Announcement

Collapse

Philosophy 201 Guidelines

Cogito ergo sum

Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Atheism And Moral Progress

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    This isn't about the moral issue - and is more about the meta-issue of expectations, so I'll respond. I never expected a meeting of the minds, Seer. I was under no illusion that you would agree with me or align to my worldview. Your worldview precludes it. But your responses demonstrate you don't even understand the discussion or the problems with your own non-arguments. You cannot see outside of "the box." Frankly, it's not clear to me that you even see you have never actually made an argument.

    I'm sure that will produce yet another denial, so I'll leave it at that.
    You just can't help yourself can you? Let me recap. Your main argument against following the herd, or relying on a particular scripture was that you can not reason with a person who holds that view. The herd or the book says so, that is the end of the story. But it is no different with your lauded "moral reasoning" process because, like with the Maoist, if you don't start with the same moral goals or begin with the same premises that too is the end of the story, there can be no meeting of the minds. So how is the process of moral reasoning superior? Except to make you feel superior?
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

    Comment


    • Originally posted by seer View Post
      I would like to see Matt start with this one: If evolutionary naturalism is true, then moral subjectivism can’t be rationally affirmed.

      What do you say Carp?
      What happened to Matt?
      Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

      Comment


      • Originally posted by seer View Post
        It is hard to see what an atheist would mean by moral progress. Would she mean that what agrees with her ethical point of view is progress? Or that more of us agree with each other? I suppose the atheist could look at increasing peace and prosperity as moral progress, but again that would still revert to that which agrees with her ethical point of view (that increasing peace and prosperity is actually a moral good). So it seems that without a universal moral standard to aim at, or move towards, that there is no moral progress, merely moral change.
        Though I hold a fairly traditional Christianity, I have to part ways with the status quo on the matter of atheist morality. To understand the matter I have to define truth as I see it:
        Truth
        Truth is one of two dynamic values or qualities inherent in the information of all existents as a primary “condition of being”.

        Truth function
        Truth potential in an existent engenders natural reciprocal dispositions with truth in other entities, positively effecting the organization, interaction and compatibility of associated existents, i.e., properties, relations and mechanical/biomechanical operations of particulars.

        The dynamic union between truth in mind with truth content in its representational forms--as well as the natural attraction of truth-truth connections in all created information--results in the proper ordering of reality and production within this organization of associated goods: unity, harmony, accord, concurrence, perfection, rightness, precision, etc. in the interactions of existents.


        On this view, popular 'theories of truth'--correspondence, coherence, pragmatic, etc.--are only what truth does, not what it is. Value (true and false) can't logically exist without a mind to endorse it. Do we find truth or create it? Most would agree we find it. If so, and now the metaphysical approach takes a theological turn, it must be woven into the fabric of reality itself. And if woven into it, value was a part--the most vital part, I'd argue--of a designed reality.

        So....long story short....value endues things. Including people. There are only two denominations of value, true and false. In Genesis God noted His creation was "very good" (wholly true). Won't go into it here, but most of the value in creation is true. The only exception is the human soul, which can arguable be falsified by choice containing degrees of freedom. The false naturally stands in opposition to and corrupts truth. Fragmentally falsified humans (because falsity corrupts the cognitive functions) think, believe and act in degrees of defect. But we also think, believe and act in degrees of moral concord.

        From this standpoint, the atheist apprehends moral norms by the same process the Christian (or Hindu, or Moslem, agnostic, Buddhist, etc.) does: truth in the information of mind either unites with the truth of the information of propositional morality--with respect to absolute truth from whence all truth derives-- or stands in tension (factual truth) or the more dynamic resistance (prescriptive truth) to it. The fragmentally falsified mind can only sense but not wholly grasp absolute truth; we intuitively' know' it's out there but like the blind man standing at a distance to a furnace, can 'feel' its heat even while not seeing it directly. So the atheist sense of true morality is united in some cases with the same true morality the Christian unites with (Jn 1:9). Both are united in a real sense with God. Thus, I reject the doctrine that only Christians are born again such that they alone are able to know moral truth. Conversely, there's a legitimate sense of being enlightened to a state of saving faith, which, while difficult to define with precision, can generally be seen in the great divide between of whether God exists. All are fragmentally falsified to accept (unite with) certain prescriptive truths while rejecting (standing in tension and resistance against) others. This is true for both atheist and Christian. The difference appears to be one of degree, not kind.

