Science of Morality

[seer]

non-natural universe.

And where is your evidence that this universe had a "natural" genesis?



No your main argument had been that all things are determined, that the monkey's choices are just as determined as ours - because we live in a deterministic universe, a deterministic chain of cause and effect.

And nothing can break that causal stream - correct? In other words, I can only do, in the next moment, what that causal chain determines that I do - correct? I can not do otherwise - right?


No, if groups like ISIS wins and help the survival of the species, then that is good - good for the species.



That was not the point, the point was that your "evidence" for a natural universe could just as well be evidence of a rational Creator. So your argument is moot.

Why do you assume it had a source at all, that it hasn't always existed in one form or another?

Then prove that matter and energy existed before the big bang.

[Tassman]

And where is your evidence that this universe had a "natural" genesis?

No your main argument had been that all things are determined, that the monkey's choices are just as determined as ours - because we live in a deterministic universe, a deterministic chain of cause and effect.

And nothing can break that causal stream - correct? In other words, I can only do, in the next moment, what that causal chain determines that I do - correct? I can not do otherwise - right?

http://amiquote.tumblr.com/post/2318...ople-have-free

No, if groups like ISIS wins and help the survival of the species, then that is good - good for the species.

That was not the point, the point was that your "evidence" for a natural universe could just as well be evidence of a rational Creator. So your argument is moot.

Then prove that matter and energy existed before the big bang.

Why do you assume it didn't? Many cosmologists are of the view that the universe has always existed in one form or another. Oh, I get it, you don't like this concept because it doesn't tally with your religious presuppositions...therefore it can't be true.

[seer]

Tass if we are determined as the orbits of the planets then how are our acts NOT inevitable? Please be specific.

As your link said: "It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion."

So we are just biological machines, therfere our acts can be nothing but inevitable.

[Carrikature]

Tass if we are determined as the orbits of the planets then how are our acts NOT inevitable? Please be specific.

As your link said: "It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion."

So we are just biological machines, therfere our acts can be nothing but inevitable.

Someday I hope you manage to explain why this is such a big deal to you.

[seer]

Someday I hope you manage to explain why this is such a big deal to you.

Because it destroys all human rationality as classically understood. We don't believe things because they are true but because we were determined to - true or not.

[Carrikature]

Because it destroys all human rationality as classically understood. We don't believe things because they are true but because we were determined to - true or not.

You're going to have to unpack that a lot more. From where I sit, we don't have a way of actually knowing what's true or not. I believe things because I find them to be consistent with other things I believe. That doesn't make them true. You could follow Descartes' path and claim that God preserves knowledge or some such, but even that is a belief we can't prove or know to be true. So, strictly speaking, truth has nothing to do with what we do or don't believe.

There's an important caveat, though. If the things we believe don't interact with the world in some semi-accurate way, there's a pretty big hit to survivability that comes into play. A lot of beliefs won't necessarily qualify as survival-related (e.g., some deity exists), but when it comes to moving through space and navigating risks (e.g., believing that cars are really driving down the road), we can't be too far off base or we end up dead.

[seer]

You're going to have to unpack that a lot more. From where I sit, we don't have a way of actually knowing what's true or not. I believe things because I find them to be consistent with other things I believe. That doesn't make them true. You could follow Descartes' path and claim that God preserves knowledge or some such, but even that is a belief we can't prove or know to be true. So, strictly speaking, truth has nothing to do with what we do or don't believe.

Are you advocating solipsism?

There's an important caveat, though. If the things we believe don't interact with the world in some semi-accurate way, there's a pretty big hit to survivability that comes into play. A lot of beliefs won't necessarily qualify as survival-related (e.g., some deity exists), but when it comes to moving through space and navigating risks (e.g., believing that cars are really driving down the road), we can't be too far off base or we end up dead.

Except even there "truth" may not be relevant. We could just as easily avoid the car and survive based on a false belief - that cars are really demons that want to suck out our souls.

