Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

tommy2bad

ISAW wrote: »

I suggest you are careful about using Information technology terminology associated with data bases (absolute /relative/ relational) and applying the same definitions to morality. if that is your intent. i mean look what happened to those who used biological "evolution" and applied it to sociological "evolution".

If something in in relation to gods or God then I would argue, though context changes the situation it is in relation to an absolute.

No intention of going down the memes route ISAW.

IF you change the last bit to "If something is in relation to/with God then I would agree" Then I agree.

muppeteer

ISAW wrote: »

Where is the evidence that the mind and emotions are wholly biological in nature. Medicine is still divided o this issue.

I would have thought it was fairly obvious from this field that all human emotion/personality is centered in the brain. I'm unaware of any alternative that is seriously considered.

But there is a whole field of medical science which suggests effecton non solid things.
It is a quite complex argument that when someone speaks the words are just random babble and you decipher ht emeaning as you hear them. surely interactions with others affects language. If a person is isolated from birth they not only fail to develop language but also to fit into society. How is that biologically predetermined? It is sociological.

how can you show such things to be wholly biological?

Absolutely, humans are a social animal, not just a genetically predetermined lump. We evolved certain traits that help us live in social groups such as empathy, altruism, jealousy. We also learn and expand on these things by interacting in a society. Without a social group we loose most of what we would call uniquely human. So we are both biological and social combined.

so it is okay for you to be happy with your blind faith but not for a religious person even if their faith isnt blind?

I think you may have picked me up wrong here. Maybe satisfactory was the wrong word to use. I think that creating our own ethics is 1)necessary as I don't have a choice of having them handed down to me, and 2)A nice effect of something I can't change. For example it is like me saying it is a nice effect that the Pythagorean theorem is elegant in it's simplicity. But I would never try to use the fact that I find that nice/satisfactory as a proof of the theorem being correct.
It's the same with subjective ethics, I find a nobility in it, but I would never claim that as any kind of proof that it is correct.

where does Christianity say people are not responsible for their own actions?
So the Christian position is at least equal to yours in this respect?

I think you have picked me up wrong here too.
I could not and did not say Christians are not responsible for their own actions. They are as much as me.
I would say that humans with subjective ethics are responsible for creating our own ethics. As such we can take credit for creating ethics that we see as bettering humanity.
Whereas a Christian is given their ethics from an outside source. A Christian can take credit for following those handed down ethics but I doubt you would/could take credit for what you would see as Gods work.

1. If the Niechean nobel ethics argument isnt apt why appeal to it? -you contradict yourself here.

2. Above you dont illustrate hos Christianity is in-viable. It comes across at least equal if not a better position.

1)See above as to why I don't appeal to noble ethics as any kind of evidence.
2)Well Christianity is inconsistent as I see it as you are subject to subjective assessment of what you think is an objective morality. As a relativist I can't demonstrate that practical Cristian ethics are any more valid than mine. But I can poke holes in the justification you use for them.




Phil: I'll get back to you later as I'm a little stuck on time.

himnextdoor

ISAW wrote: »

... i mean look what happened to those who used biological "evolution" and applied it to sociological "evolution".

Nonsense; in what way is biological evolution qualitatively different to sociological evolution?

Morality has followed an evolutionary path too; different societies evolved different moral codes through a process which is similar in character to the processes of 'speciation' that occurs in biology.

A kind of 'cross-pollination' can occur when when society incorporates the morality of another society into its moral framework.

It can even be argued that all social animals observe a moral code within their own societies; lions and hyenas see each other as evil and lions are morally obliged to take out hyenas when they can.

Morality isn't just a human thing, humans only apply it to humans, wolves apply it to wolves, lions to lions, etc.

If morality comes from God then why do lions and hyenas hate each other?

tommy2bad

Originally Posted by muppeteer;
I would say that humans with subjective ethics are responsible for creating our own ethics. As such we can take credit for creating ethics that we see as bettering humanity.
Whereas a Christian is given their ethics from an outside source. A Christian can take credit for following those handed down ethics but I doubt you would/could take credit for what you would see as Gods work.

I wouldn't say I feel that my morals or ethics were given to me, more found outside of myself. It's a small distinction but an important one. If God hands down the ethics and we only have to follow them or ignore them then morality as so defined is nothing but a set of rules for children. I don't think God would do something so simplistic. God calls us to more than following rules, we are supposed to learn and think as well. Love one another and everything follows from this. Yes their is a strain of Christians who appeal to authority rather than engage with the issue but thats true of all people, atheist included.
I know I'l draw flac from several other Christian posters for this but.. I don't think it works if we only think of God in terms of rules, laws and do's and don'ts.
I'm not sure how it works but I think it's worth trying to understand rather than giving up and falling back on the do's and don'ts.

himnextdoor

tommy2bad wrote: »

I wouldn't say I feel that my morals or ethics were given to me,

Why not though? From the moment you were born, your parents, priests, teachers, the police have been shaping your morality.

If morality is God-given, how come we have to teach our children not to pull the wings off butterflies?

tommy2bad

himnextdoor wrote: »

Why not though? From the moment you were born, your parents, priests, teachers, the police have been shaping your morality.

If morality is God-given, how come we have to teach our children not to pull the wings off butterflies?

Thats a good question, why didn't God make us perfect instead of just good?
I don't think morality is God given, something is moral because we are human, it's more a property of being human than an imposition on humanity.

ISAW

muppeteer wrote: »

I would have thought it was fairly obvious from this field that all human emotion/personality is centered in the brain. I'm unaware of any alternative that is seriously considered.

I tell you in advance you happen to be going into a field of which myself and other academic collagues have interdisciplinary knowledge. i refer to sociologists psychotherapists educationalists and psychologists specializing in cognitive neuroscience as well as in assessment of cognitive disorders.
I dont argue from authority I am just telling you in advance so you can mark the cards.

the link you offer begins with 3rd sentence

Cognitive neuroscience relies upon theories in cognitive science ...

so if the theory comes from there what is that when it is at home?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science
3rd sentence again

Cognitive science consists of multiple research disciplines, including psychology, artificial intelligence, philosophy, neuroscience, linguistics, anthropology, sociology, and education.

In the criticism section you find
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science#Criticism
you find a link to:

Can psychology be a science of mind?
By Skinner, B. F.
American Psychologist, Vol 45(11), Nov 1990, 1206-1210.

Ill save you paying for it you will find it here:
http://www.isac.psc.br/wp-content/uploads/skinner/Skinner_%281990%29_Can_Psychology_Be_a_Science_of_Mind.pdf

Now in that paper skinner makes all the arguments underlying psychology as a "hard" objective science -physicalism- and opposed to the epistemology of introspection (which ironically is being proposed by relativists here in terms of morality and "whatever you are having yourself" morals) and the philosophy of "mind". but at the bottom right of page 1209 havinfg attackd the problems with creationists opposing evolution being taught in US schools he says

Cognitive science is the creation science of psychology, as it struggles to maintain the position of a mind or self

this was then and is today a continuing problem in the field.
this guy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers
would have a lot to say about it

then there are these arguments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism#Arguments_against_physicalism

also i have pointed to the chinese room before
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29#Criticism

Absolutely, humans are a social animal, not just a genetically predetermined lump. We evolved certain traits that help us live in social groups such as empathy, altruism, jealousy. We also learn and expand on these things by interacting in a society. Without a social group we loose most of what we would call uniquely human. So we are both biological and social combined.

Skinner would delineate "natural selection" "operand control " and "operand conditioning"
But there isnt a reductionist physicalism which is capable of deconstructing sociology. Even in biology while the concept is entertained it is not fully underpinned by empirical evidence.
Which is the problem you seem to think does not exist.
You seem to think the war is over and that science can explain not just the mind in terms of the physical brain, but all of society as well.