        So I contend that the atheist can and does often hold to proper moral belief to the extent that belief is not in tension with absolute truth, and thus maintains some degree (as all do) of relationship, whether acknowledged or rejected, with the living Truth Himself. I know this is the Philosophy section, but in order to answer op adequately had to use the combined metaphysic/theological approach to properly address the issue.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Anomaly View Post
          From this standpoint, the atheist apprehends moral norms by the same process the Christian (or Hindu, or Moslem, agnostic, Buddhist, etc.) does: truth in the information of mind either unites with the truth of the information of propositional morality--with respect to absolute truth from whence all truth derives-- or stands in tension (factual truth) or the more dynamic resistance (prescriptive truth) to it. The fragmentally falsified mind can only sense but not wholly grasp absolute truth; we intuitively' know' it's out there but like the blind man standing at a distance to a furnace, can 'feel' its heat even while not seeing it directly. So the atheist sense of true morality is united in some cases with the same true morality the Christian unites with (Jn 1:9). Both are united in a real sense with God. Thus, I reject the doctrine that only Christians are born again such that they alone are able to know moral truth. Conversely, there's a legitimate sense of being enlightened to a state of saving faith, which, while difficult to define with precision, can generally be seen in the great divide between of whether God exists. All are fragmentally falsified to accept (unite with) certain prescriptive truths while rejecting (standing in tension and resistance against) others. This is true for both atheist and Christian. The difference appears to be one of degree, not kind.

          So I contend that the atheist can and does often hold to proper moral belief to the extent that belief is not in tension with absolute truth, and thus maintains some degree (as all do) of relationship, whether acknowledged or rejected, with the living Truth Himself. I know this is the Philosophy section, but in order to answer op adequately had to use the combined metaphysic/theological approach to properly address the issue.
          Personally I would not say that only Christians understand moral truth(s). We are all created in the image of God, and I would think that that includes a moral component. And we all have the "law of God" written on our hearts. And you are Universalist, correct?
          Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

          Comment


          • Originally posted by seer View Post
            Personally I would not say that only Christians understand moral truth(s). We are all created in the image of God, and I would think that that includes a moral component. And we all have the "law of God" written on our hearts. And you are Universalist, correct?
            Yes, the 'moral component' and law of God written on hearts is a corollary of the metaphysic presented. Its most unorthodox component is probably the idea that value is a component of reality on the more abstract information level (roughly synonymous with essence), as arguably the primary condition of existence of existents. But the approach also has, I feel, pretty powerful explanatory and predictive capability, including (comparing the metaphysical hypothesis to its correlating structure in Scripture) why all possess the moral sense.

            I've found my more evangelical brethren dislike the presentation because it allows a measure of regeneration [as prerequisite for moral apprehension] to all. Atheists scorn it because it requires that their ability to discern moral truth is designed and built into minds, which removes truth from their grasp and places it back in God's.

            Yes, I'm a universalist. Curious: why do you ask? Does my universalism affect the legitimacy of my post?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Anomaly View Post
              Yes, the 'moral component' and law of God written on hearts is a corollary of the metaphysic presented. Its most unorthodox component is probably the idea that value is a component of reality on the more abstract information level (roughly synonymous with essence), as arguably the primary condition of existence of existents. But the approach also has, I feel, pretty powerful explanatory and predictive capability, including (comparing the metaphysical hypothesis to its correlating structure in Scripture) why all possess the moral sense.
              Ok, but I'm not really sure what you are saying. Perhaps you can dumb it down a bit.

