Theologian John Haught on evolution, etc...

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I'll do my best. There's an awful lot of dangerous and deceptive terminology flying about this area.

Yes, and I’ve likely added to that. I’m not the logician that Dr. S. or bbarr or LJ are. Nevertheless, I think that Mark’s claims cannot be supported; and that he compounds the problem when he asserts, on the one hand, that people can or cannot* of necessity believe certain things—even if they claim to—and, on the other hand, asserts that a person’s beliefs cannot be empirically determined.

Hence my perhaps clumsy attempt at a reductio on page 15 (I need the practice, though).

On the other hand, Mark seems to be claiming that such dissonance is either logically or empirically impossible. Then I am either lying or, perhaps, as you put it, simply mistaken in believing that I believe X: but if I don’t believe that I am so mistaken, then I believe that I believe that I believe X... And then it seems to me we are getting into the realm of the absurd (it even starts to sound like something out of Samuel Beckett).

However, if my belief in X entails a contradiction [(Q & ~Q)], then if I am aware of the contradiction, and am thinking rationally, I should reject that belief.





* I see where my use of must or must not could be confusing here.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I had in mind this section:

Posted by bbarr (page 7):

"Consequentialists claim that moral facts are ultimately facts about intrinsically valuable states of affairs, and they present arguments aimed at characterizing the intrinsically valuable. Kantians claim that moral facts are facts are ultimately facts about what we can rationally will, and they ...[text shortened]... rational. None of these views claim that moral facts are ultimately matters of mere opinion."

So a moral fact is just an opinion couched in someone's method of
looking at things so to speak is what I got out of that.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
So a moral fact is just an opinion couched in someone's method of
looking at things so to speak is what I got out of that.
Kelly

It is merely your opinion that God exists. It is merely your opinion that if God existed, morality would be based on Him. Why should anybody take your mere opinions seriously? What should you do about people who have different opinions?

Originally posted by bbarr
It is merely your opinion that God exists. It is merely your opinion that if God existed, morality would be based on Him. Why should anybody take your mere opinions seriously? What should you do about people who have different opinions?

Are you changing the subject, are we talking about moral facts or
God? If it is opinion and that is all there is for us with respect to
morals than we pick what suits us as a plum line to judge ourselves
and live with what we like for as long as we like it, until something
else comes along. The only way you could be wrong is if there is some
truth that transcends all opinion.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Are you changing the subject, are we talking about moral facts or
God? If it is opinion and that is all there is for us with respect to
morals than we pick what suits us as a plum line to judge ourselves
and live with what we like for as long as we like it, until something
else comes along. The only way you could be wrong is if there is some
truth that transcends all opinion.
Kelly

I am claiming that it is merely your opinion that God exists. Further, it is merely your opinion that morality depends on God. How do you explain the fact that theists disagree about the nature of God and the connection between God and morality? Since they disagree, it must be the case that all their views about moral facts are merely opinion, right? You can claim there is a truth about God and morality that transcends opinion, but that is still just your opinion.

Originally posted by bbarr
I am claiming that it is merely your opinion that God exists. Further, it is merely your opinion that morality depends on God. How do you explain the fact that theists disagree about the nature of God and the connection between God and morality? Since they disagree, it must be the case that all their views about moral facts are merely opinion, right? You c ...[text shortened]... is a truth about God and morality that transcends opinion, but that is still just your opinion.

That is all fine and good bbarr, you are telling me it is my opinion
that God exists, not the topic. My morality wasn't the question either it
was if there were such things as moral facts, not if I could claim mine
were. You suggested that there are moral facts and I agreed with you.

From there it seems I have found myself debating several people, it
is nice seeing you again. I can give you plenty of opinions, not the
issue, I can tell you I believe in God, but again not the issue! If you
were referring to a moral fact by what you said on page 7 that was
quoted back to me, I would disagree with you. I believe opinions are
just that and facts are a cut above an opinion, and do not depend
upon opinions to be true, they are what they are. I even think we are
all aware of truth it presses on sides and that truth makes us justify
ourselves in those things we do when we think we go against truth
otherwise why do we make excuses for our own bad behavior,
because we feel we should? My opinion of course, one I got from
reading "Mere Christianity" ages ago.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
That is all fine and good bbarr, you are telling me it is my opinion
that God exists, not the topic. My morality wasn't the question either it
was if there were such things as moral facts, not if I could claim mine
were. You suggested that there are moral facts and I agreed with you.

From there it seems I have found myself debating several people, it ...[text shortened]... we should? My opinion of course, one I got from
reading "Mere Christianity" ages ago.
Kelly

Kelly, I am simply repeating back to you the objections you have been raising for the past several pages. Whatever responses you have to my last two posts, please simply apply them to your previous objections.

We both believe there are moral facts. We both believe that these facts do not depend on the opinions of others. You think that these facts ultimately depend on God (His will, character, edicts, etc.). I think that these facts ultimately depend on what it means to live an objectively flourishing human life. You think people can be wrong about God. I think people can be wrong about what it means to live a flourishing human life. I think that there are certain traits of character (the virtues) that are necessary for living a flourishing human life. I think that we should culitvate the virtues, and that what we ought to do in any particular circumstance depends on what it would be virtuous to do. I believe all this without believing in God. Now tell me, am I a nihilist? Of course not. But I am also an atheist. So you have right in front of you somebody that is an atheist, and who believes that there are moral facts that do not depend on the opinions of others. So why do you theists persist in claiming that atheism leads to nihilism?

Originally posted by bbarr
Kelly, I am simply repeating back to you the objections you have been raising for the past several pages. Whatever responses you have to my last two posts, please simply apply them to your previous objections.

