Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Underlying Philosophy
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 526 of 577 (570284)
07-26-2010 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 525 by sac51495
07-26-2010 9:57 PM


Re: Backtracking
Please try to follow the simple logic here: how can you devise a system of how to know, without first knowing at least something?
Dogs, cats and other creatures seem to be able to learn with first knowing anything. If "knowing something" means being able to express assertions in language, the dogs and cats can do quite well without ever knowing anything (in that linguistic sense). Their knowledge is in the form of abilities.
By the time a child begins to acquire knowledge, he already has acquired a lot of abilities to deal with his world. Those abilities, rather than any metaphysical suppositions, are the starting point as he begins to acquire knowledge that can be expressed linguistically.
To say, "the best means of gaining knowledge is through the use of our five senses", is to assume a number of obvious things, such as: we do have five senses, we can use our five senses, etc.
The child implicitly knows how to use his senses, long before he knows how to express a statement such as "we have five senses." Again, the abilities are there, without metaphysical presumptions.
So once again, the wager that I have made, and will now make again, is that you can make absolutely no epistemological claim that is entirely neutral. It must refer back to another standard, and that standard must in turn refer back to another standard, which will refer back to another standard, etc.
I can't comment on the "neutral" part, because I have no idea what you mean by that.
If you have ever tried to chase word definitions in a dictionary, you would have found that they don't really refer back at all. The dictionary definitions turn out to be circular. What they really depend on, is a reservoir of shared knowledge, a good part of which was acquired by a child before he had a language. In other words, there's a core of our knowledge that is in the form of abilities, rather than expressible as statements. And to the extent that we refer back, we end up referring back to those abilities.
I'm in agreement with Dr Adequate. I don't see that we need any metaphysical knowledge, and I don't see that it is possible to have any metaphysical knowledge other than by making stuff up.
But take the Law of Identity for example: supposing this "law" changed, and suddenly, no object was necessarily the same as itself...could this ever happen?
Who would change it? And if somebody tried to change it, who would take him seriously?
So if the Laws of Logic are merely product of human thoughts, then why do they not change?
Because we find them very useful as they are. So why would we change something that we find very useful, unless we could change them to something even more useful?
But the real monster that you did not deal with is numbers...
They are human inventions.
What makes "two shoes" fall within the class of "twoness"?
I don't know. As a mathematician, I can't say that I have ever found a use for such a thing as 'the class of "twoness"'. I would be a bit concerned that reliance on such a class might lead to the Russell paradox.
Numbers are abstract. But if they are merely products of human thought, then are they not subject to change?
It's the same as with logic. There's no reason to change something useful, unless you can change it to something even more useful. If you look at the history of numbers, you will find that they have changed, and each time for the better. We went from natural numbers to fractions, to integers (negative and positive), to real numbers, to complex numbers. Perhaps we should toss in quaternions for good measure. And then there are the p-adic numbers, the modular numbers. If change is evidence of human invention, then there is a whole lot of such evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 525 by sac51495, posted 07-26-2010 9:57 PM sac51495 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 527 of 577 (570285)
07-26-2010 11:47 PM
Reply to: Message 525 by sac51495
07-26-2010 9:57 PM