              I've found my more evangelical brethren dislike the presentation because it allows a measure of regeneration [as prerequisite for moral apprehension] to all. Atheists scorn it because it requires that their ability to discern moral truth is designed and built into minds, which removes truth from their grasp and places it back in God's.
              I don't find a problem with this, though I'm not sure if I would call this influence of God on all men regeneration.

              Yes, I'm a universalist. Curious: why do you ask? Does my universalism affect the legitimacy of my post?
              No not it all, I flirted with it back in the late 90s for a few years, had a lot of discussions with Gary Amirault at Tentmaker.org. I just don't see many universalists around nowadays. I personally hold to Conditional Immortality.
              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

              Comment


              • Relative/subjective morality will NOT get you to an absolute/objective norm - by definition.
                I accept that reasoning is internally subjective and relative. The value-impeded [falsified] intellect is incapable of wholly grasping the immutable, where the absolute reigns. But concepts like immutability and absolute provide information to the mind. This suggests to me that the immutable/objective, although not obtainable in our current intellectual condition, nonetheless exists. The mind can't apprehend impossibilities. I thus reason that absolute/objective is blended into the immutable/subjective in the same reality.

                Evidence of the mutable-immutable amalgam is the compatibilist structure of the material universe, e.g., mutable matter operating under the supervision of the immutable non-contact laws. In other words, change is necessarily limited to the parameters of resolute laws. Morality actually has no place in the material realm per se because matter is inert. You might reason that the moral sense is a product of unfathomable time and natural material processes where truth is naturally relative and subjective. I will reason that since matter is inert, there are two kinds of truth, factual and prescriptive. Factual truth is natural to inert matter while prescriptive truth is dynamic. This is reasonable because we see the dynamics of prescript woven into inert matter. To reduce what I hold reasonable to the junk pile you need to provide an airtight mechanism (supervenience, though interesting, invokes dynamics from nothing and although an interesting concept it's cheating in the realm of connect-the-dots reason) for how inert matter becomes prescriptively dynamic. This is at least a beginning line of reasoning for a God-endued morality.

                Comment


                • I'm not really sure what you are saying. Perhaps you can dumb it down a bit.
                  I think it comes across as difficult because it's a bit unorthodox. The premise follows Avicenna's comment in the Summa that [paraphrasing] truth is a component of essence. So there must be two kinds of truth, factual and moral. Facts, pertaining to matter, are inert. Prescriptive truth is dynamic and exists in organics generally and intellects (the soul) most strongly. Whether the truth of intellect is just a more powerful version of that of other life is an interesting question I'm still trying to work out. Point is, I approach questions of morality from the standpoint of value, which consists of true and false. God has woven value into all that exists. We find truth because both we and the content we apprehend (mental representations of the external world; I take the realist stance) are truth-bearers. Everything is value-bearing. Only the human soul can be falsified. Falsity corrupts our ability to grasp truth wholly. This leads naturally to our subjective nature and the illusion of truth as relative. When the atheist contends for a purely relative truth, she does so because she sees only matter, where truth actually is relative in complex entities because they change. So they impose relativism on prescriptive truth as well. I think this can not only be reasonably refuted, but if the value structure suggested above is followed through a "value mechanism" can be logically derived from it that can explain why a growing segment of humanity is falling away to postmodernist (relativism on steroids) views of truth and abandoning traditional teaching of absolute truth.

