|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Do they have a reality outside our perception of them ? No. Not unless you think three lines are actually an A in reality. Or are they just 3 lines we call an A. Since three lines don't make an A in other languages I would have to say no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Exactly. According to the Bible, it's written oneverybody'sheart at birth. So it isn't something we figure out rationally, not for atheists and not for theists either. Nice very true. As Jeremiah 10:23 says, It is not in man to direct his steps
Indeed. The Bible authors knew something about reality and they don't agree with you. James 1:13-16 refers toeveryman, not just believers. I agree about the part that it refers to all men, especially men. But how do they not agree with me, I am in agreement with James statement Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
RAZD the Zen Deist writes:
Your argument still fails to address my point that such morals can be discussed, compared, modified, and passed from generation to generation. We don't need to "start with the basics or reasoning" because we can observe it, because our ability to reason is a fact. The ability to reason doesn't mean you are starting where you need to start. Your starting in the middle of the argument. It needs to be rationally established that that which you have designated as a moral actually exists in reality. If you know intuitively that when an animal kills another animal, it's not murder, but it is when humans do, then from a purely humanistic naturalistic standpoint, it's not actually a moral. It's just something you've made up for humans
So when I say "subjective morality" you say "show me absolute right or wrong exists" ... fail.Relativeright and wrong exists, it is subjective, this has been observed and discussed several times already. No I dont say show me absolute right and wrong. I'm saying even subjective morality can't exist. In a purely naturalistic existence those two words together are nonsensical. Individually they mean nothing, together they are doubly nothing. If that's possible
How do we know they exist? We observe them, everywhere, with many people having different subjective takes on what is right and what is wrong. Differences of opinion don't mean they don't exist, just that there is no absolute agreement. It's much worse than that RAZD. That's only a side issue for them to be real. Long before you came along animals and whatever life forms were here were going through the same motions. So was it murder before you got here or are you just making stuff up as humans to make things seem more rational.
This is your reactive opinion, based on your inability (cognitive dissonance) to accept subjective morality exists and is actually documented -- so you would rather throw out the baby with the bath than acknowledge the bath has nothing to do with the baby. You keep confusing Absolute Right and Wrong with subjective right and wrong, and that is part of your cognitive problem. Is it presently right or wrong for one animal to kill another, is that murder? Before you humans got here, when one one animal killed another was it murder then? So it seems morality is strictly a human invention. Even the word morality has no reality Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Hold on: You are saying that something in this world that corresponds to physical states of the universe does not exist? I can't agree to that, that's what existing means. Without getting passed this, I don't think we can see eye-to-eye on this topic. Whether you think morality is a real thing or not, asaresult of the imagination, it could still be nothing more than a made up thing like the word apple. Assigning meaning to things, as humans, doesntgive them actual meaning or more meaning. This is easily demonstrated in the fact that according to naturalism, life forms were here long before us. They were going through the same motions. If it was not murder then, it would not in reality be murder now. Hence, the word morality is strictly a human invention, with no real real meaning in reality Imagining subjective morality doesn't help the logical conclusion of this problem, from a strictly rational standpoint
Incorrect. My morality doesn't have to be absolutely correct in order to be a morality. And I don't have to know everything that is ethical or not in order to come up with a morality either. You're just going to say that they are notrealobjective, but it is what it is: they exist and they are subjective. And they are moralities. Since humans made up the word morality it would follow that subjective and objective don't matter to begin with, correct? Since there were life forms here long before humans and thier behavior even now is not described as moral or immoral, it would mean that just like the word apple, the word morality is just an invention of the mind, that when applied to things in reality DON'T ACTUALLY give them more meaning. Human imagination ascribes these meanings that don't actually exist. How will you avoid this conclusion? Modulous admits that the terms nice and nasty when applied to animals doesn't actually mean nasty and nice, these are just things applied by humans.
Not that is a tautology, for if I can imagine it then you will say that the thing is not impossible. I can imagine more that three ways to create a universe, and if I add a spatial dimension I can image a square circle, but that isn't really on topic for this thread so let's not get into it. Show me another way the universe could have come into existence, since we are talking about impossible things.