Re: Backtracking
ETA: The first few paragraphs of my post seem to have disappeared. Maybe God smote them in his wrath.
I'll try to type it up again, hold on.
-------------------------------------------
So if the Laws of Logic are merely product of human thoughts, then why do they not change? They must then have some truth outside of the human mind. But how can an atheist account for this truth? How could evolution produce this?
I can make neither head nor tail of this question.
Of course it is the case that, for example, if "a" is true and "b" is true, then "a and b" is true. I don't see what this has to do with God, evolution, or the price of eggs.
But the real monster that you did not deal with is numbers...
What makes "two shoes" fall within the class of "twoness"? Numbers are abstract. But if they are merely products of human thought, then are they not subject to change? So how can numbers be accounted for, that is, the "classes" of numbers?
Again, you're reifying things which aren't actually things in the sense that a fish or a tree are things. "Twoness" is not a thing, I don't have to account for its existence.
Indeed it would. And the simplest way of preventing that is to bury the dead. The performance of funeral ceremonies is completely unnecessary if only the well-being of the species is being taken into account. So why are funeral ceremonies performed amongst humans, and not animals, if they do not have survival benefits?
Animals do of course mourn their dead. We're just more organized about it.
Your question would make more sense if it was addressed to someone who maintained that people were perfectly rational, instead of someone who has consistently maintained the opposite. Our drives are instinctual, reason is just the way we gratify them.
A similar question might be addressed to theists. Why all this fuss about a corpse, when the person --- the soul --- is elsewhere --- is in the hands of an all-wise and benevolent God? You might as well be holding a ceremony to inter and mourn an old suit of clothes.
Would the chemicals that make up the Mona Lisa - if mixed together in a bowl and given eons of time - form the Mona Lisa? Would the chemicals that make up a car - if mixed together in a (large) bowl and given eons of time - form a car? Would the chemicals that make up this universe - if mixed together and given eons of time - produce this universe?
With the Mona Lisa, the chemicals have no artistic merit until a painter uses his cognitive and physical faculties to form something that has artistic merit.
With a car, the chemicals have no transportation merit until a builder uses his cognitive and physical faculties to form something that has transportation merit.
This has nothing to do with the point that we were actually discussing. It's a whole different fallacy.
Did I say we should never rely on personal experience?
So ... it's OK to rely solely on my own reason and experience for some things but not others?
How do I tell which is which? How do you tell which is which?
This is what puzzles me about your epistemology. You start off with the idea that all knowledge comes from God and that it's downright blasphemous to rely on one's own senses and judgment. But you end up with the same conclusion as me --- that when it comes to a life-or-death issue like getting across the road, it is quite right to use your own senses and judgment and it would be madness and folly to rely on God's guidance instead. Now, I don't see how you get from your premises to my conclusion. Can you join the dots for me? Where's the bit in your philosophy where you figure out that there are some things we're allowed to use our brains for, and what these things are?
But relying solely on personal experience and reasoning in the hope of determining truth ...
As I have pointed out, I have no alternative to the use of my own reason applied to my own experiences. I am me. All my decisions have to be arrived at by the use of my own brain working on data that I have obtained. Of course I can and do listen to what other people say (doing so is part of my experience, and what they tell me is part of the data available to me) but finally I have to decide what I think, using my reason to judge between competing claims to truth.
And you are in the same position. Having a theology doesn't get you out of that, because you had to choose your holy book and your interpretation of it. Having done so, you may not have to think about certain questions ever again --- but you had to do so once, and then for the rest of your life you are still relying on a decision that you made.
But relying solely on personal experience and reasoning in the hope of determining truth, and in the hope of finding some meaning to life, is, ultimately, hopeless.
Well, I seem to manage it.
If your choice of theology has given meaning to your life, then you seem to have managed it.
Maybe it can keep you from getting run over by a car, but does this really matter?
It matters to me. And if you were hit by a car, it would matter to you.
And if you think it would matter to God, you are still free to adopt a faith-based method of crossing the road.
So in relying solely on your own experiences and your own reasoning, you are not at all neutral, but deeply anti-God ...
And also in the same position as everyone else, including you.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 525 by sac51495, posted 07-26-2010 9:57 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 537 by sac51495, posted 07-31-2010 10:22 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 528 of 577 (570294)
07-27-2010 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 525 by sac51495
07-26-2010 9:57 PM


The Missing Bits Of My Previous Post
Seeing as how you think that metaphysics only deals with myths ...
I didn't quite say that. But I do say that it is irrelevant to epistemology.
To say, "the best means of gaining knowledge is through the use of our five senses", is to assume a number of obvious things, such as: we do have five senses, we can use our five senses, etc.
But these are not metaphysical assumptions, because they are not metaphysical propositions. And they are not assumptions of any kind, because they are, as you say, obvious. If there is an elephant in the room, it is not an assumption to think that there is an elephant in the room.
---
And if you think that these propositions are less than obvious, remember that, as I have explained at exhaustive length, the existence of a God would not actually solve these problems, since if there is a God he permits people to be wrong about all sorts of things. For example, someone with Anton—Babinski syndrome is blind but doesn't know it. They confabulate vision. They think they have five senses, when in fact they're down to four.
It follows that any chain of reasoning that starts with the existence of God and finishes with the conclusion that we know which senses we have must be flawed either in the premise (the existence of God) or in the reasoning --- since a person with Anton—Babinski syndrome could apply exactly the same argument to conclude that he knows how many senses he has, and he would be wrong.
Why shouldn't someone believe something that is wrong? Why does it matter what you think?
As I said, "shouldn't" in this sense is not the "shouldn't" of a moral philosopher. If I say: "You shouldn't expect to find giraffes at the North Pole", I do not mean that it would be morally wrong for you to do so.
Either you skipped reading onward, or you totally missed the point. If society is the determiner of good, then is infanticide, widow immolation, community suicide, and child harassment right in such a society? Or might it still be wrong?
As I don't accept the premise, this question is hardly relevant.
I think that you missed my point. Every theist attributes his morality to God. Now, even if there is a God who (in some way yet to be explained) possesses an objective standard of morality, that doesn't make the morality of the theist less subjective. It just means that in addition to having a subjective morality he also has a subjective opinion of what God thinks.
So, the universe is in accordance with God ...
It is hard to see what you can mean by this. Since people have widely differing opinions on morality, it seems clear that most of them are not in accordance with God on moral questions.
In such a universe (as we do indeed have), morals are not products of human thought, but revelations from God as to how we should live our lives in a universe that is based upon His very nature.
No, look, if one person's morals tell him that we should burn Protestants at the stake and another person's morals tell him that we shouldn't, then surely at most one of them has morals which are "revelations from God as to how we should live our lives". The other has a morality which is a product of human thought (or the lack of it).
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 525 by sac51495, posted 07-26-2010 9:57 PM sac51495 has not replied

Otto Tellick
Member (Idle past 2330 days)
Posts: 288
From: PA, USA
Joined: 02-17-2008


Message 529 of 577 (570313)
07-27-2010 1:30 AM
Reply to: Message 525 by sac51495
07-26-2010 9:57 PM


