Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8782 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-21-2017 5:46 PM
88 online now:
Coyote (1 member, 87 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: evilsorcerer1
Post Volume:
Total: 816,669 Year: 21,275/21,208 Month: 1,708/2,326 Week: 163/881 Day: 85/78 Hour: 0/5

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
67NextFF
Author Topic:   Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 226 of 1002 (799715)
02-13-2017 8:53 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by ringo
02-13-2017 11:08 AM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
The point is that it might "be" correct - absolutely correct and inviolable in any way - but YOU have know way of knowing exactly what is correct because YOU don't have all of the information.

Right and that is as a good an explanation of your position as I could offer. BTW, that's what I am doing in this thread, for the most part, trying in a rational way to show the futility of your position. So you've given a brief description and I show how it's nonsensical. Thank you

So even if my position could not be established,,yours would be hopelessly lost in relative nonsense. But to be fair, I'll go further

But I establish the futility of your position and inability to actually have a moral, not on whether my position is true or not, but by simple observation of a meaningless universe, where perception is not only not reality, but can't be reality. Now that's absolutely true, WHETHER God exists or not. Or maybe it's not true. But by saying it's not true, I demonstrate my point again. Assuming I'm correct, correct? Or is your position that neither you or I can be correct? Let me know, how what you establish as rational is actually rational

Getting tired yet? I can know somethings without knowing everything. I don't need to know everything to know absolutley that things exist.. So I know that all the general and specific evidence points to the existence of God, therefore I can know, that regardless of my perceptions, an actual absolute morality exists, the likes of which no more information could be added to it to make it, more correct, less correct, subjective or nonexistent.

I did. Relative conclusions from real-world observations require reasoning. They require new reasoning as new circumstances are observed.

You haven't even got started. Is tastiness a relative conclusion. Is happiness a relative conclusion. Give me an example of a relative conclusion that is actually moral. Then show me how you established it as moral, given the fact that, every other person may not see it that way. if your example ends up being subjective, then you right back where your started.

You really don't see or have any idea what you are doing, do you? You insist that absolutley morality cannot actually exists, then you turn right around and suggest that the only morality that does exist is subjective, which is in itself stating an absolute.

Is it absolutely true that subjective morality, is the only way morality exists? You just made yourself God, I believe.

You, on the other hand, haven't shown that any reasoning is required for absolute morals.

The fact that I can objectively state that subjective morality is nonsesne and shows itself to be nonsense, and i can do this in a rational way, is reasoning enough to demonstrate the need for absolute morality to exist, for it to be morality

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by ringo, posted 02-13-2017 11:08 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by ringo, posted 02-14-2017 11:08 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 227 of 1002 (799716)
02-13-2017 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by Modulous
02-13-2017 1:51 PM


They have a reality - they just don't exist independent of tasters or thinkers or perceivers. There is nothing about the apple which means it is objectively tasty. To determine if it is tasty you have to compare that apple to a taster and work out how that taster will react to the apple's taste. Thus, it's tastiness is relative to the taster, not intrinsic to the apple.

Now all you have to do is demonstrate in a non relative subjective way, that such a concept as tastiness actually exists. You can't show that tastiness actually exists by testing the tester. And it sure doesn't help to say they don't exist independent of the thinker or perciever. You can't get a reality from a non reality..

Now pay close attention. The varying tastes between tasters, is just different tastes due to the taster buds. More biological junk in motion. You can't create an ACTUAL BETTER taste in reality, it would only be a different taste due the tasters ,buds. But it could have no BETTER than another, because better would mean there is some standard of tastiness. There is not, reality won't allow it. So different tastes due to different buds or apples, doesn't mean better in reality

Correct, there is no objective tastiness to an apple,because that which does not exist cannot exist. Morals are of the same sort. Different perceptions of morality are no more real than a better tasting apple. So that which is better or worse in the concept or perception of morals, dont exist anymore than tastiness

I can point at people who believe in right and wrong, and I can say, those systems of judging the rightness or wrongness of things are systems of morality. Sounds like I just established actual morals exist. They exist in people's brains, sometimes they try to verbalize them or write them down.