I think you may have picked me up wrong here. Maybe satisfactory was the wrong word to use. I think that creating our own ethics is 1)necessary as I don't have a choice of having them handed down to me, and 2)A nice effect of something I can't change. For example it is like me saying it is a nice effect that the Pythagorean theorem is elegant in it's simplicity. But I would never try to use the fact that I find that nice/satisfactory as a proof of the theorem being correct.
It's the same with subjective ethics, I find a nobility in it, but I would never claim that as any kind of proof that it is correct.

Well you cant if you claim introspection is invalid. which leaves philosophical relativism with respect to morality in a very sticky position.

I think you have picked me up wrong here too.
I could not and did not say Christians are not responsible for their own actions. They are as much as me.
I would say that humans with subjective ethics are responsible for creating our own ethics. As such we can take credit for creating ethics that we see as bettering humanity.

Aha! but then you are only responsible to yourself and not to the law or anything objective and outside yourself.

Whereas a Christian is given their ethics from an outside source. A Christian can take credit for following those handed down ethics but I doubt you would/could take credit for what you would see as Gods work.
1)See above as to why I don't appeal to noble ethics as any kind of evidence.
2)Well Christianity is inconsistent as I see it as you are subject to subjective assessment of what you think is an objective morality. As a relativist I can't demonstrate that practical Cristian ethics are any more valid than mine. But I can poke holes in the justification you use for them.

All you are saying here is you cant tell a Christian they are wrong. which destroys your position. because all sorts of things are always wrong irrespective of your or anyone else saying or even believing they are not.

If you are going to take a wrong does like a child abuser and say you cant say their actions are wrong then you clearly have a problem.

philologos

muppeteer: I don't desire to take credit for my ethics. Doing the right thing is simply what I should be doing. It's not remarkable. Creating ethics is meaningless because what one person claims to be right is utterly irrelevant in solving ethical disputes which depend on more than one individual. Objectivity is required whether people like it or not.

ISAW

himnextdoor wrote: »

Nonsense; in what way is biological evolution qualitatively different to sociological evolution?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Positivism_and_social_science
Im trying to recall a quote from peter medawar n this
In the meantime:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Positivism_and_social_science

The positivist perspective, however, has been associated with 'scientism'; the view that the methods of the natural sciences may be applied to all areas of investigation, be it philosophical, social scientific, or otherwise. Among most social scientists and historians, orthodox positivism has long since fallen out of favor. Today, practitioners of both social and physical sciences recognize the distorting effect of observer bias and structural limitations. This scepticism has been facilitated by a general weakening of deductivist accounts of science by philosophers such as Thomas Kuhn, and new philosophical movements such as critical realism and neopragmatism. Positivism has also been espoused by 'technocrats' who believe in the inevitability of social progress through science and technology.[29] The philosopher-sociologist Jürgen Habermas has critiqued pure instrumental rationality as meaning that scientific-thinking becomes something akin to ideology itself.[30]

As pointed out by Sir Peter Medawar, the distinguished British biologist who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1960, biologists who use English as a scientific language never use the word “evolution” to describe the processes of growth and development
because to do so would be confusing and misleading

Medawar, Peter, Pluto’s Republic, Oxford University Press (1982), pp. 215-216.

Morality has followed an evolutionary path too; different societies evolved different moral codes through a process which is similar in character to the processes of 'speciation' that occurs in biology.

you are doint it again! no sooner has memetics been turfed ut the front door than you sneak around the back door and let it in!

You may be interested in the following
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65387773&postcount=25

http://www.cam.cornell.edu/~rclewley/jom.html
http://www.lucifer.com/virus/alt.memetics/concepts.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6566/is_1_30/ai_n28910381/?tag=content;col1

This is a much more humble approach for an academic discipline that purportedly helps us explain the very origin of culture and mind. However, it is also an approach that may yield real results--as opposed to the creation of memetic myths that have no basis in e mpirical fact and tell us nothing truthful or helpful about the origin, replication, and descent of language, mind, and culture.


When a scientist uses the word "evolution" in reference to biological evolution of a species there is a specific meaning attached to that. Social "evolution" isn't the same thing at all! Now a biologist should go to pains to point that out instead of inventing a whole new field to justify it!

A kind of 'cross-pollination' can occur when when society incorporates the morality of another society into its moral framework.

Please stop the pseudo science or go with it over to the astrology and UFO forum.

It can even be argued that all social animals observe a moral code within their own societies; lions and hyenas see each other as evil and lions are morally obliged to take out hyenas when they can.

Argue that with the UFO watchers too. i dont think anybody here is interested in your Doctor Doolittle fantasies.

Morality isn't just a human thing, humans only apply it to humans, wolves apply it to wolves, lions to lions, etc.

apparently in your universe biology isnt just a biological thing and morality applies to animals. Maybe if you could talk to the animals you could prove it to us all?

If morality comes from God then why do lions and hyenas hate each other?

According to you. I suppose you also think snooker balls hate each other because they are always hitting each other?

himnextdoor

tommy2bad wrote: »

Thats a good question, why didn't God make us perfect instead of just good?
I don't think morality is God given, something is moral because we are human, it's more a property of being human than an imposition on humanity.

I rather think that the fact that our default moral setting allows us to pull the wings off butterflies goes to show that God has nothing to do with it.

Morality isn't intrinsic to human-nature, it is learned behaviour. It was intelligently and deductively arrived at over thousands of years of social development. If we weren't taught moral conduct then we wouldn't conduct ourselves according to morality; we would base our conduct on natural tendencies.

If morality came from God then why would we need priests to augment His work? (That is not directed at you; I'm just putting it out there.)

If God wants us to use free-will then why do priests try to influence us at all with their threats of fire and brim-stone? Why was the Inquisition implemented? These things tend to oppose free-will.

Also, it is worth remembering that under Christian doctrine, it is possible that Hitler might have avoided the fiery lake and he may reside with Jesus. Doesn't this suggest that God doesn't actually make any distinction between good and evil; that it is more important to have blind faith than a good heart?

I would suggest that morality doesn't even enter into the equation with God; that not only can God do no evil, He can equally do no good.

'Good' and 'Evil' are just dramatic terms meaning 'positive to survival' and 'negative to survival'. 'Evil' tends to lead to death and destruction and that is something to be avoided so society programs us to have an aversion to evil.

And this makes us easier to control.

So then, morality is simply an indoctrination enforced on humanity.

And God is the stick. And in nature, the one with the biggest stick is the one who is right.

Fortunately for atheists, who do operate on a moral basis, the stick doesn't exist so the priests can wave it about as much as they want. But although I have a real stick, my morality prevents me hitting priests with it.

I think it is kind of ironic that the evolutionary process that 'selected' the traits that brought about the development of science and technology is the same process that 'selected' a propensity to believe in things which just aren't true.

tommy2bad

himnextdoor wrote: »

I rather think that the fact that our default moral setting allows us to pull the wings off butterflies goes to show that God has nothing to do with it.
But it dosn't, our default setting is towards morality
Morality isn't intrinsic to human-nature, it is learned behaviour. It was intelligently and deductively arrived at over thousands of years of social development. If we weren't taught moral conduct then we wouldn't conduct ourselves according to morality; we would base our conduct on natural tendencies.
I think you are confusing morality and manners
If morality came from God then why would we need priests to augment His work? (That is not directed at you; I'm just putting it out there.)
Not just priests but all of us
If God wants us to use free-will then why do priests try to influence us at all with their threats of fire and brim-stone? Why was the Inquisition implemented? These things tend to oppose free-will.
Is your disagreement with God or Priests?
Also, it is worth remembering that under Christian doctrine, it is possible that Hitler might have avoided the fiery lake and he may reside with Jesus. Doesn't this suggest that God doesn't actually make any distinction between good and evil; that it is more important to have blind faith than a good heart?
Possible but unlikely, again you paint all christian doctrine with one black tar brush
I would suggest that morality doesn't even enter into the equation with God; that not only can God do no evil, He can equally do no good.
???
'Good' and 'Evil' are just dramatic terms meaning 'positive to survival' and 'negative to survival'. 'Evil' tends to lead to death and destruction and that is something to be avoided so society programs us to have an aversion to evil.
no disagreement here
And this makes us easier to control.
Sorry? control or survive? I dont understand your objection to morality here
So then, morality is simply an indoctrination enforced on humanity.
By humanity
And God is the stick. And in nature, the one with the biggest stick is the one who is right.