We both believe there are moral facts. We both believe that these facts do not depend on the opinions of others. You think that these facts ultima ...[text shortened]... e opinions of others. So why do you theists persist in claiming that atheism leads to nihilism?

I agree my objections are fair game and should be raised to me if
I was saying I have 'X' as a moral fact. I am wondering about
your "objectively flourishing human life" I'm a little vague on what
you mean by this. I do agree for me God is central, I think He has
the authority to create a 'moral fact' He has the ability to judge
rightly by seeing the big picture, literally, and weight out all the ends
and outs. God being the source of moral facts would be above
human opinion fits all the complaints I have against any human
offering up an opinion on what is important and what isn’t. Saying
that opens up another can of worms I’m sure, now we’d have to
move forward with ‘what God, what did He say, and so on’ which
are different subjects.

I do not yet understand your views outside of we agree that within
the realm of morals there are facts that are beyond human opinion.

I’m not trying to set you up, but ‘flourishing human life’ seems a
little vague to me. I can take that a couple of different ways and
still miss what you might actually mean. Can you explain it just
a little more if you don’t mind. If you need me to explain why
I’m not sure what you mean by that I will.
Kelly

Wow. Wonder how long they can keep this up?

Note that accepting Q is NOT "a separate cognitive act" from accepting "If P, then Q", as Bbarr and some others have falsely claimed. If I have already accepted P as true, and I then evaluate an argument claiming that "if P, then Q", then it is in my mind during this evaluation that, if I accept this argument, I accept Q. Therefore, accepting the argument IS equivalent to accepting Q.

Incidentally, I haven't been following the responses in this thread lately, being satisfied that I have proven my point and not wishing to be sucked into a time-intensive morass of pointless contention. I just thought I would add this, just in case. If some vital point remains to be addressed, I can be contacted via PM.

Originally posted by Mark Adkins
Note that accepting Q is NOT "a separate cognitive act" from accepting "If P, then Q", as Bbarr and some others have falsely claimed. If I have already accepted P as true, and I then evaluate an argument claiming that "if P, then Q", then it is in my mind during this evaluation that, if I accept this argument, I accept Q. Therefore, accepting the argum s, just in case. If some vital point remains to be addressed, I can be contacted via PM.

*Stamps foot, leaves...*

Since the belief that Q requires an inference from the accepted premises, it certainly cannot be identical to the accepting of those premises. Since inferences can fail to be carried through, or the conclusions of inferences can fail to be believed, it is both logically and nomologically possible for one to fail to believe that Q under the circumstances. On your absurd view, if somebody believes P and Q it follows that they thereby believe all the entailments of (P & Q).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, now that he is gone I feel more comfortable asking you all: What the hell is wrong with Mark Adkins? Why can't he grasp this simple point? Why does somebody with absolutely no background in first-order logic feel qualified to declaim on matters of logical necessity or impossibility?

Originally posted by bbarr

Anyway, now that he is gone I feel more comfortable asking you all: What the hell is wrong with Mark Adkins? Why can't he grasp this simple point? Why does somebody with absolutely no background in first-order logic feel qualified to declaim on matters of logical necessity or impossibility?

Don't know. Maybe the fates have predestined him to perpetually be an empirical counterexample to his own universal, "analytical" claim.

I suppose we'll never know now.

Originally posted by bbarr
Anyway, now that he is gone I feel more comfortable asking you all: What the hell is wrong with Mark Adkins? Why can't he grasp this simple point? Why does somebody with absolutely no background in first-order logic feel qualified to declaim on matters of logical necessity or impossibility?

It is rather stupefying.

Originally posted by bbarr
Anyway, now that he is gone I feel more comfortable asking you all: What the hell is wrong with Mark Adkins? Why can't he grasp this simple point? Why does somebody with absolutely no background in first-order logic feel qualified to declaim on matters of logical necessity or impossibility?

[Chuckles to himself...]

You know, Bennett, you once, many moons ago, told me that my epistemology was “impoverished.” You were certainly right (and did me a great favor by saying so). It may well still be. When we get into this stuff, I rely on the likes of you and Dr. S. and LJ and Starrman to correct any egregious errors. I don’t mind testing myself that way now and again.

For the rest, I stay pretty much within venues that I know something about. I am more the poet-mystic than the logician-philosopher; I search for novel ways to articulate basic non-dualism, and try not to become bewitched by my own language, my own metaphors, into making unwarranted leaps. But—

—having had a peek under her skirts, now I play with maya, and she with me, as we will.

_____________________________________________

What little I know is little enough to know:
call it tathata, of which we are—this-just-so.

In the midst of maya enjoy your own free play;
leave when time to leave, fearless of losing your way.

_____________________________________________

["No, 'tis not so deep as a well, nor so wide as a church door; but 'tis enough, 'twill serve." (Mercutio in Romeo and Juliet, William Shakespeare.) Talk about cramming someone else’s metaphor into an alien context!]

Originally posted by bbarr
Well, something here is obvious: You don't know what you're talking about and have no background in even first-order logic.

P and Q are propositions. 'P->Q' is also a proposition, one that claims that the truth of P guarantees the truth of Q. The '->' symbol is a truth-functional connective. While it is true that the conjunction of P and P->Q entails ...[text shortened]... eving in accord with what he takes to be sufficient or decisive reason.

... since it is perfectly possible, in the actual world, for a brain lesion to prevent a subject from believing in accord with what he takes to be sufficient or decisive reason.
Can said brain function logically? According to your argument, it can. In fact, according to your argument, the same lesion-afflicted brain can logically say:
Yes = No

Sometimes a fella oughta step back and really think about what he's saying.