luvluv

Jagged Little Pill:

If you are willing to engage in specific points of my argument, let's start here.

You said:

Okay, please point out the flaw in logic in the following argument.

1) It is impossible for an omniscient being to hold a false belief.
2) God is an omniscient being.
3) God holds beliefs regarding morality.
4) Therefore, God's beliefs regarding morality are true.

K

luvluv:

While I would tend to agree about that point (because I don't believe there is an objective morality), I would say that theists are in the same boat. Afterall, if you are allowed to assume the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient being as the foundation of morality, an atheist would certainly be allowed to assume an objective, knowable morality. I personally don't find either to have a lot of supporting evidence, but I see no reason to allow one assumption and disallow the other. To me it seems that both are positions held without without evidence - making both less than completely rational.

I wish there were a better word than irrational for these beliefs, while I believe it is warranted, I still think it sounds rather harsh and insulting. I hold many irrational beliefs myself (eg. football tradition at the University of Michigan dwarfs that at Notre Dame). So, it's not like I believe that holding an irrational belief makes a person mentally unstable.

[ November 21, 2002: Message edited by: K ]</p>

Jagged

You have gotten a ton of milage out of this one logical argument. I will grant you that IF there is a god and IF he is omniscient then his beliefs on morality are true and anyone who listens to him will hold true beliefs as well. I will NOT grant you that this is a logical position in light of our multi-theistic society, nor that this position is a rational one per se EVEN IF god does exist. Such a position has nothing to do with reason or rationality but rather with faith. RATIONAL arguments would be based on that which can be observed and proven from the world around us as we experience it. IRRATIONALITY would cling to belief in that which cannot be observed or proven, namely, a superior and omniscient being, even if evidence in the observable world contradicts this belief.

If you're going to cling to stubborn belief in a sky daddy no matter what well GOOD FOR YOU! You are free to do whatever you want. But it is completely absurd to claim that this position is rational while reality-based systems of belief are not.

I have been giving you perfectly good arguments throughout my discussion with you. The only problem is that instead of listening you have chosen to put your fingers in your ears and chant "no-no-no-no-no." This is why we never get beyond your original hypothesis!! You will concede NOTHING for ANY reason, rational or otherwise!!!

I quite honestly think that you are doing what psychologists call "projecting" onto the other that which you know about yourself, but do not want to admit.

Primal

No luvluv, if anything there is a problem in your house which you have not attempted to solve with anything short of question begging and "I don't know" type statements.

luvluv

K:

No, they don't. That is the entire point. If you are an atheist because you are an empiricist
or a rationalist, you flat out don't get to assume the unproven, unsupported existence of a
single thing.

I am not an empiricst or a rationalist. I know there are always going to be things that exist
that cannot be proven to exist. Therefore, I believe in God on the basis of my personal
experience with Him. Even though I cannot prove the veracity of my experience to
someone else beyond a reasonable doubt, still there is no doubt in my mind that I have a
relationship with God.

But if you would throw this out because I can't prove it, you have to throw out your
notions of morality too.

Jagged Little Pill:

a) Actually that would be an evidentiary or an empircal argument. Rational arguments
have nothing to do with what can be observed but with the laws of logic.

b) Why is it rational for you to believe in a moral system you have no proof of, and yet
irrational for me to believe in a God I have no proof of?

Jagged

JLP: luvluv: Let me refine my definition: Rational arguments would be based from that which can be observed and deduced from the world around us as we experience it.

Also please define the "laws of logic." Which ones do you recognize as reasonable? You say I have no proof of my moral positions. What kind of proof would you like? Then I will endeavor to give it to you.

K

luvluv:

And I do throw out the idea of any kind of morality outside of our minds. But you are asking me to accept that your morality based on your belief in a deity who leaves no evidence is rational. At the same time you ask me to reject the claims of atheists who believe in objective morality as irrational simply because their ideas of morality are based on something other than your god. It seems to me, both claims are based on completely unsupported foundations. I see both as irrational.

I don't find a problem with your claim that atheists who believe in an objective morality hold an irrational belief. It's your claim of the rationality of morality based on God (for whom there is no more evidence than there is for objective morality) that bothers me.

