Imagine my surprise when I heard that atheism was based on a search for truth. We all know that’s false.
Let’s examine a couple recent examples.
Patrick claimed that I did not provide any links.
You’ll note the complete absence of any links…
I provided links. Patrick lied.
KN claimed that Immanuel Kant was an atheist philosopher.
KN lied,
Patrick demands morals of others while denying that there are any objective moral obligations.
Why do atheists care about what is true and what is immoral?
Why do atheists attack the object of their ignorance?
Mung,
You’re incapable of grasping figurative speech. No surprises
My working view right now is that moral judgments are true if they are grounded in an act of recognition of the intrinsic value of the sapience-and-sentience, or sentience, of the human, or animal, that is the object of the judgment and false if an ideology of dehumanization or de-animalization interferes with that recognition.
It’s a further question whether this phenomenological/conceptual explication of morality is consistent with a naturalistic explanation of morality as a synthesis of developmentally canalized primate social behavior and culturally constructed mechanisms of rewards and sanctions relevant to successful cooperation. I suspect it is, because explications of our judgments and the practices in which those judgments are embedded are just different from scientific explanations of how we acquired those practices and judgments in the first place.
I guess I want to say that the prospects are rather good for naturalizing cognitivist moral realism. But I freely admit that metaethics is not my specialty.
How do you reconcile that claim with the fact that I reject a literal hell? I’d really like to know.
I retract my claim that you were lying.
Also, you do seem to acknowledge that we do have an obligation to show concern for what is true, but where does that obligation come from? Is there a connection between what is true and what is moral (good), and where does duty (obligation) come into it?
I’ve noticed that most religious wackos can’t handle more than one argument at a time. You can’t even handle one. I was obviously referring to Patrick’s quote:
I’m pretty sure he doesn’t think the “Christian gawd’” has anything to do with that book, because he doesn’t believe in that thing: figure of speech.
P.S. Nobody cares what you or FMM believe about hell other than yourselves, and that includes you and FMM because you obviously don’t care what the other believes: self serving delusions FTW
Just so. It’s shorter than saying “the unevidenced and indistinguishable from fictional deity described in the bible that is the object of worship of self-identifying Christians.”
Yet you ought to care, since you claimed I am ” incapable of grasping figurative speech.” Perhaps you were just venting, for no good reason. Or maybe fifth and I touched a nerve.
Thank you.
There are two different things here, though — the fact that we often do care about the truth, and the idea that we ought to find out the truth, even in cases where we’d rather not.
I do think that we have — to use John McDowell’s phrase — a “standing obligation to reflect” on our beliefs and judgments, and a concomitant willingness to revise them as necessary. And I also think we have a standing obligation to inquire. We don’t just want to believe that we’re right — we want to be entitled to that belief, and that means that our beliefs are supported by evidence (to the extent that evidence is relevant) and argument (to the extent that argument is relevant).
I consider these obligations — the obligations to reflect and inquire — as being obligations to ourselves and obligations to others.
We have an obligation to ourselves to make sure that we are not dupes, puppets, being led by others for their benefit. This obligation is intrinsic to the practice of freedom — it is our commitment autonomy that requires us to reflect and to inquire, and do what we can to make sure that we are not being manipulated.
And we have an obligation to reflect and inquire to others. This is especially true in cases where we are offering suggestions on public policy. We want, or should want, policies that can be reflectively endorsed by everyone who is subject to that policy. (This is a core principle of liberal democracies.) This means that policies must be supported by reasons that everyone can find acceptable. If I’m going to advocate some particular form of sex education in public schools, or advocate that we produce and consume less oil and coal, I can’t just say “because God told me!” That’s not going to persuade anyone. I need to have the relevant data and relevant arguments. And that means I need to be able to inquire into what is likely to be true, to reflect on my beliefs if they conflict with what I discover or with what other people discover, and so on.
This means that one has an obligation to inquire and reflect that varies in proportion to the impact that one’s beliefs have on others. If one has a foolish or false belief, but acting on it has no consequences to others, then you’re not harming anyone, just being silly. But if one has a foolish or false belief, and is harming others by acting on it, then you’re not being silly but rather evil.
It’s like coding!
And you’re obviously well-equipped to engage in reasoned debate. There is a God!
(But Her name is not Lizzie.)
LMFAO. Mung quote mining himself on somebody else’s quote. Bringing religious idiocy to a whole new level
It’s like a retail store clerk ringing up another sale!
Anyone object if I don’t take dazz to be representative of all atheists here at TSZ?
Pathetrick, otoh, is like the face of the franchise. It’s up to the other atheists here to change that if they don’t care for it.
Two self-confessed heretics deny objective truth about eternal damnation.
Neil Rickert said:
Well, it works just fine for those that aren’t trying to have their cake and eat it, too.
Patrick said:
I’m sorry, did I say somewhere that the only reason anyone got banned was because they were obnoxious?
Woodbine said:
Not sure what you mean here. To determine what is moral, rely on your conscience and reason working together as best you can.
Mung,
No, that’s much easier now we have barcodes and scanners.
Woodbine:
What test can I perform to establish whether ‘X is wrong‘ is an objective moral statement as opposed to a subjective man-made one?
You can’t even manage to form a coherent question.
What test can I (Woodbine) perform to establish that ‘X is wrong‘ is an objective moral statement?
What test can I (Woodbine) perform to establish that ‘X is wrong‘ is a subjective man-made statement?
If I (Woodbine) have no test to perform, then I can conclude that ….
Ah, the internet polygraph. Dream on.
I agree – but where’s the objectivity in such an approach?
Relying on one’s own conscience and reason – isn’t that epitome of subjectivity?