Re-read the OP under the guise of them just saying that subjective moralities are not objective. I'm pretty sure that is the sole and entire point. (ya know: actually, in reality) Sadly this is a misrepresentation of my position and it's arguments Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Why should something written in a book 2,000 years ago by people we don't know and that contradicts itself all over the place, particularly over morality, have any baring on anything at all? In any case, you're talking about atheists, you know, those people that don't believe in your god? How do you expect to make a case using what they regard as a work of fiction? You fail before you start. Well we are using what YOU and the others here that are saying to try come come to some truth correct. What you and they are writing could be considered a book correct. To me you contradict yourself all over the place. So how would that exclude what I consider to be.noncontradictory. I'm defending it's morality. Perhaps if you can demonstrate that it's morality does not correspond to what we see in reality and that which relates to humans, you can further demonstrate it's not valid as a source of morality, correct? Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Neither of them is objectively correct in their belief. We might have our own views as to which one is correct, and our own reasons for those views. Just like if two people are vehemently arguing about Mozart vs Beethoven or the Tastiness of a meal. Neither are correct, but we may agree with or another of them. I say when it comes to adultery that consequentialism {the doctrine that the morality of an action is to be judged solely by its consequences.} is the best method for determining if we should consider it moral or immoral. If the stakeholders are fine with with the extra-marital affair, if the consequences are non-exsitent, I see no reason to regard the adultery as immoral. If one person is deeply hurt by the adultery, if they feel their trust was betrayed etc., then I would say it is immoral. And if the other person is not deeply hurt by the action it is both moral and immoral at the same time according to your approach, correct. So is it moral or immoral.. I think any thinking person can immediately see two things from that approach. One. There is absolutely no way to judge what is actually moral or immoral. Two. It demonstrates beyond any doubt that morality is strictly a human invention that does not actually have meaning in reality. If it did, then animals could be guilty of adultery, that of course after they got married.
You might say deontology {the normative ethical position that judges the morality of an action based on rules} is a better way of making the determination. Neither of us is objectively right. Reality will let not allow a right or wrong, subjective or objective. It's a contrived ideology that does not give biological processes, adultery, or otherwise more meaning. How will you avoid this obvious conclusion?
That is not a pipe. The pipe is not real. It is a picture of a painting of a pipe. The picture is real. The painting is real. Come come, this is Philosophy 101 - representations vs the represented. Representations are not the represented, but representations themselves do exist and are real. Well your almost there Modulous, you've almost got it. The word pipe is not a real thing. The contrived word pipe does not give that biological object more meaning. It's still just biological processes formed into another biological shape. Hence, morality doesn't give more meaning to the animal kingdom , when they commit what you have fashioned as adultery. It just means that as a human you've decided to call it that, correct? It doesn't really exist. Hence no morality actually I mean , it is possible to establish somethings rationally in reality, correct? And if it's not then my point is demonstrated again.
I reject the notion that a certain apple ACTUALLY tastes good. That a musician is ACTUALLY good. That an action is ACTUALLY morally good. Keep up - it'd help if you stopped running in circles. Keep up, with what, you haven't even got started. You accept the fact that something that does not exist in the first place doesn't exist. I suppose that is a start for you. Telling me that my perception of an artist is good and your perception is not, is subjective, is like saying, our perceptions aren't really real and don't matter anyway. And of course they dont. Now watch. At best there is no way of determine which of us is right or wrong. So how could my perceptions of him be anything but an imagination, since there's no standard of what is a musical standard. So your asking me to keep up with the idea that you demonstrated nothing? Ok
The logical conclusion is exactly as I said. NOBODY is right or wrong. NOTEVERYBODYis right. Which means you are desperately trying to give meaning and explanation to something that doesn't exist in the first place.
Correct. Neither do you. My explanation is that adultery isn't right or wrong in a 'real way'. It's rightness or wrongness is a social construct. What you've been characterising as 'made up'. I think you just hit the nail on the head, what do you mean by the expression Real Way.. For now I'll ignore the idea of a social contract as you describe it, because we can both agree that's made up
Objective morality is the perspective that there are things about the universe that make certain morals claims true or false. An objectivist would state that the way the world is makes murder an objectively wrong thing to do. Objective morality also entails that these truths are universal. -- quora.com Ok
That's subjectivity. Your counterargument to subjective morality boils down to 'it can't be true, because if it were true, it would be true.' No that's your pathetic attempt and complete misrepresentation of my counterargument.
