Theologian John Haught on evolution, etc...

Originally posted by bbarr
X is intrinsically valuable if and only if it X valuable in and of itself, not merely in its instrumental connection or relation to something else of value. This construal of intrinsic value is common across theistic and secular ethical theories.

Why did you write this the way you did?

For the theist, living in accord with God is intrinsically valuable.

The first clause makes the value referred to dependent on the theist...but intrinsic means it shouldn't be dependent on the theist...right?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
It sounds to me as though there is no "intrinsic good" simply because every one of those ethical theories has it's own definition of the term. You can say intrinsically good as defined by a particular theory, but I don't see how something can be simply intrinsically good, period.

If Hitler were murdered, would it be an intrinsically good act? Depe ...[text shortened]... from, and therefore, it's not intrinsic to the act; it's dependent on the ethical theory.

Think about it more.

"It sounds to me like there is no gravity, since different scientific theories have different conceptions of gravity."

Can you grasp the absurdity?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Why did you write this the way you did?

[b]For the theist, living in accord with God is intrinsically valuable.

The first clause makes the value referred to dependent on the theist...but intrinsic means it shouldn't be dependent on the theist...right?[/b]

No, it doesn't. The claim is that the theist believes that living in accord with God is intrinsically valuable. I am not claiming that facts about what is intrinsically valuable depend on the beliefs of persons. Indeed, that is the very claim that you and Kelly keep frustratingly making.

Originally posted by bbarr
No, we do not have a paradox. Paradoxes result when we have at least two propositions, both of which are justified, but the conjunction of which entails a contradiction. The propositions "ATY does not believe that Q" and "ATY has sufficient reason to believe that Q" are consistent, hence no paradox.

What we do have in this hypothetical case is an instance ...[text shortened]... e of the term "should" indicates to me that you use the term "should" idiosyncratically.

You did not write that I had sufficient reason to believe P implies Q. You wrote that I understood that P implies Q. Are these equivalent? I don't see how one can believe P, understand that if P, Q, but not believe Q. When people are irrational I see it as a failure to understand the logic.

Originally posted by bbarr
No, it doesn't. The claim is that the theist believes that living in accord with God is intrinsically valuable. I am not claiming that facts about what is intrinsically valuable depend on the beliefs of persons. Indeed, that is the very claim that you and Kelly keep frustratingly making.

No, I am claiming that the phrase "instrinsically valuable" is paradoxical.

A proton has intrinsic charge and mass. It does not have intrinsic beauty. It does not have intrinsic mass for the protonist but lack intrinsic mass for the aprotonist. Goodness and value are equivalent to beauty, not charge, mass or even pleasure.

The proton does not have intrinsic weight. One might say that "For Earthly conditions, the proton has a weight of X, while under Martian conditions, it has a weight of Y." This is why weight is not intrinsic to the proton but rather depends on something else. The structure of your sentences about intrinsic value are set up like my sentence about weight, exactly because of the lack of intrinsicness of value.

Originally posted by bbarr
Think about it more.

"It sounds to me like there is no gravity, since different scientific theories have different conceptions of gravity."

Can you grasp the absurdity?

Yes. We KNOW which scientific theory is right, or the most right anyway. We don't have fifty different ones all defining gravity differently and all right simultaneously yet all describing the same thing.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
You did not write that I had sufficient reason to believe P implies Q. You wrote that I understood that P implies Q. Are these equivalent? I don't see how one can believe P, understand that if P, Q, but not believe Q. When people are irrational I see it as a failure to understand the logic.

No, I wrote that you believed P and understood that P entailed Q. This provides sufficient reason to believe Q. If you fail to believe Q, you fail to believe as you should. I am unconcerned by your inability to understand how people can fail to believe in accord with their evidence. If you want confirmation, spend more time with people. I find it absolutely hilarious that you are perfectly willing to use normative terms like "irrational" and "failure to understand" but are reticent to use the term "should" in reference to belief formation. I am deeply saddened that you are unable to grasp that these normative terms are explicable in terms of each other. One is irrational to the extent that one fails to believe as one should. One believes as one should when one believes in accord with one's evidence. One fails to understand when one fails to see what is there sufficient reason to believe.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Yes. We KNOW which scientific theory is right, or the most right anyway. We don't have fifty different ones all defining gravity differently and all right simultaneously.