Fortunately for atheists, who do operate on a moral basis, the stick doesn't exist so the priests can wave it about as much as they want. But although I have a real stick, my morality prevents me hitting priests with it.
I thought you don't have a morality?
I think it is kind of ironic that the evolutionary process that 'selected' the traits that brought about the development of science and technology is the same process that 'selected' a propensity to believe in things which just aren't true.

Are you serious? science and magical thinking brought about by the same trait ? What trait is that the one to seek truth or the one to seek control or the one to acquire a bigger stick?

himnextdoor

ISAW wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Positivism_and_social_science
Im trying to recall a quote from peter medawar n this
In the meantime:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Positivism_and_social_science


As pointed out by Sir Peter Medawar, the distinguished British biologist who was awarded the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 1960, biologists who use English as a scientific language never use the word “evolution” to describe the processes of growth and development
because to do so would be confusing and misleading

Medawar, Peter, Pluto’s Republic, Oxford University Press (1982), pp. 215-216.

And yet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoevolutionism

If you understand evolution then you can understand social development. What is so objectionable about that?

ISAW wrote: »

you are doint it again! no sooner has memetics been turfed ut the front door than you sneak around the back door and let it in!

From the Neoevolution article: 'Then neoevolutionism discards the determinism argument and introduces probability, arguing that accidents and free will have much impact on the process of social evolution.'

What is the qualitative difference between 'accident' in the context of social evolution and 'random mutation' in the context of biological evolution? And are societies not sensitive to environmental pressures? Don't they adapt?

ISAW wrote: »

You may be interested in the following
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=65387773&postcount=25

http://www.cam.cornell.edu/~rclewley/jom.html
http://www.lucifer.com/virus/alt.memetics/concepts.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6566/is_1_30/ai_n28910381/?tag=content;col1

This is a much more humble approach for an academic discipline that purportedly helps us explain the very origin of culture and mind. However, it is also an approach that may yield real results--as opposed to the creation of memetic myths that have no basis in e mpirical fact and tell us nothing truthful or helpful about the origin, replication, and descent of language, mind, and culture.

If we were discussing memetics then I might be interested but we're not.

ISAW wrote: »

When a scientist uses the word "evolution" in reference to biological evolution of a species there is a specific meaning attached to that. Social "evolution" isn't the same thing at all! Now a biologist should go to pains to point that out instead of inventing a whole new field to justify it!

Aha! You are afraid of a 'Fractal Universe' and the notion of self-similarity. One cause; many effects. Effects like the formation of stars and galaxies and planetary systems; effects such as the development of life, society, law, crime; effects like the weather, air-flow in the lungs, the blood-circulation system. Or an effect like morality.

The one objective truth about reality is that it is constantly changing; structures break down and new ones replace them. The criteria for survival are constantly changing at every level and at every moment. But reality isn't changing into something, it is changing from something. The Universe and everything in it is striving to not be what it is.

If there is one law at work in the Universe, it is to simply keep moving; never rest.

ISAW wrote: »

Please stop the pseudo science or go with it over to the astrology and UFO forum.

Are you saying that cultures do not get 'cross-contaminated'?

ISAW wrote: »

Argue that with the UFO watchers too. i dont think anybody here is interested in your Doctor Doolittle fantasies.

And that observation of animal behaviour can teach us nothing about human-behaviour?

ISAW wrote: »

apparently in your universe biology isnt just a biological thing and morality applies to animals. Maybe if you could talk to the animals you could prove it to us all?

Biology is subject to physical laws. Why can't you accept that 'morality' is also subject to physical laws?

ISAW wrote: »

According to you. I suppose you also think snooker balls hate each other because they are always hitting each other?

Nope; physics applies here too. Snooker-balls are happiest when being played. See how they dance.:rolleyes:

himnextdoor

tommy2bad wrote: »

Are you serious? science and magical thinking brought about by the same trait ? What trait is that the one to seek truth or the one to seek control or the one to acquire a bigger stick?

Yes, yes, and among others, yes, yes and yes.

Remember that the ones in power are the ones with the stick, the control and therefore the truth. Yet you are the one who must observe a certain moral standard. Their idea of fair and your idea of fair are not the same in the same way that being sent to the slaughter isn't an unfair thing for farmers to do to cows.

muppeteer

philologos wrote: »

It's not important insofar as irrespective of what you, I or anyone else happens to think. Ultimately something is true irrespective of thought. Truth is mind-independent. I also believe that ethical truth as to what is good and evil is mind-independent for a number of reasons that I've already shown you. Just as much as people can skew the truth or lie, people can skew ethical truth and lie about it.

If you wish to call the objective physical world "truth" then I'm pretty much with you on this. However even this objective truth is subjectively experienced and known by us both. We can make our knowledge of the objective physical world is a lot less subjective by testing it independently of human minds. The ethical "truth" and things such as art however are wholly dependent on human minds and can't be tested independently.

I don't believe it is a problem for objective ethics. If this is God's universe and we live in it.

If this is your reasoning for why you can escape the "subjective assessment of objective ethics" logical contradiction then I can't say much more that could convince you otherwise. We may as well just go back to this post/discussion as to why gods are unreasonable.

Seeing that humans work on an objective ethical basis (and I've clearly explained this in my last few posts) it is more reasonable to see that it is reasonable to suggest that there is a moral law giver over Creation.

You have not shown this in your last posts. Can you please show humans operating on an objective moral standard that could not simply be humans operating on a subjective moral standard?
You have also not demonstrated why humans operating in a ethical fashion shows an objective morality any more than humans acting in an artistic fashion shows an objective art.

muppeteer

ISAW wrote: »

Can psychology be a science of mind?
By Skinner, B. F.
American Psychologist, Vol 45(11), Nov 1990, 1206-1210.

Ill save you paying for it you will find it here:
http://www.isac.psc.br/wp-content/uploads/skinner/Skinner_%281990%29_Can_Psychology_Be_a_Science_of_Mind.pdf

Now in that paper skinner makes all the arguments underlying psychology as a "hard" objective science -physicalism- and opposed to the epistemology of introspection (which ironically is being proposed by relativists here in terms of morality and "whatever you are having yourself" morals) and the philosophy of "mind". but at the bottom right of page 1209 havinfg attackd the problems with creationists opposing evolution being taught in US schools he says

It was an interesting read, if a little besides the point of showing the brain is not the source of our mind/experience.

While the quote about Cognitive science being like creation science seems a bit harsh, it is only so if taken in isolation from the rest of his paper. He criticises that of cognitive science that holds on to the mind/self as an instigator. What he opposes is the inference of an internal originating mind that came about originally from introspection and was carried forward by cognitive science. He then suggests cognitive science would be better served attempting to explore properties of the mind with reference to the evolutionary advantages of operand conditioning in shaping those mind properties. It's interesting to note that operand conditioning seems not terribly dissimilar to memetic concepts.
He doesn't seem to oppose introspection in itself as he points to it as helping us see "the early stages of our behaviour".
What he says above is a fair point to make but it doesn't really do anything to suggest that the physical basis for the mind is not valid.

this was then and is today a continuing problem in the field.
this guy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers
would have a lot to say about it

then there are these arguments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism#Arguments_against_physicalism

also i have pointed to the chinese room before
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functionalism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29#Criticism

These are criticisms that I don't put much stock in to be honest as they don't harm the physical brain being the source of our mind. It would be a waste of time to go through them in detail as, as it is you who raised/posted them, I'm sure you already know the counter arguments quite well. I'd imagine most of our differences would lay in our thoughts on this.