Well find an atheist objectivist and ask them. Indeed I don't see how it could exist inside the infinite wisdom of God. To paraphrase Socrates: I suppose that Socrates being a Gentile and having lived before the advent of Christ and without the law of Moses, would have had more of an excuse for believing what he did. You, not so much. This is also why nearly 4000 years later, Jesus ideologies are prevelant and not Socrates. Judeo-Christianity conforms and explains what we and feel in the human make up. Socrates is someone you study in classroom. Christ is someone you apply to everyday living
They are there to show how there is a difference between what I am talking about and 'imagination'. As I said. Unfortunately that distinction as I pointed out is a cavil. Since animals can have and do exhibit forms of emotions and yet we characterise thier behavior as less than moral or immoral, its clear we have made up terms to describe our biological inconsistent behavior. I just wish there was a way for you to demonstrate in a logical way that it actually gives more menaing to reality in reality. We might say that morality by any other name is still just viological functions This seems to be your main problem Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 423 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Dawn writes: jar writes: Of course it is and yes I did answer your question. You even quoted the answer. While it is possible there is nothing in the stories to suggest the God character was asking a rhetorical question. That is simply something you ADD to the story to make it fit what YOU want it to say. Hardly. I don't know any thinking person or scholar that would assume otherwise. Perhaps you could provide the name of a reputable scholar that sees that the way you see it. My guess is that your only intention is to bring even more worthless empty baseless assertions against the text, to try and discredit it. Your response to that whole point gives us an insight to the nature of your intentions The issue is not what some apologist can make up, it is a matter of what is actually written and what is actually written is pretty clear. qs=Dawnjar writes: I'm sorry Dawn but if the meaning humans assign functions to allow understanding or communication between humans how is it unless (I'm pretending you meant useless)? Once again your miss the point, which is not surprising, given your inability or unwillingness to answer a simple question like that one above. I'm not saying you don't have the ability to assign some arbitrary subjective meaning to the universe, I'm saying because you lack sufficient knowledge of some meaning, your reasoning is not critical as usual[/qs] Yet the fact remains that the meaning humans assign functions allows understanding or communication between humans. That is not useless.
Dawn writes: jar writes: Again Dawn, that is simply another really stupid comment. The fact is that human derived morals exist. They are a reality. You can pretend otherwise but the fact is that human derived morals exist. No not in reality as I continue to demonstrate. Perhaps you like an attempt at an argument to refute my proposition. Assertions are not arguments Yet the fact remains that humans 9and likely other species) demonstrate morality, do define things as good or bad and so the fact that those morals and definitions exist and are used can be simply explained in terms of functionality. No God need apply. But then that is also what the Bible says. The God character in the Bible story in Genesis 3 says just that, that humans have the capability since the great enlightening that came from eating the fruit from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil as God does and so needs no further guidance from God and later man even has to lecture God about God's morality.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9515 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
DB writes: Well we are using what YOU and the others here that are saying to try come come to some truth correct. Nope. We are all very happy with our understanding of morality. It's you that makes the claim that we can't be. So you need to tell us - without waffle about 'meat in motion' or reference to man-made works of fiction - what this absolute morality of yours is. So far you haven't got anywhere near a reasoned explanation. If this thing exists you'd be able to give us a real life example - why don't you? Of course, if you're just going to say 'it's God' (and the Christian god only) then there's really no further discussion necessary. It's a straight fail.
I'm defending it's morality. Perhaps if you can demonstrate that it's morality does not correspond to what we see in reality and that which relates to humans, you can further demonstrate it's not valid as a source of morality, correct? Gibberish. It might help if you slow down.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1434 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
The ability to reason doesn't mean you are starting where you need to start. Your starting in the middle of the argument. It needs to be rationally established that that which you have designated as a moral actually exists in reality. If you know intuitively that when an animal kills another animal, it's not murder, but it is when humans do, then from a purely humanistic naturalistic standpoint, it's not actually a moral. It's just something you've made up for humans Already answered. You still haven't addressed my argument, still trying to end run around it. Sad.
No I dont say show me absolute right and wrong. I'm saying even subjective morality can't exist. In a purely naturalistic existence those two words together are nonsensical. Individually they mean nothing, together they are doubly nothing. If that's possible Already answered. You still haven't addressed my argument, still trying to end run around it. Sad.
