One Remaining Question

Originally posted by twhitehead
Note that he didn't say it was the only possible method, he said it was the only reliable method.
Note also that the scientific method doesn't apply to logic. Logical truths can be found by the use of logic. So mathematics for example does not involve the scientific method at all, yet still contains truths.
The scientific method is used to understand re ...[text shortened]... ch is what the scientific method is all about.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Note that he didn't say it was the only possible method, he said it was the only reliable method.

Moreso even than that, I did not even say it was the only reliable method. I said it was the only reliable method we have. In fact I should have said it is the most reliable method we have. There may be more reliable methods, but we have not discovered them. Every other method we have discovered is less reliable than the scientific method.

--- Penguin.

Note that he didn't say it was the only possible method, he said it was the only reliable method.

Okay. He said it was the only reliable method. You are about to demonstrate to me that you have another reliable method. So do you help his case or negate it ?

Note also that the scientific method doesn't apply to logic. Logical truths can be found by the use of logic. So mathematics for example does not involve the scientific method at all, yet still contains truths.
The scientific method is used to understand reality.

So according to your own words mathematics is an example of a reliable method in which some truths may be demonstrated.

So as you make a distinction between the scientific method and mathematics you point out to Penguin that the scientific method is not the "only reliable method" to demonstrate what untruth is.

Inform Penquin that you agree with me but on some other grounds.

Because you misunderstand what the scientific method is, and what its applications are, you have gone off on a tangent

Possibly. But so far you have agreed with me that the scientific method, well understood or not, is in fact NOT the only reliable method to ascertain untruth.

Mathematics, is another reliable method, you want to submit.
You agree with me that it is wrong to say that the scientific was the only reliable method. You agree it is not, yet on other grounds.

The thing is, that there are many things that are logically possible, but reality is only a subset of the logically possible. The scientific method is about finding out which subset of the logically possible is represented by reality. And the only reliable way to do that, is by observing reality - which is what the scientific method is all about.

It is not universally agree upon exactly what the scientific method is. I am not going to stop and document that now, which may be your next challenge.

However, there are discussions in the liturature on the philosophy of science the evolving nature of the "scientific method."

You say that observing reality is the the only way - and that is the scientific method. This is not as straight forward as you might wish. It is that "reality" which is sometimes being questioned. Is what we observe really "reality" ?

So the scientific method is, we hope, observing the real. But it is often questionable as to whether what is being observed is reality. And that is what is trying to be determined.

We know what we are seeing. We are not sure what is being seen is in fact the reality.

Above you said it too:

The scientific method is used to understand reality.

And science rests upon a philosophy OF science.
That philosophy cannot itself be reliably proven to be true by the scientific method. The scientific method must assume beforehand that the philosophy is true.

And that assumption is like ... for lack of a better word ... "faith" or "trust".
And that is, to use your expression, a "brute" fact.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]One Remaining Question

Whom do atheists look up to or regard as the final arbiter or ultimate authority in matters of morality and absolute truth?[/b]

Bobby, Bobby, Bobby. This obsession with "final", "ultimate", "absolute". What does it have to do with real moral deliberation?

It doesn't matter whether I look up, down, sideways, inwards, or outwards for the answers. Point is, no matter where I may get them, I sign off on them, or not.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Bobby, Bobby, Bobby. This obsession with "final", "ultimate", "absolute". What does it have to do with real moral deliberation?

It doesn't matter whether I look up, down, sideways, inwards, or outwards for the answers. Point is, no matter where I may get them, I sign off on them, or not.

Bobby, Bobby, Bobby. This obsession with "final", "ultimate", "absolute". What does it have to do with real moral deliberation?

It doesn't matter whether I look up, down, sideways, inwards, or outwards for the answers. Point is, no matter where I may get them, I sign off on them, or not.

But if there is no real enforcement of moral obligations, aren't we really just kidding ourselves ?

Your neighbor steals your wife. He feels kind of bad about it. But he feels more bad about returning her to you.

He goes to the grave shrugging and expecting to simply melt peacefully into the dust of the earth. There is no real enforcement of his having transgressed. He felt a little bad morally. But "them's the breaks."

Ultimately, no accountability renders real moral obligations somewhat of a joke. Don't you think ?

Law courts have to put consequences on what moral deviations they can conceivably CATCH. Being human we know they will err and they will misjudge. But they know there has to be enforcement, albeit human and imperfect.

If no ultimate and final unerring accountability, I think we're only winking at each other as we play our noble game.

