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 Zara View Post
    You asked about whether some of our faculties extend beyond evolutionary requirements?
    No, I asked how you know that this is "beyond evolutionary requirements."

    Originally posted by Zara View Post
    I thought that this was an example where they clearly do, unless you reduce all activity to a survival / reproduction story - in which case, yeah, sure, there's no point in discussing anything.
    That may be possible.
    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
      No, I asked how you know that this is "beyond evolutionary requirements."
      There is no way to know, sure, however, it can be used for activities beyond evolutionary outcomes.

      Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      That may be possible.
      Up to you really. I am not particularly interested in methodological naturalism, to me it's a form of religious belief on par with actual believers - although exhibiting a different kind of self-righousness. There's usually not much point discussing it, because it gets to the bedrock.
      Last edited by Zara; 06-24-2019, 07:48 AM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Zara View Post
        That's not really the issue though, is it. The question is why are we even agreeing to methodological naturalism as a background assumption for determining what is true and false - here related to moral categories. My point is that that choice already comes with metaphysical baggage, uncritically accepted on your part.

        Heidegger offers a different interpretation of the phenomenon. I do not need to pass it through your method for it to have force, particularly when its main aim is to show you that you take an uncritical background metaphysical position.
        It remains that Heidegger's view is Heidegger's view and not that of science. It is up to you what you want to do with it.

        Fine. It doesn't change much around the limitations of the model, which was my point. You end up living inside a model of the world, with interpretations of phenomenon limited to what is permitted by that model.
        Actually no. The example is me personally. Science is science, and I am a scientist, and I DO NOT live within the limits of Methodological Naturalism. I am not a materialist as defined in the English language, and science is NOT a materialist discipline by definition, because it remains neutral to metaphysical beliefs outside the limits of science. The materialist would take more of the position of an Ontological Naturalist and consider our material existence is all there is.

        What about a priori knowledge? Does it get a showing in the model? What about my subjective experience, does it matter? Or do I need to give myself over to the truth of your scientific conclusions? Bit fash there.
        Please define 'priori knowledge.' Science DOES NOT make any truth claims.

        That doesn't make it subjective only - it could be intersubjective, it could also be objective for reasons a priori. Again, your model has so many limitations - why are you even using it?
        Confusing at best. Intersubjective remains limited by subjective assumptions. Methodological Naturalism is naturally limited to function as it is intended, but does not limit the extent of human knowledge to science only.


        Urm, sorry, what, you're the one that has an opinion about this model being the true methodological model - which frankly, cannot be verified either. Where's your evidence? Because it's truth tracking, urm, sorry, what 'truth' is that? It gets a bit circular.
        This response is very confusing and lacks a fundamental knowledge of science, and how science functions.

        Ummmmm, sorry what??? No i did not offer any opinion, I just defined Methodological Naturalism as it is in science. No, 'truth tracking? has nothing to do with science.

        'which frankly? odd, and not meaningful. I explained how 'objective verifiable evidence' functions in science and you still remain clueless. The scientific methods are bsed on predictability, and are always subject to change when new evidence becomes available, and not circular logic, because the results and knowledge of science is always open to change and skepticism when new evidence becomes available.

        Computers function and airplanes fly based on many years of matter of fact application of the predictability of Methodological Naturalism, but nonetheless science cannot deal with transcendental experiences, because of the subjective nature of the experiences.

        Sure, because I mistook it as a response to my challenge rather than a point that missed the mark and was about as insightful as mud.
        Huh? It was a crystal clear and specific response to your question:

        f you can explain what part of the non-mechanisic universe is open to scientific enquirery, and by what method, I would be agog.
        Quantum Mechanics.
        Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-24-2019, 08:11 AM.
        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

        go with the flow the river knows . . .

        Frank

        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          It remains that Heidegger's view is Heidegger's view and not that of science. It is up to you what you want to do with it.
          Yeah, I'll use it to look at you with pity, or love, or confusion. Not measurement and calculation.

