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 Jim B. View Post
    The point of all the analogies is that the mere fact that a kind of apprehension is 'rooted in' immediate experience does not mean that the knowledge ultimately extrapolated from that apprehension is reducible to that immediate experience. Scientific knowledge is 'rooted in' immediate sensory experience, but scientific knowledge isn't merely immediate sensory experience. My knowledge of my physical surroundings, of my room, my house and yard, are all 'rooted in' immediate sense experience, but this knowledge isn't merely sense experience. Logic, reason, inference, habit, etc also enter in.And BTW, just because X "causally springs" from Y, or that Y causally contributes to X, does not mean that X ontologically reduces to Y.
    So, first, you are the one who has changed my position to "rooted in immediate experience," basically substituting your "phenomenological" for my "subjective." I have not said "rooted in immediate experience." I have said "rooted in what we value/cherish, which is subjectively selected. So you are not arguing against my position - but rather against the position you have substituted in its place. I'll leave you to have that battle since you are essentially having it with yourself. I'll respond to arguments against or about the positions I have actually put forward.

    Second, if you believe you can take something that springs from a subjective reality and demonstrate that it somehow becomes objective, I invite you to knock yourself out. I have no idea how you are going to achieve that slight of hand/mind.

    Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
    I'm not saying we apprehend objective truths by way of subjective truths. I'm saying we apprehend objective truths by way of phenomenological truths. There is a phenomenology to valuing and preferences. What you're saying is that because all moral beliefs are 'rooted in' (however you define that term) individual subjective preferences, that all moral beliefs are therefore nothing more than such preferences. What I'm saying is that all moral beliefs are rooted in the experience of individual preferences, and therefore, to reduce them like you do is no different than to reduce scientific knowledge to the experience in which it's rooted, or our knowledge of other minds to the experience in which it's rooted, etc.
    So you are not responding to what I am saying. I have no problem with the statement "we apprehend objective truths phenomenologically." That observation says nothing about the position I have put forward, since we apprehend ALL truth/knowledge phenomenologically. You have not shown how morality is rooted in objective truths. Objective truths are certainly part of morality: they provide the context in which we engage in it. But there is no moral principle you can point to that is "objectively true." You have not shown this, despite claiming it many times.
    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 Chrawnus View Post
      The bolded seem to me to be a bit of a peculiar way to set the two definitions of natural and supernatural against each other. I can easily envision a universe created by "a force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature (i.e God)" but which still operate under scientifically scrutable laws of nature. Under the definitions of natural and supernatural which you've provided above it seems to me that you would have to say that such a universe would be both supernatural and natural at the same time.
      At the same time - but not in the same way. If there is a god, and this god created this world to operate on the basis of explorable concepts/principles, but this god is not itself explorable by those principles, then we would classify this god as supernatural, the created universe as natural, and the creation of this universe as supernatural.

      I look around me and see things science can test/explain and things science cannot. Are the things science cannot test/explain intrinsically supernatural, or are they simply natural things we do not yet understand? Perhaps both exist?

      Here we are in the realm of the unknown, so belief holds sway. I believe that the pattern of history is that things once attributed to the supernatural are regularly explained by science and found to be natural. I know of no example of anything that has gone in the opposite direction. Lacking any personal experience of the supernatural, and seeing most things attributed to the supernatural either being shown to be hoaxes or eventually explained, I have come to believe that the supernatural only exists in the minds of sapient beings. It does not have its own, objective existence.