Re: Backtracking
Well, sac, there certainly has been a lot of distance covered since I last poked into this thread... though it seems a lot of time has been spent going in circles. I'd like to make sure I understand this point you're trying to make:
sac51495 writes:
So once again, the wager that I have made, and will now make again, is that you can make absolutely no epistemological claim that is entirely neutral.
Neutral with respect to what? Theism vs. atheism? Are you saying that in order for me to postulate any piece of knowledge whatsoever, I must couch it as being dependent on the presence or absence of a god? Well, if you insist that I handle my knowledge this way, I'll simply tell you that nothing that I know depends in any way on the presence of a god.
Now, if I'm understanding your point correctly, I expect you might be inclined to extrapolate, and suggest that everything I know is somehow dependent on the absence of any god. (But maybe I'm not understanding your point?) That strikes me as inappropriate.
In my own awareness, any notion of a "god" is a purely abstract product of human thoughts, imagination and hallucination, constructed under conditions of severely limited knowledge and understanding. To say that any and every piece of actual, useful knowledge I've acquired is dependent on this awareness about the term "god" is patently ridiculous, because I was able to acquire quite a bit of knowledge before knowing anything at all about the term "god" (and this knowledge is still useful to me). The "epistomological basis" for this knowledge is experiential, and it is validated through social interaction between myself and other humans, many of whom have comparable or equivalent experience.
It is of course the use of human language that establishes this inter-subjective validation of experience. It is the ability to create and manipulate symbols, expressed as acoustic patterns, that allows the sharing of experience and knowledge, particularly when the primary stimili are not physically present. It's interesting to note that other primates (e.g. vervet monkeys), when observed carefully in their natural habitat, have demonstrated an unambiguous use of acoustic signals to refer to specific things -- particularly one or another type of predator.
Here's a video giving a good description that clarifies the importance of this observation. The value of such behavior for survivability should be obvious.
And of course, in the case of humans, the system of symbols has grown to include not just "things", but distinct attributes of things (size, color, animate-vs-inanimate, etc), relationships among things, changes and events that happen to things, and actions performed by animate (or seemingly animate) things. Not surprisingly (for an intrinsically social species), much of the system's most elaborate and discerning resources are focused on humans, their attributes, relationships, the changes and events that affect them, and the actions they perform.
Most crucially, the system has incorporated the concept of negation, providing the ability to refer to things, attributes, actions, etc, in terms of what they are not. Other important embellishments include the ability to express questions, to express time in terms of past, present and future, and to express the subtleties of hypotheticals and conditionals. Add to this the fairly recent invention of visible symbols to represent the acoustic ones, so that any utterance at all can be recorded and called back much later with fairly high accuracy, and you have a remarkably powerful tool for sharing, validating, and preserving the knowledge gained through personal experience.
Now, one of the big problems that come up with this powerful tool is the situation where its expressive capacity exceeds the available knowledge. Questions can be posed that cannot be answered on any sort of experiential basis, and assertions can be stated that bear no relation to (and have no foundation in) experience. This is where issues of metaphysics insinuate themselves into human awareness. IMO, these issues are the chimerical playthings of thinkers with too much free time on their hands. Note that I'm definitely not talking here about "all abstract stuff": things like logic and mathematics are not metaphysical, because they derive directly from and are consistent with experience; emotions aren't even abstract, let alone metaphysical.
To me, "metaphysical" refers specifically to things whose "definitions" are ultimately nothing more than oxymorons and negations of experience-based things. The Abrahamic god himself is just the most blatant example: "existing before time began", "unknowable", "non-material", and on and on, with no positively experiential attribute whatsoever. My wager is you cannot prove otherwise. Frankly, I don't think there's any reason you should even try.
And what about morality?
If society is the determiner of good, then is infanticide, widow immolation, community suicide, and child harassment right in such a society? Or might it still be wrong?
If a society endorses behavior that is intrinsically destructive to society (by way of killing off the living/breathing members of the society), it will be operating at a distinct disadvantage in terms of survivability, relative to societies that don't do this. It's a simple entailment of natural selection that when a society adopts behaviors that improve the overall communal chances for survival and expansion, it will be more likely to survive and expand. Killing able, viable members for no good reason works against this. (How about killing for good reasons? It happens all the time, regardless of choice or presence/absence of religious belief. And it's always debatable -- can't ever be sure that killing someone for cause actually makes things better rather than worse, and that's why many people, atheists and theists alike, advocate against the death penalty.)
There's a very good book by Robert Wright called "Non-Zero" (here's a wikipedia article about it), which explains cultural evolution in terms of game theory -- particularly the interplay between "zero-sum games" (in order for one to win, another must lose) and "non-zero-sum games" (diverse participants elect to act cooperatively toward some common goal -- often against some common enemy or obstacle -- and either succeed or fail together). The tendency for societies to acquire a preference for non-zero-sum interactions is inexorable, because it achieves positive results far more frequently than the alternative. That's not to say that zero-sum "gaming" is doomed to disappear altogether; it's always around as a natural counterpoint -- there's always a struggle between the alternatives. It's really just a matter of maturity vs. childishness, and people tend to occupy all points along that continuum.
... relying solely on personal experience and reasoning in the hope of determining truth, and in the hope of finding some meaning to life, is, ultimately, hopeless. Apart from God, man's reasoning and experience has no real merit.
Damn, what a pathetically dismal point of view! I honestly pity you. You're enslaved in a prison of negative self-esteem, foisted on you by a misguided (and clearly erroneous) interpretation of utterances that were committed to writing thousands of years ago by people, and for people, whose experiences, thoughts, and concerns would bear very little relevance to yours, except for the fact that you have somehow been convinced that they should control you.
Maybe it can keep you from getting run over by a car, but does this really matter?
The purpose of life is to live, to grow, to expand, to diversify, to foster and support more life, to increase awareness, to broaden capabilities, to overcome adversity, to discover and create order within chaos, and perhaps even to transcend (whatever that might mean); having come into existence (by whatever means), life now constitutes and carries within itself its own reason for being. It makes itself matter.
If you have some notion of a deity that serves as a proxy to impose purpose on your life, and you find that your purpose is to promote life, then that's fine, and the rest of us will be grateful for your participation. Alas, there are some theists who see it as their God-imposed duty to squelch life, promote ignorance, create adversity, destroy, kill, etc. If these people can't be cured of their mental illness, the least we can do is make them powerless. Acknowledging that religious beliefs of that nature are an illness is an essential step.