It's much worse than that RAZD. That's only a side issue for them to be real. Long before you came along animals and whatever life forms were here were going through the same motions. So was it murder before you got here or are you just making stuff up as humans to make things seem more rational. Already answered. You still haven't addressed my argument, still trying to end run around it. Sad.
Is it presently right or wrong for one animal to kill another, is that murder? Before you humans got here, when one one animal killed another was it murder then? So it seems morality is strictly a human invention. Even the word morality has no reality Already answered. You still haven't addressed my argument, still trying to end run around it. Sad. Repeating failed arguments still doesn't make them valid. Once again I refer you to my argument in Message 196: Summary of my argument so far:
quote: You have not addressed a single one of these points. See the bottom of Message 196 for the backgrounds for these points. Also see Message 296: Secular Morals Have been rationally explained. Done. Finished. quote: Let's review Message 1 Simply put I would say the Atheist has no rational or logical way to formulate an actual moral or ethic, from a reality standpoint. Falsified. See summary above for rational formulation of morals, how they develop and why they exist.
In the first place, this is not a moral it's an Instinct, any animal can avoid pain or misery. It takes no thinking process. Secondly, since according to the Naturalistic proposition, much animal life existed before the human brain, it would follow that pain or misery and it's avoidance was not invented as a moral by the human mind, therefore not an actual moral or ethic. The lion and Bear do not share your opinion,when they are on the giving end of misery. We only discovered that it's a thing to avoid as well, for natural reasons, not ethical ones. All of which has nothing to do with morals. At. All.
Thirdly, since I can get very different responses from human minds as to what constitutes a moral or immoral act, it should be immediately evident that there is no way to establish OBJECTIVELY, from a Naturalistic standpoint, what is in REALITY morally real. Falsified. See summary above for explanation of morals being subjective constructs that vary from person to person, and which are objectively observed, and thus established beyond reasonable doubt, from a naturalistic standpoint.
Therefore, it is logically impossible for an actual ethic or moral to exist from the Atheistic standpoint, in Reality. Also falsified. Completely. Q.E.D.
Game over. Done. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Whether you think morality is a real thing or not, asaresult of the imagination, it could still be nothing more than a made up thing like the word apple. Sure, but the word apple exists and has meaning (that we've assigned to it). The same goes for subjective moralities but you deny this.
Assigning meaning to things, as humans, doesntgive them actual meaning or more meaning. I disagree, for that is what meaning is - what we assign to things as humans. As far as we are aware, there is no meaning that humans have not assigned.
This is easily demonstrated in the fact that according to naturalism, life forms were here long before us. They were going through the same motions. But we have sentience. That allows us to create meaning. The fact that a worm has a meaningless existence doesn't mean that I do too.
If it was not murder then, it would not in reality be murder now. Bullshit, morals change. We witness that.
Hence, the word morality is strictly a human invention, with no real real meaning in reality On the contrary, humans have invented a meaning in reality for morality.
Imagining subjective morality doesn't help the logical conclusion of this problem, from a strictly rational standpoint We don't agree on what "rational" means, so we're not going to get anywhere on that. But your "problem" is non-existent - you're just conflating reality with objectiveness and dismissing subjective moralities outright. Given that subjective moralities do exist, in reality, your "problem" is a non-starter from the get go.
Since humans made up the word morality it would follow that subjective and objective don't matter to begin with, correct? Incorrect. They matter in the sense that they describe the qualities of the thing. What doesn't matter is that humans made up the word morality.
Since there were life forms here long before humans and thier behavior even now is not described as moral or immoral, it would mean that just like the word apple, the word morality is just an invention of the mind, that when applied to things in reality DON'T ACTUALLY give them more meaning. I contend that ACTUALLY having meaning comes from inventions of the mind. That previous lifeforms were unable to do this is irrelevant.
Human imagination ascribes these meanings that don't actually exist. No, that ascribing is actually existing. There is no "other" existing that only counts as actually existing that human imaginations fall outside of. There is objectivity (which you conflate with reality), and that is different from subjectivity, but both of those things actually do exist in reality.
How will you avoid this conclusion? Contend that non-objective things do exist in reality. You have yet to address this point to me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
vimesey Member (Idle past 102 days) Posts: 1398 From: Birmingham, England Joined:
|
And I would agree - I don't think words have a reality outside of our perception.
