Originally posted by Jim B.
View Post
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
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
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostActually Jim, I think the assumption is yours, i.e. the assumption that there are other valid ways to know.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 JimL View PostActually Jim, I think the assumption is yours, i.e. the assumption that there are other valid ways to know.
You don't think there are other ways to know anything other than empirically?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View Post'Intrinsic' means having it within itself.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 Jim B. View PostThat is also a philosophical claim. I never said "philosophy alone".I'm only saying that the statement "Empiricism alone is the only valid form of knowledge" contradicts itself because it's not an empirical finding.
Comment
-
It's not a simplistic, linear relationship like you suggest. The relationship between observation and reflection or understanding is more like a give-and-take, more like a dialogue. How we see the world isn't just a matter of accurate observation. What we see, to be "seen" at all, must mean something, must fit into a given conceptual structure. Perception, understanding and willing aren't separate activities. They feed into each other. To perceive something is to perceive it as something and that's already to relate it to the rest of what you already know. There's no 'neutral given,' no clean, objective observational starting point. That's a naive misunderstanding of empirical thinking from the 17th Century.
All observation occurs within some system of concepts and the judgments made based on those observations are only as good as the system they occur in.
Locke said that our experience tells us about the nature of reality. But how can we know since we can't jump outside our experience to compare it to reality? He begs the question.
"There are no logically necessary truths about the world" is based on logic. It claims to have logically necessary knowledge about the nature of the world, so it contradicts itself.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI know Jim, so how do moral ideals have intrinsic worth? It seems like an assertion. Worth is something ascribe by rational beings, in this case rational moral beings.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostThese things have worth for conscious beings, of course, but those beings don't necessarily confer that worth onto them, imo. Think of the analogy of pleasure. If pleasure is intrinsically a good thing, there still need to be sentient creatures to experience the pleasure, but that doesn't mean those creatures are ascribing the worth onto pleasure. It's there already waiting for them, even though it has to be actualized by being experienced.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 PostI know Jim, so how do moral ideals have intrinsic worth? It seems like an assertion. Worth is something ascribe by rational beings, in this case rational moral beings.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostAgain Jim, I don't know what you mean - why is pleasure an intrinsically good thing? How do moral ideals have intrinsic worth?
I believe that God is the basis of consciousness, maybe that He is even "consciousness itself." And I also believe that consciousness is an intrinsically good thing. But why does all that necessarily mean that God creates the goodness of consciousness? Why can't it just be good in itself? Why can't it just be good to be healthy as opposed to sick? How does that diminish God's power?
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostMoral ideals have survival value in the evolution of the human species as a social intelligent omnivore that requires a social cooperative social unites like families and tribal units to survive.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
173 responses
649 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
06-07-2024, 07:30 AM
|
Comment