Originally posted by sonship

Bobby, Bobby, Bobby. This obsession with "final", "ultimate", "absolute". What does it have to do with real moral deliberation?

It doesn't matter whether I look up, down, sideways, inwards, or outwards for the answers. Point is, no matter where I may get them, I sign off on them, or not.

But if there is no real enforcement of moral o ...[text shortened]... nal unerring accountability, I think we're only winking at each other as we play our noble game.

Evolution is why have the kind of morality that we have. It is the reason why generally we don't go about killing each other, because we know we need each other to survive. It's also why we generally don't steal and why we generally like to share food with each other.

But yes, after death, both the Hitlers and the Mother Theresas of this world will get the same kind of punishment/reward for their earthly behaviour: nothing.

I also very well realise that I could commit the worst crimes possible and then kill myself and I won't be punished in any way. And yet, I don't go around raping women. Weird, isn't it?

Originally posted by sonship
You are about to demonstrate to me that you have [b]another reliable method. So do you help his case or negate it ? [/b]

I was hoping to clarify his case, but it seems I have failed as you still have not understood.

So according to your own words mathematics is an example of a reliable method in which some truths may be demonstrated.
Correct. The question then is whether these were the sort of truths Penguin was refering to. I took it as a given that if he was talking about the scientific method, then he was not talking about logical truths, but rather truths that the scientific method applies to - ie reality.

Inform Penquin that you agree with me but on some other grounds.
I certainly don't agree with your initial post, which was that his argument was circular. It is not.

But so far you have agreed with me that the scientific method, well understood or not, is in fact NOT the only reliable method to ascertain untruth.
Actually it is you that agree with me. You did not make that claim first, I did.

So the scientific method is, we hope, observing the real. But it is often questionable as to whether what is being observed is reality. And that is what is trying to be determined.

We know what we are seeing. We are not sure what is being seen is in fact the reality.
As you say, the Scientific method is more complicated than simply observing reality. It is about making observations then checking those observations by other means in order to try and confirm them - or discredit them. At best, we only ever discredit them.

And science rests upon a philosophy OF science.
That philosophy cannot itself be reliably proven to be true by the scientific method.
Correct, the scientific method is not a means for proving philosophy.

The scientific method must assume beforehand that the philosophy is true.
Why must it be an assumption? Why cannot be proven by logic or other means?

And that assumption is like ... for lack of a better word ... "faith" or "trust".
No, it isn't.

And that is, to use your expression, a "brute" fact.
No, its just you getting confused.

Originally posted by sonship

Bobby, Bobby, Bobby. This obsession with "final", "ultimate", "absolute". What does it have to do with real moral deliberation?

It doesn't matter whether I look up, down, sideways, inwards, or outwards for the answers. Point is, no matter where I may get them, I sign off on them, or not.

But if there is no real enforcement of moral o ...[text shortened]... nal unerring accountability, I think we're only winking at each other as we play our noble game.

No one said life was going to be fair.

Originally posted by sonship

Bobby, Bobby, Bobby. This obsession with "final", "ultimate", "absolute". What does it have to do with real moral deliberation?

It doesn't matter whether I look up, down, sideways, inwards, or outwards for the answers. Point is, no matter where I may get them, I sign off on them, or not.

But if there is no real enforcement of moral o ...[text shortened]... nal unerring accountability, I think we're only winking at each other as we play our noble game.

Ultimately, no accountability renders real moral obligations somewhat of a joke. Don't you think ?

That is why we conceive of gods as surrogates for the humans who can't see everything we're doing and administer perfect reward or punishment to the miscreants and recompense to the victims.

Of course some will say the god they conceive of is not created by them; rather, it is discovered.

The question is, can people develop an effective internal link between responsibility and accountability, without need of a god-concept? Can they agree on a code of moral responsibility and accountability that dispenses with the need to stand in the place of the gods and administer justice on their own?

Obviously, no. We must have human institutions of justice. We can dress them in religion.

Theism is inadequate for linking moral responsibility to accountability. Human institutions are needed, and apparently, they need to be dressed in religion, so far.

This says nothing about the truth of theism. It says there is something yet to be conceived of, or discovered in ourselves, that will lead to voluntary self regulation.

I believe this quest will never end.

Originally posted by sonship
But if there is no real enforcement of moral obligations, aren't we really just kidding ourselves ?

That depends on your motivation for being moral. If you are moral purely for fear of enforcement, then yes, you would be kidding yourself if no such enforcement existed.
And a surprising number of people are moral largely because of enforcement - and enforcement does in fact exist, not only in the criminal justice system, but in other peoples opinions of you.