                  I'm not sure if I would call this influence of God on all men regeneration.
                  Then I have to ask: what other mechanism for moral apprehension could there be? Under the 'value metaphysic' I contend for, apprehending moral truth is the union of truth in the intellect with prescriptive propositions which carry absolute truth representationally. [We can't handle coming in direct contact with absolute truth because of the sheer conflict between falsity in the soul and God's pure truth. The latter is kindling to the furnace of pure truth. This is why God's voice was frightening to the Hebrews; they recognized its destructive power over their wickedness - Deut 5:25-26.] To grasp moral truth the intellect forms multiple t - t (truth of mind uniting with content of propositional moral truth) unions. This mechanism holds for all humans. The "born again" doctrine is therefore just a matter of degree, not kind....will to belief is participation with God in cleansing falsity from the soul by degrees, which results in more t - t unions and stronger belief. In sufficient measure of cleansing one achieves the status of 'born again' faith. This is both regeneration and sanctification; they're logically one and the same.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Anomaly View Post
                    I think it comes across as difficult because it's a bit unorthodox. The premise follows Avicenna's comment in the Summa that [paraphrasing] truth is a component of essence. So there must be two kinds of truth, factual and moral. Facts, pertaining to matter, are inert. Prescriptive truth is dynamic and exists in organics generally and intellects (the soul) most strongly. Whether the truth of intellect is just a more powerful version of that of other life is an interesting question I'm still trying to work out. Point is, I approach questions of morality from the standpoint of value, which consists of true and false. God has woven value into all that exists. We find truth because both we and the content we apprehend (mental representations of the external world; I take the realist stance) are truth-bearers. Everything is value-bearing. Only the human soul can be falsified. Falsity corrupts our ability to grasp truth wholly. This leads naturally to our subjective nature and the illusion of truth as relative. When the atheist contends for a purely relative truth, she does so because she sees only matter, where truth actually is relative in complex entities because they change. So they impose relativism on prescriptive truth as well. I think this can not only be reasonably refuted, but if the value structure suggested above is followed through a "value mechanism" can be logically derived from it that can explain why a growing segment of humanity is falling away to postmodernist (relativism on steroids) views of truth and abandoning traditional teaching of absolute truth.
                    OK, I have to think about this for a while.


                    Then I have to ask: what other mechanism for moral apprehension could there be? Under the 'value metaphysic' I contend for, apprehending moral truth is the union of truth in the intellect with prescriptive propositions which carry absolute truth representationally. [We can't handle coming in direct contact with absolute truth because of the sheer conflict between falsity in the soul and God's pure truth. The latter is kindling to the furnace of pure truth. This is why God's voice was frightening to the Hebrews; they recognized its destructive power over their wickedness - Deut 5:25-26.] To grasp moral truth the intellect forms multiple t - t (truth of mind uniting with content of propositional moral truth) unions. This mechanism holds for all humans. The "born again" doctrine is therefore just a matter of degree, not kind....will to belief is participation with God in cleansing falsity from the soul by degrees, which results in more t - t unions and stronger belief. In sufficient measure of cleansing one achieves the status of 'born again' faith. This is both regeneration and sanctification; they're logically one and the same.
                    Regeneration or re-birth in the Biblical sense are salvific, applied only to those who are saved. What you seem to be describing sounds like prevenient grace. Where the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness, which seems universal.
                    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Anomaly View Post
                      Though I hold a fairly traditional Christianity, I have to part ways with the status quo on the matter of atheist morality. To understand the matter I have to define truth as I see it:
                      Truth
                      Truth is one of two dynamic values or qualities inherent in the information of all existents as a primary “condition of being”.

                      Truth function
                      Truth potential in an existent engenders natural reciprocal dispositions with truth in other entities, positively effecting the organization, interaction and compatibility of associated existents, i.e., properties, relations and mechanical/biomechanical operations of particulars.

                      The dynamic union between truth in mind with truth content in its representational forms--as well as the natural attraction of truth-truth connections in all created information--results in the proper ordering of reality and production within this organization of associated goods: unity, harmony, accord, concurrence, perfection, rightness, precision, etc. in the interactions of existents.


                      On this view, popular 'theories of truth'--correspondence, coherence, pragmatic, etc.--are only what truth does, not what it is. Value (true and false) can't logically exist without a mind to endorse it. Do we find truth or create it? Most would agree we find it. If so, and now the metaphysical approach takes a theological turn, it must be woven into the fabric of reality itself. And if woven into it, value was a part--the most vital part, I'd argue--of a designed reality.
                      I'm not 100% sure I'm following you here. Basically, truth is when a statement (or thought) aligns with reality. "That car is blue" is a true statement (or a "truth") if the car is indeed blue. It is false if it is not. The reality does not have to be an objective reality. "I am happy" is true if I am indeed happy - which is an entirely subjective statement. A statement's truth does not depend on anyone's ability to prove it. "God does not exist" is either true or false, independent of who is making the statement or whether they can prove it - assuming we all agree on the meaning of the terms.