Well again, no. I can imagine that I'm existence itself and I'm producing everything I see around me (i think weve all imagined that at some point) but that doesn't make my perception a reality or consistent with anything in reality. If I wrote it down they would cart me off to the nut farm. If I acted in and from a moral sense from it, I'd be incarcerated for being grossly immoral

Do you see how perceptions cannot and are not any sort of reality. Trying to formulate morals in the same way is even more disastrous. It's why we don't hold people responsible for thier dreams, like perceptions they are not real. Actually, less than dreams, because concepts have no reality

Better at what what. 'Better' is a relative term. Morally better? No, I don't think that makes sense. I certainly have a keener sense of morale issues than other species - I do have a prefrontal cortext

Well what I meant is , you kill and eat them, so you must have a standard by which you act in such a manner. Do you believe that its your status,, your intellect your situation, your morals or something I'd like to define, allows you to act in that certain way. Or would you say it just doesnt matter afterall. I mean if you kill and eat a human it's morally evil, correct. So how and why does this moral concept allude you when it happens to animals by your hand and bugs your standards

I argue 'goodness' and 'evilness' don't actually exist. They as much 'in the eye of the beholder' as the tastiness of a fruit.

Well I must admit it's a Convient set up for you, to argue out of existence, something that you can't demonstrate exist to begin with. I'd say that's as subjective as it gets. Then only problem is that there is no moral in reality for you to argue the validity or invalidity of goodness or evilness out of existence. Of course you don't believe goodness or evilness exist, that's foundational to your whole process, of ignoring any objective morality

However, there are chemicals in fruits that stimulate tongues. There are signals that are sent from the tongue to the brain. The brain does process these signals.

Except for the fact that your brain is imagining it as tastiness. If another brain translates it as disgusting, this IMMEDIATELY DEMONSTRATES THAT TASTINESS IS NOT REAL OR A REALITY, but a perception. attaching a made up word doesn't make it real.

Morals produced by your brain and your meaningless world have the exact same reality. None

There are actions in nature that are also processed by our brains. The actions and the brains objectively exist. Whether or not I think the actions are moral, immoral or amoral is entirely subjective - but that I think the actions are one of these is objectively real.

I agree with the first part of your statement, but why would or why is it necessary for your brain to interpret them as anything like moral or immoral. Why and where did you get that concept, instead of it just being things happening, coming into your brain. So why would your brain interpret the actions of a tree falling as just facts and you watching someone stab someone else as moral or immoral, right or wrong? Or are they just the same thing and your just imagining it as immoral, like tastiness

You'll have to do a lot better than this, to demonstrate that Atheism CAN actually have and explain morals in a meaningless universe.

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by Modulous, posted 02-13-2017 1:51 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Modulous, posted 02-14-2017 3:27 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11666
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.5


Message 228 of 1002 (799718)
02-13-2017 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by Dawn Bertot
02-13-2017 8:52 PM


How?
Yes I claim given your no meaning universe, that those not only do not exist in reality, but they cannot.

Why are you presupposing a no meaning universe? Meaning is in the mind of the beholder.

How would you show me the reality of a perception. If I were doing something I classified as fun, you would be able only to see a biological process happening, even if I were smiling. If I said it was fun and in the very same moment you said it is not, how could I convince you or show you what does not exist, namely my perception of funess. So we would both be right, both be wrong, one right the other wrong or it doesn't matter to matter.

There's a word for that, it's called "subjective".

If morals are subjective, they don't actually exist and you have no possible way of demonstrating them in reality

That's the argument that you are failing to support; that being subjective means not existing. The fact that it is not objective, and cannot be shown in reality, does not mean it doesn't exist.

Subjective experiences exist in our minds.

Then show me in reality how, not just from your perception, but how they actually exist.

We are talking about things that I perceive as feelings and emotions. They exist subjectively, not objectively, so I cannot point to them in reality to show you.

When you can do this,, then you'll demonstrate how your subjective perceptions of morality are real actually. Since they are nothing more than perceptions, they have no reality

You're assuming your conclusion; that only objective things exist. That doesn't support your argument that subjective things don't exist.

I can say that subjective things exist because here I am experiencing them (and saying so). We all have them. How can you deny that they exist?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-13-2017 8:52 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-14-2017 11:43 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Riggamortis
Member
Posts: 167
From: Australia
Joined: 08-15-2016
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 229 of 1002 (799719)
02-13-2017 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Dawn Bertot
02-13-2017 8:48 PM


Re: No need to shout mate
Only god can say whether a given moral concept is absolute or not.