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 525 by sac51495, posted 07-26-2010 9:57 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 539 by sac51495, posted 08-01-2010 12:08 AM Otto Tellick has not replied

sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 530 of 577 (571257)
07-30-2010 11:37 PM
Reply to: Message 494 by PaulK
07-22-2010 2:20 AM


Re: Backtracking
PaulK,
So in fact you agree that the scientific method is the best way that we have for learning about external reality?
What do you mean by "external reality"?
And just so it won't look as if I'm avoiding the subject, let me once again iterate: this subject has absolutely nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of the scientific method; the subject is discussing whether or not *any* epistemological framework can stand alone as a means of determining truth, apart from any metaphysical framework. Certainly the scientific method has its advantages. But I do have some quibbles with it, which I will not go into detail to discuss, as this would be extremely off topic. Consider the subject closed.
I would disagree with the idea that they are numerous.
But you do admit that there are some. And if there are some (even one), then these assumptions must have another standard of proof. What might your standard of proof be for the existence of some "external reality" (?)? And what would your standard of proof be for the truth of the aforementioned standard of proof...you get the picture.
And all methods terminate with assumptions so there is no infinite regress either.
Do you have any good reason for believing that these assumptions are any better than others?
All I see is that you are completely unable to answer my point. Reciting nonsense while falsely implying that it is a parallel to my position is not a valid response.
You said "pragmatically, all we need is that nature is in fact uniform". But how can you know that nature is uniform without first assuming that it is uniform? How can I know that the great and mighty Pink Elephant is taking a shower (causing it to rain) without first assuming that he does exist?...You made a statement of fact: "nature is in fact uniform". I will also make a statement of fact "the great and might Pink Elephant is under the earth, holding it up"...pragmatically speaking, as long as it works for me, then does it really matter? You see, pragmatism gives ultimately no limits as to what a person can believe...as long as it works for them, it goes. So I think it works best to believe that the Pink Elephant is holding the earth up. Pragmatically speaking, its true to me, as long as it works for me...

"Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance? But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to each one according to his deeds: eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousnessindignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek; but glory, honor, and peace to everyone who works what is good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For there is no partiality with God." (Romans 2:4-11)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by PaulK, posted 07-22-2010 2:20 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 531 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-31-2010 1:46 AM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 533 by PaulK, posted 07-31-2010 9:21 AM sac51495 has replied
 Message 534 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-31-2010 11:13 AM sac51495 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 531 of 577 (571269)
07-31-2010 1:46 AM
Reply to: Message 530 by sac51495
07-30-2010 11:37 PM


Uniformity Of Nature
And just so it won't look as if I'm avoiding the subject, let me once again iterate: this subject has absolutely nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of the scientific method; the subject is discussing whether or not *any* epistemological framework can stand alone as a means of determining truth, apart from any metaphysical framework.
Then the answer would be "yes".
My epistemology doesn't need a metaphysical framework, and yours doesn't benefit from the one you have.
I can't speak for PaulK, of course.
You said "pragmatically, all we need is that nature is in fact uniform". But how can you know that nature is uniform without first assuming that it is uniform?
You can't know that, in an absolute philosophical sense.
It seems that this is another case where "Dr Adequate's Wager" applies. Consider a concrete case: I am hungry and I have a slice of apple pie.
If nature is uniform, then eating it will appease my hunger, so I should eat the pie.
If nature is not uniform, then eating the pie could
(a) appease my hunger
(b) make my head explode
(c) give me the ability to turn base metals into gold
(d) et cetera
whereas not eating it could
(e) appease my hunger
(f) make a sixteen-ton weight fall on me
(g) make me immune to all diseases
(h) et cetera.
I would, in short, have no idea whether I should or should not eat the pie. Or propose marriage to it. Or snort it up my nose. So I might as well eat the pie. Indeed, I might as well as not even if I was utterly convinced that nature was not uniform. And if there's even the slimmest chance that nature is uniform, at least with respect to pies, then eating the pie is clearly the superior option over not eating the pie.
So our best bet is to behave as though nature is uniform even though we don't know that it is; even if we don't assume that it is; and, indeed, even if we assume that it probably isn't.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 530 by sac51495, posted 07-30-2010 11:37 PM sac51495 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 532 by AdminPD, posted 07-31-2010 8:52 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 532 of 577 (571289)
07-31-2010 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 531 by Dr Adequate
07-31-2010 1:46 AM