Skinner would delineate "natural selection" "operand control " and "operand conditioning"
But there isnt a reductionist physicalism which is capable of deconstructing sociology. Even in biology while the concept is entertained it is not fully underpinned by empirical evidence.
Which is the problem you seem to think does not exist.
You seem to think the war is over and that science can explain not just the mind in terms of the physical brain, but all of society as well.

Science has done a better job than anything else. And if there is a war on it is within science itself as to the best way to explain the mind in terms of the physical brain. The particular flavour of physicalism or functionalism may wax and wane but the basis of our experience being in the physical brain is fairly well set.
What do you mean by "in biology while the concept is entertained it is not fully underpinned by empirical evidence"? I thought the chemical and physical underpinnings of biology were solid and continually improving quite nicely, no?

Well you cant if you claim introspection is invalid. which leaves philosophical relativism with respect to morality in a very sticky position.

Where did I mention introspection being invalid? How is this sticky? Did you read what I typed?

Aha! but then you are only responsible to yourself and not to the law or anything objective and outside yourself.

Yep, absolutely correct, so no real need for an Aha! as this isn't a problem for subjective ethics as no human can logically know an objective moral law.

All you are saying here is you cant tell a Christian they are wrong. which destroys your position. because all sorts of things are always wrong irrespective of your or anyone else saying or even believing they are not.

If you are going to take a wrong does like a child abuser and say you cant say their actions are wrong then you clearly have a problem.

It doesn't destroy my position as all sorts of things are not objectively wrong. I might think something is subjectively wrong all of the time without change, but I also might take a bump on the head and think its not subjectively wrong any more.

I can say a child abuser is always wrong in my subjective opinion. But I can't say they have wronged some objective law of the universe. This isn't a problem for the subjective ethics position.


So do you have an alternative explanation of human experience/mind that does not derive from a physical brain?

philologos

muppeteer: I've already responded rather clearly to your post as to why you think that God is unreasonable. You've totally ignored the subject of the Resurrection in those posts. You've also pretty much ignored what I've said about objective ethics. You can understand how frustrating that is? I'm going to respond to Zombrex' post that you quoted from later. I think it is greatly flawed.

Truth is rather simple to explain. Ultimately irrespective of what subjective ideas we have, there is something real in the universe. For example, it is either true that Jesus is Lord, or it is a lie. There is no other option in respect to that question.

I've explained to you already how there is no subjective / objective contradiction. Especially there is none if there is a God who is the objective and impartial judge of all Creation. That moral law is objective over us in so far as we are all going to be judged according to Christianity. In society we very clearly see people operate on the basis of objective moral truth irrespective of how much you've ducked and dived around the questions in my posts.

I've explained why moral subjectivism makes no sense. You have no grounds for any ethical decisionmaking insofar as you conclude that you decide what is right and wrong for yourself. Why should that be right or wrong for someone else, unless there is an objective ethical standard. This is the question that you've clearly ignored in all my posts so far, and if you're not going to answer it what is the point in continuing?

I've even shown you how you've been appealing to an objective moral standard yourself in your posts. I'd recommend you read back over what I said and mull it over and then respond.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

I've explained why moral subjectivism makes no sense. You have no grounds for any ethical decisionmaking insofar as you conclude that you decide what is right and wrong for yourself. Why should that be right or wrong for someone else, unless there is an objective ethical standard. This is the question that you've clearly ignored in all my posts so far, and if you're not going to answer it what is the point in continuing?

You are confusing belief in an objective morality with applying a subjective morality universally.

I believe that it is absolutely wrong to rape a child. By that I mean that I can see no justification that would ever make me ok with the idea that someone raped a child. That is my subjective opinion. Others may disagree. But I don't care, because to me it is wrong and frankly that is what I care about.

So I can say I will never allow anyone to rape a child if I can stop it.

That is a world apart from saying that I know it is objectively wrong to rape a child. How could I possibly know that? What test or measurement did I do to determine that this? None, it is just what I believe.

I don't see the point in kidding yourself that your own personal beliefs some how just match up to the objective standard of the universe.

Also there is a stupid myth popular in theistic circles that if one admits that morality is subjective that some how means they have to respect the moral position of other people. Despite how popular this view is few seem to be able to explain why that is the case, normally it is a vague "How do you know you are right?" when the question should really be "Why do you have to"

ISAW

muppeteer wrote: »

It was an interesting read, if a little besides the point of showing the brain is not the source of our mind/experience.

While the quote about Cognitive science being like creation science seems a bit harsh, ... It's interesting to note that operand conditioning seems not terribly dissimilar to memetic concepts.

I though i had mentioned that. i was trying to pick someone who went along the lines of memetics or physicalism but also pointed to the limitations of cognitive science

ill accept it isnt a paper on physicalism

But the point is we are discussing the mind/body problem.
You are caiming it is resolved in favour of the body!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind-body_dichotomy

The absence of an empirically identifiable meeting point between the non-physical mind and its physical extension has proven problematic to dualism and many modern philosophers of mind maintain that the mind is not something separate from the body

Cited Kim, J. (1995). Honderich, Ted. ed. Problems in the Philosophy of Mind. Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

You will note both qualia and the mind/body problem are listed here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unsolved_problems_in_philosophy

He doesn't seem to oppose introspection in itself as he points to it as helping us see "the early stages of our behaviour".
What he says above is a fair point to make but it doesn't really do anything to suggest that the physical basis for the mind is not valid.

Just that the branch of cognitive science is insufficient for solving it.
[/quote]
These are criticisms that I don't put much stock in to be honest as they don't harm the physical brain being the source of our mind. It would be a waste of time to go through them in detail as, as it is you who raised/posted them, I'm sure you already know the counter arguments quite well.
[/quote]

I dont think Chalmers is someone to be dismissed lightly.

Science has done a better job than anything else. And if there is a war on it is within science itself as to the best way to explain the mind in terms of the physical brain. The particular flavour of physicalism or functionalism may wax and wane but the basis of our experience being in the physical brain is fairly well set.

but science isnt sufficient and to claim it is is scientism.

What do you mean by "in biology while the concept is entertained it is not fully underpinned by empirical evidence"? I thought the chemical and physical underpinnings of biology were solid and continually improving quite nicely, no?

Improving yes. but Biology is not physics or mathematics. Also what i mean is the mind has not been shown to be wholly an artifact or artifice of the brain.

Where did I mention introspection being invalid? How is this sticky? Did you read what I typed?

Relativist atheists here argue from introspection.
It is sticky because they cant appeal to objective scientific standards on one hand and appeal to personal subjective opinions about morality on another. It is either a contradiction or the fields are different i.e. just like social and biological "evolution" being two different meanings.

It doesn't destroy my position as all sorts of things are not objectively wrong.

i was not discussing the fudge grey things. i was discussing the clearly defined ones. Sex between a sane adult and a six year old for example. do you not think that is always wrong?

I might think something is subjectively wrong all of the time without change, but I also might take a bump on the head and think its not subjectively wrong any more.

You cant get out of it that way. the bump would be changing you to insane.
do you really believe a sane adult doing such an act is not doing wrong just because they believe they are not?

I can say a child abuser is always wrong in my subjective opinion. But I can't say they have wronged some objective law of the universe. This isn't a problem for the subjective ethics position.

But if your opinion was that such abuse is acceptable you would be wrong ? ALWAYS?
No matter if you or i or anyone else thought it was right it would always be wrong?
So then it isnt you opinion is it? It is always wrong!