Therefore any assertion you make regarding the absolute-ness of a moral concept is invalid. You lack the infinite knowledge required to know such things.

It's that simple.

ABE: That is why you're stuck with subjective morals like the rest of us. It doesn't matter how well evidenced you(subjectively) think the bible is, you still lack the infinite wisdom to declare a moral concept absolute or not.

Edited by Riggamortis, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-13-2017 8:48 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-14-2017 11:44 PM Riggamortis has responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5765
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005


Message 230 of 1002 (799721)
02-13-2017 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by Dawn Bertot
02-13-2017 12:41 AM


Re: No need to shout mate
Whatever you need to believe. But we all know the reality.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-13-2017 12:41 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13467
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 231 of 1002 (799735)
02-14-2017 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by Dawn Bertot
02-13-2017 8:53 PM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
Dawn Bertot writes:

Or is your position that neither you or I can be correct?


Of course that's my position: There IS NO "correct" in any absolute sense. Even if something was "absolutely correct", neither you nor I could know because we're not omniscient. I've repeated that numerous times in this thread. Don't you get it yet?

Dawn Bertot writes:

Let me know, how what you establish as rational is actually rational


It isn't "absolutely rational" because rationality has nothing to do with the absolute. Rational conclusions are made using real-life observations as premises. If we observe that all horses are white, the conclusions we derive from that observation are rational even if they are not "absolutely correct".

Dawn Bertot writes:

I don't need to know everything to know absolutley that things exist.


But you would have to know everything to know everything that does exist - and that includes all of the possible exceptions to your "absolute morality". As long as there's anything you don't know, that something could pertain to morality and your understanding of morality would be incomplete. Therefore, even if there "is" an absolute morality, you can't know for sure what it is.

Dawn Bertot writes:

Is tastiness a relative conclusion.


Yes.

Dawn Bertot writes:

Is happiness a relative conclusion.


Yes.

Dawn Bertot writes:

Give me an example of a relative conclusion that is actually moral.


I already asked you about killing people. If there are exceptions to "Thou shalt not kill", it's relative.

Dawn Bertot writes:

Then show me how you established it as moral, given the fact that, every other person may not see it that way.


If somebody else doesn't see it as moral, then it definitely is relative.

Dawn Bertot writes:

if your example ends up being subjective, then you right back where your started.


Of course I'm right back where I started. I started by saying that morality is subjective and you keep agreeing with me.

Dawn Bertot writes:

You insist that absolutley morality cannot actually exists, then you turn right around and suggest that the only morality that does exist is subjective, which is in itself stating an absolute.


No.

First, I have not said that absolute morality can not exist. I have said that if it did exist, nobody could know what it is because we're not omniscient. We can't know anything absolutely. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, in every day life, the morality we live is not absolute.

Second, I have not stated anything absolutely.

Dawn Bertot writes:

Is it absolutely true that subjective morality, is the only way morality exists?


If anything is absolutely true, you can't know unless you're omniscient. It's like shooting blindfolded. You might hit the bullseye by sheer coincidence or you might hit the target near enough for practical purposes or you might miss the target entirely and shoot yourself in the foot. When it comes to morality, practical purposes are the best we can hope for.

Dawn Bertot writes:

The fact that I can objectively state that subjective morality is nonsense....


You haven't shown that your process is objective.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-13-2017 8:53 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-14-2017 11:46 PM ringo has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 4980
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.0


(1)
Message 232 of 1002 (799753)
02-14-2017 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Dawn Bertot
02-13-2017 8:49 PM


DB writes:

Well, in a sloppy way , yeah that sums up my position pretty well, but since u offered nothing more than an observation, I have nothing to respond to in an argument form. You must not have one.

I was just trying to help out Dr A who's dipping in and out of here and is quite understandably feeling puzzled about what your arguments might be. Plenty of people are trying to educate you about these points so there's no need for me to butt in.