                      Originally posted by Anomaly View Post
                      So....long story short....value endues things. Including people. There are only two denominations of value, true and false. In Genesis God noted His creation was "very good" (wholly true). Won't go into it here, but most of the value in creation is true. The only exception is the human soul, which can arguable be falsified by choice containing degrees of freedom. The false naturally stands in opposition to and corrupts truth. Fragmentally falsified humans (because falsity corrupts the cognitive functions) think, believe and act in degrees of defect. But we also think, believe and act in degrees of moral concord.
                      Here we part company. "Value" is a judgment about a thing. It requires a valuer. That old, chipped plate may have value to me because of the memories with which it is associated, and be valueless to a stranger. The value of my house is completely dependent on what someone is willing to pay (i.e., the value they see in it). We often come into discord when one person sees values in a person or thing that someone else does not see or acknowledge, or sees a different value. But the notion of a thing having value in and of itself without a valuer assessing that value simply does not hold up to scrutiny.

                      Originally posted by Anomaly View Post
                      From this standpoint, the atheist apprehends moral norms by the same process the Christian (or Hindu, or Moslem, agnostic, Buddhist, etc.) does: truth in the information of mind either unites with the truth of the information of propositional morality--with respect to absolute truth from whence all truth derives-- or stands in tension (factual truth) or the more dynamic resistance (prescriptive truth) to it. The fragmentally falsified mind can only sense but not wholly grasp absolute truth; we intuitively' know' it's out there but like the blind man standing at a distance to a furnace, can 'feel' its heat even while not seeing it directly. So the atheist sense of true morality is united in some cases with the same true morality the Christian unites with (Jn 1:9). Both are united in a real sense with God. Thus, I reject the doctrine that only Christians are born again such that they alone are able to know moral truth. Conversely, there's a legitimate sense of being enlightened to a state of saving faith, which, while difficult to define with precision, can generally be seen in the great divide between of whether God exists. All are fragmentally falsified to accept (unite with) certain prescriptive truths while rejecting (standing in tension and resistance against) others. This is true for both atheist and Christian. The difference appears to be one of degree, not kind.
                      "Absolute truths" are not "things" that "source" from somewhere. The term "absolute truth" simply means "a truth that is unchanging and independent of individual thought or opinion." I'm not 100% sure it is possible for sentient beings to articulate absolute truths given the symbolic nature of our language. We can get "close enough for government work," but we can only get there by ignoring the fact that human language is symbolic, and therefore relative and subjective (or intersubjective). But it can never be objective, which is what articulating an absolute truth requires, AFAICT.

                      Originally posted by Anomaly View Post
                      So I contend that the atheist can and does often hold to proper moral belief to the extent that belief is not in tension with absolute truth, and thus maintains some degree (as all do) of relationship, whether acknowledged or rejected, with the living Truth Himself. I know this is the Philosophy section, but in order to answer op adequately had to use the combined metaphysic/theological approach to properly address the issue.
                      No comment
                      The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                      I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                        I'm not 100% sure I'm following you here. Basically, truth is when a statement (or thought) aligns with reality. "That car is blue" is a true statement (or a "truth") if the car is indeed blue. It is false if it is not. The reality does not have to be an objective reality. "I am happy" is true if I am indeed happy - which is an entirely subjective statement. A statement's truth does not depend on anyone's ability to prove it. "God does not exist" is either true or false, independent of who is making the statement or whether they can prove it - assuming we all agree on the meaning of the terms.