If you could persuade me that X is wrong what should I believe?
That I am now in possession of an objective moral truth – or that I am merely in agreement?
How does one determine that X is wrong is an objective moral truth rather than a moral statement that sits rather comfortably with one’s own prejudices?
No, and I noticed how you phrased it at the time. However you are now in the position of defending Barry banning someone for their ideas rather than the delivery of those ideas.
Admitting that you ban people because you are unable to deal with their arguments is very telling.
Citation please. What does that even mean? Are you going to address any of KN’s points or just proclaim victory and walk away like usual?
So, just like everyone else then. Where does ‘objective morality’ come into it then?
Or William addressing relevant points – it just does not happen.
OMagain said:
Many people look outside of conscience and reason to inform their moral choices. Many here have said they employ empathy; others look to various texts and authorities; still others begin with sets of idealistic principles. I think quite a lot of people are really not much good at the proper application of logic. So, no. Not “just like everyone else.”
I don’t know what you mean. Conscience would be how you sense the objectively existent moral landscape; logic would be how one most objective way in coming to a good understanding of it. Sensory capacity an reason are how we best observe and interpret any aspect of the presumed objectively-existent landscape we find ourselves in.
OMagain said:
Proclaim victory and walk away as usual.
I’m always dubious about something that would need to exist simply in order to salvage a rather dodgy line of reasoning. Still more so if the proponent insists it does not ‘really’ need to exist. It is perennial reification of the ‘still, small voice’. Let’s find out what it wants!
Woodbine said:
Again, not sure what you mean. People assume that what they experience through various senses represents an objective existent landscape; they assume that logic is an objective means of determining various real qualities of what they are experiencing through the senses. Ultimately, everything is subjectively experienced and processed, but we hold that some of that experience (sight, sound, etc.) and some of that processing (logic) represents objectively existent or objectively valid commodities.
So, in the same sense that we observe/experience and logically process sensation about an objective real world and logically differentiate that categorically from internal, subjective phenomena (emotions, imagination, preferences), we either consider conscience and logic the former or the latter. Moral objectivists consider conscience and logic to be the former; subjectivists consider at least conscience to be the latter.
Depends on what you hold conscience and reason to be. I hold conscience to be a sensory capacity, analogous to sight or hearing, and I hold reason (logic) to be a fundamental capacity (like acausal free will) found in at least some conscious agents. If our other senses and logic are also held as entirely subjective capacities, then we’re all de facto solipsists.
I don’t understand what you’re asking.
Great question! Such discernment IMO requires dedication to both exercising one’s conscience and one’s capacity to properly reason the information one gathers from the conscience. It requires a high degree of introspection and critical self-analysis about one’s motivations, assumptions and emotional reactions, as well as understanding the difference between empathy and conscience and the role empathy plays in our moral discernment.
All that said, it’s entirely possible that many people find themselves in situations where a combination of culture and their own natures serve as an insurmountable barrier to proper moral understanding and behavior. However, IMO they have an important role to play and exist as such for a reason.
OMagain said;
It would be, had I admitted any such thing.
Who said anything about eternal damnation? The subject I thought was infinite eternal punishment
peace
It isn’t up to anyone to do anything. If you posit any one individual as the “face” of atheism, you are knowingly making a mistake. Nobody has an obligation to try to correct you, since you are already aware of what you are doing.
OK, but all you’ve said is that it’s hard, there are innate and cultural hurdles to navigate and it requires dedication etc. But what are you really left with?
Are you now in possession of a moral truth or is it just a moral statement for which you have exhausted all reasonable analysis?
Is the inability to find a counter to X is wrong evidence that we’ve discovered an objective moral truth?
Woodbine,
Sorry, I don’t understand the questions.
Maybe this will answer the questions: like with any observationa/interpretational processing of sensory experience assumed to reflect objective commodities, you are left with a collection of statements that accurately as possible (for you) reflect the objective moral landscape in terms relating to what you ought and ought not do.
Some of those best-accuracy statements can be classified as self-evident truths; others can be classified as necessary truths; others as generally true and others still as conditionally true.
However, one should always keep in mind that descriptions are not the thing itself, and one should always carry with them the humility to realize their views – especially their moral beliefs – could be in error.
A couple of self-evidently true moral statements: Cruelty is wrong. Love is good. Much of proper morality can be rationally developed simply by logically examining the consequences of those two self-evident truths.
or for those who subjectively believe that there is absolute therefore universally objective morality.
BTW, my statements here are all predicated on the premise of my view of objective morality; examining that perspective does not constitute a claim on my part that an objective morality actually exists.
That’s for you boys that have a hard time telling a philosophical argument/discussion from a claim of fact requiring evidence to support.
Well, if we all just believe whatever we are physicaly caused to believe, (cue Hillary impression) – at this point, what difference does it make??
cruelty can be just, justice is good, therefore cruelty can be good
newton,
My love for a woman who is not my wife might not be near the top of a list of ‘self-evidently good’ things, either …
If libertarian free wilI makes a choice it caused by something, reasons, experience, logic , desire, pragmatism. If what we believe is whatever we are immaterially caused to choose , what difference does it make?
If libertarian will chooses without cause, how could we ever say something is wrong? We have no control.
Good for the divorce lawyer or the undertaker.
newton,
Hypothetical! I meant hypothetical!
Operating from cruel intentions is never a good thing.
It’s an interesting arena though. The universe gives a damn about my marriage vows. It would stop giving a damn about them if they were legally annulled. Really?
Nothing causes any particular free will choice; many things inform a particular free will choice and provide the context of a free will choice. I hope you understand the difference.
You’re probably being facetious, but there is a difference between love and attraction.