17 Mar 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo...you're comparing apples and oranges? I prefer oranges myself, tbf.
Everything you've offered is transient, so any aspect to which the atheist agrees with the theist, said agreement is apples wanting to be oranges. The theist doesn't pin his morals on the idea of supernatural, but rather on the reality of ultimate good... which is embodied in that supernatural being we call God.
At the end of the day, any moral the ath ...[text shortened]... lesser standard of good, based on something he likes and subject to any number of influences.
17 Mar 10
2 edits
Originally posted by NimzofishI don't see why the existence or non-existence of that being forces the modification of that statement,
I appreciate that my own understanding of moral philosophy limited, but I'm not sure that an atheist has to reject theological ethics in favor of a secular ethical system.
If God is defined as a being who is always wholly good, or to use Knightmeister definition "God IS morality. His nature is what defines right and wrong...", then it follows that to be moral facts independent of the question of God's existence (which some theists do anyway).
I think I agree with your general point. Your point, as I understand it, is the following. Suppose some theist says that morality is determined by God's will and that God's will concerns this, that, and the other. Then, an atheist can take the same line (or even a more direct line) on morality's general relation with this, that, and the other and yet drop the metaphysical commitment related to the existence of God. If I have stated your point roughly correct, then yes, I agree, and I think this ties in with the Euthyphro dilemma. One could ask the theist, hey, are this, that and the other morally good because they are willed by God; or are they willed by God because they are morally good? The first horn seems to have the problem of making morals arbitrary, since it signals the lack of independent reasons that would constrain the divine will. But then the second horn brings up the point you raise: then God becomes at best some sort of moral intermediary where He is not essential to the subject of morality.
17 Mar 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI think it should be pretty obvious what the main problem is here. Folks like you and knightmeister put the cart before the horse and like to declaim on subjects before actually bothering to do your research on them. In doing so, you continue to display some major chutzpah.
My, but you do go on.
I'm not sure if it's just a natural loquaciousness or if you're simply trying to wow folks with your ability to use eudaimonic in a sentence (even if your use is incorrect). No matter, you are simply giving us a detailed and elaborate tour of a closet without any clothes in it.
The underlying issue is whether the moral h ...[text shortened]... sser standard of good, based on something he likes and subject to any number of influences.
17 Mar 10
Originally posted by Lord SharkOk, on what basis do you say that a tree is real and an idea isn't?
[b]A tree is real , an idea is not real.
The objective is real , the subjective isn't - where's the problem?
I can honestly say I don't know where to begin.
Ok, on what basis do you say that a tree is real and an idea isn't?
What category does an idea belong to, unreal?[/b]
--------------------shark-----------------------------
Let me turn it around to illustrate.
If I said that God was real because he was an idea in men's heads and then I said that he is therefore as real as a tree , I'm sure you would object.
An idea is an expression of mind borne of electrical impulses in the brain. The brain is real , the electrical impulses and synapses are real etc etc. But can we say the idea is real?
An Atheist might say that morality is "real" because it is based on an idea in men's minds of which they are utterly convinced is true. That would mean that an idea (strongly held) is as real as anything else (like stones or electromagnatism or rubber bands) - but there's the problem - if I am strongly convinced (along with huge swathes of humanity) that God is real , does that mean he is real and actually exists?
Of course not.
You know as well as I do that saying God is real and exists is something very different. Therefore to say morality exists and is real is also different. It is to say that morality is more than just an idea.
Get it yet?
17 Mar 10
11 edits
Originally posted by LemonJelloNow, please go ahead and list the logical implications (of the proposition that objective moral facts exist) that are so problematic in your opinion for the atheist.
[b]You don't have be a Theist to believe that "objective moral facts" exist , but if you do believe that "objective moral facts" (OMFs) exist then you need to explain what this actually means and what the hell you are talking about.
How is that interesting? Doesn't something like that just generally hold? I mean, if one is going to make some clai bjective moral facts exist) that are so problematic in your opinion for the atheist.[/b]
-----------Lemon-------------------------
What in your opinion is an objective moral fact?