          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          Actually no. The example is me personally. Science is science, and I am a scientist, and I DO NOT live within the limits of Methodological Naturalism. I am not a materialist as defined in the English language, and science is NOT a materialist discipline by definition, because it remains neutral to metaphysical beliefs outside the limits of science. The materialist would take more of the position of an Ontological Naturalist and consider our material existence is all there is.
          Of course you do - since it informs you about the world. Scientific conclusions inform decisions you make and what you think things are, how you related to them, and what actions are meaningful. Whether you apply it just to material, or also the non-material, if you live by its conclusions, then you live in its model.

          I'm actually fine with science, even indebted to it, as long as it keeps within its domain and doesn't start trying to answer questions outside of it - like what ought I do. As long as you're not making claims about what human beings are, based on its method, then, move along-nothing to see here.

          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          Please define 'priori knowledge.' Science DOES NOT make any truth claims.
          Necessary for the possibility of experience.

          If it DOES NOT, then why are you acting as if it does when you live by its conclusions? Climate change is real, right, and we should do something about it.

          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          Confusing at best. Intersubjective remains limited by subjective assumptions. Methodological Naturalism is naturally limited to function as it is intended, but does not limit the extent of human knowledge to science only.
          Naturally limited? How exactly, what questions are outside the scope of this methods domain?

          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          This response is very confusing and lacks a fundamental knowledge of science, and how science functions.
          Ummmmm, sorry what??? No i did not offer any opinion, I just defined Methodological Naturalism as it is in science.
          You did offer an opinion - that science tells us about morality. That is why we are here. It is your opinion that science is the tool set for the job, and it is your opinion that science will give the best results. Why else are you even using it as a method? Saying I am a scientists, I do science - doesn't really change it being your subjective opinion about the usefulness of yourself and your method of investigation.

          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          No, 'truth tracking? has nothing to do with science.
          Then why even bother using science for anything? If it doesn't result in knowledge.

          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          'which frankly? odd, and not meaningful. I explained how 'objective verifiable evidence' functions in science and you still remain clueless. The scientific methods are bsed on predictability, and are always subject to change when new evidence becomes available, and not circular logic, because the results and knowledge of science is always open to change and skepticism when new evidence becomes available.
          This is about method, not results. Why am I motivated to use your method to understand phenomena at all. The models and predictions change, the process - the method itself - does not. Why should I agree to the process at all for questions related to morality.

          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          Computers function and airplanes fly based on many years of matter of fact application of the predictability of Methodological Naturalism, but nonetheless science cannot deal with transcendental experiences, because of the subjective nature of the experiences.
          Right, so is this why I need to accept science in all domains - because air planes fly?

          Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
          Huh? It was a crystal clear and specific response to your question:
          But it started somewhere else, didn't it - at incoherent.
          Last edited by Zara; 06-24-2019, 05:58 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Zara View Post
            Yeah, I'll use it to look at you with pity, or love, or confusion. Not measurement and calculation.
            Very sad pessimistic sarcastic view of someone who believes differently.

            Of course you do - since it informs you about the world. Scientific conclusions inform decisions you make and what you think things are, how you related to them, and what actions are meaningful. Whether you apply it just to material, or also the non-material, if you live by its conclusions, then you live in its model.
            Of course I DO NOT. Science only informs me of the knowledge of our physical existence.

            I'm actually fine with science, even indebted to it, as long as it keeps within its domain and doesn't start trying to answer questions outside of it - like what ought I do. As long as you're not making claims about what human beings are, based on its method, then, move along-nothing to see here.
            As a matter of fact science does not try to answer questions beyond the realm of Methodological Naturalism.



            Naturally limited? How exactly, what questions are outside the scope of this methods domain?
            Any questions that cannot be addressed by scientific methods based on the objective verifiable evidence. For example transcendental questions concerning subjective questions beyond objective verifiable evidence.

            You did offer an opinion - that science tells us about morality. That is why we are here. It is your opinion that science is the tool set for the job, and it is your opinion that science will give the best results. Why else are you even using it as a method? Saying I am a scientists, I do science - doesn't really change it being your subjective opinion about the usefulness of yourself and your method of investigation.
            Not it not my opinion, and science does not necessarily give the best results. It gives the results based on the evidence in the disciplines of anthropology, sociology, psychology and to some extent paleontology, because we know ancient Neolithic cultures have morals, ethics, healed and cared for the injured, sick and elderly. We also know from science many higher mammals and primates have simpler forms of morals and ethics that reflect evolved behavior.