Carlos

I find it amusing that in a thread titled "Can Theists Have Morals?" the debate is on whether the atheist's morality is reasonable and thus consistent. A different thread with a more suitable title would seem more proper, and I imagine it would help luvluv maintain the focus on his argument.

First of all, I speak only for myself. While others may share the same views, I will not pretend to speak for all atheists. Keep this in mind; the only certainty about atheists is that we share a lack of belief in god.

You might have missed my comment in <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=52&t=000345&p=5" target="_blank">this thread</a> where I conceded part of your argument but disputed the rest. So, I will restate my position here.

Yes, my morality is not built on reason. Based on my values I have some goals or principles (e.g. "help others"); I use reason to help me through this ("a sweater will help more than a doll") when I can, and values when reason is of no help (selecting one sweater over another). I see no way in which reason can answer all of the moral choices I'll ever face. At some point reason will have nothing to say, and I will still have to answer the question in front of me.

I fail to see how this makes me inconsistent, though. You seem to think that because I use reason as a cause for my lack of belief in god, I should also use reason as a "cause" for my morality. This is where I fundamentally disagree; as I said earlier, I don't consider reason to be sufficient to provide me with such guidance. Does that mean I have no sense of morality? Does that count as an excuse, allowing me to commit certain acts deemed immoral by everyone else? No and no. At most it means I cannot claim "belief in morality", where it is clearly understood that "belief" is meant to be rationally justified. If it were, if I could derive morality through the application of logic, then we might expectat that all atheists share that same view of morality.

Since people have different values, it follows that their view of what is moral and what is not must also differ. Similarly, my own values change over time, affecting my sense of morality. Given that, I cannot in good conscience claim that my version of morality is absolute or perfect. So what? That is not necessary. At least I can be grateful that my system allows me to grow as an individual by reflecting who I am, and does not force me to ignore my values as other systems are prone to do.

Other "beliefs" I hold: I prefer strawberries over cranberries, brunettes over blondes, cool jazz over hard bop. There is no way I could logically support any of those. It would be silly for me to even try. Am I inconsistent? Please. This atheist never claimed to be Mr. Spock.

I imagine you will take this as an opportunity to claim that if the atheist does not need reason to justify morality, then likewise the theist should not need reason to justify god (or belief in god). I disagree with this too, as I explained in that other thread. Should you choose to pursue this path, though, I'd be happy to elaborate.

[ argh. Need to read before I post... ]

[ November 24, 2002: Message edited by: Carlos ]</p>

luvluv

Carlos:

I agree with most of what you said. That is basically my point, that reason has it's limits. The fact that there is neither a sound argument nor solid emprical proof for a proposition is not sufficient grounds for declaring it false or non-existant. You indeed could not draw a rational argument proving the existence of a single thing we witness (material objects, other minds, etc). Our sole evidence that these things exist is emprical... indeed I am not aware that any rational proof has ever been constructed which soundly proves the existence of ANYTHING. So since we could not produce a rational argument for the existence of anything, even things we can OBSERVE, why would we expect to construct a sound argument for God? The fact that this cannot be done is really irrelavent to the possibility of God's existence. It does not even make it less likely. We cannot prove rationally the existence of milk (without resorting to emprical observations), but that fact does not make the existence of milk less likely (even if we were not able to observe milk or if no human had ever observed any).

So if there is an entity which we cannot observe and for which we have no empirical evidence, then we should not expect to be able to prove it's existence rationally because we cannot rationally establish the existence of almost anything.

So if you would conceed that reason alone cannot establish the existence, or even the likliehood of the existence of God, then why do you not believe in his existence?

Please do. Why is God in a different category?

JLP:

I'm looking for a formal deductive argument showing that your values are logically necessary and true.

Jagged

luv, if there's one thing i've learned with you, it's to check out your use of vocabulary before trying to argue with you.

please define the terms:
"formal deductive argument"
"logically necessary"
"true"

and please give an EXAMPLE of a valid argument which fits your description.

OK?