acronos

English is not a universal language either. If you spoke French, I would not understand you, and there are plenty of people who don't know English. Does that mean it is impossible for us to communicate? No, so long as we speak the same language we can communicate. The same holds for logic. If you and I hold the same logical premises, then we can communicate. I accept that in the world of our typical experience, the model that A cannot be ~A is a pretty good one, excluding quantum mechanics and a few other esoteric phenomena. You have said you also accept this. So long as we agree on such terms, we can communicate. So long as we agree on the meaning of the words we use, we can communicate. Communication does not require universal laws; it requires common ground. With no language in common, you are quite correct that this discussion would be pointless. The same with no logic in common. That does not make languages or logic universal.

K

Jobar:

Excellent post on the applicability and lack thereof of logic to the real universe. I've tried in several other threads to explain why logic is only a tool and not a universal law. My hat's off to you. You've summed it up nicely.

Marz Blak

Kent--

Pardon me for my late interjection into this thread, and forgive me if I reiterate anything already said. It’s a very long thread now, and I’ve tried to read it all, but after reading even as far as I have, refraining from posting until I read through to the end has become simply impossible for such an impatient and flawed vessel as I.

The whole morality thing:
What is wrong with positing biological and cultural evolution, combined with a rational self-interest, inherent in all life as a sort of genetic imperative but also greatly evolved biologically and culturally in humans, as the foundation of ethics? I believe ideas along this line have been posted a goodly while ago, and you have yet to respond to them.

Secondly, your whole argument seems to boil down to an either/or thing: either ethics are objective and universal, or they are essentially valueless. You have repeated this position several times. I reject this thesis out of hand. As some others have pointed out, perfectly useful, consistent, and justifiable ethical systems can be derived from an intersubjectively consensual approach. As has also been pointed out, there certainly seems to be more evidence for the subjectivity of morals than for their objectivity, because there is so much substantive disagreement through time and space on so many such issues.

The "Human Value" argument:
Your argument here seems to be that people must derive their value from some higher authority; otherwise they are nothing more than "bags of chemicals" just like any other pile of stuff, and there is no basis for preferring them over animals, life over death, etc.

This is in my view another of your either/or arguments that embodies a false dichotomy. What I mean is that I do not see any basis for excluding the possibility that human value is NOT inherent, but is derived by humans only--that is to say, through the same mechanisms of biological and cultural evolution of intelligence, compassion, empathy, etc.--as being a coherent reason why humans would prefer and work towards the preservation of human life.


Rationality, logic, etc.
It seems to me that we all use them because we have evolved into an intelligent species, and they *work* at allowing us to make sense of things, irrespective of our theological beliefs; and those who don’t use them to at least some degree are locked up and put away by the rest of us, because people who show themselves to be incapable of applying them are, at best, unintelligible wastes of our time and effort, and at worst, dangers to the rest of us.

Example:
So I say to Joe, “What did you have for lunch today?” and Joe answers, “Blue skeletons are raining from the sky in Saskatoon.” Joe does enough of this, and I stop talking to Joe. Joe does even more of this, Joe eventually gets committed to a state (non-criminal) psychological facility. Joe eventually graduates to pulling out a knitting needle and tries to stick it in the questioner’s eye, screaming, “The moon! The moon!”—Joe gets put into a soft cell and given lots of happy pills, and might never see the light of day again.

So arguments about rationality as a presupposition having its only rational basis in the Judeo-Christian god are nonsense, AFAICS. Even if one were not to presuppose the validity of logic, etc., he would soon have no choice but to arrive at their validity empirically.

End of story.


Moral foundation, objective morality, etc….
Firstly, your supposed distinction between “ethics” on the one hand and “good/evil” or “morality” on the other: how is this more than semantics? You seem to be saying that the terms "good" and "evil" should be reserved for characteristics of a universal nature. I see little point in arguing this. How about you call your terms "good" and "evil" and I call mine the same, and we just agree that the meanings aren't exactly the same?


