Originally posted by scottishinnzYour Fallacy of Equivocation arguments are mirror images of the Fundies. Congrats for finding a forum where you guys are the predominant view; most of us live our lives knowing that the actions of human beings in their daily lives aren't "selfish" (according to the dictionary, not your contrived meaning). Obviously the work of other scientific disciplines that deal specifically with human behavior are meaningless to you, but you'll find very few anthropolists, psychologists, sociologists, etc. etc. etc. agree with what you perceive as the main biologist consensus on altruism (and from what I can see your view is a fringe one).
So far, you have described unconditional altruism, which is to say someone who just gives, gives, gives. It simply isn't a tenable position. You have defended clients pro bono? Doesn't surprise me really - but then, isn't it a condition of your bar association? And who would want to be known as the guy who doesn't do pro bono work? See, some presti ...[text shortened]... ith a side order of kin selection.
Seriously man, go pick up a copy of Selfish gene.
2 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterWhy are so many Christians verificationists about everything _except_ their god?
The difference between gravity and morality is that gravity is 100% consistent and you can measure it scientifically and objectively.
If you are saying only those things than can be measured "scientifically and objectively" are true, then apply the same logic to this sentence:
"God exists."
You are confusing the issue of what is the case (an ontological question) with the issue of how we verify that it is the case (an epistemological question). We "verify" different types of true statements in different ways. They are still true.
Live with it.
Originally posted by knightmeisterThis is not what I think at all.
"The nonsense about God's immutable love nature aside, you are an ethical subjectivist because, at root, you think moral claims are made true or false by certain observer attitudes"
This is not what I think at all. God's nature determines objective morals because God's nature exists before the universe ever came into being. God's love and holiness ...[text shortened]... n hardly say it is subjective. All this will happen regardless of anyone's opinion.
Sure it is. As I hinted before, it's bad enough that you don't understand anyone else's view; it's worse that you don't even understand your own. You think moral truths supervene on God's will: although you think in some fuzzy way that His will is immutable, if hypothetically God's will were to change, then and only then would moral truths change. Only in some KM fantasy world would this be considered an "objective" account. You're an ethical subjectivist. Either re-evaluate or deal with it. As it stands, the atheist who thinks some things are objectively wrong merely "just because" is a moral realist -- you, on the other hand, are not.
God's nature determines objective morals because God's nature exists before the universe ever came into being.
That's the dumbest thing I've heard in a while. Are you sure you want that 'because' in there?
Unfortunately, it takes a read of it to see that the rest of your post is not worth reading. I don't even know what the propositional content is supposed to be. Start making sense.
Originally posted by knightmeisterYou're the only one who is trying to "have his cake and eat it too". You want to hold an anti-realist metaethical account and call yourself a moral realist too. I'm done pulling your head out of the sand. You just stick it right back in.
"There are many atheists who are moral realists."
And they are trying to have their cake and eat it....in an effort to avoid the logical implications of Atheism . You see we all want a god in a way...we all want a firm moral objective locus so we can say certain things are objectively wrong and right....but we can't have one without a God. We can't ...[text shortened]... ally face up to the cold brutal reality of your beliefs can be incredibly anxiety provoking.
...in an effort to avoid the logical implications of Atheism .
😵
Originally posted by LemonJelloYou think moral truths supervene on God's will: although you think in some fuzzy way that His will is immutable, if hypothetically God's will were to change, then and only then would moral truths change.
This is not what I think at all.
Sure it is. As I hinted before, it's bad enough that you don't understand anyone else's view; it's worse that you don't even understand your own. You think moral truths supervene on God's will: although you think in some fuzzy way that His will is immutable, if hypothetically God's will were to change, then and o ...[text shortened]... n know what the propositional content is supposed to be. Start making sense.[/b]
Either you don't understand supervenience, or you just aren't getting the concept. Moral truth is dependent upon God's character, not--- as you erroneously claim--- God's will. In some fashion or another, all truth is reflective of God's character.
That facts, that reality exists is immutable... based upon some larger more real reality. You can hypothesize until the cows come home about God changing (a blasphemous thought), but in the same breath you are neccessarily charging that reality is subject to change. Facts of historical variables notwithstanding, reality cannot change as it is totally dependent upon God, the same God who is not subject to change. That immutability renders all truths reflective of His character objective. The only way you can call this dependence subjective is to hypothesize a change in God... which, as stated, is not a possibility.
