How can it be the same?

Originally posted by knightmeister
'Greenness' is not just a property because it can be represented as a wavelength it can also be measured and it made of something that exists called protons.

My difficulty with your position is not that you say beauty is an actual property or that there are moral facts. You are quite clear on this , crystal clear. HOWEVER , you do not say what thes uch , then who is , and who decides who is in touch and out of touch except by faith?

You are not saying that it is "external" fact (whatever is an internal fact?) or subjective perception; you are saying it is verifiable fact or subjective perception. That, and your "beautyometer" example - which is absurd to the point of meaninglessness - simply show that you have a very simplistic (I could almost say obsessively scientific) view of what properties and facts are. It is a model that simply doesn't fit the language we use. Beauty is not a scientifically verifiable property. You just have to accept that. It doesn't mean it isn't a property. Incidentally, the meaning of a word like "green" really has little or nothing to do with protons and wavelengths, either; if the scientific properties of red and green suddenly switched - but people still recognised grass as green and sunsets as red - wouldn't red still be red and green still be green?

There is no third category; I don't even recognise your two original categories. I don't accept the supposed chasm between inner/"subjective" and outer/"real". I don't accept we can talk meaningfully of some kind of "subjective realm".

But anyway, let's explore your position, and maybe one of our positions may become clearer to the other.

Moral facts are "as real as protons". So are they scientifically measurable? Do they have other properties (e.g. a location in the universe)? They have "the substance of God behind them". Are they themselves a substance? If not, what is the EXACT relationship between the substance of God and the moral facts that are "as real as protons"?

Originally posted by dottewell
Since you are having such a hard time spelling out your supposed "atheist's dilemma", I'll do it for you:

Either (A) all properties are scientifically verifiable and there is no "real" love or beauty, or (B) God exists.

Correct?

I have said, several times, that beauty is a real property. I would add that value judgements can be true or false, and ...[text shortened]... ween "objective" and "subjective" makes any sense, in the way that you mean it.

Have a look at telerion's 'wheel of morality' post , if it's still out there, page 10ish? You will see the distinction between moral facts and subjective opinion.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Have a look at telerion's 'wheel of morality' post , if it's still out there, page 10ish? You will see the distinction between moral facts and subjective opinion.

No. I don't need to. Please answer my questions, as I have tried to answer yours.

Originally posted by Palynka
Greenness supervenes on the physical properties of the brain and the eyes. Green is an objective property of a wavelength of light, but greenness is an internal property of each individual's brain interpreting the signals sent by the eyes.

It's proven that the light that hits the eyes is then interpreted by the brain, so it should be presumed to supervene on the brain and the eye since there are no other plausible claims supported by science.

No, green is not an objective property of any wavelength of light. Green is a dispositional or relational property of a range of wavelengths; the dispositional or relational property to produce experiences of certain sorts in creatures with psychologies like ours. Recall that in some creatures (the colorblind, for instance), the same objective properties of these wavlengths produce experiences that we call 'grey'.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The difference between greeness and moral facts in your argument is that greeness is based, founded and rooted in some things that actually exist (ie protons , light wavelengths , and real measurable molecular properties of leaves , optical nerve endings etc). There is no such equivalent to say what moral facts are rooted in in your world view. You can ...[text shortened]... t to an actual tree. You are a vastly better philosopher than me but a terrible phenomenologist.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't make sense. Given facts about our nature, that we are the sorts of creatures that require nourishing relationships, that are subject to pains and pleasures, that need meaningful work, that face collective action problems, etc., there are lives that are better or worse for us; lives that are more or less flourishing or tragic. Instrumental to achieving these ends (which are constitutive of human flourishing) is the cultivation of certain virtuous character traits (compassion, generosity, honesty, etc.). Why can't a conception of human flourishing that exploits these facts about human nature undergird an ethical theory? After all, you claim that there is a conception of the divine that can undergird an ethical theory. You think that that moral facts supervene on facts about God's will. Apparently, you think that the ultimate reason why somebody should love others is that this is commanded by God. I, on the other hand, think that the ultimate reason somebody should love others is because that sort of relationship is constitutive of leading a flourishing human life. I have no idea why you think I'm a terrible phenomenologist. To show that, you'd have to show that the phenomenology of moral experience or moral deliberation runs contrary to my virtue-ethical theory. But you haven't shown this, or even claimed this. All you've done is make an assertion that indicates you have no idea what 'phenomenology' actually means.