      That is why I am atheist. But atheism is as much a matter of belief as theism, since it is making statements about both the natural and supernatural worlds.
      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 Jim B. View Post
        You misunderstand. You keep thinking that there must be one and only one kind of "objectivity." All objective things, for you, must fit the same exact mold. They must all conform to the one true model of objectivity which is that of physical truths, eg gravity. You seem to harbor physicalist assumptions, which may be the crux of our problem. One is not "compelled" to believe correctly about morality the way one is "compelled" to believe correctly about gravity. You're free to believe that torturing children for fun is okay or even required. You're also free to believe that 2+2=5. Ie you're free to be wrong.
        No - I do not believe there is only one type of objective reality. There are objectively real things. In the world of concepts, there are objectively true or false concepts. Logic and mathematics are examples, so if I believe 2 + 2 = 5, I am wrong in all known numbering systems. If I think 1 + 1 = 10, I am wrong in all known numbering systems except binary. I know 2 + 2 = 4 is true both phenomenologically, and by applying reason and the basic laws of mathematics.

        You are trying to argue that there are moral principles that are essentially the equivalent of these mathematical or logical truths: if one disagrees with them they are objectively wrong. I am disagreeing with you, and pointing out you have provided no basis for making this claim.

        Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
        You don't think there's any reason or purpose for morality? Why would there be such a basic foundational element of human life and culture without any reason for being? Can you think of any other such fundamental aspect of life without any possible or potential purpose or function?To claim no possible purpose for morality ALONE seems to be a case of special pleading made for no other reason than specifically to justify an already arrived at position of ethical subjectivism.
        Since I have never made this claim, I have no response to this.

        Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
        But if morality DOES have a purpose, a functional purpose, as opposed to a metaphysical reason for being, it seems reasonable to infer that it includes in part the promotion of flourishing and welfare and the amelioration of suffering. If it does, then certain moral principles such as

        Do not cause unnecessary suffering

        seems like a safe bet and it would NOT be a matter of individual choice or attitude.
        I have told you what the purpose for morality is, to which you responded:

        Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
        That's vacuously generic and simplistic, once again. It's like saying "The purpose of morality is to live." "I ought not clip my toenails over the sink cause then my toenails will clog the drain." "I ought not put the onions in before the celery because then the onions will get too soft."
        Your opinion is duly noted, but that IS the purpose of morality. We moralize to sort possible/potential/actual actions into "ought" and "ought not." We do so to protect the things we value/cherish. That is the fundamental purpose of morality. If you think otherwise, then provide a moral principle and explain it's purpose in a way that does NOT fundamentally derive from something the individual values/cherishes. I have noted several times - do this for ONE moral principle and you destroy my position. So far.... crickets...

        Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
        You deny that you subscribe to the "Diversity Thesis" but here you are once again arguing for the "Diversity Thesis." Oddly enough. I never used consensus as part of my argument. But the fact that there is diversity of opinion is a singularly bad argument against objectivity.
        I truly sometimes wonder how you go from what I have said to your selected responses. You so regularly completely miss what I have actually said, and substitute something I have not, I am left wondering about your logical processes. Let me be as clear as possible: the fact that there is diversity of moral belief does not prove that there is no objective moral truth. The fact that there is significant unity of moral belief does not prove that morality is objective in nature. Consensus tells us little about the nature of morality. Morality is subjective because of what it fundamentally derives from: the things we value/cherish. Since morality derives from these things, and "aims" to protect/enhance/nurture them, and these things are subjective in nature: morality is itself subjective in nature.

        Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
        Once again, it's set by the CONDITIONAL. IF you want to get to the post office, this is the best route to take with your bike. If you want to subscribe to the "moral way of life," and assuming that there is a functional aim to morality, like there is a way to the post office, then try to be honest, be just, don't inflict unnecesary harm, etc.
        Stick with your analogy. Conditional accepted: if you want to get to the post office, this is the direction/destination to take. Likewise, if you value human life and seek to protect/enhance it, you ought to hold the moral position "random killing is immoral." Now your task is to show that "wanting to go to the post office" is not a subjective thing. You see - this is what makes selecting my destination subjective: the fact that the choice is rooted in the destination I WANT to reach. That destination is subjectively selected, making my choice of route likewise ultimately subjective. And the same is true of morality.

        Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
        The "Diversity Thesis" Argument again. I thought we'd left that one behind. I get there by all the arguments I've made, posted, linked to, making some underlying objective truth more plausible than no truth and mere subjective opinions.
        See above.

        Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
        It's easy to say that things "don't work" when you don't fully engage them and when you refuse to look at your own pre-suppositions.
        Your opinion is noted. There is nothing here for me to respond to further.
        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 Jim B. View Post
          So consciousness is supernatural?
          It is possible. Or it may be perfectly natural and science simply has not yet explained it. There is no way of knowing which it is, AFAICT.

          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          Sounds like something a cult member would say!
          That's an interesting reaction.

          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          Even if something "springs from" subjective roots, that doesn't mean there wouldn't be objective reasons for believing it.
          Again, take any one moral principle and show this in action. I would be interested in an example.

          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          Otherwise why have you been on here defending it for the past several weeks or months?
          I engage in this discussion because it interests me, and sorting it through with people who disagree with me has actually deepened my own understanding of how morality works. Case in point: I used to engage in debates on same-sex intimacy with many friends and acquaintances. Sorting through these issues made me realize that I was not fully understanding the import of morality being subjective, and what it tells me about how to engage in moral discussions. I was not paying sufficient attention to the root basis for different people's moral positions, and was ending up making arguments and observations that had no possibility of of producing change.

          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          Are you a masochist?
          Not that I know of.

          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          That's ridiculous.
          You are increasingly beginning to engage like Seer. As I have said to him on many occasions, making such statements doesn't actually make it so. Perhaps you simply don't understand the concepts being expressed?

          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          You're essentially saying that no two people with different metaphysical views can have a rational exchange of ideas about their views.
          No, I'm not.

          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          Why are you on here then?
          See above.

          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          Your very presence speaks louder than your words.
          I find that is usually the case. For all of us.

          Originally posted by Jim B. View Post
          What Seer is saying, I think, is that honesty is the pre-condition for any exchange of ideas. You can't even know what the other person thinks or that their ideas are incompatible with yours if there isn't a baseline of honesty.
          I agree with those observations, hence my own observation that discussion with someone who does not value honesty is pointless. It does make me wonder why Seer even continues to engage with me, given the amazing number of times he has accused me of being dishonest. At least Adrift is (mostly) consistent. He considers me dishonest and has largely stopped engaging.

          I have to admit that I am regularly amazed how frequently people here pull out the "dishonest" or "disingenuous" accusations, or other accusations of basic untruthfulness. To my knowledge, I have never said anything that was intentionally untrue in any post I have made. Oh well... to each their own, I guess.
          Last edited by carpedm9587; 09-25-2019, 06:14 PM.
          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
            At the same time - but not in the same way. If there is a god, and this god created this world to operate on the basis of explorable concepts/principles, but this god is not itself explorable by those principles, then we would classify this god as supernatural, the created universe as natural, and the creation of this universe as supernatural.
            Well, your initial definition of supernatural was "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.", and it seems to me if something is created by a "force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature" then it would also be attributed to that same "force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature".

            Then in the next paragraph (of post #1646 which I initially responded to) it seems like you suddenly change your definition of supernatural to "if we cannot [quantify it as a natural law - testing it with the scientific method] - it is considered 'supernatural.' " I'm not really sure what the reason for you seemingly switching the definition of supernatural almost immediately after you've already defined it one way is, so I won't say anything further about it until you've cleared up any possible misunderstandings on my part.

            Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            I look around me and see things science can test/explain and things science cannot. Are the things science cannot test/explain intrinsically supernatural, or are they simply natural things we do not yet understand? Perhaps both exist?

            Here we are in the realm of the unknown, so belief holds sway. I believe that the pattern of history is that things once attributed to the supernatural are regularly explained by science and found to be natural. I know of no example of anything that has gone in the opposite direction. Lacking any personal experience of the supernatural, and seeing most things attributed to the supernatural either being shown to be hoaxes or eventually explained, I have come to believe that the supernatural only exists in the minds of sapient beings. It does not have its own, objective existence.