That is immaterial to whether there is, in fact, gravity. Apply this lesson to your post above.

Originally posted by bbarr
No, I wrote that you believed P and understood that P entailed Q. This provides sufficient reason to believe Q. If you fail to believe Q, you fail to believe as you should. I am unconcerned by your inability to understand how people can fail to believe in accord with their evidence. If you want confirmation, spend more time with people. I find it absolute ...[text shortened]... One fails to understand when one fails to see what is there sufficient reason to believe.

I've defined "irrational" very clearly. You have not defined the other terms clearly. You have given an alternate definition of "irrational". I don't understand how your definition could possibly exist or why the word "irrational" as you defined it could possibly be of any use to anyone.

Originally posted by bbarr
That is immaterial to whether there is, in fact, gravity. Apply this lesson to your post above.

Whether there is, in fact, gravity, is very simple. Define "gravity" first and I'll tell you.

If you have fifty different definitions which are all different, then there's no single answer as to whether there is, in fact, gravity. The answer will be "Yes and No" or "it depends".

Originally posted by bbarr
No, I wrote that you believed P and understood that P entailed Q. This provides sufficient reason to believe Q. If you fail to believe Q, you fail to believe as you should. I am unconcerned by your inability to understand how people can fail to believe in accord with their evidence. If you want confirmation, spend more time with people. I find it absolute ...[text shortened]... One fails to understand when one fails to see what is there sufficient reason to believe.

I am unconcerned by your inability to understand how people can fail to believe in accord with their evidence. If you want confirmation, spend more time with people.

I can't read minds. I don't know which logical arguments they do and don't understand. I do know most peoples' ability to communicate what they think is horrible.

Originally posted by bbarr
No, I wrote that you believed P and understood that P entailed Q. This provides sufficient reason to believe Q. If you fail to believe Q, you fail to believe as you should. I am unconcerned by your inability to understand how people can fail to believe in accord with their evidence. If you want confirmation, spend more time with people. I find it absolute ...[text shortened]... One fails to understand when one fails to see what is there sufficient reason to believe.

One believes as one should when one believes in accord with one's evidence.

Evidence is something each individual evaluates himself. Therefore, "should" in this sentence is dependent on the individual's opinion of the meaning of the evidence.

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]Morals independent of God
basically boils down to everyone doing what is right in their own
eyes to coin how the Old Testament stated it.

And this is a concern for you, that the considered actions of atheists will reflect their own evaluative commitments when they deliberate on what course of action they think is right? Gee, I thought that's tically symmetric claim. I don't really understand why you think there's a problem here.[/b]

The concern is when we go up against a higher authority, if there isn’t
a higher authority than ourselves, it than becomes whose in power at
the moment. Why would it matter to me if an atheist deliberates on
what they like and dislike, should it matter to me what a polytheist
thinks when they deliberate, or even other theist? If they do not touch
my life why should I care, the only time I see it mattering is if what
they do touch my life, or if we are all bound up to the same laws or
rules regardless of what we think, like, or prefer as good or bad
morality. If the scope of a moral law or moral fact does not bind the
entire human race up in its ‘moral rightness’ is it really a moral fact?
If facts are not subject to human opinion, than culture, time and
human preferences shouldn’t come into play. The whole human race
is either under the same sets of moral facts or not, do you think that
is the case? You have a 'should be' set of morals that bind the whole
human race in mind?
Kelly

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I've defined "irrational" very clearly. You have not defined the other terms clearly. You have given an alternate definition of "irrational". I don't understand how your definition could possibly exist or why the word "irrational" as you defined it could possibly be of any use to anyone.

I wasn't defining "irrational", I was explicating it. You'll know when I'm defining a term because I will attempt to provide necessary and sufficient conditions for the application of that term. To be irrational in an instance is to fail to believe as one should. To fail to believe as one should is to fail to believe in accord with the evidence at one's disposal. If you have a counterexample to this explication, present it.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Whether there is, in fact, gravity, is very simple. Define "gravity" first and I'll tell you.

If you have fifty different definitions which are all different, then there's no single answer as to whether there is, in fact, gravity. The answer will be "Yes and No" or "it depends".

Right, which is why arguments for or against a construal of "moral fact" will depend on the details of individual ethical theories. This is so whether you are construe "moral fact" as a theist might or as a secular theorist might.