Better Subtitles
Participants,
Could we please have better subtitles that will give some insight into what aspect of the underlying philosophy of atheism one is discussing?
The subtitle "Backtracking" doesn't inspire one to join the discussion.
Please try for more descriptive subtitles.
Thanks
AdminPD

This message is a reply to:
 Message 531 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-31-2010 1:46 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 533 of 577 (571293)
07-31-2010 9:21 AM
Reply to: Message 530 by sac51495
07-30-2010 11:37 PM


Re: Backtracking
quote:
...if there are some (even one), then these assumptions must have another standard of proof.
Of course, if they are assumptions they aren't proved at all, so there is no relevant "standard of proof". Again we see the self-contradiction which the failed presuppositionalist "philosophy" falls into again and again.
quote:
You said "pragmatically, all we need is that nature is in fact uniform". But how can you know that nature is uniform without first assuming that it is uniform?
I can't KNOW it in an absolute sense, and neither can you. However if I assume that nature is uniform and you assume that God exists and that God would maintain the uniformity of nature as an absolute fact (despite the Biblical evidence) I have an advantage. It is not possible for me to be wrong and you to be right, but it IS possible for me to be right and for you to be wrong. So my position is more parsimonious than yours and more likely to be true.
quote:
I will also make a statement of fact "the great and might Pink Elephant is under the earth, holding it up"...pragmatically speaking, as long as it works for me, then does it really matter?
Again we come back to reasons for belief. Pragmatism is not a very good reason - in fact it's a last resort. And you have no reason to resort to pragmatism on the question of your pink elephant because we have very good reasons to reject it as false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 530 by sac51495, posted 07-30-2010 11:37 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 540 by sac51495, posted 08-01-2010 12:16 AM PaulK has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 534 of 577 (571318)
07-31-2010 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 530 by sac51495
07-30-2010 11:37 PM


Turnabout Is Fair Play
Consider the subject closed.
OK, we'll put that on the list of things you won't answer questions about.
Me, I think that turnabout is fair play. You expect, demand, and get answers from us regarding such diverse questions as the "nature of reality", the foundations of logic, and the reasons why people bury their dead. But you aren't prepared to answer some fairly obvious and significant questions about your own philosophy, despite your frequent assertions that it's God-given.
Well, I shall add that to the reasons why my philosophy is superior to yours --- I am neither afraid nor ashamed to answer questions about mine, whereas yours apparently needs to be protected from all and any scrutiny.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 530 by sac51495, posted 07-30-2010 11:37 PM sac51495 has not replied

sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 535 of 577 (571474)
07-31-2010 9:05 PM
Reply to: Message 517 by Modulous
07-26-2010 7:24 AM


Re: absolutism and objectivity
Modulous,
I'll make a couple of general responses here, rather than particular responses, and make a few key points...
1. - A number of atheists on this forum have said that they believe their moral system to be superior over mine, because it relies on (rational) empiricism. They then stipulate that their moral system is "neutral" with regards to the existence of God. But it is inherently biased against God because it relies solely upon empiricism. To rely on one standard, rather than another, is to be biased against that other standard. This does not imply that the person is unreasonable, but merely biased (but for other reasons, I believe relying on empiricism alone to be unreasonable). This destroys the atheist's notion that he is "neutral". In fact, it is impossible for anyone to be entirely neutral, because if a person was not biased at all in favor of one standard or another, then they are already biased, for they are biased towards the standard of neutrality, as opposed to some other standard...
2. - Is the statement that there are no objective morals purely objective? If not, then you would most likely say that its truth is proven through rational empiricism. To prove it, you would have to use other standards of proof. But is it purely objective that these new standards of proof are the correct standards?...The point I will continue to make is that if no standard of proof is purely objective, then how can one ever produce a self-verifying meta-physic, epistemic, or ethic? If one walks down this road of denying objectivity, they will either end in arbitrariness, inconsistency, or circularity (which is ultimately arbitrariness).
3. - Because God created the universe based on His unchanging nature, then any ethical claims that deny His objectivity, and instead promote a view of subjectivity, are in direct opposition to God. So, if one takes a subjective view of morality, they are not in any way whatsoever taking on a view of neutrality with regards to the existence of God, but a view which sets itself in direct opposition to God.
Also, by taking on a view of morality in which morals are only guidelines for how one should act in different situations, a person sets himself directly in opposition to God and His Word: "For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold under sin." (Romans 7:14); "So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God" (Romans 7:25). The Law is not merely a set of guidelines for human action, but something holy to be served in mind and body. It is also of a spiritual nature, so it is therefore not defined by human experience, nor for human experience: it is a tool of sanctification - "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death." (Romans 8:2) - and condemnation - "Now we know that whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law, that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God." (Romans 3:19). It's use as a tool for sanctification and condemnation is not centered around man, but it is centered around bringing glory to God; "that every mouth may be stopped"...
"There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded is death, but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. Because the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God. But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you." (Romans 8:1-11)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 517 by Modulous, posted 07-26-2010 7:24 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 536 by jar, posted 07-31-2010 9:43 PM sac51495 has replied
 Message 546 by Modulous, posted 08-01-2010 2:52 PM sac51495 has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 536 of 577 (571479)
07-31-2010 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 535 by sac51495
07-31-2010 9:05 PM


