Kent Symanzik

Hi tronvillain,

The problem with biology and evolutionary theory as a foundation for empathy is that those things are just other particulars. They have no universal character and provide no rational basis for obligation. The question still remains why "ought" anyone obey any particular ethical code? What rational basis can you give for obligation?

Kent

Kent Symanzik

Hi Vorkosigan,

You must not forget that we are dealing with presuppositions here. Everyone starts with his own presupposition that cannot be proven directly. My presupposition is the Christian God of scripture. To ask me why I chose God as my presupposition does not make sense. How can I reasonably choose anything before I even have a foundation for reasoning. In other words, we cannot choose anything before presupposing something.

This is not to say that we do not change our presuppositions. But, whenever we are thinking or reasoning about anything we are using presuppositions.

Your personal way out of the problem, choosing to see no particular value as foundational, is a presupposition itself. Unfortunately, it is a presupposition that results in absurdity. If you have no foundation on which to base your reasoning then you are being completely arbitrary. You cannot have any prescriptive code of ethics because you cannot justify obligation to your code.

It seems that there are a number of people who have been thinking of ethics just as a description of how we choose to behave. This is not ethics but rather just a description. It has no obligatory value.

I browsed through the post on objective ethics. Thanks for pointing out that thread but LuvLuv's position is not my position. He seemed to be more concerned about how people agree on ethical systems. My standard of ethics does not depend on anyone's agreement.

Kent

sir drinks-a-lot

This reminds me of someone else who used to post here named Jim Mitchell.

Something about this approach just does not seem right. I don't think anyone's worldview works as you claim it does, by making a single presupposition. You claim that the Christian God is your first presupposition. How was this able to come about? You couldn't decide to make the presupposition! It might have happened to you, or been revealed to you by the Christian God, but how could you process it or understand it? How could you even recognize the presupposition? Or yourself for that matter? What is the state of affairs before that first presupposition is made?

People use all sorts of methods to try and come to grips with first peinciples (method of doubt, etc..) But do you really think it is possible to hold a single proposition at any time in a meaningful way?

Ierrellus

My two cents:

Morality in the world, circa 2002, is still animal oriented; otherwise humans would not base right and wrong on Pavlovian incentives of reward and punishment. A Sufi saint once said, "God, if I worship you in hope of heaven, exclude me from that heaven; and if I worship you in fear of hell, include me in that hell." Infantile morality cannot see beyond good and evil.

Ierrellus
PAX

Synaesthesia

Sir Drinks-a-lot
But of course it is! We can have presuppositions that are consistent because our system is constructed around it. Whether it actually epistemically useful (other than comitting yourself to a body of tradition and belief) is a different story.

Kent,
This is a most revealing statement. Not only do you not explain why anyone should believe God, or even take God seriously, you insist that you cannot.

You cannot tell how God explains anything (since strange are the ways of the lord), you cannot tell how we should discern his existence and qualities. In short, we can say very much the same things about God as we can about any non-existent thing.

But you say we cannot discern why we would believe that such a creature exists.

What you are saying logically implies that we can never know why we choose one presupposition over another or change from one to another.

Yet no one presupposes that mice are the kings of the world or that stones are water. Does this not suggest that our assumptions are NOT arbitrary?

If they are not, I think it would be rather unwise to place them above question. The worst that can happen if we are critical is that we question our assumptions and find them to be true. At best, we can learn something unexpected.

sir drinks-a-lot

I guess I should have said Do you think it is possible to hold only a single proposition at any time in a meaningful way.

It is the ol' Jim Mitchell schtick. Presuppose the Christian God, and you have a complete and consistent worldview. Complete, because it explains everything, and consistent because there are no contradictions.

But can anyone really start out epistimelogically (sic) by presupposing only the single proposition "the christian god exists." I don't think it is possible. I think this Van Tilism/Presuppositionalism is only an exercise in logic. It is a bit interesting on paper, but does not describe reality.

Even setting this point aside, a consistent and complete worldview does not need to have any relevance to the real world. One consistent, complete worldview is this: Sir Drinks-a-Lot has all the answers. If you presuppose this, you will have a complete and consistent worldview. I will be able to answer any questions you may ask about the world. The origins of the universe, and question about the nature of the world, modern physics, etc.

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: sir drinks-a-lot ]</p>

Kent Symanzik

I don't know a Jim Mitchell. I know a Rob Mitchell that may argue this way.

I think the only thing that is clear is that I have not been getting my point across very well. I was trying to say simply that we all presuppose something all the time. I wasn't born presupposing the Christian God but eventually I realized that all my thinking was irrational unless I presupposed him.

Most atheists probably presuppose that they are free to think for themselves, free-thinking. This is a presupposition. Most will also assume that they can think rationally without first proving that they have a basis for their reasoning.

I'm sorry I've made things more complicated than they need to be.

Now concerning how I came to presuppose God. God chose me first, I did not choose him. For we are saved by Grace through faith, not by works lest any man can boast. I was saved when I was dead in sin. (Ephesians 2) After I was saved I came to realize that all of my thinking before salvation had no foundation without the Christian God. Now, I am not saying that I could not think before and have morals but I could not give them a rational justification. As another person said earlier, it was just the way it is. This is just the way we think, act, and live. But now it is clear to me that we all (like it or not) live in God's world. We think, make decisions, and act on his foundation.

Now I know that you guys disagree with me. But, that is what makes the discussion interesting. I have been trying to explain as best as I can what my worldview is and how it is rational and consistent. And at the same time I have been asking how an atheistic worldview can be rational.

Thanks for your patience.

Kent

sir drinks-a-lot

How did you begin to deduce this? How did you come to the conclusion that your thinking was irrational before presupposing god?!? By using your faulty autonomous human reasoning?


You seem to have made this supposition yourself, and then claim to have used your free-thinking to come to the conclusion that you must presuppose God. What type of reasoning did you use to determine that you must presuppose god to make your reasoning rational?

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: sir drinks-a-lot ]</p>

Kent Symanzik

Hi Synaesthesia,

I have not forgotten about your previous post. I plan on responding.

I'm afraid that I have not been as clear as I would like. That is not what I meant. I was just trying to say that in order to chose you must first presuppose. So, if I was to choose God as my presupposition I would have to have already chosen another presupposition to base my reasoning on. That's all.

I can explain why we should believe in God. Simply because if you do not you cannot avoid being irrational. It is my contention that in order to even deny that God exists you must first presuppose him to make a rational argument. Simply put, you cannot be rational without God. Now that is my argument that I am offering for discussion. I do not mean it to be an offense to anyone.

I have been trying to tell how God explains everything and without him we cannot even think rationally. But, it is not only I that speak but God has revealed himself in the scriptures. They say alot about him. So, I don't understand why you think we cannot know anything about him.

I have been trying to say just the opposite but obviously not very well.

Thanks for helping me clarify.

Kent

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: Kent Symanzik ]</p>

tronvillain

Kent Symanzik:
The problem with biology and evolutionary theory as a foundation for empathy is that those things are just other particulars. They have no universal character and provide no rational basis for obligation. The question still remains why "ought" anyone anyone find lemons sour? What rational basis can you give for obligation?



You are being foolish. No one is obligated to hold any particular moral code, they simply acquire one as a result of their human biology and experience. Any attempt to construct an objective morality is an attempt to build a house on ever shifting sand.