[Carrikature]

Are you advocating solipsism?

Not really. I think the list of things that can be known is a very, very short list. I'm definitely not about to claim I'm the only thing that exists, though. I think there are pretty good arguments for defeating that particular line of reasoning. I've linked his work elsewhere recently, but I really do recommend Robert G. Brown's Axioms. He has a chapter on solipsism (mild language warning) that you might find interesting.

Except even there "truth" may not be relevant. We could just as easily avoid the car and survive based on a false belief - that cars are really demons that want to suck out our souls.

Sort of. I don't think the specific belief is as important as the overall outcome, but I think there's a reasonable limit. It doesn't matter why you think cars are dangerous so long as you avoid getting hit by one. On the other hand, if you believe that cars aren't dangerous, you probably won't be around very long.

[Tassman]

Because it destroys all human rationality as classically understood.

By which you mean Libertarian Free-Will, which is logically incoherent.

We don't believe things because they are true but because we were determined to - true or not

[Tassman]

Tass if we are determined as the orbits of the planets then how are our acts NOT inevitable? Please be specific.

As your link said: "It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion."

So we are just biological machines, therfere our acts can be nothing but inevitable.

[seer]

No Tass, you said that our acts were not inevitable but if we really are biological machines then of course our behavior is inevitable, as inevitable as the orbits of the planets as your link said. You can't have it both ways.

[seer]

Oh stop, you have you still have no control over what you believe think or do. True or not right or not. You just have to hope that the non-rational forces of nature programmed your machine correctly.

[seer]

Not really. I think the list of things that can be known is a very, very short list. I'm definitely not about to claim I'm the only thing that exists, though. I think there are pretty good arguments for defeating that particular line of reasoning. I've linked his work elsewhere recently, but I really do recommend Robert G. Brown's Axioms. He has a chapter on solipsism (mild language warning) that you might find interesting.

Yes I read it, interesting, but like he said Solipsism logically unassailable. Then it comes down to what axioms or presuppositions we decide choose. So I guess that I'm rationally justified, for instance, accepting the axiom that the Bible is the Word of God.

Sort of. I don't think the specific belief is as important as the overall outcome, but I think there's a reasonable limit. It doesn't matter why you think cars are dangerous so long as you avoid getting hit by one. On the other hand, if you believe that cars aren't dangerous, you probably won't be around very long.

The point is false beliefs can help with survival as well as true beliefs.

[Carrikature]

Yes I read it, interesting, but like he said Solipsism logically unassailable. Then it comes down to what axioms or presuppositions we decide choose.

To the extent we have a choice in our axioms, you're correct. However, I don't think we choose our axioms. We can examine them, and they can be modified as a result of examination, but we don't get to pick them. Choosing them would imply justification which would invalidate them as axioms.

So I guess that I'm rationally justified, for instance, accepting the axiom that the Bible is the Word of God.

Strictly speaking, it's not justified in philosophical parlance. Axioms are held outside of justification. (Some people argue for self-justification but I don't think that makes any sense at all as a term.) For what it's worth, where Robert G. Brown uses 'axiom', a lot of philosophers use 'properly basic belief'. The concept is effectively the same; both are inherent to foundationalism. A simple way to express it is that axioms are things 'we just believe'. It's just something we accept as self-evident.

Here's the problem, though: you have to show that the belief isn't reliant upon other beliefs. "Other minds exist" could be one such belief. Solipsism might be logically unassailable, but you still hold that there are other minds. It's properly basic. You just accept it. Contrast that to "The Bible is the Word of God". I think you'd be hard pressed to show that this belief is properly basic. You could accept the existence of supernatural entities as properly basic. You could accept a creator deity as properly basic. Much beyond that requires some sort of justification. Why this deity over that one? Why believe that this deity inspired a collection of writings? It might be tempting to insist "I just do", but in practice that's not what's happening. You believe in God because of other experiences that point you to it. You believe in the Bible because it speaks to you in some way, and/or because it meshes with other experiences. You have reasons for accepting the Bible as the Word of God, even if you're not necessarily aware of what they are or capable of articulating the ones you do know. It's not a properly basic belief, and claiming it as such doesn't make it one.