Re: absolutism and objectivity
sac51495 writes:
Because God created the universe based on His unchanging nature, then any ethical claims that deny His objectivity, and instead promote a view of subjectivity, are in direct opposition to God. So, if one takes a subjective view of morality, they are not in any way whatsoever taking on a view of neutrality with regards to the existence of God, but a view which sets itself in direct opposition to God.
One of the really neat things about the various Bibles that exist is that there are so many contradictions that you can take a quote out of context to support just about anything.
BUT one thing is pretty clear is that the Bible says that we were actually given the great gift of the tools to know good from evil for a reason; to make subjective decisions about morality.
We are charged to look at morality as subjective, and to even correct God when he is wrong.
Genesis 2 writes:
22 And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil.
Genesis 18 writes:
22 The men turned away and went toward Sodom, but Abraham remained standing before the LORD. 23 Then Abraham approached him and said: "Will you sweep away the righteous with the wicked? 24 What if there are fifty righteous people in the city? Will you really sweep it away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people in it? 25 Far be it from you to do such a thingto kill the righteous with the wicked, treating the righteous and the wicked alike. Far be it from you! Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?"
26 The LORD said, "If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake."
27 Then Abraham spoke up again: "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, though I am nothing but dust and ashes, 28 what if the number of the righteous is five less than fifty? Will you destroy the whole city because of five people?"
"If I find forty-five there," he said, "I will not destroy it."
29 Once again he spoke to him, "What if only forty are found there?"
He said, "For the sake of forty, I will not do it."
30 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak. What if only thirty can be found there?"
He answered, "I will not do it if I find thirty there."
31 Abraham said, "Now that I have been so bold as to speak to the Lord, what if only twenty can be found there?"
He said, "For the sake of twenty, I will not destroy it."
32 Then he said, "May the Lord not be angry, but let me speak just once more. What if only ten can be found there?"
He answered, "For the sake of ten, I will not destroy it."
Not only are we called to make subjective decisions about morality, we are called to question and challenge even God.
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 535 by sac51495, posted 07-31-2010 9:05 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 542 by Phage0070, posted 08-01-2010 12:36 AM jar has replied
 Message 558 by sac51495, posted 08-06-2010 9:57 PM jar has replied

sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 537 of 577 (571494)
07-31-2010 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 527 by Dr Adequate
07-26-2010 11:47 PM