Originally posted by bbarr
No, green is not an objective property of any wavelength of light. Green is a dispositional or relational property of a range of wavelengths; the dispositional or relational property to produce experiences of certain sorts in creatures with psychologies like ours. Recall that in some creatures (the colorblind, for instance), the same objective properties of these wavlengths produce experiences that we call 'grey'.

That doesn't invalidate what I said because that creature has a different brain. I said greenness supervened in each individual's brain.

Originally posted by Palynka
That doesn't invalidate what I said because that creature has a different brain. I said it supervened in each individual's brain.

No, you didn't. You said 'green' was an objective property of wavelengths of light. You said 'greeness' was a property that supervenes on the facts about our brain. Interestingly, your view entails that there is no relation between the property 'green' and the property 'greenness'. Surely this is a reductio of your view. So, why not come over to the dark side and admit that green is a relational property?

Originally posted by bbarr
No, you didn't. You said 'green' was an objective property of wavelengths of light. You said 'greeness' was a property that supervenes on the facts about our brain. Interestingly, your view entails that there is no relation between the property 'green' and the property 'greenness'. Surely this is a reductio of your view. So, why not come over to the dark side and admit that green is a relational property?

Because green and greenness are different things!

As you just said, green is viewed as what we could call greyness in another creatures, so it is not exactly equivalent to what we call greeness.

Green is indeed an objective property without direct relation to what we call casually 'green' which in fact refers to greenness.

Originally posted by Palynka
Because green and greenness are different things!

As you just said, green is viewed as what we could call greyness in another creatures, so it is not exactly equivalent to what we call greeness.

Green is indeed an objective property without direct relation to what we call casually 'green' which in fact refers to greenness.

So, what is the relation between green and greenness?

Originally posted by bbarr
So, what is the relation between green and greenness?

Ok, I agree I have been vague and perhaps didn't express me correctly about the definition of green.

Green is a form of dividing a (near) continuum for categorization purposes. There is no other way of doing it without convention. After all, green is a word that categorizes the part of the continuum. This doesn't mean that the objective properties are not there, or that the wavelengths are subjective.

Greenness is the way our brain interprets the signals sent by the eye in the alloted frequency. Since it is a continuum and its interpretation is dependent on how the brain processes the image which implies that there is a dependence on the brain to assert this property.

But it is always the brain that interprets this property, so if all the physical properties of the brain are the same, same signals sent by the eye will be interpreted in the same way. Hence, I believe there is supervenience. I have no motive to believe that there are any other external factors.

Originally posted by bbarr
I'm sorry, but this doesn't make sense. Given facts about our nature, that we are the sorts of creatures that require nourishing relationships, that are subject to pains and pleasures, that need meaningful work, that face collective action problems, etc., there are lives that are better or worse for us; lives that are more or less flourishing or tragic. Inst ...[text shortened]... make an assertion that indicates you have no idea what 'phenomenology' actually means.

When did Husserl enter the conversation?

Originally posted by dottewell
You are not saying that it is "external" fact (whatever is an internal fact?) or subjective perception; you are saying it is verifiable fact or subjective perception. That, and your "beautyometer" example - which is absurd to the point of meaninglessness - simply show that you have a very simplistic (I could almost say obsessively scientific) view of what ...[text shortened]... he substance of God and the moral facts that are "as real as protons"?

Ok , to answer your question . Moral facts are based on God's character and existence that is located inside and outside the universe. God is made of love , or more accurately IS love , so moral facts are based on the law of love which is based on the very stuff of God as it were. Hypothetically speaking , I do believe that if you could somehow isolate God's love in a testube and measure it would certainly have energy and substance in the same way protons do or electromagnatism. These facts are apparent to us because God is also actually present with us by his Spirit and is trying to let us know what his character is.

This hypothetical question is indeed absurd but valid in the sense that it puts me on the spot about what I believe about the nature of these facts. I have made it clear that moral facts are indeed what I say they are, ie facts. They cannot be altered by opinions or perceptions even if everyone in the world disagreed with them they would not alter one jot.It is not open to even the slightest debate. Am I being clear?

I'm afraid you are having a debate about how this 'model doesn't fit the language we use' whilst I am having a debate about how the language you use doesn't fit reality. You are discussing language and meaning , I am discussing the real world of things. Language is not a 'thing' it is a series of vocal noises that resonate inside an organic structure we call a brain. That is the real world , we attribute this as language. A 'mile' is also not a thing , but a human construct. I could go on. If you understand the difference between phenomenonolgy and philosophy you will see that the red/green argument has no substance. Reality is what it is and human perceptions are what they are, sometimes they match and sometimes they don't , an external thing can become part of perception but a perception cannot make something become 'real' unless it actually has some reality to it.

