Doxastic control?

Originally posted by snowinscotland
The 'verification' is subjective; highly subjective in my experience. And I would also suggest it is therefore not repeatable.

But still worth a try. I think a better approach is to understand the science of the universe, and the structure of the human brain, and dip into psychology and human behaviour sciences; add a dollop of experience; some background in religion and observation of many different faiths. Then try it.

I think all the things you have listed are important but ultimately an intimate relationship with God cannot be compensated for. For example , I can in theory "know" everything there is to know about my wife. I can know her brain structure and produce numerous verifiable data sets about her etc etc ad infinitum BUT if I do not know her as a person intimately what do I know ? - nothing really. Can she know me either? Christianity is a testable love affair , knowing God exists can't get you there.

It matters not that I know my wife personally and in a highly subjective way - the information is no less false or true for me because of this. I cannot verify this subjective information I have of her but I know it is true nonetheless.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Why is the heartfeltness clause unreasonable in any way? The "experiment" is a personal one. I am asking you to make it personal but also make it a genuine one. No-one is asking you to pretend you believe something that you don't. If you don't think there is a cat in hell's chance of God doing something then don't do the experiment , if you think there ...[text shortened]... yball and you had 0% faith in me then I'm not going to achieve much wioth you am I?

I am prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt but it's worrying that you don't seem to understand why some integrity and genuineness might be very important here.

I never said that integrity and genuineness are not important here. What I said is that I am worried that your requirement of heartfeltness is unreasonable. It's possible I am taking some liberty there since you haven't formally stated what you even mean by the term in this context.

Regardless, I am not going one step further in this "experiment" until you articulate some provisional predictions and conceivable falsification conditions.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
On the contrary, moral certainty is exactly what a person of faith possesses that a secular ethicist does not. Moral certainty is found through a direct relationship with God -- not through philosophy, science, magic, or myth -- but by relating with God and dialoging with Him. People can extrapolate right and wrong without positing a God, sure, ...[text shortened]... oubts about the source of such conviction is immaterial, words and actions speak for themselves.

You must not understand the notion of epistemic certainty.

Originally posted by LemonJello
You must not understand the notion of epistemic certainty.

Discussions concerning the reliability of scripture aside, the trust in God developed through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ cannot grant cognitive certainty, but it does, at least, grant moral certainty. Exactly that which secular ethics cannot do.

"How best for a man to live?" How can secular ethics give a satisfying answer to such a question, considering the underlying ideology of secularism is, as Tolstoy puts it, particles and progress?

An excerpt from Tolstoy's A Confession:

"In infinite space, in infinite time, infinitely small particles change their forms in infinite complexity, and when you have understood the laws of those mutations of form you will understand why you live on the earth. You are an accidentally united little lump of something. That little lump ferments. The little lump calls the fermenting its 'life.' The lump will disintegrate and there will be an end of the fermenting and of all the questions.

"The faith of the majority of educated people of our day was expressed by the word 'progress.' It then appeared to me that this word meant something. I did not as yet understand that, being tormented (like every vital man) by the question how it is best for me to live, in my answer, 'Live in conformity with progress,' I was like a man in a boat who when carried along by wind and waves should reply to what for him is the chief and only question, 'Whither to steer,' by saying, 'We are being carried somewhere.'"

______________________________

If the universe is a moral vacuum, wherein the chief aim of man is progress, how then could one find life deeply meaningful and sweet even in the midst of intense suffering and misery? How best for a man to live?

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]I am prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt but it's worrying that you don't seem to understand why some integrity and genuineness might be very important here.

I never said that integrity and genuineness are not important here. What I said is that I am worried that your requirement of heartfeltness is unreasonable. It's possible I am t ...[text shortened]... ntil you articulate some provisional predictions and conceivable falsification conditions.[/b]

I have stated exactly what being heartfelt and sincere means. If you have 0% faith in the existence of God and 0% faith in the experiment then call it off. If you have 1% then offer that 1% up to God as best you can.