Re: The hopelesness of Reality, Universals, and Uniformity without God
Dr. Adequate,
From message 528, Dr. Adequate writes:
But these are not metaphysical assumptions, because they are not metaphysical propositions. And they are not assumptions of any kind, because they are, as you say, obvious. If there is an elephant in the room, it is not an assumption to think that there is an elephant in the room.
If they are not metaphysical propositions, then what are they? They certainly aren't epistemological statements, because they say nothing about the use of our five senses, but merely state that our senses do indeed exist. To say that we have five senses is, specifically, an ontological statement, which is of course a branch of metaphysics. Another statement that I made was, "we can use our five senses". This is a purely metaphysical statement...
---------------------------
When one is considering the existence of an entity (e.g., an elephant), and that person then considers the evidence for such a position (e.g., they can see the elephant), then the belief in the existence of this entity is not an assumption, just like you said.
But when one is embarking on an epistemological venture (such as observing a tree), they make (sub-consciously) a number of assumptions (e.g., they can make observations). The reason that they are assumptions in this case is because the person did not specifically set out to prove these beliefs, but they made these assumptions a priori.
as I have explained at exhaustive length, the existence of a God would not actually solve these problems, since if there is a God he permits people to be wrong about all sorts of things.
I'm not even discussing this matter. All I'm attempting to do is rid you of the notion that an epistemic stands alone, and does not need any meta-physic to support it.
Dr. Adequate writes:
sac51495 writes:
So, the universe is in accordance with God ...
It is hard to see what you can mean by this. Since people have widely differing opinions on morality, it seems clear that most of them are not in accordance with God on moral questions.
I dealt with that in the paragraph preceding my statement, and in the second part of my sentence, which said, "and the reason that humans devise foolish moral systems is because of sin: they wish to make themselves as God (just as Adam and Eve did) in that they get to define right and wrong.".
No, look, if one person's morals tell him that we should burn Protestants at the stake and another person's morals tell him that we shouldn't, then surely at most one of them has morals which are "revelations from God as to how we should live our lives". The other has a morality which is a product of human thought (or the lack of it).
I'm not sure what your point is.
From Message #527, Dr. Adequate writes:
I can make neither head nor tail of this question.
Of course it is the case that, for example, if "a" is true and "b" is true, then "a and b" is true. I don't see what this has to do with God, evolution, or the price of eggs.
How could a universal, such as the Laws of Logic, come about in a universe produced by the Big Bang, and evolution? If you say that the Laws of Logic are merely arbitrary products of human thought, then couldn't they change? Are they not then entirely subjective? And how come they conveniently apply to nature, without the intervention of humans?
Animals do of course mourn their dead.
And I suppose that you would also say that the lion who sniffs his dead relative and then proceeds to eat him, is doing it as a way of showing his respect for the "dignity" of his fellow species...the same would apply to apes, our "nearest relatives".
Why all this fuss about a corpse, when the person --- the soul --- is elsewhere --- is in the hands of an all-wise and benevolent God?
"Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep." (Romans 12:15). The "fuss" as you call is also seen as a respect of the dignity of humans.
"Twoness" is not a thing, I don't have to account for its existence.
Numbers are abstract, of course. But in an atheist's worldview, how could such things as numbers (which are universals) come about? How are numbers indeed a "universal"?
This has nothing to do with the point that we were actually discussing. It's a whole different fallacy.
Then please detail why it is fallacy.
Can you join the dots for me? Where's the bit in your philosophy where you figure out that there are some things we're allowed to use our brains for, and what these things are?
Our brains are mechanisms given to us by God which we can use to live in this world. Our flawed human reasoning, however, is not the final arbiter of truth. God is, because God is Truth.
From Message #531, Dr. Adequate writes:
It seems that this is another case where "Dr Adequate's Wager" applies.
But even your anecdote made certain assumptions about the uniformity of nature. For example, you assumed certain truths about the uniformity of causal-effect relationships, and the uniformity of human reasoning, the uniformity of ones understanding of human language, etc.
Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 527 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-26-2010 11:47 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 538 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-31-2010 11:12 PM sac51495 has replied
 Message 543 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2010 12:47 AM sac51495 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 538 of 577 (571501)
07-31-2010 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 537 by sac51495
07-31-2010 10:22 PM


Re: The hopelesness of Reality, Universals, and Uniformity without God
If they are not metaphysical propositions, then what are they?
Physical propositions.
The question of whether or not I am (for example) deaf is empirical, not philosophical.
To say that we have five senses is, specifically, an ontological statement ...
No. Ontology is the discussion of the question: "What do we really, really mean by saying that a thing exists?"
Merely asserting that some particular thing such as Belgium or antelopes or marmalade does exist is not ontology.
But when one is embarking on an epistemological venture (such as observing a tree), they make (sub-consciously) a number of assumptions (e.g., they can make observations).
That is not a metaphysical assumption, because it's not metaphysical. And it's not an assumption because I have evidence for it. That I experience qualia is as certain, or more certain, than Descartes' cogito. What to make of them is an epistemological question.
I'm not even discussing this matter. All I'm attempting to do is rid you of the notion that an epistemic stands alone, and does not need any meta-physic to support it.
To which I'm countering by pointing our that your "metaphysics" does not in fact support your epistemology.
I dealt with that in the paragraph preceding my statement, and in the second part of my sentence, which said, "and the reason that humans devise foolish moral systems is because of sin: they wish to make themselves as God (just as Adam and Eve did) in that they get to define right and wrong."
And whatever explanation you come up with, they're still not in accordance with God.
I'm not sure what your point is.
That people (or at least most people) do not get their morals from God.
How could a universal, such as the Laws of Logic, come about in a universe produced by the Big Bang, and evolution?
"Come about"? You're still reifying them.
Of course the laws of logic hold. How could they not hold?
Do you suppose that even God could create a universe in which (for example) the proposition lemons are yellow and limes are green was true, but the proposition lemons are yellow was false?
And I suppose that you would also say that the lion who sniffs his dead relative and then proceeds to eat him, is doing it as a way of showing his respect for the "dignity" of his fellow species...
Not necessarily. However I would say that ritual cannibalism is one of the ways in which humans have been known to honor their dead relatives.
"Rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep." (Romans 12:15).
That doesn't answer my question. Why the concern for a corpse in the first place? "Because everyone else does it" does not explain why everyone else does, in fact, do it.
Numbers are abstract, of course. But in an atheist's worldview, how could such things as numbers (which are universals) come about?
They don't "come about". Stop reifying abstractions.
Even if God did create the universe, he didn't need to create the number two. Just as, for example, if he created apples and oranges and bananas and so forth he didn't need to create the abstract concept of fruit, which is not really a thing.
Then please detail why it is fallacy.
It's the Argument From Design, which is a case of petitio principii. It also has nothing to do with the mistake that you were making, which is the Fallacy of Composition.
Our brains are mechanisms given to us by God which we can use to live in this world.
This doesn't answer my question. When is it OK to use your brain, when is it not, and how did you arrive at this conclusion from your theological assumptions? Oh, and what's your alternative.
Our flawed human reasoning, however, is not the final arbiter of truth.
It's our final arbiter, like it or not. Every conclusion that you've ever reached has been reached by you.
But even your anecdote made certain assumptions about the uniformity of nature. For example, you assumed certain truths about the uniformity of causal-effect relationships ...
No I didn't. I specifically didn't. That was kinda the point.
... and the uniformity of human reasoning, the uniformity of ones understanding of human language, etc.
I "assumed certain truths" about these things? Any truths in particular? I hardly know how to respond to such a vague and nebulous critique.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 537 by sac51495, posted 07-31-2010 10:22 PM sac51495 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 560 by sac51495, posted 08-07-2010 12:34 AM Dr Adequate has replied

sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 539 of 577 (571506)
08-01-2010 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 529 by Otto Tellick
07-27-2010 1:30 AM