But there are other reasons why some people are moral:
1. the recognition of suffering in others may lead to feelings of sympathy. It is very important to note here that we tend to feel sympathy almost exclusively for those we see as 'persons' rather than 'its'. Who we recognise as worthy of our moral consideration in this regard is very much cultural.
2. in order to obtain mutual benefit. If I do not steal from you, you are less likely to steal from me. Such relationships of trust over time can lead to significant benefits. Generally living in community involves a lot of trust - not simply reliance on law enforcement. Note that if someone goes to jail, the real punishment is when he comes out, and nobody wants to employ him/her and nobody wants to socialize with him etc. The trust is lost.

Of course you believe in a system where there is no enforcement either, or at least a rather inconsistent enforcement - and one that fails to serve the purpose you are suggesting.
a) Suppose your neighbour steals your wife. He lives with her for the rest of his life, then on his death bed he converts to Christianity and receives no punishment. How does this not translate to your version of kidding ourselves?
b) Suppose your neighbour steals your wife. He lives with her for the rest of his life. After he dies, he receives his just punishment. How does this punishment rectify what he did to you? How does this punishment change whether or not we are kidding ourselves?

Originally posted by twhitehead
That depends on your motivation for being moral. If you are moral purely for fear of enforcement, then yes, you would be kidding yourself if no such enforcement existed.
And a surprising number of people are moral largely because of enforcement - and enforcement does in fact exist, not only in the criminal justice system, but in other peoples opinions of ...[text shortened]... ify what he did to you? How does this punishment change whether or not we are kidding ourselves?

That depends on your motivation for being moral. If you are moral purely for fear of enforcement, then yes, you would be kidding yourself if no such enforcement existed.

I do not think it is really an issue of purity or non-purity.

It is noble to act of pure good conscience. I agree.
But we should not mistake ourselves for the people we want to be.
The usual fact of the matter is that we are strict with the OTHER guy and we are SOFT on ourselves.

It is more often the case that our sense of moral outrage is activated MORE strongly when we are on the receiving end of wrong doing. It is less the case that that sense is nobly activated when we are on the dishing out side of wrong doing.

The question is "Is there a real and just balancing out of the scales of justice ?"

And a surprising number of people are moral largely because of enforcement - and enforcement does in fact exist, not only in the criminal justice system, but in other peoples opinions of you.

I do not think it is an either / or situation. Integrity may be coupled with fear of punishment. Sometimes it is PURE integrity. Sometimes it is pure fear of getting caught wrong doing. Sometimes it is a little of both.

We all would like to say the world is a place where we all act with integrity out of noble motives, even when no one is looking. Unfortunetly, that is a somewhat idealistic view of the world.

But there are other reasons why some people are moral:
1. the recognition of suffering in others may lead to feelings of sympathy. It is very important to note here that we tend to feel sympathy almost exclusively for those we see as 'persons' rather than 'its'. Who we recognise as worthy of our moral consideration in this regard is very much cultural.
2. in order to obtain mutual benefit. If I do not steal from you, you are less likely to steal from me. Such relationships of trust over time can lead to significant benefits. Generally living in community involves a lot of trust - not simply reliance on law enforcement. Note that if someone goes to jail, the real punishment is when he comes out, and nobody wants to employ him/her and nobody wants to socialize with him etc. The trust is lost.

I don't dispute any of those additional motives. The question is "Is there a real balancing of the scales of justice ? Is there a perfect standard against which we are finally measured ?"

Another way to put it is "Is there a PERFECT morality? Or do we all just kind of do the best we can and let the rest slide ?"

If it is just a matter of "Just do the best you can" then it may be okay.
If it is a matter of "There exists a PERFECT moral scale against which all imbalance must ultimately be put into balance" then that is another matter.

In the latter case we have to consider what reconcilation is available. That is unless one has confidence that he is perfect.

"Iniquity" non - equity. That means not balanced and not equal.
The question is "Do we get away with iniquity, even though we gave life our best shot?" Or "Is there a ultimate setting straight of the imbalanced accounts do to our many occasions of having FAILED to do right?"

Of course you believe in a system where there is no enforcement either, or at least a rather inconsistent enforcement - and one that fails to serve the purpose you are suggesting.

In my personal Christian belief, I think the idea of anyone getting away with anything is non-existent.

In my belief there is love, there is redemption, there is forgiveness. But there is no ignoring of even a quantum particle of injustice of the smallest degree.

Justice will be carried out for me either at Calvary on the cross of Christ, at the judgment seat of reward or discipline for saved Christians, or the great white throne for eternal judgment against the unreconciled.

