:

1. Mankind is indwelt with a basic moral law.
2. A moral law implies a moral law giver.
3. That moral law giver is God. (cheers google)

Step 2 is based on a massive presumption surely and statement one is leading and loaded semantically. I think the whole thing is a mess really, none of it means much.

How about;

1. Mankind has a tendency to act a certain way.
2. and...?
3. Dogs like chasing things. What about it?

I think my axiological argument is a lot more accurate and elegant, even if I do say so myself.

Unless I am missing the point completely? That's happened before...

Zombrex · 24-05-2011 9:02pm

philologos wrote: »

What makes something objectively immoral? I would consider objective and absolute to be much the same thing.

They aren't.

For example, I consider raping a child to be immoral. I consider that absolutely and universally based on the nature of the action. In other words I can think of no case or instance where that action in of itself (a clarification to avoid thought experiments such as well what if raping that child saved 3 others from being murdered etc) would ever be moral. I apply that now and I apply that in the future and I apply that to all instances in the past. No one is justified in raping a child, not you, not Caesar, not God himself.

I don't say well it was ok in Roman times because they had a different society. I don't say well it is ok if God tells you to do it because we are his and he can do what we like with us. I don't say well if she was being naughty perhaps a bit of a raping was what she deserved. I don't say well it all depends on the context. It doesn't, it is wrong, absolutely.

That is the absolute bit.

The subjective bit is that I'm under no illusions that this isn't my opinion. It exists only in my consciousness. People may agree with it, but is my opinion. I am not pretending that I have some how gained access to the objective standard of the universe and in it was written "Thou shall not rape children" so I can say with confidence that I am right in relation to this standard.

Nor do I think that is particularly necessary or all that important.

If I said to a rapist stop raping the child because I think it is wrong he might simply ignore me.

If I said to a rapist stop raping the child because it is objectively wrong he might simply ignore me.

In both instances if I want him to stop I have to force him to.

From your posts the trouble I think you are having is that you think that if it is just my opinion then I won't have the confidence to assert my opinion on others, such as the rapist. I should say Well my opinion is this and his opinion is that so who am I to make him stop raping that child. That is not an issue I have. I will happily forcibly stop the rapist if I can.

This to me speaks to what I think the concept of objective morality is really about, having confidence in ones own beliefs. It is easier to say that it is not just my belief that raping children is wrong, it is the objective moral standard, you can't argue with that you can't tell me I'm wrong I don't have to justify this to you.

Of course history demonstrates the reality is quite different. Despite claims to objective morality people regularly tell the other person they are wrong, they regularly argue with them, they regularly demand that people justify.

A notion of objective morality seems to serve little purpose other than allowing people to feel more confident in their own beliefs. This is not surprising humans have always felt more confident with consensus and group thinking rather than individual conclusions. If my boss asks me for my opinion and he goes "Yes that sounds right" I feel much more confident about that idea than if he didn't.

Again evolution explains why this is the case.

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Comments