1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillOoops!
=========================
Nobody I know claims that "everything can be explained on the sole basis of the laws of physics and chemistry".
=================================
Listen to the quotation about one minute into this lecture.
A professor of biological science at Cornell University:
The lecture -
Has Science Made Beli ?v=vGV7eSuU8ow&feature=related
(no, I don't care if you saw it before, whoever you are )
A: Nobody I know claims that "everything can be explained on the sole basis of the laws of physics and chemistry".
B: I guess you don't know very many people! Isn't this idea the very foundation of evolution? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis
I guess nobody has explained to B how science works (unfortunately many fans of science don't understand it either.)
In the first place, science does not require theism.
Secondly you are attacking metaphysical reductionist naturalism, not science.
But I'm sure this is too complicated and doesn't serve your purposes.
Originally posted by JS357I think social is key.
Also, I don't think moral perception is a by-product, I think it's an essential part of being an intelligent, language-using social animal.
My greatest concern about the development of intelligent robots is that they almost certainly wont have morals unless we take great care to program them in.
Originally posted by LemonJelloNot true. The speaker is quoting an atheist who proclaims that 'this' is all there 'is,' nothing outside, nothing before, nothing ahead. At its essence, this is the claim of anyone who believes that existence is the result of itself.
You and jaywill are like two confused peas in a pod. The quote he highlighted has next to nothing to do with the claim in question.
Originally posted by JS357Are there distinguishing marks of a morality by which is can be known to be non-arbitrary? What are they? Having a priest announce it?
Are there distinguishing marks of a morality by which is can be known to be non-arbitrary? What are they? Having a priest announce it?
Since when does the source being "ultimate" entail non-arbitrariness?
You may ask what's the point of morality, but the fact is, people seek to thrive. To thrive best, they join into groups. Social groups of intelligent l ...[text shortened]... xplanation for morality. That doesn't mean it's true, or even complete. But it's there.
An uncaused cause would be that non-arbitrary source.
Since when does the source being "ultimate" entail non-arbitrariness?
At the risk of sounding contradictory, the rule can be relative. By way of example, the characters of a book are solely dependent upon the author of the same. While outside of that book the author may be subject to a hundred differing whims, when it comes to the thoughts, intents and actions of the story, the characters are wholly at the mercy of their author. They cannot appeal to any source outside of the author, nor can they even appeal to the author: they do as he bids. To them, he is the ultimate and he--- to them--- is non-arbitrary.
You may ask what's the point of morality, but the fact is, people seek to thrive. To thrive best, they join into groups. Social groups of intelligent language users discover rules. Connect the dots.
You have no problem connecting the dots. Congratulations. Now explain what the dots are, how they came to be. You're making Grand Canyon leaps in logic and missing more than the core of the argument.
Originally posted by SoothfastOy. Any chance (in the future) you parse these types of responses out at a more manageable clip?
This above quote from you is the issue. The first sentence I think can be accurately cast thus:
"Whether X exists, it cannot be denied that Y has historically held itself to X."
I think we can faithfully alter this to read:
"Whether or not X exists, Y believes in X." . . . . . . (1)
Do you agree with that alteration? I think it's logically eq ...[text shortened]... ceration. But we all have a choice, at least in theory.
The differences may be small most of the time, but they nonetheless exist and sometimes are not trivial. What I'm trying to say is that while it may be true that man has historically held himself to moral standards, the standards themselves are not fixed from one society (or culture) to another; indeed, they're not even fixed within the confines of a single society over a span of just two generations; and moreover, it's rare to find a moral value that 100% of a society's members share.
Whoa. So you're expecting to get away with arguing from a naturalistic position, and then arguing against it when it suits your claim? That's exactly what you're doing when you on one hand declare that people gather together in order to thrive, adopting rules of behavior in order to do so--- which, itself is a course of action, regardless of which direction the antecedent rules take--- but on the other hand declare that there is no universality to man's actions.
And that's just part of the logic gap. Of course you won't find 100% compliance, but what an anemic swipe at the supposed vagarious nature of morals. That psychotic killer in Norway believed his killing was morally justified, even though as a sub-group, like-minded people don't constitute a number significant enough to warrant a percentage. The point, of course, is that moral values are meant to express the "ought not's" within a society. Moreover, if you find a society that considers murder, rape and plunder within its member circle, you'd have a leg to stand on in your claim that standards are not fixed. It's a crock, and you know it.
This is the squishiest of your questions. A moral value is an idea...
I don't think you realize how vigorous an argument you're making against your own ideas. If there is no intrinsic good (as you claim), there is no point to existence: it just is. So whether I murder, rape and plunder has no ultimate meaning, one way or another. It brings me pleasure (although I am hard-pressed to accurately and consistently ascribe what 'pleasure' really is) and that's all that matters. The universe burped itself into existence and will eventually burp itself out of existence; in between is futile and unimportant.
Originally posted by bbarrYour own view does not rest on descriptive claims about God. Your view rests upon a normative claim about God; namely that his character is good by definition, or the standard of goodness, or whatever. You take, in effect, one free normative premise.
When you ask “to whom or to what is the atheist attributing morals…”, I’m not sure what you mean. If you are asking where ethicists reach theoretical bedrock; where they stake out that foundation upon which their moral framework rests, and against which it is ultimately justified, the answer is that it depends on the ethicist. I can discuss some alternatives ...[text shortened]... ady find the set-up here objectionable or problematic, then that’s something I want to know. So?
