This post is long overdue.
One doesn’t have to look far to find examples of moral outrage aimed towards theists in general and Christians in particular here at The Skeptical Zone.
Judgmentalism, oddly enough, is prevalent. A pungent odor of opprobrium frequently wafts its way forth from the atheist trenches, and it stinks.
Are we all moral realists after all? Do we all now agree on the existence of objective moral values? If so, what are they and what makes them objective?
As for you moral relativists, are there any of you left? Why ought anyone (including especially Erik, Gregory, myself, fifth, William) be subject to the vagaries of what you moral relativists think others ought to be doing or ought not be doing?
Such opprobrium. Based on what, exactly?
If you are going to claim that we have some moral obligation towards you, you really ought to support that claim or retract it.
After all, that’s the intellectually honest thing to do.
All arguments begin and end somewhere.
Non Christian arguments begin and end with man
Christian arguments begin and end with God.
The difference is that God is a suitable foundation and pinnacle for knowledge.
man not so much
peace
You already conceded that you were good with not knowing anything.
If you want absurdity you can have it
to each his own
peace
Is this an objective fact based on empirical science?
Perhaps I missed your explanation.
I am perfectly willing to accept that the moral outrage expressed here at TSZ by the anti-theist crowd has no logical justification and is a mere emotional response.
Are you?
We have a word to describe people who receive knowledge from directly from petrushka. Loon.
You don’t have a mindset, you have a brainset. Whatever that means.
How do you know this?
I don’t know about mere, but emotion is the foundation of morality. Things that do not have emotions are not the subjects or objects of morality.
EL said:
How do you know that “it cannot possibly be”, and what presuppositions are necessary for you to take that position?
If the premise is that God can instill in you absolute knowledge about something, then it logically follows that God can instill in you absolute knowledge that the knowledge instilled in you came from God. Your “rebuttal” that “it cannot possibly be” is not being argued from 5MM’s premise; it’s being argued from your presuppositional viewpiont where absolute, certain, infallible knowledge cannot possibly exist. Yet, your insistence that “it is not possible” seems to contradict this view that absolute certainty cannot exist.
Odd, coming from someone who will not even commit to the principles of logic as an absolute method of discerning true statements. One wonders what principle would make a proposition “not possible” if not logic?
Can there be such things as square circles, EL? If not, are you absolutely certain? If so, what makes you absolutely certain? If you are not absolutely certain that square circles cannot possibly exist, how on earth can you be so certain that what 5MM says is “not possible”?
nailed it
peace
In other words
how do you know stuff?
peace
No they are not. There are assumed true in order to carry out an argument. You don’t assert the principles of logic valid and then attempt to defend them in an argument. You presuppose them valid and binding for the sake of carrying out the argument.
still waiting
peace
KN, did you miss this?
You originally said:
I asked:
You said:
I responded:
You replied:
My reply and questions:
Can you clear this up for me? Because it seems to me that what you are calling the “objective ground for morality” is actually an objective grounds for scientifically sorting and politically administering that which you already consider to be moral. IOW, it’s like EL when she picks a definition of “what morality is about” (a certain kind of social success), and then develops a means of objectively evaluating, sorting and administering that morality.
Is that a fair assessment? Or am I missing something?
It’s a really profound argument you’ve got. It shines a light on the fact that all any of us have, in the end, is faith in our presuppositions. The question is, is one’s presuppositional source or means of acquiring knowledge worthy of such faith? And, of what value is such knowledge, given the presumed source? A deeply interesting topic – I appreciate you bringing it forward in this environment and I truly admire your demeanor while weathering the insults and ridicule.
Thanks. I appreciate your restatement of the argument.
You don’t know how good it feels to know that someone at least understands what is going on here
peace
FYI I really would rather be discussing something where agreement is at least possible but I have a hard time letting the steady drumbeat of anti-christian tripe here go unchallenged.
Mung,
That is not what I posed. You are evading the fact that I was asking for what extra ‘logical justification’ you deem your view to possess. If atheists are deemed to have no logical justification, it is implicit that theists do. But when asked to apply that logic, it all becomes a bit hand-wavy. I wish to know how to frame the answer (a simple ‘yes/no’ is hardly sufficient, in view of the implications of the phrasing), and to do that I’d need to know what your ‘logical justification’ was.
Your very statement implies one or both of:
1) that there is a separate experential realm for the theist – atheists feel ‘mere’ emotions, whereas yours … they are rilly important! But it’s the same feeling, I would hazard a guess.
2) That there is a logical reason for the theist to get emotionally wound up. If so, what is it? This, it must be emphasised, is distinct from the causal account. Believing that God is the reason you have an emotional response is not a superior ‘logical’ justification for their experience, given that atheists too can give a causal account of the reason for its being felt.
If your refuge is in logical justification, where does it arise?