Some of the Christian stuff that has started to come up later in the thread:
Jesus’ supposed death: How did it have any real meaning if Jesus, being God and therefore omnimax, knew he would rise again? Doesn’t the whole thing have sort of a hollow, middle-school-(or Middle Ages) morality-play feel to it when viewed from the perspective that *the whole thing was wired from beginning to end because the omnimax God had worked it all out from the beginning of time*? For that matter, couldn’t you say the same thing about the entire story, Genesis to Revelation?

Original sin: irrational at best, unbelievably, literally infinitely cruel at worst (Adam, having not eaten of the tree, couldn’t know that what he was doing was wrong: doesn’t eternal damnation seem a bit, well harsh?). Even presupposing one believes such a fable, why would anyone with anything approaching any positive human values (justice, mercy, compassion, etc.) choose to *worship* such an entity? Especially when he created Adam and being omnimax, knew exactly what Adam would do? It is the simplest thing of all about the Judaically-based religions, but one which I’ve never seen adequately explained.

Another thing that’s always bothered me is the Job story…. God allowing Satan to torment this poor sod, this perfectly obedient, righteous guy, just as the condition of a wager or something?

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Please.

[ September 02, 2002: Message edited by: Marz Blak ]

[ September 03, 2002: Message edited by: Marz Blak ]

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Marz Blak ]

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Marz Blak ]</p>

Plebe

As an Agnostic-Atheist/Non-theist My worldviews are comprised of an open minded and opinionated appraisal and participation in the world events, politics, science, social psychology, psychology, philosophy, religions and personal activities such as physical fitness, arts and crafts,gourmet cooking, and the list goes on to the most mundane activities which most of the time are completely unrelated to my non-belief stance on life and reality. I am a seeker and feel that the word "Believe" is just a word with a big fat "Lie" in the middle that allows people to convince themselves of things they do not Know!I value knowledge over belief any day of the week and feel I would be lying to myself and others in conducting my world and worldview by a belief vs. knowledge, even if I am partly wrong at least I am partly right by what I am capable of knowing. Only when I encounter believers in various religions, and mostly it's Christians who are up for a discussion do I bother to give them reasons to realize that believing, just like belief in Santa Claus,Ghosts,Supernatural beings doesn't make it so, you need facts and reality to live honestly. I give them non-tracts from <a href="http://www.infidels.org" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org</a> and <a href="http://www.ffrf.org" target="_blank">http://www.ffrf.org</a> and point out things such as slavery and women's rights as things to examine in addition to the scholarly ones posted here. So, in summing up, the Atheist/Agnostic worldview is defined by the individual and we have our valid reasons why we are non-theists/non-believers. Below are some links to help Christians to know why Agnostics-Atheists feel Christianity has been thoroughly debunked. I have selected those articles and results of the search engines which cover the history of both Jewish and Christian Bibles and the influence of Zoroastrianism on both which is little known outside of Seminary and scholarly circles. You see, the vast majority of Christians are ignorant from a scholarly perspective and it isn't until they meet up with someone who knows where to find this scholarship that they begin to seriously realize there is verity to their doubts about the key tenets of their faith.
<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_wheless/forgery_in_christianity/index.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_wheless/forgery_in_christianity/index.shtml</a>

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/chap29.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gerald_larue/otll/chap29.html</a>

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1994/4/4zoroa94.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1994/4/4zoroa94.html</a>

Plebe, I have deleted the last few links you posted- they were apparently a problem to some members. Feel free to reinsert them- but do make sure they post correctly.

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: Jobar ]</p>

Kent Symanzik

Hi Jobar,

I admit that the rejection of the laws of logic as universal has taken me by surprise. I have been trying to get my mind around the concept. If I understand your position correctly you are stating that the laws of logic are descriptive but not prescriptive. They describe what we find in reality but they do not provide any ought. They describe how we think but do not prescribe the way we ought to think.

If I am describing your position correctly then the laws of logic are simply laws of nature like the law of gravity. It describes what we find in nature but does not presribe ought.

Am I understanding you correctly? Please correct and add whatever may be missing.

Thanks

Kent

K

Kent:

I would say that the laws of logic are a lot like the laws of Newtonian physics. They seem to represent the universe very well in their domain of applicablility. Their are areas, however, where they don't - just as Newtonian laws don't fully describe the universe when relativistic speeds are involved.