What I am trying to help you see is that simply to make this statement is quite something.
Would you say that there is such a thing as objective beauty? Or is it only in the eye of the beholder?
I think where you misunderstand me is you think I am making a theological point , whereas I'm actually looking at it philosophically. I'm asking how we define "real".
Christians believe that morality is as real (if not more real) than gravity or planets or anything else you care to mention. This means for us they are indisputable brute facts - but also more real than even the physical universe because they consist of God's very nature.
As an Atheist I'm asking you to tell me how morality for you is an objective fact , because for me an objective fact implies something scientific and substantive that cannot be disputed.
However , if I kill people for fun what objective fact am I denying? Even if the whole world thinks I am wrong , is it not still philosophically valid for me to disagree? And if I disagree how can someone prove me wrong other than to say my idea of morality is "unpopular".
What if I said that killing poeple for fun was morally Ok for me in my opinion and that I also found sliced onions the most beautiful thing in the world? On one count (beauty) you would say that it's whatever I find beautiful and that's the end of the matter but on the other (morality) you would it's not Ok for me to believe this and that my idea was "wrong" because it was not in line with OMFs.
But how does an Atheist move from saying that an action is unpopular or breaks societal conventions to saying that an action is self evidently and objectively wrong.?
What is it that makes morality somehow real and not an opinion but beauty is subjective and in the eye of the beholder?
For me it's easy because I can say God's nature is real and exists just like Jupiter exists. But the Athesits cannot say this , so how does morality become more objectively real than beauty?
They are both , afterall , just ideas in men's minds (or are they?)
17 Mar 10
so simple. take a hammer and hit your thumb. is materialism real then ?
go to the sacred grove and pray and if a vision makes you change your life is that real ?
so..reality is both depending on whether you have a hammer in your toolbox or an angel in your garden.
you can buy a hammer. you cannot choose to buy an angel.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
17 Mar 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterOriginally posted by knightmeister
Ok, on what basis do you say that a tree is real and an idea isn't?
--------------------shark-----------------------------
Let me turn it around to illustrate.
If I said that God was real because he was an idea in men's heads and then I said that he is therefore as real as a tree , I'm sure you would object.
An idea is an expression of mind ...[text shortened]... is also different. It is to say that morality is more than just an idea.
Get it yet?
Let me turn it around to illustrate.
If I said that God was real because he was an idea in men's heads and then I said that he is therefore as real as a tree , I'm sure you would object.
No I wouldn't object. If you claim that god is an idea, and I think ideas are real, then it logically follows that I think that god is real. If you want to claim that god is more than an idea, then you might face some problems backing up that claim.
An idea is an expression of mind borne of electrical impulses in the brain. The brain is real , the electrical impulses and synapses are real etc etc. But can we say the idea is real?
I don't see why not. 'Idea' is a different level of description of the pattern of electro-chemical firing, but why should we suppose it isn't real? I could say to you that Beethoven's 7th Symphony is real, but would you object and say that there are merely some patterns of pressure waves in the air sometimes?
An Atheist might say that morality is "real" because it is based on an idea in men's minds of which they are utterly convinced is true. That would mean that an idea (strongly held) is as real as anything else (like stones or electromagnatism or rubber bands) - but there's the problem - if I am strongly convinced (along with huge swathes of humanity) that God is real , does that mean he is real and actually exists?
Firstly, I have a question for you, do you think money is real?
Secondly, I have to ask, if objective moral facts exist, do you think they are more like trees or more like abstract universals, like saying X is wrong is equivalent to saying 2 < 3?
You know as well as I do that saying God is real and exists is something very different.
If I have an idea of a tree then my claim is that the idea is real. I never said that this means that a physical tree is conjured into existence to correspond with the idea, did I?
Therefore to say morality exists and is real is also different. It is to say that morality is more than just an idea.
Ideas are real and they exist.
Get it yet?
I'm genuinely curious as to what you thought this comment added to our dialogue. Could you please let me know?