Only you , your self knowledge and your conscience will be able to figure out if you are being sincere or not. It is not unreasonable for me to ask you to conduct the experiment as sincerely as you can.

I cannot predict exactly what will happen other than if you start seeking God sincerely he will find a way of meeting you somehow. The falsification would be if you could hand on heart say "Knightmeister , I really sought God with a sincere and open heart. I was honest about my doubts but also honest in my seeking. There were no unconscious motivations that I am aware of. I asked God for something , anything to illustrate his presence with me and I got absolutely nothing."

Originally posted by epiphinehas
On the contrary, moral certainty is exactly what a person of faith possesses that a secular ethicist does not. Moral certainty is found through a direct relationship with God -- not through philosophy, science, magic, or myth -- but by relating with God and dialoging with Him. People can extrapolate right and wrong without positing a God, sure, ...[text shortened]... oubts about the source of such conviction is immaterial, words and actions speak for themselves.

Bull. 'Moral certainty' is used to refer to either justification beyond reasonable doubt (an epistemic notion) or an inner feeling of certainty (a psychological notion). Either reading is perfectly compatible with secular ethics. I am morally certain in both senses that compassion is a virtue, that generally speaking we ought to render aid to others, that it is important to a flourishing life to have nourishing personal relationships, and so on. You are probably morally certain about these claims as well. What you claim to be morally certain about, though, includes more than these first-order moral judgments. You claim to be morally certain about the ultimate explanation of the correctness of these first-order moral judgments. That is, you claim to be morally certain about the facts about God that magically make these judgments true. This is where you are deluded, if you read 'moral certainty' in the epistemic sense. If you read it in the psychological sense, you are simply being immodest, since you claim a sense of certainty that far outstrips your actual evidence. I am not morally certain in either sense that virtue ethics is better than indirect, character-based utilitarianism or a neo-Kantianism that emphasizes substantive practical identities. This, of course, means nothing to you since you are completely ignorant about the structure or variety or arguments found within the field of moral philosophy. But, for the benefit of readers who have some background in the field, uncertainty regarding the ultimate foundations or explanations for first-order moral judgments does not entail uncertainty regarding those judgements themselves. Ethical theory does not begin with the foundations and then infer to particular conclusions. Rather, ethical theory begins with our reflectively endorsed first-order moral judgments, and then tries to tease out what the best explanation for the truth of these judgments may be. So, neither of us has moral certainty in the epistemic sense regarding moral foundations, but both us probably have moral certainty in the epistemic sense regarding the judgments those foundations are invoked to explain. I do not have moral certainty in the psychological sense, since I try to apportion my confidence in a claim to the evidence I have for that claim. You, on the other hand, are immodestly certain about your putative moral foundations, since you mistake wishful-thinking about gaseous vertebrates to constitute "evidence" (it sucks to be willfully misconstrued, doesn't it? So why don't you actually pick up a book on moral theory so you don't sound so damn stupid?)

You can posit some special faculty that allows you "authoritatively tell" whether some moral judgment is correct, but there is no reason anybody should take such a claim seriously. If you knew the first thing about secular ethics, you'd know that G.E. Moore and others had already tried to develop a working intuitionism in ethics, and failed. But you've never read Principia Ethica, or any of the responses to it, so you have the luxury of ignorance regarding your putative value-detecting faculty.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I think all the things you have listed are important but ultimately an intimate relationship with God cannot be compensated for. For example , I can in theory "know" everything there is to know about my wife. I can know her brain structure and produce numerous verifiable data sets about her etc etc ad infinitum BUT if I do not know her as a person inti ...[text shortened]... I cannot verify this subjective information I have of her but I know it is true nonetheless.

It is true for you. That is the meaning of subjective.

Please don't misunderstand me, I value spiritual experience. People experience what, for them, is as real and meaningful as the ground beneath their feet. The mistake here is to project that experience onto others and to insist that your experience is the 'real' or 'moral' one, and that others not sharing that identical feeling (ephinany) are somehow lacking is rather naive.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Discussions concerning the reliability of scripture aside, the trust in God developed through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ cannot grant cognitive certainty, but it does, at least, grant moral certainty. Exactly that which secular ethics cannot do.