You could, however, give me your thoughts on Fred and the trolley problems and the explanation that morality is just another evolved trait - a maleable brain state - which can be changed by illnesness, conditioning and drugs and is therefore neither absolute, immutable nor god given.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-13-2017 8:49 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-14-2017 11:47 PM Tangle has responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7418
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 233 of 1002 (799756)
02-14-2017 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Dawn Bertot
02-13-2017 8:55 PM


Reality and the animal's dilemma
The varying tastes between tasters, is just different tastes due to the taster buds.

And brains/mind. But yes, basically that's right.

. You can't create an ACTUAL BETTER taste in reality, it would only be a different taste due the tasters ,buds. But it could have no BETTER than another, because better would mean there is some standard of tastiness. There is not, reality won't allow it. So different tastes due to different buds or apples, doesn't mean better in reality

Exactly. So we agree that the different tastes are subjective. They aren't objectively better or worse than each other.

Different perceptions of morality are no more real than a better tasting apple.

I don't entirely disagree. There is an objective basis (the mind, the taste buds etc) for them, but the flavour and the goodness don't exist outside of us. They aren't objects in the 'outside world' they are subjects of the inside world. They are subjective.

I can imagine that I'm existence itself and I'm producing everything I see around me (i think weve all imagined that at some point) but that doesn't make my perception a reality or consistent with anything in reality.

But your imagination exists in reality, its just the subjects of your imagination are not objects in the world external to your mind. That's all I am saying. There are objectively real entities at the heart of taste and music preference and morality - but the goodness, the tastiness, the beauty of something is in the mind.

Do you see how perceptions cannot and are not any sort of reality.

They are real in the sense that they actually exist, they are not real in the sense that they exist as entities outside of the mind. They don't exist external to the mind. The brain itself is a real thing, and those brain states are objective entities. Do you accept this much?

I imagine an apple: The apple doesn't exist, but my imaginary apple does exist. It does not exist as an apple, it exists as an imaginary apple.

Well what I meant is , you kill and eat them, so you must have a standard by which you act in such a manner. Do you believe that its your status,, your intellect your situation, your morals or something I'd like to define, allows you to act in that certain way.

No.

I act the way I act because of my brain. I rationalize the way I act using my mind. The rationalizations of the mind, the biology of my brain and experience combine and affect one another.

I mean if you kill and eat a human it's morally evil, correct.

Most of the time, according to me, yes.

So how and why does this moral concept allude you when it happens to animals by your hand and bugs your standards

It doesn't allude me. Sometimes it is morally evil to kill and eat an animal. It's just these cases are rarer than with humans. According to me.

Well I must admit it's a Convient set up for you, to argue out of existence, something that you can't demonstrate exist to begin with.

Backwards. I argue it doesn't exist because it cannot be demonstrated to exist to begin with. If it does exist, we can't know about it which amounts to the same thing, in practice, as it not existing.

Then only problem is that there is no moral in reality for you to argue the validity or invalidity of goodness or evilness out of existence.

This isn't really a problem for me. I am not arguing that goodness isn't good, or doesn't exist. I'm arguing it only exists in our minds. If you can show me otherwise, I'm all ears.

Except for the fact that your brain is imagining it as tastiness. If another brain translates it as disgusting, this IMMEDIATELY DEMONSTRATES THAT TASTINESS IS NOT REAL OR A REALITY, but a perception.

Well since my entire thesis is that tastiness is subjective, not objective - this is exactly what I'm saying. I dispute your terminology of calling something that exists in mind 'not real' since it is real. I'm just saying it is not an objective entity outside of the mind. It does have a basis of objectivity - the processes of the brain, but the experience, the perception is subjective nevertheless.

Morals produced by your brain and your meaningless world have the exact same reality. None

They do have the exact same reality, yes. That's why I brought it up as an analogy in the first place. Other than the fact you seem to be using the word 'reality' to mean 'exists outside of the mind' whereas I am not seems to be the only point of contention on these points. But since we both agree we do find things tasty or disgusting - it is certainly true that your perception exists otherwise we couldn't find them tasty or disgusting. We would have no perception and no experiences. I know I have perception and experience - I'm confident you do too. So it would be wrong to say that perception does not exist. Agreed?

I agree with the first part of your statement, but why would or why is it necessary for your brain to interpret them as anything like moral or immoral. Why and where did you get that concept, instead of it just being things happening, coming into your brain. So why would your brain interpret the actions of a tree falling as just facts and you watching someone stab someone else as moral or immoral, right or wrong?

