Normal

There's no rational basis for objectives now? So if my objective is to build a house on mars, that is as equally rational as some one else's objective of eating an apple everyday?

Edit: An even more extreme example, the heaven's gate mass suicide was for a rational objective as well?

Wounded King

I dont think of morals as rational beliefs. I think of them as, mostly, rational social laws or rules which help society function more smoothly. I don't think skeptics need to doubt the rules of Monopoly.

scombrid

You just don't like skeptics because they won't buy into to chokra/chi/poopoo without clinical evidence. BECAUSE IT WORKS!!!!!!! Doesn't constitute clinical evidence. I'm curious to read the rest of this thread now because I know it'll head down the road where you condemn close minded skeptics because they're ignoring you "evidence" for alternative medicine.

Edit 10minutes later: That was fun.

I was sick on Friday. I drank half a bottle of cognac friday night. I felt much better on saturday. Cognac is the world's best cold remedy. IT WORKS!!!!

Mageth

If you think that works, you should try extract of Bigfoot bladder.

Wyz_sub10

A skeptic is a critical thinker, but it does not follow that it makes him or her an atheist, and it is certainly non sequitur to say they do not "believe" in morals.

Martin Gardener is arguably the "godfather of skeptics", and he is a deist, of sorts. He simply accepts that his belief is not founded on proof, but rather on what he'd like to believe. There is nothing to this approach that contradicts skepticsm.

That's absurd. "Skepticsm" has nothing to do with beliefs, but rather to the approach taken to developing those beliefs.

This is a contradiction - one could not be skeptical without filling his or her mind with dubious data - how else would one know the data waas dubious, if not to entertain it?

This doesn't follow at all. Perhaps most mathematicians are skeptics (I don't really know), but I wouldn't say most skeptics are mathematicians (or logicians or philosophers).

Wyz_sub10

Evolution discerns morality. Reasons assist us in understanding why.

Are you saying that I cannot reason why stealing is wrong? Are you suggesting that abstaining from murder is irrational or that one cannot comprehend how, even if something benefits him in the short term, it will produce harm in the long term?

Contrary to what you might think, moral positions can be "proven" - rationalized, justified, evidenced, whatever.

Totalitarianist

Yes, it is certainly possible for a critical thinker, i.e. a skeptic, to have irrational beliefs. That could be called limited skepticism, in which the skeptic is only a skeptic with regard to some things (e.g., the supernatural), and not others (e.g., morals). A Skeptic with a captial S, a Skeptic who has no serious limitations in his Skepticism, to critical thought, can have no belief in that in which evidence is unsatisfactory. For thus he would be limiting his skepticism to some things and not others perhaps for reasons which can be explained in terms of the "confirmation bias", or some such thing: meaning that he would, if he did limit his skepticism, have a bias, lack objectvity, have irrational beliefs the antidote to which can only be skepticism.


Obviously he is not sufficiently skeptical. As a professional skeptic he is among the best; as a skeptical man he is evidently mediocre.

Our beliefs and our approach to arriving, to "developing" them, cannot be separated, cannot be considered in isolation. For, as you know, they interact. Thus Skepticism has much to do with beliefs. A critical "approach" to things, unlimited Skepticism, cannot lead to irrational beliefs, e.g., God, morals.

A never said that any mathematicians are Skeptics, or vice versa. I meant that a Skeptic would be more inclined to disciplines in which there is a greater degree of certainty, in which there is less need for skepticism. I actually believe that this is identical to a correct approach to philosophy, but most would disagree. Therefore I said mathematics and logic, for said discipines work well with a skeptical mind.

Totalitarianist

Evolution does not "discern morality". That is absurd. It is only true that we believe in morals, not that morals themselves are true. Only the beliefs exist. Perhaps their existence can be explained in evolutionary terms, but that does not mean that the beliefs are correct, are rational. Yes, morality is probably useful for a society, but that does not make them rational beliefs. A skeptical mind can acknowledge that morals are useful for society and yet maintain that morals are irrational beliefs.

Rationality only refers to beliefs. Whether such-and-such action which is considered immoral is rational or irrational is irrelevant. As beliefs, all morals are irrational. Actions, I think, are non-rational because rationality refers to beliefs.

You can rationalise that stealing is wrong, but you will be incorrect in 100% of the rationalisations. Every single philosopher -- with not a single exception -- has failed in rationalising his morality. The moral philosophies which have been proven to be the correct ones have been those philosophies which stick to criticising morals, rather than justifying them (note the word "justifying": it is always a circular endeavour).

Contrary to what you might think, moral positions can be "proven" - rationalized, justified, evidenced, whatever. [/B][/QUOTE]

No, they cannot.

Gurdur

< Quibble-mode >Evolution does not discern morality.

Evolution provides part of the original base for human morality (the rest being provided by cognition); reason helps us in understanding how and why, and suggesting improvements.

um, not quite.
Moral positions can well be reasoned, and often are; yet as with all viewpoints, including the most stringently value-free empiricism, at very bottom rest upon presuppositions that must be adopted arbitrarily.
< / Quibble-mode >

Yes, Martin Gardner is a great bloke and an extremely good skeptic.
BTW, he's more of a fideist than a deist.

I wouldn't bother trying to argue with Totalitarianist too much --- it's not worth it.

Totalitarianist

Do you really have to provoke me every single time?

Yes, it is worth it. It is obviously difficult for my reader's to refute my argument (for it has not yet been refuted); therefore it is a good argument. Good arguments are worth refuting; therefore arguing with me is "worth it".