"How best for a man to live?" How can secular ethics give a satisfying answer to such a qu ...[text shortened]... even in the midst of intense suffering and misery? How best for a man to live?

I have just informed my colleagues here in the philosophy department that the common ideology underlying their diverse ethical views was "particles and progress". We all had a nice laugh at that, so thanks.

Originally posted by bbarr
Bull. 'Moral certainty' is used to refer to either justification beyond reasonable doubt (an epistemic notion) or an inner feeling of certainty (a psychological notion). Either reading is perfectly compatible with secular ethics. I am morally certain in both senses that compassion is a virtue, that generally speaking we ought to render aid to others, that i o you have the luxury of ignorance regarding your putative value-detecting faculty.

What you claim to be morally certain about, though, includes more than these first-order moral judgments. You claim to be morally certain about the ultimate explanation of the correctness of these first-order moral judgments. That is, you claim to be morally certain about the facts about God that magically make these judgments true. This is where you are deluded, if you read 'moral certainty' in the epistemic sense. If you read it in the psychological sense, you are simply being immodest, since you claim a sense of certainty that far outstrips your actual evidence.

Then I guess faith itself is immodest in your view, since it is by definition a psychological certainty which far outstrips actual evidence. Fair enough. However, you are wrong to assume that the moral certainty derived from faith in Christ rests in first-order moral judgments. Christian ethics are radically counter-intuitive and far from being first-order. For instance, Christ’s commandment to “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matthew 5:44), in practice, is absolutely counter-intuitive. Being psychologically certain of the rightness of such a teaching, enough to guarantee its practice, is possible only through faith in Jesus Christ and, subsequently, the divine justice of God.

I do not have moral certainty in the psychological sense, since I try to apportion my confidence in a claim to the evidence I have for that claim. You, on the other hand, are immodestly certain about your putative moral foundations, since you mistake wishful-thinking about gaseous vertebrates to constitute "evidence" (it sucks to be willfully misconstrued, doesn't it? So why don't you actually pick up a book on moral theory so you don't sound so damn stupid?).

Classy.

You can posit some special faculty that allows you "authoritatively tell" whether some moral judgment is correct, but there is no reason anybody should take such a claim seriously. If you knew the first thing about secular ethics, you'd know that G.E. Moore and others had already tried to develop a working intuitionism in ethics, and failed. But you've never read Principia Ethica, or any of the responses to it, so you have the luxury of ignorance regarding your putative value-detecting faculty.

Within the propositional universe of secular ethics a working intuitionism would, of course, fail. Big surprise, considering the entire enterprise from the outset excludes faith as a legitimate means of knowledge.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
in practice, is absolutely counter-intuitive. Being psychologically certain of the rightness of such a teaching, enough to guarantee its practice, is possible only through faith in Jesus Christ and, subsequently, the divine justice of God.

Really? How provincial.

Originally posted by bbarr
I have just informed my colleagues here in the philosophy department that the common ideology underlying their diverse ethical views was "particles and progress". We all had a nice laugh at that, so thanks.

It wouldn't be as funny if you hadn't willfully misconstrued the point I was trying to make. The diverse ethical views of your colleagues wasn't the issue (I'm assuming you are referring to their "first-order judgments" ). The issue is, rather, that secular ethics itself as a means of understanding first-order judgments is at bottom ideologically, "particles and progress."

Originally posted by epiphinehas
It wouldn't be as funny if you hadn't willfully misconstrued the point I was trying to make. The diverse ethical views of your colleagues wasn't the issue (I'm assuming you are referring to their "first-order judgments" ). The issue is, rather, that secular ethics itself as a means of understanding first-order judgments is at bottom ideologically, "particles and progress."

Once you scare up an argument for this claim, I'd love to see it.

Originally posted by snowinscotland
It is true for you. That is the meaning of subjective.