These are the questions you should be asking, rather than insisting that things we both agree exist, don't exist in my view even as I am asserting they do. Hopefully we've cleared all that up now and we can hit the important points.

The answer, in one word, is evolution.

In three words: evolutionary stable strategies.

In many words:

Let's talk about the Prisoner's Dilemma. It gets setup traditionally in terms of confessing crimes and implicating your partner in crime and receiving a lighter punishment for so doing - unless neither of you confesses in which case you both get off scott free.

But let's try to tie it into animals and surviving a little bit.

Animal's dilemma, simple version


Two animals meet, they cannot communicate with one another. They are both trying to access some 600 calories of food. There are three possibilities:

1: They both fight for the food. The result is a standoff and they both share the food ultimately but expend lots of energy fighting over it. They lose a net 10 calories in the affair. This is bad for both of them.

2: One of them fights, the other adopts a passive cooperative stance, and is forced to flee. The fleeing animal loses some calories and gets no food, so loses 100 calories net. The fighter loses some calories in the posturing and chasing and growling and whatnot and ends up with 500 calories net gain.

3. They both cooperate with one another and they share the food equally. They both get a 300 calorie net gain.

On its own, game theory (thanks Mr Nash) points out that the optimum thing to do is to fight. Why? If your opponent does not fight, you get 500 hundred. If your opponent does fight, you only lose 10 (rather than 100).

In the survival of the fittest then, that's what we'd expect right? Lots of selfish fighting over food or other resources. Indeed, we do see this in lots of places in nature.

The iterated animal's dilemma


But if we play the game repeatedly. Say, if the two animals in question live in a group, some other effects come into play. That is to say, strategy is possible - assuming the animals are able to recognize animals they have 'played the game' with before and have a memory of the other animal's strategy.

You can then come up with all sorts of strategies. One of the most effective strategies is actually one called 'Tit-for-tat'. That is to say 'if you've never met them before, cooperate for food. If you have met them, and they shared last time, share this time. If you have met them, and they fought you, fight them this time.

Over many iterations of the game, this strategy is very successful. Other strategies are possible of course.

Equilibrium and stability

In the standalone game the Nash equilibrium is to always fight. One animal always does strictly better by fighting whatever their opponent chooses to do.

With iteration, its more complicated. The optimum strategy to adopt depends on the strategy the other animals are taking. If the other animals are sharing all the time regardless - then fighting every time is still the optimum strategy as you always get the best reward for so doing. The 'cooperate every time' is easily defeated. Tit-for-tat inhibits the 'always fight' strategy so if all other animals adopt tit-for-tat, then 'always fight' is a bad strategy.

Tit-for-tat is a 'nice' strategy. There are numerous possible 'nice' strategies, some do poorly. But in this game the top performers are 'nice'. Nice strategies always share food as their default behaviour, only fighting in retaliation - never instigating (or at least, rarely) fighting behaviour.

There is also another dimension 'forgiveness'. It's a measure of how quickly the strategy returns to being 'nice' to an animals after that animal has betrayed them by fighting over food. In this particular setup, forgiving strategies also do well - indeed, unforgiving strategies tend to descend into mutual perpetual fighting if there are any other strategies that occasionally fight over food - especially if those strategies retaliate against fighters themselves.

Summary

Certain conditions exist, where being 'nice' and 'forgiving' are advantageous in the long term. These conditions include regular interaction with other animals over the same resources.

Given animal behaviour is evolved, there are certain types of living where there is an evolutionary pressure that could drive evolution towards evolving nice and forgiving behaviours.

To keep things short, I'll leave the example there, but I argue that this gives us our basis for morality. An instinctual behaviour towards 'niceness' and 'forgiveness' that, over the long term, is the best strategy for every individual.

The more complex arena of human morality requires more building blocks on top of this - but they ultimately come down to the same process iterating upon itself.

There, that's why 'fighting for food' and 'sharing food' is a different kind of concern than 'a tree falling'.

You'll have to do a lot better than this, to demonstrate that Atheism CAN actually have and explain morals in a meaningless universe.