18 Mar 10
Originally posted by ZahlanziI would love to clarify my position away from anything you have asserted, but, unfortunately, I cannot argue a position that you yourself have created. Translation: I said nothing of the sort.
so basically, what you are saying is that an atheist cannot love his daughter or son or wife as much as a christian or a muslim?
when an atheist gives to charity, it has a lesser meaning than when a christian does it?
is this correct or would you like to modify or clarify your post?
18 Mar 10
Originally posted by LemonJello"It should be pretty obvious," or it is pretty obvious to you? Because what follows (cart before the horse) simply doesn't fit any of the conversation. The atheistic foundation for any absolute is challenged. There is no cart, because there exists no horse in front of which to place it. Your foundation for anything absolute is challenged and--- as the deafening roar of silence since this challenge was first put to the atheist many years ago so obviously attests--- the answer continues to be, well, nothing.
I think it should be pretty obvious what the main problem is here. Folks like you and knightmeister put the cart before the horse and like to declaim on subjects before actually bothering to do your research on them. In doing so, you continue to display some major chutzpah.
Strip away all of the dictionary-needed words, phrases and technical terms, at the end of the day, the atheist has no absolute objective donkey to pin his moral tale upon. At some point, he necessarily is required to borrow phrases and concepts from the only real thing we know in the world: the existence of God. Oops! No peaking!
18 Mar 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHi Freaky,
"It should be pretty obvious," or it is pretty obvious to you? Because what follows (cart before the horse) simply doesn't fit any of the conversation. The atheistic foundation for any absolute is challenged. There is no cart, because there exists no horse in front of which to place it. Your foundation for anything absolute is challenged and--- as the ...[text shortened]... cepts from the only real thing we know in the world: the existence of God. Oops! No peaking!
only just jumping in on the coversation late, so forgive me if I cover any old ground.
As an atheist I'm a bit of a practical sort. I base my morality on the foundation of what actually works - that is, communities and societies. In other words, my morality is built from the foundation of the society I live in.
Is that absolute? Clearly not. It can change as the society changes.
God is not necessary for this - although of course, my society has a judaeo-christian heritage and so there are aspects of morality taken from this foundation.
18 Mar 10
Originally posted by amannionHey, amannion.
Hi Freaky,
only just jumping in on the coversation late, so forgive me if I cover any old ground.
As an atheist I'm a bit of a practical sort. I base my morality on the foundation of what actually works - that is, communities and societies. In other words, my morality is built from the foundation of the society I live in.
Is that absolute? Clearly not. ...[text shortened]... as a judaeo-christian heritage and so there are aspects of morality taken from this foundation.
Late, early, it's all the same thing. The ground's been covered so much, I don't see how we can really even know where it is sometimes. But your point is at least concise and, well, pointed. Thanks for the clarity.
Pragmatism is a tempting position to fall into, but it inevitably leads to destruction. Child sacrifice 'worked' for the societies which incorporated the practice into their daily routines. Slavery 'worked' for virtually every society that utilized the institution. In fact, it still 'works' today for those nations which employ its devices in the financial market to generate product-less cash flow.
For most practical, every day activities, pragmatism rules the day and that isn't likely to end, nor is this necessarily a bad thing. However, when we want to get to that which informs the value we place on life and its various aspects or even when we want to firm up our idea of 'good,' an absolute standard is required.
Case in point: this very discussion. Those who have contributed on the topic are all doing so in the attempt to establish the standard in order to determine whether or not our thinking is in agreement with that which is right.
If God-not-be, what case can be made for anything?
18 Mar 10
Originally posted by Lord SharkNo I wouldn't object. If you claim that god is an idea, and I think ideas are real, then it logically follows that I think that god is real. If you want to claim that god is more than an idea, then you might face some problems backing up that claim.
Originally posted by knightmeister
[b]Let me turn it around to illustrate.
If I said that God was real because he was an idea in men's heads and then I said that he is therefore as real as a tree , I'm sure you would object.