So do you have an alternative explanation of human experience/mind that does not derive from a physical brain?

Yes but that isnt the subject at issue. YOU are the one claiming the mind body problem is solved and science cant be questioned. You are not correct. I don,t have to prove the negative. You have to support your claim.

muppeteer

philologos wrote: »

muppeteer: I've already responded rather clearly to your post as to why you think that God is unreasonable. You've totally ignored the subject of the Resurrection in those posts. You've also pretty much ignored what I've said about objective ethics. You can understand how frustrating that is? I'm going to respond to Zombrex' post that you quoted from later. I think it is greatly flawed.

I think I have a very clear idea of how frustrating it is, as from my side, it is you who has ignored what I have tried to address on ethics and how I responded to the resurrection subject:)

I asked you if you could point to a specific point you felt that I ignored/needed expanding so we could get to grips with that without revisiting long posts, so I have been trying to helpful.
I'll wait to see how you respond to Zombrex's post, as that is something I pointed to as being ignored in how I responded to the resurrection. We can start from there if you like to avoid repeating ourselves.

I've explained to you already how there is no subjective / objective contradiction. Especially there is none if there is a God who is the objective and impartial judge of all Creation. That moral law is objective over us in so far as we are all going to be judged according to Christianity. In society we very clearly see people operate on the basis of objective moral truth irrespective of how much you've ducked and dived around the questions in my posts.

And I rejected your explanation with counters such as:
You use humans operating on an objective basis as evidence of an objective truth. Humans can't operate our minds on an objective basis even if God exists so you can't use this as evidence of an objective morality. If God set an objective morality you will have to use your other evidence of God as supporting that objective morality as humans can't operate our minds in a non subjective way even if the objective morality exists.

The contradiction is you seem to think if God exists his objective ethics existing somehow makes your opinion on those ethics non subjective.

The questions in your posts such as "Why should that be right or wrong for someone else, unless there is an objective ethical standard"
or "If people really subscribed to subjective morality, they would follow its principles. I.E - I have no grounds for claiming I am any more right concerning what is good and evil than you are"
have been answered as such each time: People do not have to appeal to an objective moral standard as they can appeal to a subjective standard just as equally. Where you see an objective standard what you actually see is a subjective standard applied absolutely. Example: from my ethical view on child rape(it's always wrong) and your ethical view on child rape(it's always wrong) can you tell me the measurable difference in our two stances that tells you which is objective and which is subjective?

I've explained why moral subjectivism makes no sense. You have no grounds for any ethical decisionmaking insofar as you conclude that you decide what is right and wrong for yourself. Why should that be right or wrong for someone else, unless there is an objective ethical standard. This is the question that you've clearly ignored in all my posts so far, and if you're not going to answer it what is the point in continuing?

The question has been answered: It doesn't matter if it right or wrong for someone else, it only matters to me.
Why should I have grounds for ethical decision making? Why do I have to know what is right or wrong to think someone else is wrong?

muppeteer

ISAW wrote: »

I though i had mentioned that. i was trying to pick someone who went along the lines of memetics or physicalism but also pointed to the limitations of cognitive science

ill accept it isnt a paper on physicalism

Ah I see, fair enough. I thought you were trying to use it to show the limits of physicalism itself which I thought was a little odd:).

But the point is we are discussing the mind/body problem.
You are caiming it is resolved in favour of the body!

The absence of an empirically identifiable meeting point between the non-physical mind and its physical extension has proven problematic to dualism and many modern philosophers of mind maintain that the mind is not something separate from the body

Well as I'm not a dualist the mind body problem isn't really a problem.

Just that the branch of cognitive science is insufficient for solving it.

Fair enough.

I dont think Chalmers is someone to be dismissed lightly.

He's got some interesting points to make but nothing that sinks the physicalist ship so to speak.

but science isnt sufficient and to claim it is is scientism.

Sufficient for what exactly? Thinking that science can help solve the question of what is a brain/mind doesn't seem unreasonable as we can measure of the brain/mind as it is a physical object.

Improving yes. but Biology is not physics or mathematics. Also what i mean is the mind has not been shown to be wholly an artifact or artifice of the brain.

Not wholly so but neither has gravity been shown to be wholly due to mass to the exclusion of anything else. Given the current understanding it seems a reasonable assumption.

Relativist atheists here argue from introspection.
It is sticky because they cant appeal to objective scientific standards on one hand and appeal to personal subjective opinions about morality on another. It is either a contradiction or the fields are different i.e. just like social and biological "evolution" being two different meanings.

Still not with you on this one I'm afraid.

i was not discussing the fudge grey things. i was discussing the clearly defined ones. Sex between a sane adult and a six year old for example. do you not think that is always wrong?

I subjectively think that it is always wrong.

You cant get out of it that way. the bump would be changing you to insane.
do you really believe a sane adult doing such an act is not doing wrong just because they believe they are not?

Whether they believe they are right or wrong is irrelevant. All that matters is that I think that it is wrong.

But if your opinion was that such abuse is acceptable you would be wrong ? ALWAYS?
No matter if you or i or anyone else thought it was right it would always be wrong?
So then it isnt you opinion is it? It is always wrong!

I, currently, subjectively think I would be wrong, always.

Yes but that isnt the subject at issue. YOU are the one claiming the mind body problem is solved and science cant be questioned. You are not correct. I don,t have to prove the negative. You have to support your claim.

I think it is well supported that the mind is an effect of a physical brain. I don't claim that position is solved or can't be questioned at all. More questioning the better.

tommy2bad

OK let me see if I have this ?
Sex between a 6 YO and an adult always wrong, both from a subjective pov and an objective pov. I get how it wrong from a subjective pov but how is it objectively wrong?
If you remove the subjects then the objective view doesn't exist, unless their is an adult and 6yo to apply the rule to then their cant be a rule. Korkys cant have sex with dudelepers, so what? their is no such thing as korkys or dudelepers so ???
Somebody explain how morals can exist in the absence of subjects and how they can be anything other than based on the subjects?

philologos

Zombrex wrote: »

You are confusing belief in an objective morality with applying a subjective morality universally.

No I'm not. I don't claim that morality is subject to myself, or any other human being. I claim that there is an objective standard which is binding on all mankind, and that the conscience is formed to utilise this standard in daily living. Also, if one is to claim that from a Christian POV that God's commandments are subject to Him, one could also claim from a Christian POV that the physical laws of the universe are subject to Him. That's my issue with how atheists have used Plato's Euthyphro dialogue for example.

I think if anything you've misunderstood my position if you think that.

Zombrex wrote: »

I believe that it is absolutely wrong to rape a child. By that I mean that I can see no justification that would ever make me ok with the idea that someone raped a child. That is my subjective opinion. Others may disagree. But I don't care, because to me it is wrong and frankly that is what I care about.

The question is what implications does that belief have? If it cannot be demonstrated to be immoral external to your mind, it has no use in terms of ethical decisionmaking and in terms of rebuking others.

The very mechanism of rebuking another person for their wrongdoing is on the assumption that they know what is right and what is wrong. If there was no guarantee that they would be convicted of this, or if others in society wouldn't be convicted of it, there would be no point in entering into moral discussion with anyone.

Good or evil in a subjectivist viewpoint is essentially what I prefer to be right, and what I prefer to be wrong. Preference don't make it so. Likewise, I might prefer something to be true, but if it is false that's it, it's false.

I think you care about it because you know intuitively it is wrong.

Zombrex wrote: »

So I can say I will never allow anyone to rape a child if I can stop it.

Again, why? - They could be equally right to you in the absence of an objective standard. Unless you felt that it was objectively wrong and that it needed being put right, you wouldn't do it.

Zombrex wrote: »

That is a world apart from saying that I know it is objectively wrong to rape a child. How could I possibly know that? What test or measurement did I do to determine that this? None, it is just what I believe.