What do you make of that as a start? I think I've show that, in principle, it CAN be the case that morals have an explanation, and I didn't reference any 'ultimate meaning' in the process. Just optimal ways to collect resources required for survival. Suboptimal methods, survive less well, and die off. Optimal methods survive more regularly, and this reproduce more than sub-optimal methods and therefore can dominate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-13-2017 8:55 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-14-2017 11:49 PM Modulous has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29183
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 234 of 1002 (799758)
02-14-2017 4:49 PM


Isn't the only explanation needed a simple one?
Isn't the only explanation needed for morals and morality really simple and the same explanation as needed for stop signs and lights and crosswalk markers and storm drains and paved streets and rain coats and a tennis net and so many other things?

Isn't the only needed explanation for morals and morality that they help a society function?

As the Bible itself says as early as Genesis 3, "No God Need Apply", "Humans themselves have all that is needed to create morals and morality. But post armed guards to keep them outta my Garden and off the lawn."


My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios     My Website: My Website

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Dawn Bertot, posted 02-14-2017 11:50 PM jar has responded

  
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 235 of 1002 (799770)
02-14-2017 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by New Cat's Eye
02-13-2017 9:48 PM


Re: How?
Why are you presupposing a no meaning universe? Meaning is in the mind of the beholder.

Because you assume that meaning has purpose in your mind. But your mind is nothing more than a biological process, the thoughts that proceed from the process are biological side affects.
Now here's the point. If you could show that the universe is here for a reason or has some purpose, besides simply blind unaided processes, then you might have a way to show that anything you do has any meaning in the scheme of things. But how would you do this

That's the argument that you are failing to support; that being subjective means not existing. The fact that it is not objective, and cannot be shown in reality, does not mean it doesn't exist.

Subjective experiences exist in our minds.

Then you should be able to show me such things if they exist correct. Example, I can see the affects of anger, but anger does not exist in reality correct. It's simply a biological process. Now pay even closer attenion. While anger is a side affect of biological process, Concepts such as ethics or morals have less reality than anger and emotions.

But let's assume for the moment they could actually exist, that a concept actually existed. Then the next step would be to validate it as right or wrong, good,or bad. And of course, if there as many concepts as there are people, that is that there could literally be as many so called alleged biological concepts, as there are people. It doesn't make it it any better to talk about groups of people thinking the same thing , because there could be as many groups, nearly as people.

A moral or for something to be actually right or wrong, would need to have a standard. If it does not, it's as nonsensical to call it right or wrong, actually, as it would be to say things don't actually exist. No ,standard, no actual right or wrong. Sorry there is simply no way around that.

We are talking about things that I perceive as feelings and emotions. They exist subjectively, not objectively, so I cannot point to them in reality to show you.

Well yeah that's what I was pointing out. Even if I agreed that subjective was a real thing and that I actually believed that, subjective would only be another way of describing natural processes. It is a logical impossibility for natural processes to have meaning by and in of themselves. Nature processes produce only natural processes. Since all processes are equal in a natural existence, there could naturally be nothing described as right or wrong, good or bad. Those terms can have no real or logical meanings.
But to be completely consistent, it would mean that NOTHING im saying now would be right or wrong, good or bad, correct other incorrect But then that would demonstrate my point further wouldn't it. Throwing a word at alleged morals like subjective doesn't make them morals anymore that the word subjective is a real thing

[qs]I can say that subjective things exist because here I am experiencing them (and saying so). We all have them. How can you deny that they exist?/

They don't exist as having a meaning better or worse, good or bad, correct or incorrect, from any other biological process. There is no logical way for them to have that quality, in a meaningless purposeless universe. You can imagine that from your imagination, that have a better meaning, but hats just imagination, like me imagining I'm REALITY and that I created everything. Doesn't make it real

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-13-2017 9:48 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-15-2017 10:30 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 236 of 1002 (799771)
02-14-2017 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by Riggamortis
02-13-2017 10:32 PM


Re: No need to shout mate
Therefore any assertion you make regarding the absolute-ness of a moral concept is invalid. You lack the infinite knowledge required to know such things.

I'll say this again. When you can even remotely demonstrate that a thing called right or wrong actually exists, there is no need for me to be infinte in anything. There is no possible way for,these to exist with only natural processes

ABE: That is why you're stuck with subjective morals like the rest of us. It doesn't matter how well evidenced you(subjectively) think the bible is, you still lack the infinite wisdom to declare a moral concept absolute or not.