            That is why I am atheist. But atheism is as much a matter of belief as theism, since it is making statements about both the natural and supernatural worlds.
            I think what you're doing here is the propagating the old tired skeptical argument that goes something like "science has now been able to explain all/most, or seems to be on the trajectory of being able to explain all, of the natural phenomena that were previously attributed to supernatural beings, such as gods, or other mythological creatures, and therefore belief in the supernatural is no longer warranted." This argument ignores, of course, the fairly obvious fact that unlike the polytheistic faiths of our pagan pasts, that were filled with aspects that were weak to this kind of scientific scrutiny and skepticism, theistic faiths such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam does not suffer from this same problem for the simple reason that while they all claim, for example, that natural phenomena, such as thunder and lightning, are ultimately caused by God in virtue of his role as Creator, they do not purport to give any specific mechanical explanation as to how things like thunder and lightning arises, as opposed to something like the belief of the ancient Norse that these phenomena was caused by Thor swinging his hammer while riding his chariot, pulled by two goats, in the sky.

            The fact that we're now aware of the specific mechanics behind the phenomena of nature that we previously viewed with superstitious reverence has not, or atleast should not, lessen the explanatory power of the theistic views of the different monotheistic religions of the world, for the simple reason that the "god-of-the-gaps" strawman of theism that this type of argument focuses on simply doesn't exist anywhere other than in the minds of the people propagating the argument and among some of the persons who have never bothered to take the philosophical facets of their theistic faiths seriously. It's a great argument to use if you want to sow some doubt among the more philosophically, or theologically uneducated pew-sitters, but as an actual argument with any logical/rational force behind it is an abject failure.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post



              The fact that we're now aware of the specific mechanics behind the phenomena of nature that we previously viewed with superstitious reverence has not, or atleast should not, lessen the explanatory power of the theistic views of the different monotheistic religions of the world, for the simple reason that the "god-of-the-gaps" strawman of theism that this type of argument focuses on simply doesn't exist anywhere other than in the minds of the people propagating the argument and among some of the persons who have never bothered to take the philosophical facets of their theistic faiths seriously. It's a great argument to use if you want to sow some doubt among the more philosophically, or theologically uneducated pew-sitters, but as an actual argument with any logical/rational force behind it is an abject failure.
              There is NO “explanatory power of the theistic view” because it requires a 'leap of faith' to take the final step.
              “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
                There is NO “explanatory power of the theistic view” because it requires a 'leap of faith' to take the final step.
                Every single belief and view ever held by anyone in the entire history of humankind requires a 'leap of faith' for that final step, including your own atheism, despite your delusions to the contrary.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                  Every single belief and view ever held by anyone in the entire history of humankind requires a 'leap of faith' for that final step, including your own atheism, despite your delusions to the contrary.
                  Nope. The person believing in the existence of something is the one responsible for providing evidence of its existence, not the person that doesn't believe in its existence. I don’t have to make a “leap of faith” to say that there is no god because there is no good reason to believe such an entity exists in the first place..
                  “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
                    Nope. The person believing in the existence of something is the one responsible for providing evidence of its existence, not the person that doesn't believe in its existence. I don’t have to make a “leap of faith” to say that there is no god because there is no good reason to believe such an entity exists in the first place..
                    It's the person who makes the claim that is responsible for providing the evidence for that claim, regardless of whether that claim is about the existence, or non-existence of something. If you want to make the claim that there is no god (and not simply that you lack belief in a god) you're just as much obligated to provide evidence and arguments for that belief as someone who claims that there is a god.