The thing is. It isn't a world apart from it at all.

Zombrex wrote: »

I don't see the point in kidding yourself that your own personal beliefs some how just match up to the objective standard of the universe.

It's not my beliefs that do. It is ethical reality that people work on the basis of objective rights, and objective wrongs. If we were all moral subjectivists, the concept of a general right, and a general wrong wouldn't exist. In fact there'd be a whole lot more dispute on ethical issues than there is. Morality, is not a matter of personal preference, it is truth. Much as the same way as you claim to be concerned with what is true, you seem to be concerned with what is ethically right. If morality was a personal preference, there would be no reason why you would be right to say that raping a child was wrong, or fieldshooting humans on a Sunday was wrong.

Ethics stops when we reject objectivity.

Zombrex wrote: »

Also there is a stupid myth popular in theistic circles that if one admits that morality is subjective that some how means they have to respect the moral position of other people. Despite how popular this view is few seem to be able to explain why that is the case, normally it is a vague "How do you know you are right?" when the question should really be "Why do you have to"

I would claim that it is fundamentally wrong and unrealistic to suggest that there isn't an objective form of ethics, because everyone works on the basis of there being one. Indeed, there are countless things that I've already pointed to even right down to the concept of universal human rights.

It's not about popularity. If you want popularity people like the idea of moral subjectivity even if it is clearly wrong in reality. It allows them to ignore ethical wrongdoing, particularly where doing what is right can be to their own detriment.

tommy2bad wrote: »

OK let me see if I have this ?
Sex between a 6 YO and an adult always wrong, both from a subjective pov and an objective pov. I get how it wrong from a subjective pov but how is it objectively wrong?
If you remove the subjects then the objective view doesn't exist, unless their is an adult and 6yo to apply the rule to then their cant be a rule. Korkys cant have sex with dudelepers, so what? their is no such thing as korkys or dudelepers so ???
Somebody explain how morals can exist in the absence of subjects and how they can be anything other than based on the subjects?

The discussion we're having is whether or not morality comes from man, or whether or not moral standards were instituted by God at the beginning of all Creation.

I'm the latter, the others are the former. I argue that the latter makes a heck of a lot more sense.

tommy2bad

philologos wrote: »

The discussion we're having is whether or not morality comes from man, or whether or not moral standards were instituted by God at the beginning of all Creation.

I'm the latter, the others are the former. I argue that the latter makes a heck of a lot more sense.

OK thanks.
Its a bit confusing because I cant see how God made a morality independent of their being man. I mean what for? Are you suggesting that man needs to reach a standard of morality to be acceptable to God? Why? Why didn't God just make man to fit the brief?
I'm not saying that their is not an absolute morality mind just saying that it's not something that can exist in the absence of humans. As to whether it comes from God or is a product of being human and as such is from God, much of a muchness, imho. Depending if you accept the concept of God of course.

philologos

God created all things, including mankind. As a result He gave humanity standards by which they could live the best way they possibly could in Creation.

I think you've misunderstood whole swathes of what I've said if you think that I think that God made a morality "independent of their being man". God made commandments precisely because we're intelligent and we're able to know good from evil as objective truths.

My point is that it seems that people know that right and wrong isn't a matter of opinion. In human behaviour it is starkingly clear. If someone has been robbed, they don't say "oh well, maybe they thought it was good, so what odds!". They claim that they have been wronged as a matter of fact and strive for justice. The same is true of many other things. We say "you should know better" because we expect the right thing to do to be apparent to other people. Why would we expect this if good was whatever we wanted it to be, and if evil was whatever we wanted it to be? Why would we expect our views to be consistent if there was no moral or ethical standard of behaviour that was objective between us?

From a Christian and a Biblical POV this is precisely because God has given us a conscience in order to discern His will as to how we should live in Creation (see Romans ch 2).

I don't see what is the problem in saying that right and wrong are separate from human opinion and conjecture. Humans do this in respect to truth. Just because I happen to think that pigs can fly doesn't necessarily mean that it is true. Indeed, I might say that shooting humans on a Sunday afternoon is just a fun activity, but ultimately it would be wrong irrespective of what I thought about it. Indeed, I could jump out my window, but it doesn't mean that I'm not going to fall just because I don't want to.

This is simple logic, what's troublesome about it?

tommy2bad

philologos wrote: »

God created all things, including mankind. As a result He gave humanity standards by which they could live the best way they possibly could in Creation.
So your saying that the morals came with the package, I agree
I think you've misunderstood whole swathes of what I've said if you think that I think that God made a morality "independent of their being man". God made commandments precisely because we're intelligent and we're able to know good from evil as objective truths.

My point is that it seems that people know that right and wrong isn't a matter of opinion. In human behaviour it is starkingly clear. If someone has been robbed, they don't say "oh well, maybe they thought it was good, so what odds!". They claim that they have been wronged as a matter of fact and strive for justice. The same is true of many other things. We say "you should know better" because we expect the right thing to do to be apparent to other people. Why would we expect this if good was whatever we wanted it to be, and if evil was whatever we wanted it to be? Why would we expect our views to be consistent if there was no moral or ethical standard of behaviour that was objective between us?
Well they do and they don't, more later
From a Christian and a Biblical POV this is precisely because God has given us a conscience in order to discern His will as to how we should live in Creation (see Romans ch 2).
Hmmm..again more later.
I don't see what is the problem in saying that right and wrong are separate from human opinion and conjecture. Humans do this in respect to truth. Just because I happen to think that pigs can fly doesn't necessarily mean that it is true. Indeed, I might say that shooting humans on a Sunday afternoon is just a fun activity, but ultimately it would be wrong irrespective of what I thought about it. Indeed, I could jump out my window, but it doesn't mean that I'm not going to fall just because I don't want to.
But it would be fun and wrong
This is simple logic, what's troublesome about it?

The trouble starts when you say stealing is wrong, someone will say but what if he is hungry and cant afford food? So we have qualifiers on morality.

Morality hasn't been consistent through time and isn't consistent across cultures even now so where dose that leave us? You'll claim sinful nature and someone else will claim it all to do with the circumstances or us learning or what not.
If God gave us a conscience to discern His will how come we suck at it so bad He had to write it down on stone. Is it possible that morality is a process in development. I know I sliding towards assuming that 'we' are the peak of all time here but bear with me.. Could it be a bit of both God given and man made or do you rule out a cooperation with God in bringing about the kingdom?
Sorry if this is a bit too xian v xian for the atheist and xian thread, just say so if it is.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

God created all things, including mankind. As a result He gave humanity standards by which they could live the best way they possibly could in Creation.

I think you've misunderstood whole swathes of what I've said if you think that I think that God made a morality "independent of their being man". God made commandments precisely because we're intelligent and we're able to know good from evil as objective truths.

My point is that it seems that people know that right and wrong isn't a matter of opinion. In human behaviour it is starkingly clear. If someone has been robbed, they don't say "oh well, maybe they thought it was good, so what odds!". They claim that they have been wronged as a matter of fact and strive for justice. The same is true of many other things. We say "you should know better" because we expect the right thing to do to be apparent to other people. Why would we expect this if good was whatever we wanted it to be, and if evil was whatever we wanted it to be? Why would we expect our views to be consistent if there was no moral or ethical standard of behaviour that was objective between us?

From a Christian and a Biblical POV this is precisely because God has given us a conscience in order to discern His will as to how we should live in Creation (see Romans ch 2).

I don't see what is the problem in saying that right and wrong are separate from human opinion and conjecture. Humans do this in respect to truth. Just because I happen to think that pigs can fly doesn't necessarily mean that it is true. Indeed, I might say that shooting humans on a Sunday afternoon is just a fun activity, but ultimately it would be wrong irrespective of what I thought about it. Indeed, I could jump out my window, but it doesn't mean that I'm not going to fall just because I don't want to.