I confess not to follow, as my theology is based upon both descriptive and normative claims about God.
Second, make sure you ask yourself the same questions about motivation and meaning that you urge on the atheistic ethicist.
I believe that, when we get to it, the urges are the same despite the fact that we often hide it as though ashamed. Namely, the theist properly armed views God as worthy of praise, as glorious, and all of 'this' emanates from His attempt to share Himself with His creations. The theologian recognizes God as beyond 'good and evil' as the source of intrinsic, ultimate good. Morals fall far short of anything more than a indirect and warped reflection of His glory, relegated instead as a category for how fallen man ought to live with other fallen man. Hardly inspiring.
While the theologian is better equipped to articulate certain aspects of God's integrity, in our present condition we are reduced to calling it ineffable, although we can at least ascend to knowing that it is a good beyond fathoming. And I think this is what separates the theologian from all other comers: he is able to trace his river of good back/forward to a bottomless ocean of good, while anyone else is limited to saying the water sure is wet and good for drinking.
When we frame things in a 'good and evil' perspective, we have limited our vernacular to 'God is good, all else is evil.' Problematic, at best. But it is close. All that is filled to overflowing with God is good; anything capable of being filled which is deficient of Him is evil.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWhy do you require there to be a "point" to existence? Life is what you make of it.
Oy. Any chance (in the future) you parse these types of responses out at a more manageable clip?
[quote]The differences may be small most of the time, but they nonetheless exist and sometimes are not trivial. What I'm trying to say is that while it may be true that man has historically held himself to moral standards, the standards themselves are not ...[text shortened]... ntually burp itself out of existence; in between is futile and unimportant.
And I'm not talking about lone psychos having their own morals that are at variance with everyone elses. If you were reading carefully you would note that I am saying, quite unequivocally, that there is no evidence whatsoever of the existence of an Objective Morality, or else your definition of an Objective Morality is so elastic as to be devoid of meaning. There is no evidence of it. At all. Whole societies comprising thousand or millions of people -- not lone psychos -- have different moral codes. That is easy to see, if you're willing to see.
Your move.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH"If there is no intrinsic good ... The universe burped itself into existence and will eventually burp itself out of existence; in between is futile and unimportant."
Oy. Any chance (in the future) you parse these types of responses out at a more manageable clip?
[quote]The differences may be small most of the time, but they nonetheless exist and sometimes are not trivial. What I'm trying to say is that while it may be true that man has historically held himself to moral standards, the standards themselves are not ...[text shortened]... ntually burp itself out of existence; in between is futile and unimportant.
As humans, we confront this possibility and in most cases, on a gut feeling, reject it and then show ourselves to our own satisfaction that it is wrong, by one means or another. This works for a whole lot of people, all their lives, including both theists and non-theists. Maybe a non-theistic approach wouldn't work for you, but that doesn't mean you are entitled to tell those who have found a non-theistic approach they are satisfied with, that they are wrong. Nor are they entitled to tell you that you are wrong. Some on both sides don't respect this.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou have no problem connecting the dots. Congratulations. Now explain what the dots are, how they came to be. You're making Grand Canyon leaps in logic and missing more than the core of the argument.
[b]Are there distinguishing marks of a morality by which is can be known to be non-arbitrary? What are they? Having a priest announce it?
An uncaused cause would be that non-arbitrary source.
Since when does the source being "ultimate" entail non-arbitrariness?
At the risk of sounding contradictory, the rule can be relative. By way of exam ...[text shortened]... . You're making Grand Canyon leaps in logic and missing more than the core of the argument.[/b]
Of course I have to learn the dots (moral rules) of my society, and how to connect them when a new situation comes up. But asking what's the point of morality is what you did, and I answered. If we aren't at the core, we are where you led us. The point of morality is the importance of social groups of intelligent language users discovering rules for getting along, rules that the members will internalize and apply to themselves with triggers of love, guilt and/or shame, and other learned emotional responses -- plain fear in some cases. You don't seem to want a naturalistic answer, so you say I'm missing the core. Maybe it's more mundane and less heavenly than you want it to be.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou cited this video in response to "Nobody I know claims that "everything can be explained on the sole basis of the laws of physics and chemistry".
Not true. The speaker is quoting an atheist who proclaims that 'this' is all there 'is,' nothing outside, nothing before, nothing ahead. At its essence, this is the claim of anyone who believes that existence is the result of itself.
The video segment you pointed to did not assert that "everything can be explained on the sole basis of the laws of physics and chemistry". I think you might just admit that as a sign that as we all aren't perfect, you know that includes you.
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis is almost like saying, oh, I don't know, "If you find a species living that has no will to live, then let me know. Otherwise I'm going to go on contending that there's a God out there who instills all species with an objective and universal will to live."
Moreover, if you find a society that considers murder, rape and plunder within its member circle, you'd have a leg to stand on in your claim that standards are not fixed. It's a crock, and you know it.
See, I would say there's a simpler explanation for why we don't find societies that consider murder, rape and plunder acceptable. Such societies would implode before they ever left a trace of their existence on the planet.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHPlease point out, specifically, where in the quote the claim "everything can be explained on the sole basis of the laws of physics and chemistry" appears. Or please show how this claim follows from those claims that do appear in the quote.
Not true. The speaker is quoting an atheist who proclaims that 'this' is all there 'is,' nothing outside, nothing before, nothing ahead. At its essence, this is the claim of anyone who believes that existence is the result of itself.