I’ll offer a few possibles:
1) God will torture me for all eternity if I don’t do it.
– This gives a reason to appear to comply, but not to feel outrage. I could not manufacture outrage to evade eternal torture, and I don’t believe you could either. I couldn’t convince myself, I’d hardy fool an all-knowing deity.
2) God will reward me for all eternity if I do it.
– See above.
3) God is the ultimate source of all things.
– That, again, is the causal account talking. Why should I get emotionally wound up on behalf of the ultimate source of all things?
4) It’s my purpose.
– But why am I ‘logically’ obliged to fulfil my purpose? And how do I distinguish, on logic, which are God’s purposes and which come purely from my community or personal prejudices? People feel real outrage at contravention of purely local norms. Unless there is a God Of Very Small Things.
You did ask that, but such is completely irrelevant to my point. Unless you can dismiss all the claims of all religious works and substantiate why your particular claims hold truth while those do not, your arguments fail by definition.
Let me make this perfectly clear: your presentation of your premise is an assertion, contra your and William’s absurd assertion otherwise. And I have no reason to accept it. Period. Unless and until you can actual provide some kind of supporting evidence for your assertions, they have no more validity than claims about the Luck Charms leprechaun.
Oh the irony…
Not until you can demonstrate that this “Yahweh” even exists or that the texts describing said “Yahweh” are somehow more credible and valid than the thousands of texts attesting to other gods and deities. That’s the issue you have to overcome. Otherwise, your supposed premises derived from some supposed “knowledge” you’ve attained from this supposed “Yahweh” amount to nothing more than “making shit up.”
I have no interest in trying to confuse you with the information I provided. If you’re confused, I’d say you have bigger problems than your delusions about this supposed “Yahweh”…
Be that as it may, I didn’t merely toss out a bunch of deities – I provided specific quotes from authoritative sources on the nature of said deities, noting specifically that ALL of them are ALMIGHTY and, according to said sources, the basis of all that there is. Alas, you don’t have any justification for dismissing those claims other than, “well, my premise is that my god is better! So there!” You’ll pardon me if I find that perspective rather silly…
Yawn…
“He is perennial. Narayana is Brahma. Narayana is Shiva. Narayana is Indra and Kaala (god of death). All directions are Narayana. All sides are Narayana. Inside and outside is Narayana. Narayana is what has happened, what is happening and what will happen. Narayana is the only God who is blemish less, stain less, order less, end less and who cannot be described and when Narayana is there, there is no other second. He who knows this, becomes himself Lord Vishnu. Thus is read, the Upanishads of Yajur Veda.”
BS. I have no presuppositions. None at all. My entire world view and survival is based on, “I’m hungry” and nothing else.
Robin said:
Again, you are not understanding the nature of the argument, as is made explicit in your following comment:
You’re just wrong. One can posit any set of premises they wish for the sake of making an argument – this is done all the time in debate.
For example: ” Mr. Smith has no sons. He has an accident and goes to the hospital …” etc. There’s no requirement to demonstrate or prove that Mr. Smith has no children; it is an assumed premise that is intended to explore the logic afterwards.
We can and do premise all sorts of things that cannot be proven, such as the validity of logic in discerning true statements from false. We hold to the premise that other minds exist and that we are not brains in a vat. In this forum, we operate under the premise that others are posting in good faith.
Whether or not a premise can be proven to be true, we can follow the logical consequences of that premise (or operate as if the premise is true) to see what the logical or practical ramifications are, and then examine those ramifications to make further judgements about the premise.
The reason to accept the premise is the same as the reason to accept any premise: for the sake of exploring the ensuing argument to see where it leads. After one explores where that premise logically leads, and where other premises lead, we can see what we can find out about where those premises logically lead in comparison to each other.
I do this quite often by examining where the premises (1) moral objectivism and (2) moral subjectivism lead. I don’t assert either as true; they are simply premises assumed for the sake of argument.
If that was true, you’d have no reason to make arguments and no grounds or means by which to argue against others or claim they were wrong – unless, of course, you’re saying that the content and value of what you say here is equal to the chirping of a young bird sqawking for food.
This is wrong.
All purely logical arguments are circular. But empirical arguments break the circle by giving reality an input.
Yes, there seem to be some philosophers who worry about the evidence that data is theory laden. They worry that this is a sign of circularity. But they have that backwards. Data is theory laden because science has specified a role for reality to provide input. So the theory ladenness of data is actually evidence that the circularity has been broken.
Other philosophers worry that theory-laden data poses a problem for inductionism. They are right. They should give up on inductionism.
This perhaps highlights a problem that IDists have with evolution.
Evolution is a dynamic system steered by feedback. (so is thought, I think.)
Science is also a dynamic system steered by feedback.
IDists have trouble understanding this.
WJM:
FMM:
Which leaves FMM with presuppositions that he holds by faith (because in the end that is all he has), and admittedly circular reasoning therefrom.