                    You make a leap of faith in believing in that there is no god because however well-thought out and logically airtight your objections against the validity and soundness of the arguments and evidence (and there is evidence for the existence of God, you simply don't accept it as valid evidence) for a higher being, you simply cannot escape the fact that those objections can never take you to full certainty in the matter. And if you don't have full certainty the only option left is to take the leap.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      Natural: existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
                      Supernatural: attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

                      The distinction is fairly simple: if we can quantify it as a natural law - testing it with the scientific method - it is considered "natural." If we cannot, it is considered "supernatural." The distinction seems fairly clear. Why you are having a problem is beyond me. But the point was in some people's need to change common definitions. I think you've made the point well.
                      If this universe was created by God would you still call it natural? Why?


                      No. But I admit that my moral position cannot be rationally argued by someone who does not share my underlying valuing/cherishing. That is because morality springs from subjective roots - so it is inherently subjective.
                      I'm saying more than that Carp, I'm saying if something like the moral question of honestly is relative there is no possibility of a rational argument. Despite what you value or don't...

                      The laws of logic are a necessary but not sufficient condition for having a rational discussion. A rational discussion also requires agreement on the truth of the premises that make up the arguments. In the objective world, that often depends on our selection and interpretation of evidence. In the subjective world, it simply depends on our underlying premises aligning. If we both like pastel colors, we can have a rational discussion about selecting a color for our rooms. If we do not, then no amount of rational discussion will help.
                      But logic is necessary, and without it we are dead in the water (no matter our underlying premises). But logic only works if said laws are universal and absolute.

                      Agreed. If one does not value honesty, any rational argument is essentially pointless - leaving us with ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.
                      Again, I'm saying more than that. If honestly being a moral good is merely relative then you have no rational ground to object. Dishonesty and honesty are on completely equal grounds. It would be akin to saying that A=A, and A=not A. Logic becomes useless as does moral inquiry if the basic view of honesty is really relative.


                      But then again, if one does not value reason (preferring, perhaps, feelings), any rational argument is essentially pointless - leaving us with ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.

                      And then again, if one does not value "god" and "the bible" (preferring, perhaps, humanity and science), any rational argument is essentially pointless - leaving us with ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.

                      And then again, if any two people do not value similarly, any rational argument is essentially pointless - leaving us with ignore, isolate/separate, or contend.

                      There are many things that render "rational discussion" pointless. Honesty is just one of them.
                      Well actually, I think your position has made all rational moral discussion pointless. How could it be otherwise when you can not even call out dishonesty as a logical faux pas.
                      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 Chrawnus View Post
                        Well, your initial definition of supernatural was "attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.", and it seems to me if something is created by a "force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature" then it would also be attributed to that same "force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature".
                        First, it's not "my" definition of supernatural. It is a dictionary definition, and the three dictionaries I checked have basically the same definition. The term has two senses: "not created by humans" or "understandable by science." The scenario you paint above could (if I understand correctly) manifest if a supernatural being created all of the universe, including the laws on which it operates. Basically, you then have the situation where "natural" refers to things that occur within the system, based on the laws according to which it functions (which were hypothetically created by a supernatural agency), but the origins of the system itself are supernatural in nature. In other words, "natural" becomes "everything that operates according to the principles of the universe as created by god" and supernatural becomes "everything else."

                        Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                        Then in the next paragraph (of post #1646 which I initially responded to) it seems like you suddenly change your definition of supernatural to "if we cannot [quantify it as a natural law - testing it with the scientific method] - it is considered 'supernatural.' " I'm not really sure what the reason for you seemingly switching the definition of supernatural almost immediately after you've already defined it one way is, so I won't say anything further about it until you've cleared up any possible misunderstandings on my part.
                        I haven't switched the definition. Science proceeds to test hypotheses via the scientific method. The principles of operation that science uncovers are called the "laws of nature." I was focusing on the first part of the definition of "natural," the part that has to do with science.