Your brain can produce biological processes. It cannot produce right and wrong in a moral sense. It can only be correct ot incorrect about existing facts in the real world. In your Naturalistic world right and wrong cannot exist, it's only imagination WITH chemical processes.. For example I can imagine I'm reality and that I created everything. Now,that's just an imagination, it doesn't exist.

ITS,NOT EVEN SUBJECTIVE, IT'S NOTHING BUT MORE,BIOLOGICAL THOUGHT in the form of an imagination. I have no possible way of showing that that thought is right or wrong good or bad in moral sense Biological processes can't produce right or wrong in a good or bad sense..

So Riggamortis, your problem is worse than you imagine no pun intended. You not only do not have Subjective Morality, you have none at all. Example, can you show me the right or wrong, good or bad if a tree falls on the ground or,if,i,hit you in the head with a pipe. Just stuff happening, no matter what you can imagine to call it, correct? So,in your view whose thoughts on this are good or bad, right or wrong, Yours Or Mine. You would have to create a word that like GOOD which has nothing to compare itself to in the real world. Creating a word like good doesn't make it exist

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Riggamortis, posted 02-13-2017 10:32 PM Riggamortis has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Riggamortis, posted 02-15-2017 1:56 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 237 of 1002 (799772)
02-14-2017 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by ringo
02-14-2017 11:08 AM


Re: Religion Cannot Rationally Explain Morals
Of course that's my position: There IS NO "correct" in any absolute sense. Even if something was "absolutely correct", neither you nor I could know because we're not omniscient. I've repeated that numerous times in this thread. Don't you get it yet?

Do I get that your still incorrect? Yes. Your brain which is a biological process cannot create good or evil, in a strictly Naturalistic world. These are imaginations, like me believing I'm a carthbarp. There is no eqivolent in the natural world for a thing called good or bad, good or evil, thus the brain , if your position were true, manufactures it. It's an imagination of the mind that does nor exist. Thus it is not even possible for,you to have a subjective moral.. That's like saying I have a relativistic nothing

So you first have to demonstrate that such a thing exists, to call it subjective, or anything else. You have not done this to this point

[qs]It isn't "absolutely rational" because rationality has nothing to do with the absolute. Rational conclusions are made using real-life observations as premises. If we observe that all horses are white, the conclusions we derive from that observation are rational even if they are not "absolutely correct"./qs

Well sure because white is a color. Good or evil have no equivalency in the natural world, thus, they are an imagination concocted by the mind. Atleast given your position. Example. Which of these actions is good or evil. A car passing by or you throwing acid in my face. Now I know Dr Adequate would say atleast the second one was good, but then he's probably an evil person. Lol

First, I have not said that absolute morality can not exist. I have said that if it did exist, nobody could know what it is because we're not omniscient. We can't know anything absolutely. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, in every day life, the morality we live is not absolute.

As I've demonstrated subjective morality is not even a possibility in your world. So I'll ask the question again. Is,it absolutley true that the only way for morality to exist, is subjectively.

Second, I have not stated anything absolutely.

Perhaps thats your problem. Get busy.

I already asked you about killing people. If there are exceptions to "Thou shalt not kill", it's relative.

Now this is ironic. You want me to,answer a question from the Bible using who's worldview, yours or mine. If,yours, then the question is irrelevant, there's no moral to begin with, correct?. If my world view, only God can define the parameters of murder, because he's infinite in knowledge. Happily I don't need to decide, just obey. But the same book you quoted from says he's infinte in wisdom

If anything is absolutely true, you can't know unless you're omniscient.

You see this is how i know absolutley your wrong. As I've demonstrated absolutely, you cannot actually have a good and bad in reality, they can't exist in a strictly Naturalistic world. They can only exist as an imagination. Imaginations with no equivalency in the real world, dont actually exist. You could not possibly provide an example of an actual moral, that could not be described as anything less than matter in motion

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by ringo, posted 02-14-2017 11:08 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by ringo, posted 02-15-2017 2:35 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 238 of 1002 (799773)
02-14-2017 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 232 by Tangle
02-14-2017 1:15 PM


You could, however, give me your thoughts on Fred and the trolley problems and the explanation that morality is just another evolved trait - a maleable brain state - which can be changed by illnesness, conditioning and drugs and is therefore neither absolute, immutable nor god given.