Originally posted by no1marauderWell done. You've managed to post on a topic without any information contained in that post. A nice personal attack, but nothing of substance. You seem to deliberately misconstrue my position. Apparent altruism is common - I'll grant you that. However, if you consider the circumstances under which we evolved under, small groups, and consider positive effects (i.e. reputation) as well as negative effects (for example, food sharing), then one will see that most apparently altruistic acts are really just cases of reciprocal altruism, albeit indirect in most cases. I would not expect a non-specialist in evolution to get it straight off, but Dawkins' book explains it far better than I.
Your Fallacy of Equivocation arguments are mirror images of the Fundies. Congrats for finding a forum where you guys are the predominant view; most of us live our lives knowing that the actions of human beings in their daily lives aren't "selfish" (according to the dictionary, not your contrived meaning). Obviously the work of other scientific disciplin ...[text shortened]... he main biologist consensus on altruism (and from what I can see your view is a fringe one).
1 edit
Originally posted by dottewellMy point is I cannot prove God exists objectively and I cannot verify God to anyone objectively . Belief that God objectively exists is non-verifiable just as belief that objective morality "exists" is non-verfiable. Both are subjective and personal concepts that can only be verified by oneself through faith or personal conviction. I am convinced God exists via personal faith and subjective verification. I can make convincing arguments for God but you may not find them convincing and that's Ok . This is not the same as gravity . I can prove gravity exists to you by means other than convincing argument and if you tell me gravity doesn't exist I will think you are mad or have no understanding of science.
Why are so many Christians verificationists about everything _except_ their god?
If you are saying only those things than can be measured "scientifically and objectively" are true, then apply the same logic to this sentence:
"God exists."
You are confusing the issue of what is the case (an ontological question) with the issue of how we verify that ifferent types of true statements in different ways. They are still true.
Live with it.
Marauder is convinced that there is such a thing as "objective morality" although he cannot locate it anywhere , or see it , or taste it or verify it scientifically or mathematically. He has no way whatsoever to prove or substantiate that morality exists beyond a mere concept of the human mind. This concept of morality may or may not correspond to anything real (like gravity) but all marauder can do is say he is convinced it exists objectively. In this way he is is the same position as my "sense" (marauder's word) that God exists , EXCEPT he can't bring himself to own it as faith which I can with God.
I see little point in saying something objectively exists unless you are either going to verify it in some way (marauder can't) or you just accept that it is your own subjective view that the thing exists (faith).
Marauder does neither. This is my issue with him.
Originally posted by LemonJello"Only in some KM fantasy world would this be considered an "objective" account. You're an ethical subjectivist. Either re-evaluate or deal with it. As it stands, the atheist who thinks some things are objectively wrong merely "just because" is a moral realist -- you, on the other hand, are not." LEMON JELLO
[b]This is not what I think at all.
Sure it is. As I hinted before, it's bad enough that you don't understand anyone else's view; it's worse that you don't even understand your own. You think moral truths supervene on God's will: although you think in some fuzzy way that His will is immutable, if hypothetically God's will were to change, then an ...[text shortened]... n know what the propositional content is supposed to be. Start making sense.[/b]
Let me put it another way. God is made of Love . That's his nature. Hypothetically he could become blancmange , but it ain't going to happen because it's inconsistent with his nature.
God's love is real , so real infact that all reality is founded on it. God's love is therefore more real than any object or force (like gravity). One day the universe will cease to be and the reality of God's love will rip through the physical universe like a knife through butter.
God's love is represented in Christ who said that whatever is done to anyone is done to him as if it was a personal violation of his law of love. To do a wrong act is to knowingly or unknowingly directly hurt and violate the foundation of all existence
Now what I or you or anyone thinks subjectively about this love matters not , that's the deal. That's the way it will be. Opinions and arguments will not even register. Not even a trillion , trillion megatonne bombs can stand against it. Every act of subjective morality / immorality that hasn't aligned itself with God's love will be exposed and dealt with (mostly through the cross)
So , when a Christian says that something is wrong they are saying something more akin to something is disobeying the ultimate reality behind all known existence. Now it , of course, IS my subjective opinion that this is the way things are , but IF you accept it , you can hardly call this a subjective or relativistic way of looking at morality. In my view of morality God's love is more real than any mere "object" within the universe , because morality (underpinned by God's love) is more objectively real than the universe itself. And you can't get more objective than that!!!
So maybe you are right in a way. I don't believe morality is real in the sense of being a moral realist. But I do certainly believe that God's love is real and exists objectively and since for me God's love is the foundation of all morality then I doubt it matters much. In any case it doesn't matter what you and I think . God will do his thing and love will prevail (in my fantasy world)
4 edits
Originally posted by knightmeisterEither way, you believe you can establish, through your "subjective" experience and reason, the truth about an "objective" state of affairs (the existence of god) that is not "scientifically" verifiable. Correct?