Now please answer the beautyometer question honestly and stop deflecting.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Ok , to answer your question . Moral facts are based on God's character and existence that is located inside and outside the universe. God is made of love , or more accurately IS love , so moral facts are based on the law of love which is based on the very stuff of God as it were. Hypothetically speaking , I do believe that if you could somehow isola ...[text shortened]... o it.

Now please answer the beautyometer question honestly and stop deflecting.

Moral facts are based on God's character and existence

So, provided God exists, moral facts are determined by whatever it may be that constitutes God's character? Then moral facts are arbitrary.

God is made of love , or more accurately IS love

God is identical to love? Who knew I was a theist?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Ok , to answer your question . Moral facts are based on God's character and existence that is located inside and outside the universe. God is made of love , or more accurately IS love , so moral facts are based on the law of love which is based on the very stuff of God as it were. Hypothetically speaking , I do believe that if you could somehow isola o it.

Now please answer the beautyometer question honestly and stop deflecting.

The "beautyometer" question is nonsensical and unanswerable. That was my point. It is based on a misunderstanding of the kind of property beauty is.

To claim God's love has a measurable physical reality is simply bizarre. What possible reason could you have for believing this to be the case? What would it look like?

I don't separate reality and language in the same way as you; I don't thing one can meaningfully talk of e.g. "stepping outside of language to the world beyond". Language is not just a "series of vocal noises that resonate inside an organic structure we call the brain". It is the way we understand and talk about the world. A mile is a thing.

There are criteria we use to say that someone's perceptions don't "match with reality" (i.e. that the person is dreaming or undergoing an illusion). But does it make sense to say: "Everyone could be undergoing an illusion all the time"? To me it does not. The concept of an illusion requires, to have any "grip", a presupposition that most experiences are not illusions.

Please explain why the red/green argument has no substance. (I did not present it as an argument, but rather as a descriptive fact about the way the terms are used.)

I'm not deflecting, by the way. There is just a very fundamental difference of approach.

Originally posted by bbarr
Why can't a conception of human flourishing that exploits these facts about human nature undergird an ethical theory? .[/b]

There's nothing to say that they can't undergird an ethical theory. But it would still not be the same. The fact is that when human beings behave with compassion and honesty they do sometimes flourish (although in Gandhi and M Luther King's it killed them by putting them in the firing line). Some cultures in the past have flourished via brutality and dominion over others (eg Roman Empire). If we make a 'conception of human flourishing' our guideline for moral facts then we can easily get confused.
In addition it would be a conception (ie subjective) and not a fact and it would depend on what you meant by 'flourishing' which is again relative and opinion. Did Gandhi flourish or would he have been better to have kept his head down? The facts of human nature are many and varied and human beings behave in many different ways according to differring moral codes , although I would agree that there is broad agreement on some basic moral principles (eg love your neighbour). However , phenomenologically all we can say is that humans sometimes live according to these codes and sometimes don't. If we based moral facts on what humans actually did then we would have a pretty shabby set of facts (I don't know if you have noticed but it's not exactly paradise on earth right now).

You can say that humans need nourishing relationships but to infere from this that some moral fact is right or wrong is to go beyond the facts themselves. It would be like saying animals need water therefore animals that do not seek water are morally in the wrong somehow.

We can say these moral facts appear to be what is virtuous in human life because it brings about fulfillment and 'flourishing' in human life . We then need to show why human flourishing is better than human suffering and why humans are more valid than animals. A polar bear whose environment is shrinking as a result of human flourishing (global warming) might think of us as a cancerous growth on this planet, devouring and destroying nature.We should be erradicated for the benefit of nature. By what 'fact' do you say he is wrong?

Presumably , if everyone started getting pleasure out of seeing others suffer and flourished through being dishonest then you would then have to revise your idea of moral 'facts' and make them bend to human experience? This would not happen in the Christian world view anymore than if people started to think that gravity didn't exist they would never fall downstairs.

You are much much further on than dottwell because at least you are trying to establish moral facts as actual facts but these facts are still only rooted in the human value or concept that human flourishing is morally right.

Christian world view - 'Moral facts are moral facts and even if they did not cause human flourishing they would still be facts . They are separate from human beings and existed before any human beings were here.

Your world view (as I understand it) - 'Moral facts are moral facts insofar as they cause human flourishing. They are connected to the value that human beings place on human pleasure/pain. This value is established as a fact because the vast majority (but not all) of humans agree with it and when they follow it they experience pleasure. We do not know why human pleasure is better (or morally more right) than human pain it just 'seems' right that this should be so, it's common sense...it just is..don't ask me why..it's just self evident...'