Originally posted by FreakyKBH Yes, I am too dense to smell what the Rock's got cooking. Here is the quote Hal brought out of CoPR:
[i]"In the foregoing analysis the moral law led to a practical problem which is prescribed by pure reason alone, without the aid of any sensible motives, namely, that of the necessary completeness of the first and principle element of the summum bonum, be attached to any "sensible motives."
The reader is invited to follow it from there.
[/i]The summary BBarr posted above explains this precisely.
Originally posted by no1marauder Why would one need to "justify" such a thing?? Do you think by explaining why the sky is usually blue, we are "justifying" it?
It an ontological question; in the analogy it may be answered by saying: “the sky is blue because it just is so” -- or a deeper investigation is undertaken to discover the “nature” of why this is so.
Originally posted by dottewell I am struggling to understand what you are asking here. Are you now saying if rationality is only a collection of atoms reacting together then we can't "justify" it's (putative) existence?
And are you also saying that the atheist only believes in facts that he can perceive? What about mathematical facts?
Could you clarify?
I'm not saying that rational thought doesn't exist, my point is that the atheist worldview is based on empiricism -- hence the stance: "I see no evidence for God, ergo there is no God". The problem with this is that it assumes rational though, while offering no ontological support (justification) on why an atheist should take his own thought (a random arrangement of atoms in the brain) seriously. Obviously, any form of reasoned justification is circular in nature and therefore invalid.
Originally posted by Halitose I'm not saying that rational thought doesn't exist, my point is that the atheist worldview is based on empiricism -- hence the stance: "I see no evidence for God, ergo there is no God". The problem with this is that it assumes rational though, while offering no ontological support (justification) on why an atheist should take his own thought (a random arran ...[text shortened]... . Obviously, any form of reasoned justification is circular in nature and therefore invalid.
Are you serious? Are you honestly saying that no thought can be supported due to a lack of ontological justification? Apply that to your own beliefs, or any beliefs of any person anywhere in the world and we're totally screwed.
Why should there need to be any justification for a denial in the face of a lack of evidence?
Originally posted by Halitose I'm not saying that rational thought doesn't exist, my point is that the atheist worldview is based on empiricism -- hence the stance: "I see no evidence for God, ergo there is no God". The problem with this is that it assumes rational though, while offering no ontological support (justification) on why an atheist should take his own thought (a random arran ...[text shortened]... . Obviously, any form of reasoned justification is circular in nature and therefore invalid.
How is atheism based on empiricism? There are rationalist atheists, you know. Atheism isn't committed to reductive materialism, either. This is so obvious that it shouldn't have to be repeated, but you can think that the mind is non-physical and think that there is no such thing as God. Further, you don't understand what 'ontological' means. An ontological claim is one that deals with what exists, or existence itself and its nature. Your claim about the lack of justification for reasoning itself is an epistemological claim. You are asking for an epistemological justification for the claim that we should take our reasoning seriously. The problem with this demand is that it is self-defeating. Why, if reasoning isn't reliable, should we take your skeptical claims seriously? After all, they resulted from some process of reasoning on your part.
Originally posted by dottewell [/i]The summary BBarr posted above explains this precisely.
Apparently, Dotty, you should take his advice: learn how to read. His summary is woefully inadequate/misleading. It serves only to expose his subterfuge.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Apparently, Dotty, you should take his advice: learn how to read. His summary is woefully inadequate/misleading. It serves only to expose his subterfuge.
Originally posted by bbarr Priceless. Are you for real? 🙄
That's a question you should really be asking yourself. Do you actually believe the cr@p you put out, or are you just floating it out there to see if anyone salutes? As smart as you portray yourself to be, it's not likely you believe the things you post; you obviously are just having fun. Good for you. Professor.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH Apparently, Dotty, you should take his advice: learn how to read. His summary is woefully inadequate/misleading. It serves only to expose his subterfuge.
A bit unfair. All I'm saying is that you seem to be taking a quote out of context and trying to draw unwarranted conclusions. BBarr's summary explains well how this fits into Kant's philosophy.
I'm no great Kant expert but I have at least read the Critiques and Groundwork.
Originally posted by Halitose I'm not saying that rational thought doesn't exist, my point is that the atheist worldview is based on empiricism -- hence the stance: "I see no evidence for God, ergo there is no God". The problem with this is that it assumes rational though, while offering no ontological support (justification) on why an atheist should take his own thought (a random arran ...[text shortened]... . Obviously, any form of reasoned justification is circular in nature and therefore invalid.
I can't really add to what's been said above. We can't meaningfully question our rationality.
To return to the point, though: why should moral facts not be "built into" the world, and discovered rather than invented?
I don't want to get to sidetracked by the issue of how we come to know facts, if possible.
Originally posted by dottewell I can't really add to what's been said above. We can't meaningfully question our rationality.
To return to the point, though: why should moral facts not be "built into" the world, and discovered rather than invented?
I don't want to get to sidetracked by the issue of how we come to know facts, if possible.
Because "being built in" assumes some sort of "building in" process (and possibly a "builder" ). This is perfectly consistent with the theistic worldview, while atheism has no grounds to make such an assertion, other than: “just because it is so”.
Originally posted by Halitose Because "being built in" assumes some sort of "building in" process (and possibly a "builder" ). This is perfectly consistent with the theistic worldview, while atheism has no grounds to make such an assertion, other than: “just because it is so”.
No; it is "built into" the universe that the sky is blue, that pebbles exist, etc. This does not assume a builder.
Originally posted by Halitose Because "being built in" assumes some sort of "building in" process (and possibly a "builder" ). This is perfectly consistent with the theistic worldview, while atheism has no grounds to make such an assertion, other than: “just because it is so”.
At no point does theism make any statements about cause other than “just because it is so”.
The existance of a structure with properties does not in any way imply the existance of a builder.
[edit] In fact a typical theist cause statement is closer to a typical parents answer to a persistance child:
Child: Why?
Parent: because.
Child: Because why.
Parent: Because of because.
Most vile concept/aspect of atheism.
23 Mar '06 16:461 edit
Back to Top