Let’s talk about something else.
Which in no way changes the fact that fifth’s premise is an assertion,William. This statement by Fifth as presented:
…is an assertion by definition:
While all that may be true, it is irrelevant to the fact that Fifth is providing an assertion.
Indeed, which I attempted to do with my examples of other ALMIGHTY DEITY authority statements. Fifth has chose to ignore those facts and how they impact his supposed premise. In fact, he has refused to treat his statement as a premise at all. Ergo, I must conclude he’s just asserting his position.
Which is great, but doesn’t address what Fifth is doing.
Yes, entrenchment in a sophomoric frame of mind.
Really, there’s nothing profound about noting that there is no absolute basis for knowledge. It’s even less profound to resort to baseless presuppositions and insist that such a move is superior to dealing with the relativity of knowledge.
Real thinkers deal with the problems. Others remain at the depth of intro to philosophy students, asking what are supposed to be profound questions when in reality they’re revealing how they can’t deal with the fact that there is no absolute foundation of knowledge.
So fine, you can’t deal with the implications of philosophy. That’s painfully obvious to those who can.
Glen Davidson
Yes.
With science, “pragmatism” is the name we give to that system of feedback. With evolution, we call it “natural selection” which is where nature gets to be pragmatic.
Conservatives are too beholden to idealism, which they see in logic. You can see this with FMM’s repeated reference to the logos.
There has been a long tradition of identifying intelligence with logic. But that’s a mistake. Pragmatism is a core component of intelligence. But the ID proponents fail to see this.
🙂
Christmas is only two weeks away. We could talk about the baby Jesus. I heard that he never ever cried.
Neil Rickert,
The preference for logic over observation in the West seems to have come from Pythagoras’s (at least it’s credited to him) recognition that “subjective” musical experience is ruled by mathematics. Harmonies are produced by mathematic ratios of lengths of vibrating objects, which is rather remarkable, in fact.
The trouble is that, instead of realizing that this observationally indicates that we have insight into nature, that observations do work, it was assumed that everything can be known via logic and mathematic relations without resort to mere observation. To be fair–how were they to know? They might have tried out empiricism, at least as a test of their ideas of the supremacy of logic, but that wasn’t how people thought at the time, and logic can easily rule out the merely empirical (only circularly, but clearly that appeals to people even today). Anyway, on the plus side, the value of mathematics was greatly appreciated, while on the negative side, observation was too little appreciated (not completely unappreciated, to be sure).
Science didn’t win out because philosophy recognized the inadequacies of logic alone (at least that was the ideal, if not practice), but because empiricism worked and philosophy had to adapt to that fact as well as to the failure of logic to give us all knowledge (or actually, much of anything by itself, including mathematics, which needs its (empiric) axioms in order to relate to the observational world). Real thought adapts, while sophomoric profundity repeats the old mantras and asks worthless questions for which no good answer is permitted.
Pythagoras’s observation actually showed that we’re adapted to understand our world (not that they could have known it), and that observation plus logic works. That fact is still lost on those stuck in the sterile belief that logic is the basis for all knowledge.
Glen Davidson
Not until IDists made him cry, that is.
Glen Davidson
Both views could have no logical justification and could be pure emotional response. I don’t think that I’ve argued in this thread that atheists and theists are different when it comes to moral values.
I think we all get them from an external to us objective source. Many, not all, atheists will deny this.
Most of those folks are also probably not willing to say that the moral outrage expressed here at TSZ by the anti-theist crowd has no logical justification and is a mere emotional response.
Trying to turn it back on me doesn’t make it go away. I could say that I toss a coin. How does that help the morally outraged anti-theist?
😀
You and me both. keiths seemed so confidant. What happened to that keiths?
Now William, that’s not fair.
Elizabeth recently wrote the following:
It’s not as if false premises could ever lead to a true conclusion.
I find it unremarkable that we “prefer” sounds having the same harmonic structure as the overtones in the human voice.
*Sigh*… so in your narrow concept of reality, “based upon” means “This is the sum total of my understanding”?
Seriously William…your response doesn’t even come close to addressing my statement. Care to try again?
I’m hungry, therefore I should eat.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/atlas_obscura/2013/12/24/feeding_the_poop_log_a_catalan_christmas_tradition.html
Hope this doesn’t “soil” your Christmas spirit Mung…
What is this “eat” (or “should” for that matter) of which you speak?
Mung,
I think we get them from an internal-to-humanity objective source – genetics and culture.
I don’t know why you keep adding the word ‘mere’. An emotional response is an emotional response. If we both experience an emotional response, I don’t agree that mine is more ‘mere’ than yours.
Do we need help? I ask the chickens. They never lie.