                        Here we part company. "Value" is a judgment about a thing. It requires a valuer. That old, chipped plate may have value to me because of the memories with which it is associated, and be valueless to a stranger. The value of my house is completely dependent on what someone is willing to pay (i.e., the value they see in it). We often come into discord when one person sees values in a person or thing that someone else does not see or acknowledge, or sees a different value. But the notion of a thing having value in and of itself without a valuer assessing that value simply does not hold up to scrutiny.



                        "Absolute truths" are not "things" that "source" from somewhere. The term "absolute truth" simply means "a truth that is unchanging and independent of individual thought or opinion." I'm not 100% sure it is possible for sentient beings to articulate absolute truths given the symbolic nature of our language. We can get "close enough for government work," but we can only get there by ignoring the fact that human language is symbolic, and therefore relative and subjective (or intersubjective). But it can never be objective, which is what articulating an absolute truth requires, AFAICT.



                        No comment
                        You are back! I knew you couldn't stay away...
                        Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                        Comment


                        • Regeneration or re-birth in the Biblical sense are salvific, applied only to those who are saved. What you seem to be describing sounds like prevenient grace. Where the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness, which seems universal.
                          Bingo. You're an astute fellow. Hence, Universalism.

                          God has woven a systematic, rational, allegorical system into Scripture that aligns with the metaphysic presented here. In fact, the value metaphysic was developed as a hypothesis of reality to connect the dots between the this allegory and the reality we experience. The Arminian sector of the church has covered an essentially salvific reality with a different terminology--prevenient grace--imo to cover the tension that all are granted regeneration out of the gate, which is naturally troublesome to Arminian doctrine. God gives gifts to all men. He seems unfazed by personal worldviews.

                          I tried to argue the starting point for the allegorical system months ago here with Bill the Cat in unorthodox theology, but he and his boo-birds, their minds cemented into existing doctrines, were unable to properly argue the issue. Preexistent bias is a formidable preventive to truthful discussion.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by seer View Post
                            You are back! I knew you couldn't stay away...
                            As I noted before - I wanted to give things a chance to cool down. Not sure how much I'll be here, but I've been checking in now and then to track discussions. Will probably keep doing that much, anyway.
                            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Anomaly View Post
                              Bingo. You're an astute fellow. Hence, Universalism.

                              God has woven a systematic, rational, allegorical system into Scripture that aligns with the metaphysic presented here. In fact, the value metaphysic was developed as a hypothesis of reality to connect the dots between the this allegory and the reality we experience. The Arminian sector of the church has covered an essentially salvific reality with a different terminology--prevenient grace--imo to cover the tension that all are granted regeneration out of the gate, which is naturally troublesome to Arminian doctrine. God gives gifts to all men. He seems unfazed by personal worldviews.

                              I tried to argue the starting point for the allegorical system months ago here with Bill the Cat in unorthodox theology, but he and his boo-birds, their minds cemented into existing doctrines, were unable to properly argue the issue. Preexistent bias is a formidable preventive to truthful discussion.
                              Yet it seems that you leave no room for human agency, also I'm not sure where scripture states that we all are granted regeneration out of the gate.
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                I'm not 100% sure I'm following you here. Basically, truth is when a statement (or thought) aligns with reality. "That car is blue" is a true statement (or a "truth") if the car is indeed blue. It is false if it is not.
                                Correspondence is a process, not an actual theory of what truth is. Combustion converted to motion is a process but doesn’t describe what an engine coupled to a transmission is. I feel that Avicenna hit the nail on the head when he suggested that truth is a—obviously non-empirical—component of essence, and thus of all existents.

                                The reality does not have to be an objective reality. "I am happy" is true if I am indeed happy - which is an entirely subjective statement.
                                Agreed. The truth of personal feelings, beliefs, motivations, etc. are subjective and relative. Those include moral beliefs, opinions, etc. But that doesn’t justify imposing relativism on all truth.