This is simple logic, what's troublesome about it?

The only thing troublesome about it is that this objective moral standard that you refer to and you believe is handed down by God means very different things to different people. If it was so obvious why is there no universal argreement on it ? Even among the various christian denominations there is no consensus on it ? Why is that so ?

Even ISAW is reduced to the lowest common denominator example of the 6 year old being abused to try to prove the universality of certain norms.

I think it was you introduced Thomas Jefferson and co. as support for ''self evident'' rights etc but failing to take cogniscance that most of these men were either slave owners or in the process of creating a slave owning republic complete with all the Simon Legrees. Where is the universality there ?

And why is the christian faith alone gifted with this ability to define the true universal law and why does this unchanging definition of right and wrong change all the time ?

Now we come to the subjective view of law or right and wrong or ethics or morals or whatever you want to call it .

Zombrex said earlier that he subjectively believed that the rape of a six year old is always wrong no matter who does it and he/she would do whatever needed to prevent it. This is the kernel of the issue , all the rest of the philosophy class stuff is absolutely fascinating and quite brilliant but really has little to do with the practical running of a society. Now you replied that the next person may think raping a six year old is ok so where does that leave us ?

It leaves us in the real world- if Zombrex and enough people believe as he does then they will make a law forbidding the rape of 6 years olds. And that is how we have progressed to where we are to day. And we have progressed beyond torture, death penalty, chopping off hands,forced marriage, rape, etc etc , at least in the western world.

Man made law , for better or worse,has got us where we are to day and not anything handed down and interpreted by others.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

No I'm not. I don't claim that morality is subject to myself, or any other human being. I claim that there is an objective standard which is binding on all mankind, and that the conscience is formed to utilise this standard in daily living.

You claimed that if morality is subjective it makes no sense and that Why should that be right or wrong for someone else, unless there is an objective ethical standard.

As I explained it doesn't, and never has, mattered if the person who is committing an immoral action accepts they are or not. If you believe it is immoral you will act as such.

Humans have never had any problem applying subjective morality universally. Some of them delude themselves that it is not their subjective morality they are applying but some objective standard. But the end result is the same, the will of one group of people enforced on others, be that locking up a rapist or shooting a bank robber.

philologos wrote: »

Also, if one is to claim that from a Christian POV that God's commandments are subject to Him, one could also claim from a Christian POV that the physical laws of the universe are subject to Him. That's my issue with how atheists have used Plato's Euthyphro dialogue for example.

Euthyphro's dilemma is some what off topic, but if God's commandements are subject to Him, and thus not based on any rhyme or reason, then it makes the random and meaningless.

But my point is that your moral beliefs are as subjective as anyone else's. You subjectively believe you have picked the religion with the correct knowledge of the objective standard of the universe but you have no ability to demonstrate that other than simply appealing to how much it makes sense to you.

philologos wrote: »

The question is what implications does that belief have? If it cannot be demonstrated to be immoral external to your mind, it has no use in terms of ethical decisionmaking and in terms of rebuking others.

And what exactly does "rebuking" others do. You see a man attacking another man. He says this man slept with his girlfriend and now he is going to beat the crap out of him. You inform him that "objectively" what he is doing is wrong. He laughs at you and says don't be stupid, this guy deserves it.

How do you demonstrate to him that he is actually wrong without convincing him to hold that opinion himself, subjectively.

Of course you cannot. Your three options are a) let him at it b) try and convince him to change his mind or c) physically stop him.

The one option you do not have is to demonstrate to him a measurement of this supposed objective moral standard. You can try and convince him that your religion is correct, but that would require him to subjectively accept that since you cannot demonstrate that either in any fashion other than your own opinion on the matter.

philologos wrote: »

The very mechanism of rebuking another person for their wrongdoing is on the assumption that they know what is right and what is wrong. If there was no guarantee that they would be convicted of this, or if others in society wouldn't be convicted of it, there would be no point in entering into moral discussion with anyone.

The only point in entering a moral discussion with someone is if you believe you can get that person to change their mind. Ie the entirely subjective opinion on what they think is right or wrong.

If you do not believe you can get them to change their mind then proclaiming to them that, in your opinion Christianity is the accurate reflection of the true objective moral standard of the universe and that what they are doing is morally wrong even if they don't accept this is frankly pointless.

Having said that it isn't pointless, it makes you feel better. Ultimately the notion of objective morality is not supposed to convince others it is supposed to comfort the holder of such beliefs, allowing them to feel that their personal beliefs are beyond them and not simply what they believe. People like feeling they are right, even in an area such a morality where no one can actually demonstrate who is actually right or wrong.

It is the same reason people seek reassurance from others when they do something they might feel a bit guilty about, we ask others do you think it was ok and if others tell us it was fine we feel better about it.

philologos wrote: »

Good or evil in a subjectivist viewpoint is essentially what I prefer to be right, and what I prefer to be wrong. Preference don't make it so. Likewise, I might prefer something to be true, but if it is false that's it, it's false.

Correct. For example your religion is false, the god you believe in doesn't actually exist and what you experience as religious experiences is actually a side effect of the way the human mind evolved.

See, simply by stating the objective reality to you I can instantly get you to see that you are in fact objectively wrong. Correct?

philologos wrote: »

I think you care about it because you know intuitively it is wrong.

I care about it because I do not want to see, nor imagine, children suffering. The question of whether I'm objectively right or not is frankly irrelevant to me.

If I was objectively wrong about children suffering (and who knows maybe your god does exist and I am) frankly I wouldn't care. I would still not wish to see children suffer and I would still attempt to stop it.

philologos wrote: »

Again, why? - They could be equally right to you in the absence of an objective standard. Unless you felt that it was objectively wrong and that it needed being put right, you wouldn't do it.

I don't want it to happen. I do not want children to suffer. Why do you think that wouldn't motivate me to stop it happening.

If I didn't care about children suffering then you could tell me that it is wrong and I should care but that would mean nothing to me, and I would probably do nothing to stop it, no matter how objectively wrong you claimed that it was.

philologos wrote: »

The thing is. It isn't a world apart from it at all.

Of course it is. I've no idea if it is objectively right or wrong to rape a child. I suspect objectively morality doesn't exist, but heck anything is possible. But frankly it is irrelevant to me.

Or to put it another way if your god appeared to me tomorrow and informed me that in fact raping children is sometimes an objectively good thing to do I wouldn't give a hoot. That would be utterly irrelevant to me, I would continue to not want children to suffer and continue to stop it if I could.

This of course is the nonsense of holding to ideas of objective morality. Everyone who does assumes their morality matches the objective standard, particularly when it comes to thinks most humans find abhorrent, such as murder rape torture and other suffering.

I don't believe for a minute that you would stop thinking this and come to believe that in fact torturing a child to death is in fact moral simply because you found out from an objective standard that it was.

You would be as repulsed by it as you were before you found this out because your morality is based on evolutionary biology that has developed humans to find the suffering of children abhorrent. That is entirely subjective to humans, lions will happily eat a child while he screams in pain. We have a biological instinct to protect our children, and this manifests itself in notions that it is utterly wrong to case them pain and suffering.

philologos wrote: »

It's not my beliefs that do. It is ethical reality that people work on the basis of objective rights, and objective wrongs. If we were all moral subjectivists, the concept of a general right, and a general wrong wouldn't exist. In fact there'd be a whole lot more dispute on ethical issues than there is. Morality, is not a matter of personal preference, it is truth.

No actually it is a matter of evolutionary biology. The reason there is large consensus among humans over certain moral issues is because we are all the same species, we are all (relatively speaking) closely related to each other and we all develop relatively similar brain chemistry that regulates notions of ethics.