            Then why even bother using science for anything? If it doesn't result in knowledge.
            Science does result in the knowledge of our physical existence based on the scientific method using objective verifiable evidence. The above statement does not make sense, and does not reflect anything I have said.


            This is about method, not results. Why am I motivated to use your method to understand phenomena at all. The models and predictions change, the process - the method itself - does not. Why should I agree to the process at all for questions related to morality.
            The method cannot be separated from the method. The motivation to use the scientific method (is not my method) is to understand the nature of our physical existence. Humanity, our evolution, and our morality and ethics are a part of our physical existence. There are possible other disciplines that may or may not contribute to understanding the nature of our existence, but they do not rely on the objective verifiable evidence. You of course, may not have to, and that is your choice,

            Right, so is this why I need to accept science in all domains - because air planes fly?
            NOT in all domains!!

            But it started somewhere else, didn't it - at incoherent.
            My answer was specific and to the point.
            Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-24-2019, 07:46 PM.
            Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
            Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
            But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

            go with the flow the river knows . . .

            Frank

            I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              Not it not my opinion, and science does not necessarily give the best results. It gives the results based on the evidence in the disciplines of anthropology, sociology, psychology and to some extent paleontology, because we know ancient Neolithic cultures have morals, ethics, healed and cared for the injured, sick and elderly. We also know from science many higher mammals and primates have simpler forms of morals and ethics that reflect evolved behavior.
              Right, these need not actually be the same phenomenon - the science just shows us that they behaved in a particular way, the subjective motivations of which and causes of which are opaque.

              My issues has been that another model will say that the subjective motivations available and the possible causes for these beings are limited to x and y. If you agree that x and y are not necessarily the limits, just because a scientific model says so, or that the reasons for action cannot be identified through the 'objective verifiable evidence' criterion, then fine.

              Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
              The method cannot be separated from the method. The motivation to use the scientific method (is not my method) is to understand the nature of our physical existence. Humanity, our evolution, and our morality and ethics are a part of our physical existence. There are possible other disciplines that may or may not contribute to understanding the nature of our existence, but they do not rely on the objective verifiable evidence. You of course, may not have to, and that is your choice.
              Sure, if science is not the only method for knowledge acquisition - then further discussion is pointless.
              Last edited by Zara; 06-24-2019, 08:27 PM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                It remains that Heidegger's view is Heidegger's view and not that of science. It is up to you what you want to do with it.
                This is also not exactly right. Kant and Heidegger, were very much interested in science. However, they both believed that to understand science one needs to understand the observer and how it opens up the world for scientific inquiry or anything else. That task required a different kind of science with different rules and criteria for success. Forgive me for taking liberties with the following explanation for the sake of intelligibility rather than accuracy.

                The Critique of Pure Reason aimed to show that certain categories give rise to experience, including a basic categorical structure for the relations of intuitions. Those categories were deduced to be necessary for the possibility of experience as such. Reason then brought empirical concepts, which each exhibit the same structure but then about a particular intuition, to an overall order through intersubjective agreement.

                Heidegger meanwhile was interested in the act of unconcelment of a phenomenon in the world. That act itself must have a particular structure, and his work was to identify - within what he took to be a scientific enterprise - the necessary structure of disclosing a world. The intentional act of being one way or another, in a sense changes how phenomenon shows up as meaningful to us as a whole. As such we can unconceal the same phenomenon in a number of different ways, which fundamentally changes how we related to it and how it factors in our lives. Methodological naturalism is one way of unconcealing phenomena, it is by no means the only way or even a privilaged way of doing so. In many ways, it is a deficient way of doing so.

                Both were scientists in their own right - however, their methods were transcendental and phenomenological, rather than empirical.
                Last edited by Zara; 06-24-2019, 11:51 PM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Zara View Post
                  What would convince you that it wasn't as you believe it is? Just out of curiosity, what would be sufficient proof for you?
                  I feel no reason to be convinced of answers to questions that need not be asked. To date there is no good reason to think that morality is anything more than a consequence of the evolved social behavior of humanity in order to survive.