                        Basically, "natural" (the science-related meaning) and "supernatural" are words used to partition all that we think exists into two groups: that which science an explore/explain, and that which it cannot. But it's not exactly that simple, because the group of "that which science cannot" has two subsets: that which will eventually be deemed natural but science cannot currently explain it, and that which science will never explain because it is actually supernatural. AFAIK, we have no means for determining the relative size of the two sets or what comprises each set.

                        Originally posted by Chrawnus View Post
                        I think what you're doing here is the propagating the old tired skeptical argument that goes something like "science has now been able to explain all/most, or seems to be on the trajectory of being able to explain all, of the natural phenomena that were previously attributed to supernatural beings, such as gods, or other mythological creatures, and therefore belief in the supernatural is no longer warranted." This argument ignores, of course, the fairly obvious fact that unlike the polytheistic faiths of our pagan pasts, that were filled with aspects that were weak to this kind of scientific scrutiny and skepticism, theistic faiths such as Judaism, Christianity and Islam does not suffer from this same problem for the simple reason that while they all claim, for example, that natural phenomena, such as thunder and lightning, are ultimately caused by God in virtue of his role as Creator, they do not purport to give any specific mechanical explanation as to how things like thunder and lightning arises, as opposed to something like the belief of the ancient Norse that these phenomena was caused by Thor swinging his hammer while riding his chariot, pulled by two goats, in the sky.

                        The fact that we're now aware of the specific mechanics behind the phenomena of nature that we previously viewed with superstitious reverence has not, or atleast should not, lessen the explanatory power of the theistic views of the different monotheistic religions of the world, for the simple reason that the "god-of-the-gaps" strawman of theism that this type of argument focuses on simply doesn't exist anywhere other than in the minds of the people propagating the argument and among some of the persons who have never bothered to take the philosophical facets of their theistic faiths seriously. It's a great argument to use if you want to sow some doubt among the more philosophically, or theologically uneducated pew-sitters, but as an actual argument with any logical/rational force behind it is an abject failure.
                        On this we disagree. First, I am familiar with the theistic retreat in the face of what science has uncovered. Rather than simply claim supernatural origins for observed phenomena, modern theists have basically backed away from such "direct intervention" models of the function of the universe, and focused more on the claim that god doesn't make lightning (as in "throw the thunder bolt from the heavens") but rather god created the laws that lead to lightning. Basically, I see theism consistently escaping to wherever science cannot (yet) provide an explanation, and filling that gap with "god did it." Actually, "escaping" is not the right word. Theism has always filled the gap of knowledge with gods, so it has always attributed both phenomena and the principles underlying that phenomena to gods. But as science has continually explained the phenomena, the domain of theism has shrunk.

                        I am impressed by the overall pattern, and satisfied that a humanistic explanation for modern religions (and even ancient ones) is far more compelling than any theistic explanation I have ever heard. Impressed enough that I moved from once believing I was "born again" to the atheist position I currently hold.
                        Last edited by carpedm9587; 09-26-2019, 10:24 AM.
                        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 Tassman View Post
                          There is NO “explanatory power of the theistic view” because it requires a 'leap of faith' to take the final step.
                          It takes a "leap of faith" to adopt ANY belief...including atheism and even such principles as atomic theory, evolution, and anything else science purports to explain.
                          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 Tassman View Post
                            Nope. The person believing in the existence of something is the one responsible for providing evidence of its existence, not the person that doesn't believe in its existence. I don’t have to make a “leap of faith” to say that there is no god because there is no good reason to believe such an entity exists in the first place..
                            I couldn't disagree more. It takes a "leap of faith" to hold any view. You're conflating "holding a belief" with "burden of proof" (though I suspect we don't see eye to eye on "burden of proof" either). If someone says "there are unicorns," and you decide "no there are not," you are making a claim to a reality that you hold to be true: "there are no unicorns." It takes a leap of faith to get to that claim. It doesn't take a leap of faith to say, "you have not proven that there are unicorns." But it does take a leap of faith to make the definitive claim, "there are no unicorns."