I don't think most of us are aware of many (let alone all) of our axioms. The only way I know of to discover them is to play the 'why' game with yourself. "Why do I believe that?" Over and over and over. At some point, you'll either say "I don't know" or "I just do". Do this with everything and write down the questions answered by "I don't know" or "I just do". Spend some time digging into the question and determining if there's some other reason you weren't aware of. You might find more reasons you weren't aware of, ideas and beliefs that are linked at a level you've never before examined. You might keep coming back to "I just do". That's when you know you're getting close to your axioms. I think it's tempting to stop at the first "I just do", but that'd be like stopping right after exiting the highway. You're on the right path, but you're not there yet. Keep going. Reach your destination.

The point is false beliefs can help with survival as well as true beliefs.

Sure, but this statement pretty much eliminates this:

Because it destroys all human rationality as classically understood. We don't believe things because they are true but because we were determined to - true or not.

as a real concern. 'True' isn't really an aspect of why we believe something.

[seer]

Strictly speaking, it's not justified in philosophical parlance. Axioms are held outside of justification. (Some people argue for self-justification but I don't think that makes any sense at all as a term.) For what it's worth, where Robert G. Brown uses 'axiom', a lot of philosophers use 'properly basic belief'. The concept is effectively the same; both are inherent to foundationalism. A simple way to express it is that axioms are things 'we just believe'. It's just something we accept as self-evident.

Doesn't Plantinga make the argument that belief in God is properly basic?

Here's the problem, though: you have to show that the belief isn't reliant upon other beliefs. "Other minds exist" could be one such belief. Solipsism might be logically unassailable, but you still hold that there are other minds. It's properly basic. You just accept it. Contrast that to "The Bible is the Word of God". I think you'd be hard pressed to show that this belief is properly basic. You could accept the existence of supernatural entities as properly basic. You could accept a creator deity as properly basic. Much beyond that requires some sort of justification. Why this deity over that one? Why believe that this deity inspired a collection of writings? It might be tempting to insist "I just do", but in practice that's not what's happening. You believe in God because of other experiences that point you to it. You believe in the Bible because it speaks to you in some way, and/or because it meshes with other experiences. You have reasons for accepting the Bible as the Word of God, even if you're not necessarily aware of what they are or capable of articulating the ones you do know. It's not a properly basic belief, and claiming it as such doesn't make it one.

I don't think it matters what web of justifications we weave or not, the larger point is that we all live by faith. Agreed?

I don't think most of us are aware of many (let alone all) of our axioms. The only way I know of to discover them is to play the 'why' game with yourself. "Why do I believe that?" Over and over and over. At some point, you'll either say "I don't know" or "I just do". Do this with everything and write down the questions answered by "I don't know" or "I just do". Spend some time digging into the question and determining if there's some other reason you weren't aware of. You might find more reasons you weren't aware of, ideas and beliefs that are linked at a level you've never before examined. You might keep coming back to "I just do". That's when you know you're getting close to your axioms. I think it's tempting to stop at the first "I just do", but that'd be like stopping right after exiting the highway. You're on the right path, but you're not there yet. Keep going. Reach your destination.

OK

Sure, but this statement pretty much eliminates this:

Because it destroys all human rationality as classically understood. We don't believe things because they are true but because we were determined to - true or not.

as a real concern. 'True' isn't really an aspect of why we believe something.

I'm not saying that I agree "false beliefs can help with survival as well as true beliefs" is the way we reason. This is in the context of determinism, that it would not be necessary for "nature" to programme us recognize truisms for us to survive. And if truth does not cause us to believe in something - what does?