And yet, you and I would undoubtedly agree that we are conversing in English - a shared language. Our individual perceptions of that language will differ slightly - the same word may import a different meaning for each of us - or different words may mean the same thing. And yet it is a shared language - a shared system of conveying meaning using sounds and written representations of sounds - which we both understand and use and refer to in our day to day lives. And words and languages change over time. The language of Elizabethan England is familiar to us through Shakespeare, and is very different from the English we use today. And yet it is still recognisably the English language. Go back further in time, and you would need to start calling what was spoken by a different title - but it would still be a language - a system of communicating thoughts and ideas, which has no reality outside of the perceptions of its users, but is still real and incredibly important and useful to them. There is no absolute standard for a language - no perfect ideal to which it has to conform - it evolves and changes over time. And it is rarely used in precisely the same way by every speaker of it. And there are of course many different languages - sharing many features, but differing as well. And this is why words and languages are good analogies for what we are saying about morality. They are both evolving, changeable human inventions. They have no objective reality - but instead are subjectively real. And there is a sufficient degree of common usage that they can be identified and recorded - as written words or as laws, in each case. And just as we have different languages or words, so we have different sets of morality in different societies and times - slavery can be seen as moral in one place or era, and reprehensible in another. We cannot say that any one morality is better than another, because their subjective reality doesn't need that. There is no absolute morality, and there doesn't need to be one in order for shared group moralities to the exist, be valid and enforced. In just the same way as there is no one perfect language, and there doesn't need to be, in order for shared group languages to exist, be valid and spoken.Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 441 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
The verses that you quoted, including James, don't set theists apart from atheists. You claim that you have special insight into God's "absolute morality" but nothing you have quoted from the Bible supports that claim.
As I have said all along, your morality is no more "accurate" than an atheist's. It's made up just like the atheist's. Yours may have religious influences where the atheist's has only social influences but the fact remains that both are equally made up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
And if the other person is not deeply hurt by the action it is both moral and immoral at the same time according to your approach, correct I don't know how you managed to get this from me saying
I see no reason to regard the adultery as immoral. To answer your question: no.
One. There is absolutely no way to judge what is actually moral or immoral. Two. It demonstrates beyond any doubt that morality is strictly a human invention that does not actually have meaning in reality. Morality derives from our learning, our culture and our evolved brains. Humans didn't invent our own brains, so it is not strictly a human invention.
Reality will let not allow a right or wrong, subjective or objective. It's a contrived ideology that does not give biological processes, adultery, or otherwise more meaning. How will you avoid this obvious conclusion? I'm not avoiding the conclusion. In so far as I understand you meaning, it is my conclusion.
Hence, morality doesn't give more meaning to the animal kingdom , when they commit what you have fashioned as adultery. I have not claimed otherwise. I give meaning to things. You give meaning to things. Morality doesn't give meaning to things on its own.
It just means that as a human you've decided to call it that, correct? It doesn't really exist. Hence no morality actually To continue answering questions I have answered a dozen times - that is correct. It doesn't exist outside of our minds. It does exist inside minds. I say that means it exists. You are free deny the existence and contents of your own mind. Morality is not objective, is my point.
I mean , it is possible to establish somethings rationally in reality, correct? Correct. At some point, you might get around to establishing rationally that morality exists in 'reality' - ie., not just in our minds.
Telling me that my perception of an artist is good and your perception is not, is subjective, is like saying, our perceptions aren't really real and don't matter anyway. No, it's saying that our perceptions/opinions about our perceptions differ.
At best there is no way of determine which of us is right or wrong. So how could my perceptions of him be anything but an imagination, since there's no standard of what is a musical standard That's what I'm saying, yes. With the proviso that imagination doesn't mean created entirely with volition. But yes, it is all in our minds as a result of our brains interacting with our environment.
Which means you are desperately trying to give meaning and explanation to something that doesn't exist in the first place. I am not trying to give meaning to an objective morality.
I think you just hit the nail on the head, what do you mean by the expression Real Way I was quoting you: "You have no way of demonstrating in any real way adultery is right or wrong"
For now I'll ignore the idea of a social contract as you describe it, because we can both agree that's made up I actually said 'social construct'.