Re: Backtracking
Otto Tellick,
Otto Tellick writes:
Are you saying that in order for me to postulate any piece of knowledge whatsoever, I must couch it as being dependent on the presence or absence of a god?
Not exactly. I'm saying that no one has the ability to make an epistemological claim that is completely free of bias toward one standard over another. Any epistemological claim relies on the truth of certain metaphysical standards; it cannot stand entirely independent of bias. So my point in discussing metaphysics and epistemology was to show that - contrary to what he thinks - Dr. Adequate's system of belief is not "neutral", nor is it possible for it to be neutral.
I expect you might be inclined to extrapolate, and suggest that everything I know is somehow dependent on the absence of any god.
Because I believe that God created and upholds the universe, I believe that all things depend on God's existence. We have consciences because of our' being created in God's image. The universe is uniform because it is created based upon God's unchanging (and thus uniform) nature. Our dependence on universals is only possible if there was a God to put them there. Complete chaos would reign if God were to withdraw himself from the universe.
Because of this, I believe that all that we do is dependent on the existence of God, in ways I have already mentioned. But people often wish to deny this existence, for they wish to be as God, just as Adam and Eve wished to be as God. And yet they refuse to acknowledge God's divine imprint on nature, and on our consciences. "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse" (Romans 1:20). What is this passage referring to when it speaks of understanding His Godhead? The Godhead is the Trinity, comprised of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. We see the imprint of the trinity throughout the universe. For example, there are three tones in a musical chord, and, interestingly enough, each one of these tones serves a function in music that is similar to the function of each of the members of the Godhead. There are also three different phases of matter: solid, liquid, and gas. The earth is the third planet from the sun. A family is made up of three entities: father, mother, and offspring. And, interestingly enough, the function of each of these entities is quite similar to the function of each member of the Godhead...on and on the list goes.
So actually, the fact that you can know anything is dependent on God's existence...
But anyways..
To me, "metaphysical" refers specifically to things whose "definitions" are ultimately nothing more than oxymorons and negations of experience-based things.
Throughout your message, you seemed to place a very large emphasis on experience. So I would ask when you ever experienced that such an experience-based system was the correct one? If you did, then might this possibly be circular?
If a society endorses behavior that is intrinsically destructive to society
Who defines that which is intrinsically destructive to society?
what a pathetically dismal point of view! I honestly pity you. You're enslaved in a prison of negative self-esteem, foisted on you by a misguided (and clearly erroneous) interpretation of utterances that were committed to writing thousands of years ago by people, and for people, whose experiences, thoughts, and concerns would bear very little relevance to yours, except for the fact that you have somehow been convinced that they should control you.
I find the use of extreme adjectives - to demonstrate your point - quite amusing.
The purpose of life is to live, to grow, to expand, to diversify, to foster and support more life, to increase awareness, to broaden capabilities, to overcome adversity, to discover and create order within chaos, and perhaps even to transcend (whatever that might mean); having come into existence (by whatever means), life now constitutes and carries within itself its own reason for being. It makes itself matter.
The purpose of life is to give glory to God, through various means, described in detail in the Bible: "Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God." (I Cor. 10:31) "Then God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.' (Gen. 1:28).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 529 by Otto Tellick, posted 07-27-2010 1:30 AM Otto Tellick has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 541 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2010 12:26 AM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 553 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-01-2010 10:47 PM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 554 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-02-2010 12:30 AM sac51495 has not replied
 Message 555 by bluescat48, posted 08-02-2010 2:05 AM sac51495 has not replied

sac51495
Member (Idle past 4719 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 540 of 577 (571509)
08-01-2010 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 533 by PaulK
07-31-2010 9:21 AM


Re: Backtracking
PaulK,
Of course, if they are assumptions they aren't proved at all, so there is no relevant "standard of proof".
I don't think this actually constitutes a response. And if you do have some assumptions, then the question is this: are those "assumptions" completely arbitrary?
I can't KNOW it in an absolute sense,
So nature is not absolutely uniform?
It is not possible for me to be wrong and you to be right
I fail to understand this.
Again we come back to reasons for belief. Pragmatism is not a very good reason - in fact it's a last resort. And you have no reason to resort to pragmatism on the question of your pink elephant because we have very good reasons to reject it as false.
So we can resort to pragmatism with the uniformity of nature, but not with the pink elephant...do I detect some arbitrariness?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 533 by PaulK, posted 07-31-2010 9:21 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 544 by PaulK, posted 08-01-2010 4:01 AM sac51495 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024