I believe that behind the universe stands a God who is absolutely PERFECT. In a sense coming into existence in this universe is a rather serious matter.

Thankfully, ample and abundant provision has been made for our potential imperfection in the light of Absolute Perfection. If provision were not made or God was uncaring, then it would be better had I never existed.

So my "system" - the Christian Gospel of Christ contains both perfect love and perfect justice. How God coordinates these two mighty attributes of His together is manifested in the Son of God's work. That is a manifestation in time of perfect love and perfect righteousness coordinating together.

a) Suppose your neighbour steals your wife. He lives with her for the rest of his life, then on his death bed he converts to Christianity and receives no punishment. How does this not translate to your version of kidding ourselves?

To be forgiven is NOT transformation.
To be forgiven forever is NOT sanctification.

If God's eternal purpose contained only the matter of forgiveness then that would be vain. But His eternal purpose contains duplicating sons of God conformed to the image of His Firstborn Son.

As an unbeliever I may on my death bed confess my need for salvation and be saved.

But if you would read your Bible carefully you will see that the age of eternity does not begin immediately either after the second coming of Christ or at the death of any believer. There is an intervening time of at least 1,000 years in which God has TIME more to transform a person to be Christ like.

In the Christian faith (and I have said this before) - there is something human beings GET and there is something human beings DO NOT GET.

1.) What we can get - We can get complete forgiveness of sins such that God looks upon us as if we never sinned at all. That we can get.

2.) What we cannot get - We cannot get to remain the SAME kind of person we were when we sinned. We must be transformed.

This process can be slowed down or delayed. It cannot be put off indefinitely.

Yes, God will forgive ALL past sins. I can vouch for that.
No, I cannot remain the same person that I was when I sinned.
Eventually, I will be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ in every part of my soul.

This is one of the reasons why He grants "eternal life" . Some do not realize it but the duration of time is used by God to transform the sinner into the same image as Jesus is. I do not mean that He will take forever. But I do mean no sinner can remain the same forever with the sinning nature.

b) Suppose your neighbour steals your wife. He lives with her for the rest of his life. After he dies, he receives his just punishment. How does this punishment rectify what he did to you? How does this punishment change whether or not we are kidding ourselves?

In other words the offended party is still damaged.

The Lord Jesus taught His disciples to pray "Forgive us our depts as we forgive our deptors." Some versions read 'Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."

I understand your question. But ALL have sinned. ALL have offended God. And when I re-call what offenses against me I desire to know if the offender ever got his due, such desire for vindication strangely melts away when I come to God for the wrongs I have done.

He who has been forgiven much, has power within to forgive.
He who has not sense he has been forgiven anything is tormented with the desire for vengeance.

My advice to the offended party is to himself receive forgiveness, for he too is guilty for other things which in which he offended others.

So both the offender and the offended can find salvation by fleeing into Christ. Both can find peace in Jesus.

Originally posted by sonship
I do not think it is really an issue of purity or non-purity.

I agree, peoples actions are usually a result of a number of motivations.

It is noble to act of pure good conscience. I agree.
What do you mean by 'noble' here? Where does this 'nobility' come from? Is it anything more than a cultural norm?

But we should not mistake ourselves for the people we want to be.
I am not sure what you mean here. Do you behave worse than you want to? If so, why?

The usual fact of the matter is that we are strict with the OTHER guy and we are SOFT on ourselves.
I agree. And I suspect your whole argument is an effort to convince the OTHER guy to be more moral for fear of punishment. You don't really care whether your argument is correct.

And I think that the argument in your previous post was relying quite heavily on the understanding that we all know what morality is, and we all know how we want others to act and what is the 'right' way to act. You didn't really expect anyone to say 'you know what! we are all just kidding ourselves, now I'm off to steal my neighbor's wife!'.

It is more often the case that our sense of moral outrage is activated MORE strongly when we are on the receiving end of wrong doing. It is less the case that that sense is nobly activated when we are on the dishing out side of wrong doing.
And all this can be explained nicely with the Theory of Evolution. Religion does not explain it.

The question is "Is there a real and just balancing out of the scales of justice ?"
I am of the opinion that the scales can never truly be balanced. Punishment serves certain purposes, but it typically does not reverse the crime.

Is there a perfect standard against which we are finally measured ?"
No. And if there were I don't see what purpose it would serve nor what relevance it would have. It would not alter my behaviour one bit (as I am unaware of it) and it would not reverse any wrongs I commit.