I suppose that Socrates being a Gentile and having lived before the advent of Christ and without the law of Moses, would have had more of an excuse for believing what he did. You, not so much. This is also why nearly 4000 years later, Jesus ideologies are prevelant and not Socrates. Judeo-Christianity conforms and explains what we and feel in the human make up. Socrates is someone you study in classroom. Christ is someone you apply to everyday living No. Well lot's more running in circles. I may as well try and move us forward with some actual philosophy rather than you just saying 'but your idea of morality is subjective which I reject' in a variety of different ways. We want a sense a meaning. Just about everybody wants it. But what is meaning? This seems important to discuss, but you've given precious little time to the subject. The likes of Plato and Aristotle et al (and before you write them off as pre-Christian or without the Law, I should point out that Christianity is a neo-Platonic philosophy), had the idea that everything has an essence. You've hinted strongly towards this position yourself. Essence A property or set of properties that are necessary...or essential (get it?)...for a thing to be what it is. There are many types of knife - they may have long blades, serrated blades, plastic handles, bone handles...but they are all knives. The shape of the blade, the material of the handle are not essential to the definition - but a knife without a blade....is not a knife. The same might be said of chairs or...well so the Platonists argue - anything. There is some abstract 'ideal Chair/knife' and all the things we encounter in the world are 'reflections' of this ideal form. In your view the 'ideal' form exists in the infinite wisdom of God, at least with morality, but the Platonists argued it is this way for everything - that they exist in some perfect - divine realm that serves as a reference of comparison that we use to know that a knife is a knife not a spoon or a chair. This was amusingly put by Monty Python:
quote: So the idea with morality is that our 'essential properties' precedes our existence, and to be good, is to adhere to our essence. In your case, as understood, conceived, defined or created by God. The take away here is that this essence gives us a purpose: you were born to be a certain thing, live a certain way. This is known asEssentialism: quote: quote: quote: Existentialism But this presupposes that essences do exist in some abstract or divine form prior to us 'having' them. There is no evidence of this. What if instead, we exist first and meaning comes later? This was Sartre's question to the world. Instead of being born with a purpose, a meaning - it's up to us to determine those things. As Sartre put it: "existence precedes essence". This isn't exclusively an atheistic idea - just ask Sren Kierkegaard. He's very difficult to pin down, but theistic existentialists believe God exists, but he doesn't create the meaning of my life, the universe or...anything. Thus, say existentialists, there is no real actual intrinsic objective purpose or meaning to life or...anything. Absurdityquote: And thus we arrive at The Absurd.: The search for meaning in a meaningless world. There are basically two real solutions to humans when they face The Absurd:
Since there is no reason for...anything...there are no absolutes to abide by. No rules, no justice, no fairness. Without rules, without guidelines for our actions, we are forced to design our own moral code. This is freedom, but it is rather scary.
quote: quote: Sartre spoke of a pupil who was in a moral dilemma. He could stay at home and care for his elderly mother, making a great and direct positive impact on the life of one individual. Or he could go to war (in WWII) and contribute some small amount of effort towards the moral good of defeating a great evil, possibly never seeing his mother again who may well die without his presence.