                            The same is true concerning statements about god. I am absolutely aware that I live as much by faith as an atheist as I ever did as a Christian.
                            Last edited by carpedm9587; 09-26-2019, 11:14 AM.
                            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 seer View Post
                              If this universe was created by God would you still call it natural? Why?
                              If this universe is created by a supernatural being, then its origins are supernatural. If this being created this universe to function according to knowable principles that science can investigate, then science will be able to investigate and those things it can explore will be said to be "natural." The terms "natural" (the science-related definition) and "supernatural" simply serve to partition knowledge into two sets: what science can explore and what science cannot. The latter set has two subsets, as I noted to Chrawnus:

                              Subset A: that which science will eventually explore/explain but has not yet, and
                              Subset B: that which science can never explore.

                              Subset A will eventually move from "supernatural" to "natural" as the abilities of science grow. Subset B will never make that shift. The problem is, we can never know the composition of each subset. Is the entire domain of "supernatural" part of Subset A and Subset B is a null set? That is what I believe to be the case. If not, then there are truly supernatural phenomena.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              I'm saying more than that Carp, I'm saying if something like the moral question of honestly is relative there is no possibility of a rational argument. Despite what you value or don't...
                              And I am saying you are wrong. If the moral question of honesty is relative/subjective, than rational argumentation is impossible with those who do not value honesty. It is not impossible with those who do.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              But logic is necessary, and without it we are dead in the water (no matter our underlying premises). But logic only works if said laws are universal and absolute.
                              Correct on both points, and why we make the leap of faith that the laws of logic ARE universal and absolute, despite not being able to prove them to be.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Again, I'm saying more than that. If honestly being a moral good is merely relative then you have no rational ground to object. Dishonesty and honesty are on completely equal grounds. It would be akin to saying that A=A, and A=not A. Logic becomes useless as does moral inquiry if the basic view of honesty is really relative.
                              See above.

                              Originally posted by seer View Post
                              Well actually, I think your position has made all rational moral discussion pointless. How could it be otherwise when you can not even call out dishonesty as a logical faux pas.
                              See above.
                              Last edited by carpedm9587; 09-26-2019, 11:24 AM.
                              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
                                If this universe is created by a supernatural being, then its origins are supernatural. If this being created this universe to function according to knowable principles that science can investigate, then science will be able to investigate and those things it can explore will be said to be "natural." The terms "natural" (the science-related definition) and "supernatural" simply serve to partition knowledge into two sets: what science can explore and what science cannot. The latter set has two subsets, as I noted to Chrawnus:

                                Subset A: that which science will eventually explore/explain but has not yet, and
                                Subset B: that which science can never explore.

                                Subset A will eventually move from "supernatural" to "natural" as the abilities of science grow. Subset B will never make that shift. The problem is, we can never know the composition of each subset. Is the entire domain of "supernatural" part of Subset A and Subset B is a null set? That is what I believe to be the case. If not, then there are truly supernatural phenomena.
                                And my point is that if God did create the universe it is in no way natural - i.e. being created by nature. And again I'm questioning the assumption that the supernatural can not include scientifically knowable phenomenon. We don't know that - nor do we have any objective way to demonstrate otherwise.



                                And I am saying you are wrong. If the moral question of honesty is relative/subjective, than rational argumentation is impossible with those who do not value honesty. It is not impossible with those who do.


                                Correct on both points, and why we make the leap of faith that the laws of logic ARE universal and absolute, despite not being able to prove them to be.
                                Just as we need logical absolutes to formulate any reasonable arguments, I maintain that we too need universal moral truths to formulate any reasonable moral arguments. Saying that dishonesty can be a relative moral good is like saying that the law of non-contradiction is not universally valid. Without which - in either case, no reliable, or sensible, argument can be made. And no argument can be reasonably refuted. That is where you leave us.
                                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

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                514 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                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