No I wouldn't object. If you claim that god is an idea, and I think ideas are real, then it logically follows tha ...[text shortened]... what you thought this comment added to our dialogue. Could you please let me know?[/b]
----------shark---------------------
But I wouldn't have to claim he was "more than an idea" because if he is real because he is an idea then he is real enough.
If you say that ideas are real then they are real and God exists and you had better become a Theist because God is real and he exists yes?
But of course you would not believe this because you actually believe like me that an idea is not the same order of reality as actual existence. You don't actually believe God is real , you think he is an idea , you think he doesn't actually exist.
You believe that the idea of God is real but you don't actually believe God is a real objective fact that exists.
Therefore you might also believe that the idea of morality is real but real objective moral facts might be a different order of reality.
What in your opinion is the distinction between an idea being real and objective reality ? You must have some distinction otherwise you must believe God exists afterall.
18 Mar 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterI'm confused. Before, you stated that the existence of objective moral facts has logical implications that are problematic for the atheist. I then explicitly asked you to list these implications that you think are problematic for the atheist so that we can address them in turn. However, in your response here, you have failed to list any such logical implications. Did you forget to list them, or what? Hey, you keep telling me that there are all these logical implications of "real" morality that amount to some sort of consistency problem when conjoined with atheism. I am simply asking you to explicitly list what they are, so that we can address them directly. Please go ahead and list them.
Now, please go ahead and list the logical implications (of the proposition that objective moral facts exist) that are so problematic in your opinion for the atheist.
-----------Lemon-------------------------
What in your opinion is an objective moral fact?
What I am trying to help you see is that simply to make this statement is quite something ...[text shortened]... beauty?
They are both , afterall , just ideas in men's minds (or are they?)
What in your opinion is an objective moral fact?
By 'objective' I am basically referring to independence from observer attitudes; by 'fact' I mean something that is the case; by 'moral' we are talking about things like how we ought to act, or what sorts of person we should try to be, or what sorts of things are valuable, etc. So, by "objective moral fact" I am here referring to something that would be the case, independently of any observer attitudes, regarding such a normative realm. Something like that. The reason I brought up the subject of objective moral facts is because I take it to be the case that such a thing would suffice to satisfy what you mean when you talk about morality's being "real" (although I do not take it to be the case that the same could be said in the other direction). So, in my other post, when I mentioned examples of secular ethical theories that do, in fact, accommodate and exhibit objective accounts of morals, I was hoping you would then come to the realization that your claim that atheism and "real" morality are somehow at logical odds is absurd. I see, however, that you either missed my other post or you just simply selectively ignored it. It's a shame either way, since my other post addresses much of what you keep bringing up here.
18 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterKnightmeister, you do understand that for a given concept, it is generally a further question whether or not that concept is instantiated, right?
No I wouldn't object. If you claim that god is an idea, and I think ideas are real, then it logically follows that I think that god is real. If you want to claim that god is more than an idea, then you might face some problems backing up that claim.
----------shark---------------------
But I wouldn't have to claim he was "more than an idea" becaus reality ? You must have some distinction otherwise you must believe God exists afterall.
Take the example of a unicorn. People can form concepts of unicorns, and, in fact, ideas about unicorns exist. But, of course, unicorns do not exist, which is another way of saying that these unicorn concepts and ideas that people have are not instantiated. Likewise, concepts and ideas related to God certainly exist. But it is a further question whether or not they are instantiated. Same can be said of concepts and ideas of morality, or just about anything else.
I think you are trying to make this distinction, but I think your terminology is like a train wreck in progress.
18 Mar 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHSo the existence of God is "the only real thing we know in the world"?
"It should be pretty obvious," or it is pretty obvious to you? Because what follows (cart before the horse) simply doesn't fit any of the conversation. The atheistic foundation for any absolute is challenged. There is no cart, because there exists no horse in front of which to place it. Your foundation for anything absolute is challenged and--- as the ...[text shortened]... cepts from the only real thing we know in the world: the existence of God. Oops! No peaking!
Yikes.