You are correct that they are descriptive not prescriptive. They describe certain aspects of the universe. They never force it to do anything.

Radcliffe Emerson

My current philosophy pretty much mirrors acronos'
I come from a Christian background, but have been withdrawing from that for about a year.
I only very recently gave up a belief in deities after shedding my belief in Jesus.
I personally think the universe was just one big explosion into existing, the Big Bang Theory. I don't think there was any consciousness behind it.
I belong to a Unitarian Universalist church because it's the only place I've found where people that share humanist philosophies like I do gather, in my area.
My worldview is still evolving, but I think humanism has to prevail if our species is going to survive.

Kent Symanzik

Hi Marz,

My point has been that in atheistic worldviews there can be no actual right or wrong, good or evil. And it seems that many atheists do not have any need for such things. So, the question then became whether moral codes can be explained in the atheistic worldview. I believe I carried on this dialogue with tronvillian. He described his ethics as completely subjective. I agreed that subjective ethics can be rational if we ignore the question of whether we actually find that in reality. Also, subjective ethics are not really ethics anymore because they are just descriptive rather than prescriptive. They do not provide a mechanism for ought. They only describe what is. Anyway, we left the dialogue at that point. I had gained a much better understanding of some atheistic views.

Yes, I do hold that subjective ethics are valueless. I think we would need to establish value in atheistic worldviews first before this discussion can proceed. And that is what you bring up next.

It's not just that values must be derived from a higher authority. Values must be derived from a personal being. The basis of atheistic worldviews is impersonal.

In order to have values in an atheistic worldview, persons must be established. There is a huge gap between an bags of chemicals and actual persons. Some in this thread have made small attempts to bridge this gap but unsuccessfully I'm afraid. It's involves pulling something out of nothing. You must somehow create personal beings from an impersonal universe. This seems impossible to me.

I suppose you could try to establish values without persons. This would be similar to giving up actual good/evil in universal ethics in favor of subjective ethics which simply describe our behaviour. They no longer are prescriptive which really means they are no longer ethics. I suppose you could do something similar with values. Just describe the chemical reaction.

I like your examples of irrationality. The dialogue over logic is ongoing. Interestingly, logic is taking a very similar turn that ethics did. Jobar and others have reduced logic to simply a description of what we find in reality. They provide no basis for how we ought to think. I believe that this has serious implications and raise more issues than they solve. One question that jumps out immediately is how one would go about observing the laws of logic without first presupposing them since we must use logic in our observations. But, I may not completely understand Jobar's position yet.

But, it seems that you have a different view since you say that some *ought* to be locked who thinks differently than you do. That means logic is prescriptive and therefore must be universal. So, there we go again, back to the question of how there can be universal and invariant laws of logic in an atheistic worldview.

I do not wish to quibble over definitions either. Some have preferred to term taste over good/evil. I agree that good is a very broad term. When I speak of good I mean morally good which is prescriptive.

I thought I had answered all of these questions. I would suggest that you take a serious look at these things in order to understand them from the viewpoint of Christian theism. Just as when I misunderstand antheistic positions my critiques have limited impact, these things in the bible are not going to make sense if you have a misunderstanding of them.

If you seriously want to discuss these issues that you bring up I would be happy to. I can see from what you describe that they do not make sense because you do not understand them.

Kent

Kent Symanzik

Hi Radcliffe ,

I'm not trying to be a pain but how does your humanist philosophy justify the notion that survival of our species is good? Why should we desire the survival of our species?

Kent

Keith Russell

Kent:

So, without your belief that God gave us His word as to what is 'good', and what is 'evil', you would see no reason to continue to live? No reason to value other human beings? No reason to have children, etc.?

Are you really unable to see anything wrong with stealing, murder, rape, etc., if it weren't for your belief that 'God said' that human beings should not do these things?

Do you really view everything as utterly arbitrary, as being utterly without merit--except that a very old and widely-respected book claims that God said that some things are good, and others are bad?

Really?

Keith.

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]

[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Keith Russell ]</p>