                  Sure, I don't harm what is beautiful to start. But it doesn't flow from a model about what human beings are - 'evolved social animals' - derived from some metaphysical assumptions.
                  Evolved behavior derives from Natural Selection as observed, documented and verified.

                  For your particular model, why is it even called "morality" it seems odd to me, since it has very much nothing to do with right or wrong, good or bad - those are just empty normative categories surely?
                  Morality is merely rules of behavior developed by societies to enable community living, which is essential for our survival as social animals. Morals (or rules of behavior) are not “right or wrong” in any absolute objective sense. They are functional.

                  Is rape "bad" or "immoral" in your model, it appears to be a survival and reproductive strategy among many - the only issue is getting caught it seems, although even then, it appears to be encouraged in some societies - particularly against the enemy.
                  “Rape” has been used by societies where there is a perceived “other” as in say, tribal societies. In such societies it is OK to rape women of other tribes but there are generally severe penalties for raping women within one’s own tribe.
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    I feel no reason to be convinced of answers to questions that need not be asked. To date there is no good reason to think that morality is anything more than a consequence of the evolved social behavior of humanity in order to survive.
                    Haha, that's so sad. You're religious? Also, don't answer this, you clearly are.

                    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    Evolved behavior derives from Natural Selection as observed, documented and verified.
                    Why the capitalisation? It comes from your religious pamphlet? Nono, don't answer that.

                    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    Morality is merely rules of behavior developed by societies to enable community living, which is essential for our survival as social animals. Morals (or rules of behavior) are not “right or wrong” in any absolute objective sense. They are functional.

                    “Rape” has been used by societies where there is a perceived “other” as in say, tribal societies. In such societies it is OK to rape women of other tribes but there are generally severe penalties for raping women within one’s own tribe.
                    Ahh, not rape but "rape", which is just dandy - according to your interpretation of being.

                    No offense, but my rules of behaviour are making me retch, I don't really want to talk to you any longer. Good luck with everything.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      Very sad pessimistic sarcastic view of someone who believes differently.
                      If you want sad, read the discussion with Tassman above. This is one of the issues with uncritical or underdeveloped minds being exposed to simple models in which they become trapped.

                      Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                      Of course I DO NOT. Science only informs me of the knowledge of our physical existence.
                      That is what he would say, however, unlike you, he is a materialist and a reductionist if pressed further no doubt - which now means he's living in and through a model. This model has the potential to do considerable harm to human society, particularly when genetic technologies become common.

                      od I hate stupid scientists like Dawkins et al., that get lost in metaphysics - dragging in a whole generation of fools. This isn't directed at you..
                      Last edited by Zara; 06-25-2019, 03:24 AM.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Zara View Post
                        I don't really want to talk to you any longer. Good luck with everything.
                        Obviously seeing as you don't, or can't, address anything I've said and merely resort to sneering.
                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          Obviously seeing as you don't, or can't, address anything I've said and merely resort to sneering.
                          You've already said that there nothing I can say to change your mind. There is no possible reason for you to change your mind.

                          At this stage its outright derision and contempt for a sniveling fool, not sneering.

                          This is my final message on the subject.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Zara View Post
                            You've already said that there nothing I can say to change your mind. There is no possible reason for you to change your mind.
                            You’ve raised unnecessary questions which we all know are going to result in your god agenda being triumphantly vindicated. I have no interest in superseded, unevidenced supernaturalism.

                            At this stage its outright derision and contempt for a sniveling fool, not sneering.
                            Who are you that one should care about your "outright derision and contempt"?

                            This is my final message on the subject.
                            Possibly not mine.
                            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Zara View Post
                              You've already said that there nothing I can say to change your mind. There is no possible reason for you to change your mind.

                              At this stage its outright derision and contempt for a sniveling fool, not sneering.

                              This is my final message on the subject.
                              Go eat worms!
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                                Go eat worms!
                                Actually, fair enough.

                                And if you want to know what set me off, it was his bald face justification of "rape" as moral as a weapon of war in some tribal societies. Yeah, nah.
                                Last edited by Zara; 06-25-2019, 06:30 AM.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                160 responses
                                507 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