There is a clear implication in challenging the ‘anti-theist’ (I’m not one of them, I’m an atheist) that the challenger themself is immune to the charge levelled. Else why dichotomise? We both feel outrage, and outrage is an emotional response. You think it comes from God, I think it comes from culture/genetics (if I had to summarise in a sound-bite). But why is the first more logically justified than the second? I don’t mean ‘more convincing’, I mean more logically justified, the thing you are all suggesting is a weakness of ‘materialist morality’, and materialist morality alone.
Mung,
Fictional characters are special that way.
FMM:
Mung:
And Mung:
Why would I explain that? It is exactly my point that none of these expectations are “objectively moral” in the sense that their “rightness” or “wrongness” derives from objective, absolute morality outside of human devising.
Rather, they originate both in the broad language community in which we participate and with the author of this site. A few were explicitly stated by Lizzie as the site was inaugurated, while others are expectations/assumptions about one another’s behavior that make conversation possible generally.
Specifically, per Paul Grice, the comprehension of ordinary utterances assumes that speakers are being appropriately brief, perspicuous, relevant, and truthful. Listeners utilize those assumptions to recover otherwise underdetermined meanings and intentions. Even highly contentious exchanges can be successful (ie. not break down, solve problems, result in negotiated agreements etc.) if these expectations are respected, and cooperative conversations break down when they are not. None of these are “objective moral values”; they are pragmatic prerequisites for functional conversation. If what is wanted is functional conversation, then they need to be honored. When they are badly violated, particularly deliberately, opprobrium is appropriate in a context (like this site) where the stated aspiration is to have functional conversations about difficult issues.
Perhaps that is why things have broken down so badly here – those expectations aren’t all that different than the site rules, and they are so often neglected.
Same answer.
Ordinary courtesy would suggest that, for example, were one to pose a question directly to a participant, and that participant offered a good faith response comporting with the site rules, one ought to respond. While there is no explicit obligation to do so, others may observe the discourtesy and will often speculate vis motives. With each failure to respond, the inference that one is unable to respond becomes more tenable.
Elizabeth, please see the following:
Hope that helps.
Since neither William nor Fifth (nor any other theist) seems capable of presenting a valid rebuttal to the point I’ve made above, let’s try something different. Here Fifth presents part of an argument. Here’s a formal structuring of the argument as far as I can parse it:
Premise 1: god is good (unstated)
Premise 2: all things from god are good (unstated)
Premise 3: things from anything other than god are ? (unstated and vague)
Inference 1: Thus morals that come from god are good (so far, so good…)
Inference 2: Thus morals that come from something other than god are not morals (doesn’t follow. There’s no logical tie to this inference at all, even recognizing premise 3 since clearly premise 3 can’t be “things that come from anything other than god don’t exist” as that would have an internal conflict and would create the default conclusion “all things are good”. Similarly, premise 3 can’t be “all things come from god” since premise 2 would then lead to same problem; that “all things are good”. All things being good would not only would make Fifth’s argument moot, but would rather invalidate any theistic argument against anything. ‘Sex, drugs, and rocknroll for everyone all the time! It’s all good!’ Betting that’s not where he’s going with his argument. The inference makes no sense.)
Conclusion: Morals must come from god. (This doesn’t follow either as Inference 2 is erroneous.
So, got a more valid approach to your argument, Fifth?
I still don’t understand why you think the morally outraged anti-theist needs “help”? Do you need “help”? Is there any help I can give you?
There’s nothing wrong with my position that I need to augment or improve, nor justify in any way to you.
What are you getting out of trying to poke at the rest of us if you’re no better to begin with? Are you going to feel better in the end?
Perhaps it would be simpler and safer to say that false premises cannot lead to a valid or trustworthy conclusion.
FMM:
Mung:
Keep in mind that both of you are poor readers who can stare directly at an explanation without recognizing it.
What is considered to be formally correct is to say that false premises lead to unsound conclusions. They may lead to perfectly valid conclusions, however.
Glen Davidson
Robin: A second parsing of Fifth’s argument:
Premise 1: god is good (unstated)
Premise 2: all things from god are good (unstated)
Premise 3: things from anything other than god are ? (unstated and undetermined)
Inference 1: Thus morals that come from god are good (so far, so good…)
Inference 2: Thus morals that come from something other than god are not moral (no ‘s’…as in ‘not good’. It still doesn’t necessarily follow, unless premise 3 is ‘things from anything other than god are bad.’ Is this your position, Fifth? If so, how do you reconcile it with:
(Isaiah 44:24)–“Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, “I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself, and spreading out the earth all alone.”
(Colossians 1:16-17)–“For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created by Him and for Him. 17And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.”
Given the above, who, other than god creates anything? Of course, this then leads to the same problem as the previous parsing: that all things are therefore good by definition (back to the sex, drugs, and rocknroll…and the genocide of everyone I personally dislike because…god is good…rinse and repeat)