Another way to put it is "Is there a PERFECT morality? Or do we all just kind of do the best we can and let the rest slide ?"
That is not 'another way to put it', that is a totally different question. I think there is usually 'the best moral course of action', but I also think that most of us are not motivated to take it.
You see morality is a very long scale that balances harm to others against cost to ones self. Generally something is only considered morally wrong, when the cost to oneself is low and/or the harm to others is high. The balance however may be disputed and where we draw the line may vary from individual to individual. A complicating factor is causation vs prevention.
For example, if you hear that children are dying of starvation in Ethiopia, are you morally wrong not to act? Would donating a given percentage of your wealth be morally right, or all of it? Would the equation change if earning your wealth was a direct cause of the starvation in Ethiopia?

In the latter case we have to consider what reconcilation is available. That is unless one has confidence that he is perfect.
So you are basically saying, go ahead and be morally wrong, but look for a way to mitigate the consequences.

"Iniquity" non - equity. That means not balanced and not equal.
Regarding this, what happens with my Ethiopia example. If you give say 10% of your income, does that absolve you of your moral responsibility? If it does, then would giving 90% put you in moral credit? Or is not doing the absolute maximum good possible always a negative on the scale - and thus worthy of punishment or some form of 'balancing'? And if punishment, what purpose does it serve?

Or "Is there a ultimate setting straight of the imbalanced accounts do to our many occasions of having FAILED to do right?"
What is this 'setting straight'? Punishment? Something else?

In my personal Christian belief, I think the idea of anyone getting away with anything is non-existent.
In my belief there is love, there is redemption, there is forgiveness.
Sure sounds like getting away with it to me.

But there is no ignoring of even a quantum particle of injustice of the smallest degree.
So by not ignoring it, the scales are balanced? How so?

Justice will be carried out for me ...
Carried out for you? I think I really need those details about how this balancing out works. Because so far its not making any sense at all.

So my "system" - the Christian Gospel of Christ contains both perfect love and perfect justice.
I am willing to bet that you define 'perfect justice' in a circular manner and that you will totally fail to answer my question above as to what this 'justice' actually consists of and you will basically say 'God says so, so there'.

Yes, God will forgive ALL past sins. I can vouch for that.
No, I cannot remain the same person that I was when I sinned.
Eventually, I will be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ in every part of my soul.
So basically you have no answer to my question, and we are just kidding ourselves.

I understand your question. But ALL have sinned. ALL have offended God. And when I re-call what offenses against me I desire to know if the offender ever got his due, such desire for vindication strangely melts away when I come to God for the wrongs I have done.
So once again, no actual answer, and we are just kidding ourselves.

My advice to the offended party is to himself receive forgiveness, for he too is guilty for other things which in which he offended others.

So both the offender and the offended can find salvation by fleeing into Christ. Both can find peace in Jesus.
So in the end, it seems you are saying - we should kid ourselves, then we won't be so worried about all those people who are being morally bad.

Originally posted by sonship

Bobby, Bobby, Bobby. This obsession with "final", "ultimate", "absolute". What does it have to do with real moral deliberation?

It doesn't matter whether I look up, down, sideways, inwards, or outwards for the answers. Point is, no matter where I may get them, I sign off on them, or not.

But if there is no real enforcement of moral o ...[text shortened]... nal unerring accountability, I think we're only winking at each other as we play our noble game.

No real enforcement? Why should I allow that? Would you sit idly by if your neighbor stole your wife? I doubt it.

I can divorce her and claim it was her fault. I can vandalize his house. I can kick his ass. I can do any number of things to either/both of them until they get the point that, if they cause me misery, I will spread it around.

See? No god required.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"In whom or what do atheists look up to or regard as the final arbiter
or ultimate authority in matters of morality and absolute truth?"

Someone with better grammar skills.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
[b]One Remaining Question

Whom do atheists look up to or regard as the final arbiter or ultimate authority in matters of morality and absolute truth?[/b]

Erm...we don't!???

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby (OP)
[b]One Remaining Question

Whom do atheists look up to or regard as the final arbiter or ultimate authority in matters of morality and absolute truth?

Original Post Re-Phrased:

"In whom or what do atheists look up to or regard as the final arbiter
or ultimate authority in matters of morality and absolute truth?"[/b]

"The very idea of freedom presupposes some objective moral law which overarches rulers and ruled alike. Unless we return to the crude and nursery-like belief in objective values, we perish." C.S. Lewis

"A system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true." -Socrates

Without an objective and lawful moral authority, what would protect the depraved human race from destroying itself?