quote: quote: quote: In summary: We can't know the 'right' course of action. A pre-defined moral system may lean us one way or another, but in too many important ways it cannot answer actual moral questions. The only answer then, is the answer we give when those questions are put upon us and we are forced by circumstance to choose an answer. To decide between reasons and say which we feel is more important. This is freedom, but as terrifying as freedom is, as comforting as slavery might appear, we are condemned to live it one way or another. It is our choices that make, that construct the answers to moral questions. Nobody can give an answer to a person facing a moral dilemma, they can only opine on the choices - the answer does not exist until the dilemma is answered by the person facing it. No I understand that you don't like the notion that we are so free, that morality is not, as it were, written in stone, but such is the human condition. The question isn't whether or not you like it, it isn't even whether or not you accept it. The question is: is it true? You have not refuted the truth of this matter, only argued that constructed meaning and constructed morality isn't 'really real'. So be it. If that is the way of things, that is the way of things. As you have conceded, I may well be able to explain why humans behave in 'moral' ways. I may well be able to explain why we tend to feel certain ways about behaviours and why we have disagreements over those ways. You can't refute the truth of the existentialist conception of the human condition. So, all that remains is for you to accept that it might be the case. There is little more I can see to argue here: I have 'actually given a reason for having a morality'I have '{established}' any kind of morality for an Atheist or Secular Fundamental Humanist, or nonbeliever.' Hopefully you see that you agree with me on all major points at this time and we can escape the circle of madness you've taken us on. You can refuse to accept The Absurd. The human condition. And you can simply follow the paths and ideas someone else came up with without realizing they are as much an authority on the right path as you are or I am. Your life has meaning: if you choose to assign that meaning. If your meaning is in following God that's the meaning you have chosen. You are as condemned in freedom as much as I am in rejecting that meaning. We have to choose. But ultimately - if the world is going to have any of the things we (you and I) actually value like Justice, Goodness - we're going to have to put them there ourselves. Otherwise, those things won't exist. Evolution: creating the subjective from the objectiveBut take heart: none of this exists as a vacuum of subjectivity. We are animals with brains that evolved for social cooperation. We are drawn towards moral action, though we can be conflicted with our personal needs and thus selfishness. We draw up mutual rules and punish those that break them. That's what we do. As free as we are, we are constrained by our biology towards certain tendencies. Our culture is something we cannot be entirely free of, our learning while it can be self-directed is mostly involuntary. So justice will exist, goodness will exist, because as well as buildings, and music and meals, creating social systems and rules and rewards and punishments is an objective fact of our existence as social primates. So it's not made up from nowhere, random and anarchic. We are motivated by our social nature towards certain types of solution - and together we can guide others towards solutions we feel are better and on the whole that's what we have done, imperfectly, with a certain definition of freedom, but that's the way of it. Moralities exist. We make them. Like buildings they vary, but there are certain immutable rules that must be followed in creating them. The rules of how to build a building are not laid down by God. The rules of how to construct morality are not laid down by God. The laws of nature provide the constraints, we use our minds to construct them as best we can within those constraints. Sometimes our buildings fall over because we didn't take something into account. That's the way it goes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
If this thing exists you'd be able to give us a real life example - why don't you? Of course, if you're just going to say 'it's God' (and the Christian god only) then there's really no further discussion necessary. It's a straight fail. Well no, fortunately your not the person that sets the rules here, nor do you decide how I go about demonstrating, that not only do you not have an actual moral, but that one cannot actually exist, from the perspective of humanism. One goes about establishing the reality of an actual morality by first demonstrating that as an Atheist or whatever, you have no logical way or rational way of having one. Next, since it is clear that people have a conscience a sense or ought and right and wrong, it must have come from somewhere As I have now demonstrated, subjective morality , is not only hopelessly lost in helping us rationally, but that it can't even exist. Of course I don't need to repeat over and over God did it, and this, i haven't done. But I have demonstrated logically that morality to be morality and be consistent, could only come from a source that is absolute in knowledge. If it doesnt, the whole idea of morality is a joke. You should have paid attention and actually responded to some of my arguments. Atleast a few here on your side are actually attempting that. Not successfully, but atleast they are trying. Which is more than I can say for you. Example when I showed you that it does not matter how Fred acted, and that you first need to establish any of his behavior as moral or immoral, you simply gave up. Dawn Bertot