                                To my thinking a strong case for absolute truth in both realms (facts/morality) is found in the compatibilist structure of material reality itself. Matter in complex particulars is mutable, but their mutability is supervised by the absolute non-contact forces. One can argue that non-contact forces aren’t absolute—for instance gravity is known to have been measured at different points in time at slightly different values—but this argument is irrelevant to the point. The non-contact forces are thought to have necessarily been in effect since the Big Bang, chugging along and moderating the changeable side of reality since day one. Reality thus operates under the mutation ordered within the constraints of the absolute process of compatibility. The fact that change is limited to action within the parameters of the absolute, obvious in the material realm, can reasonably be believed to operate as an identical process in the prescriptive side of reality.

                                This is intuitive; a relativistic universe could not order itself. Assuming (as I do) that all things (particulars and universals) form from ‘raw information’ (check out James S. Saint’s Rational Metaphysics : Affectance Ontology on I Love Philosophy. His concept of affectance seems to closely parallel the notion of a universe formed from raw information.) Imagine what would happen if the non-contact forces suddenly disappeared. Instant chaos would ensue. Particulars would disintegrate. Without the strong nuclear force neutrons and protons would probably just disassemble into their subatomic constituents. Stuff would really be involved in relativistic change.

                                "God does not exist" is either true or false, independent of who is making the statement or whether they can prove it - assuming we all agree on the meaning of the terms.
                                A reasonable assessment.

                                Here we part company. "Value" is a judgment about a thing. It requires a valuer. That old, chipped plate may have value to me because of the memories with which it is associated, and be valueless to a stranger. The value of my house is completely dependent on what someone is willing to pay (i.e., the value they see in it). We often come into discord when one person sees values in a person or thing that someone else does not see or acknowledge, or sees a different value. But the notion of a thing having value in and of itself without a valuer assessing that value simply does not hold up to scrutiny.
                                But the mental, sociological, psychological, moral, material, etc. processes that would naturally follow from value being an essential ingredient of reality leads to just those kinds of propositions as value is a judgment about a thing, requires a valuer.

                                The last statement contains the point of contention: we are in agreement that value requires an assessor. This takes us right back to the conflict between our positions. You refuse [I'm assuming] to accept the idea that value can possibly be an ingredient of reality because the prerequisite for value is a mind. The mind necessary to impose value on reality cannot, it is true, be human. Limiting your beliefs to a materialist ontology naturally precludes minds prior to human intellects, so the metaphysical value system presented above will be incoherent to you, not on the basis of a failure to provide evidence but on the basis of it providing evidence you’re willing to accept. In other words, no matter how logically coherent the presentation, you’ll not be able to overcome an unwillingness to accept the evidence as warrant for belief. Continued materialist belief under this scenario fails the test of objectivity due to personal bias. I’m not criticizing, only pointing out that in belief, whether about empirical or non-empirical reality, because it is an interpretation is subjective in nature. So it seems to me that objectivity is only the holding of analytic (interpretation) evidence for any of us. Of course my theistic bias is a priori to my belief of a mechanism based on value as a component of reality. What's new under the sun? Objectivity almost never seems to actually make it past its hazy attachment to justified reasons.

                                I take the position that the hypothesis of value in the essence of existents produces logically or semantically consistent pathways to objective warrant for belief of its existence and purported function. The value mechanism that comes to pass by this process provides a reasonable case that moral values, which attach to and play out in descriptive reality, are grounded in the truth-nature of God.

                                I'm not 100% sure it is possible for sentient beings to articulate absolute truths given the symbolic nature of our language. We can get "close enough for government work," but we can only get there by ignoring the fact that human language is symbolic, and therefore relative and subjective (or intersubjective). But it can never be objective, which is what articulating an absolute truth requires, AFAICT.
                                I’m pretty close to 100% sure it is impossible for us to grasp, much less articulate, absolute truths. But it doesn’t follow from this that all truth is subjective and relative. How would you approach the compatibilist structure presented earlier as evidence of necessity of the absolute to order existence?

                                Btw, our use of symbolism seems compatible with the notion of the fragmental falsification of the mind, whose natural indistinctness toward true propositions would produce figurative forms of communication as tools to help us arrive at proper or warranted beliefs.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                508 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X