This is why when you disrupt the brain chemistry, through genetic problems, developmental problems or physical damage, you produce psychopaths, people who do not have the common or normal sense of moral standards that most people share. Good luck merely informing them that they are in fact going against the objective moral standard of the universe.

philologos wrote: »

Much as the same way as you claim to be concerned with what is true, you seem to be concerned with what is ethically right.

I assume you mean in an objective sense. I'm not. As I explained above if something I consider important, such as an abolition of sex trafficking, turned out tomorrow to be objective moral I wouldn't care.

philologos wrote: »

If morality was a personal preference, there would be no reason why you would be right to say that raping a child was wrong, or fieldshooting humans on a Sunday was wrong.

The reason I think raping a child is wrong is because I do not wish to see children suffer. The reason I think shooting humans on a Sunday is because I do not wish to see humans hunted and executed.

I wasn't aware I needed more of a reason. Can you explain why I do?

philologos wrote: »

Ethics stops when we reject objectivity.

Really doesn't. As I explained the only options open are to change someone's mind or to physically stop them. Ethics and law. The one thing that won't work is simply informing someone they are objectively wrong.

philologos wrote: »

I would claim that it is fundamentally wrong and unrealistic to suggest that there isn't an objective form of ethics, because everyone works on the basis of there being one.

Well that is a bit silly. Firstly everyone doesn't work on the basis of there being one. And secondly even if everyone did that would be irrelevant to whether there is or not. If everyone worked on the basis that Islam was true and Christianity wasn't would that have any effect on the truth of Christianity? If everyone worked on the basis that the Sun goes around the Earth would that have any baring on whether that was true or not?

philologos wrote: »

Indeed, there are countless things that I've already pointed to even right down to the concept of universal human rights.

As I said do not confuse universality with objectivism.

philologos wrote: »

It's not about popularity. If you want popularity people like the idea of moral subjectivity even if it is clearly wrong in reality.

I thought you said everyone believes morality is objective ... ?

philologos wrote: »

It allows them to ignore ethical wrongdoing, particularly where doing what is right can be to their own detriment.

No that doesn't make sense. If morality is subjective then you cannot ignore your own personal feelings on the matter since that is all there is. If though morality is objective then you can convince yourself that your own person feelings on the matter (such as perhaps it is wrong to gas all these Jewish people) are in fact wrong and what is correct is the objective moral standard you have been taught and that everyone else seems to believe in. I mean Hitler tells me this is the right thing to do, who am I to question such a great leader, and everyone else seems to agree with him. My personal feelings on the matter must be wrong, after all there is an objective morality.

Again belief in objective morality is simply a method to revoke responsibility for deciding what is right or wrong, whether it is a Christian saying I am right to vote against gay marriage because that is what God wants, or a Nazi saying I am right to gas these Jews because that is what everyone else says is the right thing to do and who am I to argue with them. They don't have to justify these things, some else already has. They are just doing what they are told is right.

It can be quite intimidating at first to have to stand behind your own personal beliefs, justify your own personal beliefs to yourself and others. But trust me, it works a lot better than abandoning responsibility and just deferring to some other group.

I wonder how many Nazi's would be prepared to get up and state that they gassed the Jews because they personally believed that it was the right thing to do. Few I would imagine.

philologos wrote: »

I'm the latter, the others are the former. I argue that the latter makes a heck of a lot more sense.

Really? Lets hope God never asks you to carry out a genocide ...

himnextdoor

philologos wrote: »

From a Christian and a Biblical POV this is precisely because God has given us a conscience in order to discern His will as to how we should live in Creation (see Romans ch 2).

I don't see what is the problem in saying that right and wrong are separate from human opinion and conjecture. Humans do this in respect to truth. Just because I happen to think that pigs can fly doesn't necessarily mean that it is true. Indeed, I might say that shooting humans on a Sunday afternoon is just a fun activity, but ultimately it would be wrong irrespective of what I thought about it. Indeed, I could jump out my window, but it doesn't mean that I'm not going to fall just because I don't want to.

This is simple logic, what's troublesome about it?

The trouble is this: According to the Bible, God instructed Saul to murder a certain ruler but Saul, by using his conscience, showed mercy and allowed him to live.

And God rebuked Saul for being disobedient. In fact, according to the story, Saul thought his like was forfeit.

So, God hands down the commandments which instruct us not to kill and this can be taken to mean that since it is wrong to break the commandments, it is wrong to kill.

However, God then commands Saul, and his army, to kill; did God command Saul to do something that was objectively wrong?

Why didn't God just send an earthquake or something to deal with his enemies rather than morally corrupt Saul by commanding him to do something that was objectively wrong even in the mind of Saul?

God says 'don't kill'; God says 'kill' - how do you deduce objectivity from that? What does God's objectivity depend on; why does He command us to not to kill and why would He command David to kill? On what objective reality is God basing His requests on?

The fact that this question can be framed in this way demonstrates that even God's morality is subjective; that even He does not recognise any universal truth about the wrongness of killing. The Bible attests to it.

ISAW

himnextdoor wrote: »

According to the Bible, God instructed David to murder a certain ruler but David, by using his conscience, showed mercy and allowed him to live.

where in the bible? You ar not referring to the bit where Davids men say that God said ‘I will give your enemy into your hands for you to deal with as you wish' sorry but no kill order there.

And God rebuked David for being disobedient. In fact, according to the story, David thought his like was forfeit.

Which story?
where?

So, God hands down the commandments which instruct us not to kill and this can be taken to mean that since it is wrong to break the commandments, it is wrong to kill.

Your "so" is anachronistic. Moses was much earlier than Saul or David.

However, God then commands David, and his army, to kill; did God command David to do something that was objectively wrong?

you could go on about this law for days with a Rabbi.
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/war3.html
In sum, there clearly is a license to wage certain kinds of war and kill certain people in the Jewish tradition. However, in order to exercise this license, one must first seek peace; this peace must be sought prior to declaring war, prior to waging a battle, and prior to laying a siege. While war permits killing, it only permits the intentional killings of combatants. Innocent people must be given every opportunity to remove themselves from the field of combat.

Why didn't God just send an earthquake or something to deal with his enemies rather than morally corrupt David by commanding him to do something that was objectively wrong even in the mind of David?

Why dont you cite the verse where this instruction is?

God says 'don't kill'; God says 'kill' - how do you deduce objectivity from that? What does God's objectivity depend on;

Obviously not a false premise. Obviously certain kinds of killing are permissible but should be avoided if possible.

why does He command us to not to kill and why would He command David to kill? On what objective reality is God basing His requests on?

eh? Murder! do not murder other people. Self defence isnt murder. And where does god command david to kill q king and rebuke him for not killing the king?

The fact that this question can be framed in this way demonstrates that even God's morality is subjective; that even He does not recognise any universal truth about the wrongness of killing. The Bible attests to it.

where is the above in the Bible?

himnextdoor

ISAW wrote: »

where in the bible? You ar not referring to the bit where Davids men say that God said ‘I will give your enemy into your hands for you to deal with as you wish' sorry but no kill order there.


Which story?
where?


Your "so" is anachronistic. Moses was much earlier than Saul or David.


you could go on about this law for days with a Rabbi.
http://www.jlaw.com/Articles/war3.html
In sum, there clearly is a license to wage certain kinds of war and kill certain people in the Jewish tradition. However, in order to exercise this license, one must first seek peace; this peace must be sought prior to declaring war, prior to waging a battle, and prior to laying a siege. While war permits killing, it only permits the intentional killings of combatants. Innocent people must be given every opportunity to remove themselves from the field of combat.


Why dont you cite the verse where this instruction is?

Obviously not a false premise. Obviously certain kinds of killing are permissible but should be avoided if possible.


eh? Murder! do not murder other people. Self defence isnt murder. And where does god command david to kill q king and rebuke him for not killing the king?



where is the above in the Bible?

Fixed it; it was Saul, not David.