Please don't misunderstand me, I value spiritual experience. People experience what, for them, is as real and meaningful as the ground beneath their feet. The mistake here is to project that experience onto others and to insist that your experience is the 'real' or 'moral' one, and that others not sharing that identical feeling (ephinany) are somehow lacking is rather naive.

The mistake here is to project that experience onto others and to insist that your experience is the 'real' or 'moral' one, and that others not sharing that identical feeling (ephinany) are somehow lacking is rather naive. - SNOW---

I don't think anyone is "lacking" , I think we are all wonderfully made in Christ. There are some very moral people who haven't had it. My experience is real for me but I also meet others who can relate very much to the same or similar experience. There's a whole community of us out there apparently. Therefore I know the experience is not some rare , eccentricity of mine but seems to be a widely shared human phenomena. Of course there are many who don't share the experience as well.
The experience may or may not be false , but it seems very real to me. Those who say it is not real seem to be the ones who have not experienced it , so what am I to make of this?
You could say I was arrogant but then I am not the one saying an experience is false without ever having experienced it!!! That DOES seem naive to me.

Sure , it's a subjective experience but for an atheist so is morality. No atheist can claim that morality is based in any objective reality. The universe is ammoral according to many atheists and has no moral meaning other than that we ascribe it with our subjective moral concepts. Yet atheists still hold that some things are wrong and some things are right. I also hold with the same conviction that my experience is real.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Sure , it's a subjective experience but for an atheist so is morality. No atheist can claim that morality is based in any objective reality. The universe is ammoral according to many atheists and has no moral meaning other than that we ascribe it with our subjective moral concepts. Yet atheists still hold that some things are wrong and some things are right. I also hold with the same conviction that my experience is real.

First, no secular ethical theorist I have ever read thinks that morality is an experience. Second, almost all secular ethical theorists I have read claim that morality is based on a combination of objective facts about human nature, rationality together with some fundamental normative axioms. Third, you confuse the subjective nature of concepts for the subjectivity of their referents. All concepts are subjective in that they are mental representations of actual subjects. Most concepts are objective in that they refer to objects, events, facts or states of affairs that are independent of the beliefs and desires of subjects. My concept of chair is subjective because it is a mental representation of mine, but it doesn't follow that chairs are subjective, or that there are no facts of the matter about what counts as a chair or whether some claim about chairs is true. Please, educate yourself. That you theists are immodest enough to declaim on secular ethics without having ever studied it is bad. That you persist in this practice after having your ignorance pointed out to you is unconscionable.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Discussions concerning the reliability of scripture aside, the trust in God developed through a personal relationship with Jesus Christ cannot grant cognitive certainty, but it does, at least, grant moral certainty. Exactly that which secular ethics cannot do.

"How best for a man to live?" How can secular ethics give a satisfying answer to such a qu even in the midst of intense suffering and misery? How best for a man to live?

I actually enjoy Tolstoy's A Confession as an autobiographical account of his suffering and suicidal thoughts, though he didn't in my opinion ever come to really understand them.

It's just when he tries to cast his whining and bitching into universals about the human condition; this is what makes me feel like vomiting in all directions. Excuse me if I can't take him seriously when his overarching prescription for all of humanity is to embrace "irrational knowledge" because he just "cannot live" within the realm of rational inquiry. This sort of "irrational knowledge" is what grants you your so-called "moral certainty", is it? And I'm sorry if I just cannot take seriously the person who claims the following with a straight face: "All that people sincerely believe in must be true; it may be differently expressed but it cannot be a lie, and therefore if it presents itself to me as a lie, that means I have not understood it" (from A Confession). Anyway, I think Anthony Flew does a pretty good job disposing of Tolstoy's thinking, not that the flaws are all that difficult to spot (see Ethics, 73(2), p. 110).

That aside, are you seriously trying to say that all secular ethical theories have a unifying commitment to "particles and progress"? That's just more nonsense where Tolstoy was taking his own inner frustrations, building feelings of misology, and disillusion with "finite" answers and was projecting these universally onto secular society -- again, in a vomitous fashion.