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 112 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Once again I refer you to my argument inMessage information:Message 196:Summary of my argument so far (Msg ID 799441)Thread 19365:Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.Forum 6:Faith and Belief', 500)" onmouseout=" hb.off(0)" onmousemove="mouseTracker(event)" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(119, 204, 221);">Message 196:Message information:Message 196:Summary of my argument so far (Msg ID 799441)Thread 19365:Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.Forum 6:Faith and Belief', 500)" onmouseout=" hb.off(0)" onmousemove="mouseTracker(event)" style="text-decoration: none; color: rgb(119, 204, 221);">Summary of my argument so far: quote:The basis of all morality is enlightened self-interest. This is where the "golden-rule" comes from, and why you can find variations on that theme in every religion and every culture. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is an expression of enlightened self-interest -- don't kill your family, friends and neighbors in their sleep and so they will not kill you in your sleep. Morality is essentially social convention, a program to survive and reproduce within a culture, and thus it would be surprising if it didn't differ from social group to social group, from culture to culture, from nation to nation. Morality is subjective, it is based on the society mores instead of the individual's beliefs, and because it is subjective it can change over time.It doesn't need to be 100% absolutely consistent in a social group, it only needs to be predominantly consistent. It is tied to culture, it is a consensus of views with family and friends and acquaintances, with what you learn and what you know, and it grows with you as you grow and learn. The moral standard is the social consensus of the culture where you live. The headhunters of New Zealand used to think it was moral to kill and eat their enemies, they no longer do because their culture has changed, necessarily changed to fit into the global society we have. As society changes and evolves so to does the moral consensus standard. The Romans felt is was moral to feed Christians to the lions. An example of an objectively evidenced moral code written by an atheist is Asimov'sThree Laws of Robotics There is an evolved component to human morality, because game theory shows evolutionary benefit for social animals to behave in a manner conducive to the survival of the social group, and that includes morals.It is based in biology, but there is a point where synergy happens and self consciousness arises. We can observe self consciousness in apes and some other animals, but not in slugs and bugs. Morality is a meme: moral codes develop and get passed from generation to generation, codes of behavior that benefit the survival and reproduction of the group are preserved. It is developed by natural processes. You can reduce all of the universe into quarks in random motion, and explain atoms with them, but chemistry explains molecules and organic chemistry explains the combinations of organic molecules and the formation of objects, pre-biotic molecules explain self-replicating molecules that explain life that explains biology. This all occurs by natural processes but the details of those processes are different at different levels. There is a synergy that occurs at each stage as well, where the sum is greater than the parts, the atom is not just quarks, molecules aren't just atoms, life is not just pre-biotic molecules. Self-consciousness is not just biology and thought is not just electrical activity in a brain, it is more than the sum of the parts, it is synergy. Microevolution alone is not enough to explain macroevolution, because you need to have diversity in different ecologies to change daughter populations in different ways. Biology is not enough to explain memes because the sociological processes of communication and interaction of ideas is a group activity not an individual one. This is a synergy from interaction and communication that creates something greater than the sum of the parts (individuals in the group). Morals are a subset of memes. Memes are shared evolved concepts, but moral codes are not just any concepts lumped together, they are ones that benefit the social group to survive and reproduce as a group by conditioning behavior for reducing conflicts. ∴Morals are subjective, they are a type of memes that have evolved over time as a consensus control on social behavior, to reduce conflicts between individual members of a social group, and thus benefit the survival and continuous revitalization of the social group from generation to generation. You have not addressed a single one of these points. Well not only have I addressed them, but I have refuted each one of them. Let me give you a couple of examples. Your point number 1. Self interest is contradictory to the very idea of morality, because it is just another way of describing survival of the fittest. Secondly, if the golden rule only applies to humans as you indicate it does, then, murder, is not murder when you take the life of an animal. If you would only answer honestly why you know it's not murder when you take an animals life, then you would know God exists and his morality is absolute. You know this instinctively,, not by evolution but by the law God put in you Your point no. 2. You first need to demonstrate that such a thing exists and that it doesn't just apply to humans, to be consistent. Because if there is no God and no absolute morality, then your so called morality would need to apply to all species. Since it is clear it does not, as you freely admit, your bogged down in irrational nonsense. Claiming you have a morality, calling things murder, then killing and eating animals, is either murder or it is not. In either case you would need to explain your rational. Obviously you cannot. Your point no. 5. Your free to describe morality as memes or synergy, but you would first need to show a chain of causality from the brain to this synergy. It's obvious that science cannot provide this chain of causality. IOWs, science doesn't have an explanation of how the brain produces consciouness. If it did it would have been demonstrated a long time ago. Theism by its evidences of God's existence demonstrates how consciouness exists and came into existence. Theism again in this instance corresponds to what we see in reality. In this instance consciouness and and indeed morality. Hence from a logical progression, morality can only make sense in the existence of God.
Biology is not enough to explain memes because the sociological processes of communication and interaction of ideas is a group activity not an individual one. This is a synergy from interaction and communication that creates something greater than the sum of the parts (individuals in the group). Right, now if you could just show us this chain from biology to consciouness. This should be interesting. Also, since you assert that primates have self-consciouness, would it be murder, to kill one and eat it? If one primate kills another, is it murder. Maybe I u could answer some of these questions. Do I need to go on, it appears you have your hands full. I'll wait for your responses to my rebutals. Dawn Bertot
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024