My point is I cannot prove God exists objectively and I cannot verify God to anyone objectively . Belief that God objectively exists is non-verifiable just as belief that objective morality "exists" is non-verfiable. Both are subjective and personal concepts that can only be verified by oneself through faith or personal conviction. I am convinced God that the thing exists (faith).
Marauder does neither. This is my issue with him.
Or are you saying god is not "real", and in fact only "subjective" in the same way as godless morality?
4 edits
To sharpen the point, it seems you believe we cannot have good grounds to believe something to be true unless we either experience it directly (as we do with objects, for example), or can prove it "scientifically".
The problem then is that you can never have good reason to believe in your god. You certainly can't prove he exists scientifically; and you don't experience him directly in the way you do ordinary objects.
It seems you're choosing to have faith in something you have no good grounds to believe, either because it makes you feel better, or because it was what you were taught, or... why?
Perhaps you would say you experience his "objective reality" directly in some other way? Well, other people don't. How do you know you're not simply mad? Besides, you wouldn't let an atheist get away with saying they simply "experience" the (objectively correct) moral thing to do, would you?
Perhaps you see your "objectively real" god in the world? Yet you won't accept experience of human nature and behaviour as good grounds for believing in a certain type of "objectively real" morality. So that can't be it.
Perhaps you've worked out he exists "rationally", through one of the classical arguments? Yet you didn't have much time for Kant.
Your epistemology is so eye-wateringly tight you can never get to your god. What's worse, that means you're stuck in the meaningless, valueless, mechanistic, "scientific" world you so deride.
Fortunately, an intelligent atheist isn't.
Originally posted by dottewell"The problem then is that you can never have good reason to believe in your god. You certainly can't prove he exists scientifically; and you don't experience him directly in the way you do ordinary objects." DOTTEWELL
To sharpen the point, it seems you believe we cannot have good grounds to believe something to be true unless we either experience it directly (as we do with objects, for example), or can prove it "scientifically".
The problem then is that you can never have good reason to believe in your god. You certainly can't prove he exists scientifically; and you ...[text shortened]... " world you so deride.
Fortunately, an intelligent atheist isn't.
Actually , this is the foundation block of faith . Direct experience of God. If God is not alive then he is nothing. Christianity is based on the idea of God's living presence (Holy Spirit) dwelling amongst men. Take that away and Christianity is dead fantasy.
Originally posted by knightmeisterActually, what you should be writing here is about your perception of God. You perceive that you have a relationship with him, quite independently of whether or not he exists.
"The problem then is that you can never have good reason to believe in your god. You certainly can't prove he exists scientifically; and you don't experience him directly in the way you do ordinary objects." DOTTEWELL
Actually , this is the foundation block of faith . Direct experience of God. If God is not alive then he is nothing. Christianity is ...[text shortened]... sence (Holy Spirit) dwelling amongst men. Take that away and Christianity is dead fantasy.
Originally posted by dottewell"Perhaps you see your "objectively real" god in the world? Yet you won't accept experience of human nature and behaviour as good grounds for believing in a certain type of "objectively real" morality. So that can't be it." DOTTWELL
To sharpen the point, it seems you believe we cannot have good grounds to believe something to be true unless we either experience it directly (as we do with objects, for example), or can prove it "scientifically".
The problem then is that you can never have good reason to believe in your god. You certainly can't prove he exists scientifically; and you ...[text shortened]... " world you so deride.
Fortunately, an intelligent atheist isn't.
I DOo believe in an objective morality , it's called God. And I do see God in the world. I've been playing devil's advocate with marauder because he thinks he can also see objective morality , he just doesn't accept the leap of faith he is making.
Originally posted by scottishinnzAbsolutely , this is correct. I have faith that God is there but he can't be proved scientifically . Personally he can be , but that's a different matter.
Actually, what you should be writing here is about your perception of God. You perceive that you have a relationship with him, quite independently of whether or not he exists.
Originally posted by knightmeisterIf it is entirely "personal", it's no kind of "proof" in the ordinary sense of the word. And if it were proof, it wouldn't be a "leap of faith", would it?
Absolutely , this is correct. I have faith that God is there but he can't be proved scientifically . Personally he can be , but that's a different matter.
From an objective viewpoint, your subjective "proof" is no more use to me than a raving lunatic who claims he can see invisible elephants many miles above the sky. Why don't you subject it to the same critical rigour? Why should you, or I, or anyone believe that god "objectively" exists if we can't weigh him in pounds and ounces?
You've dug your sceptical hole. Either jump in or put the earth back.