Evolved traits have no hope of being good or evil, or moral. They can never be anything except imaginations of other biological processes. Hence they are like every other imagination. Nonexistent
If not, then I must be true that I'm reality and I created everything. Is that true?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Tangle, posted 02-14-2017 1:15 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by Tangle, posted 02-15-2017 3:26 AM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 239 of 1002 (799774)
02-14-2017 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Modulous
02-14-2017 3:27 PM


Re: Reality and the animal's dilemma
They are real in the sense that they actually exist, they are not real in the sense that they exist as entities outside of the mind. They don't exist external to the mind. The brain itself is a real thing, and those brain states are objective entities. Do you accept this much?

I imagine an apple: The apple doesn't exist, but my imaginary apple does exist. It does not exist as an apple, it exists as an imaginary apple.

Yes but there is no equivalency for evil or morality in an exclusively natural world. Your mind imagines things as evil, because they do not suit you. Actual evil cannot exist in your world,,thus goodness cannot either. It's a product of the imagination only. Even the human brain cannot create that which does not exist

This isn't really a problem for me. I am not arguing that goodness isn't good, or doesn't exist. I'm arguing it only exists in our minds. If you can show me otherwise, I'm all ears.

That's what I'm arguing. But you have no hope of showing in a rational form that even that perception or imagination of Good is first real or more than another biological process in a natural world. IOWS you have no hope of showing that evil and moral good actually exist, other than imagination. Thus Atheist cannot have or explain in a real way have morals.

They do have the exact same reality, yes. That's why I brought it up as an analogy in the first place. Other than the fact you seem to be using the word 'reality' to mean 'exists outside of the mind' whereas I am not seems to be the only point of contention on these points. But since we both agree we do find things tasty or disgusting - it is certainly true that your perception exists otherwise we couldn't find them tasty or disgusting. We would have no perception and no experiences. I know I have perception and experience - I'm confident you do too. So it would be wrong to say that perception does not exist. Agreed?

Let's try again. Tastiness like Good or Evil have no equivalency in the real world. There is no thing in the real world that you can point to and say that thing is EVIL. You can point to an apple but you can't point to tastiness.. Since, tastiness is an imagination of the brain, with no reality, it has no hope of being real like an imagined morality

What do you make of that as a start? I think I've show that, in principle, it CAN be the case that morals have an explanation, and I didn't reference any 'ultimate meaning' in the process. Just optimal ways to collect resources required for survival. Suboptimal methods, survive less well, and die off. Optimal methods survive more regularly, and this reproduce more than sub-optimal methods and therefore can dominate.

Not a bad start but a sad ending. What and where would your optimal methods for survival fall, on the scale, if we were describing the Nazis actions. We're they employing forgiveness and sharing or something else? I can read anything into what animals may or may not be doing. I can characterize it with any verbiage. So, itwould need to work in reverse as well. Describe the Nazis actions for me using your scale and examples.

Remember there was no evil in your evolutionary description.

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Modulous, posted 02-14-2017 3:27 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by Modulous, posted 02-15-2017 2:40 PM Dawn Bertot has responded

    
Dawn Bertot
Member
Posts: 3571
Joined: 11-23-2007


Message 240 of 1002 (799775)
02-14-2017 11:50 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by jar
02-14-2017 4:49 PM


Re: Isn't the only explanation needed a simple one?
Isn't the only explanation needed for morals and morality really simple and the same explanation as needed for stop signs and lights and crosswalk markers and storm drains and paved streets and rain coats and a tennis net and so many other things?

Isn't the only needed explanation for morals and morality that they help a society function?

As the Bible itself says as early as Genesis 3, "No God Need Apply", "Humans themselves have all that is needed to create morals and morality. But post armed guards to keep them outta my Garden and off the lawn."

So once again Jar provides us with his infinite wisdom. He actually compares a Stop sign to another human invention called Abortion. Keep up the good work Jar you are representing you side well

Dawn Bertot


This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by jar, posted 02-14-2017 4:49 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Porosity, posted 02-15-2017 12:09 AM Dawn Bertot has responded
 Message 245 by jar, posted 02-15-2017 7:03 AM Dawn Bertot has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
1415
16
1718
...
67NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017