Freethought & Rationalism Archive

theophilus · 06-26-2003, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spenser

In your rush to post, you fail to see what I've said.

Yes, it is the "idea," i.e., concept, of objective values that guides most people's conduct.

Only atheists who are trying to explain morality as subjective, consensus standards deny that the very "idea" of values requires some "objective" standard.

You keep trying to assert that I'm arguing that everybody subscribes to the same "objective" moral standards. I do not.
I assert that all cultures believe that their standards are a reflection of "objective" values.

No culture defends murder, as murder Supporters of abortion do not acknowledge abortion as murder, but defend it anyway.

Whether moral standards are conceived of as subjective or objective, it doesn't help the atheist argument. You cannot explain the existence of ANY values from a materialistic worldview.

Now, if you want to address this last point (by showing how you CAN explain such) rather than quibbling over terminology, which you mis-construe, then we might get somewhere.

theophilus · 06-26-2003, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Llyricist
All I see is equivocation. And the only confusion is on your part.

Then you should have no problem showing where I've been equivocating.

Once again, an assertion does not an argument make.

theophilus · 06-26-2003, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Llyricist
All I see is equivocation. And the only confusion is on your part.

Then you should have no problem showing where I've been equivocating.

Once again, an assertion does not an argument make.

Family Man · 06-26-2003, 03:03 PM

Theophilius --

You keep saying that atheistic materialism can account for "objective morality", which I take it you mean the consensus that exists within any particular society. So far, I just see an empty assertion. While Spenser can say this:

Quote:

The better my morals, the more they agree with the rest of the people around me, the better off in life I'll probably be, the less likely I'll be confronted by harm or danger, the more likely I'll be able to find a mate. These are perfectly good reasons for how morality can exist in a materialistic world.

You appear to have nothing to back up your argument.

Furthermore, if there is a universal god that provides us with our sense of universal morality, it would seem to me that all societies would have the same sense of morality at all times. This obviously isn't the case. It seems to me that the materialistic theory that morality is developed within societies explains the differences within societies, and the constant struggle over moral issues both within and between societies, than your empty assertion that we need God to have a basis for objective morality.

Quote:

Once again, an assertion does not an argument make.

True, and your assertion that atheistic materialism can not explain objective morality is not an argument. You are equivocating.

theophilus · 06-26-2003, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Spenser
I live in a material world. I have morality, I know morality exists. I do things because I think they are good or bad.

But these are just the issues under debate. Merely asserting that the world is material is begging the question.

I assume you mean that you live in a "purely" material world. If that is so, then there must be a "purely" material explanation for all the features of experience.

You claim you "have" morality and "do" things because you think (believe?) they are good or bad."

You use words without explaining how any of these things can be so in a materialistic world.

You say you "have" morality. What does that mean? Does that mean that you have some standard of values? How do you explain the "idea" of values from pure materialism?

You "do" things because they are good or bad. Do you mean that certain actions have an inherent "value" content? How do you explain this?

Just because something is intangible, doesn't make it supernatural.

Apparently you don't think you need to explain them, but it's okay to attempt to use moral concepts, e.g., PoE, to deny the existence of God.

The better my morals, the more they agree with the rest of the people around me, the better off in life I'll probably be, the less likely I'll be confronted by harm or danger, the more likely I'll be able to find a mate.

You are just digging yourself further into a hole. "Better" is, of course a term of comparative values. In order for something to be "better" than something else,there must be an "objective" standard against which to compare it.

Your positing of some pragmatic rational denies the "morality" of you behavior, it is pure selfishness, and doesn't explain why other people would have values.

These are perfectly good reasons for how morality can exist in a materialistic world.

They are not reasons at all. Pragmatism is, at best, selfishness and, at worst, cowardess. It destroys all our concepts of heroism, valor and humantiy. It is mere animal behavior.
This does not begin to describe our understanding of moral values.

You have not thought clearly about the consequences of your attempts to deny the transcendent nature of morals. By dfailing to oing so, you have diminished not only yourself, but mankind.

All you do is say that it can't be explained in terms of materialism, and because so the Xian God exists. THAT my friend is an assertion, a complete guess. Even if you are right, and it cannot be explained in a material world (which I completely disagree with) all you are left with is an unknown. Inserting a God in there is as good of an answer as inserting a set of programmers keeping us in The Matrix, or the dome from The Truman Show.

"All I do?" Well, you have missed the whole point of the argument. If the world is purely material, then there must be a material explanation for everything - that is the basis of the atheistic argument against God, i.e., all things can be accounted for materially.
If this argument proves false, that there are some things, the most important features of existence, which cannot be explained materially, then this argument cannot serve as the basis for a denial of God.
So, to be honest, you must acknowledge that you have no foundation for knowlege and be quiet.
On the other hand, man and his experience, are capable of being explained by the nature of God, of his creation, of his purpose, etc, as they are contained in scripture, then you are bound, if you want to be intellectually honest, to acknowledge so.

Morals exist. The world exists. Your conclusion has no tie to any of it and does not offer up any evidence of an objective standard of morality by which most people operate"

Of course morals exist. The argument is not whether they exist, but how their existence as abstract, immaterial entities (have you ever "seen" morality?) can be explained

Objective:

1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.

This is significant of nothing since I do not assert "objective morality," i.e., uniform behavior. You keep making the same mistake and it doesn't get anymore true because you repeat it.

-----------------------------------------------------

Wouldn't "most people operate" suggest a consensus?
No, because they don't operate as a group, nor do they defend their values by "consensus." Even if they did, e.g., "everybody's doing it." this itself would be appealing to a value - if everybody's doing it, it must be right.

Wouldn't that be a grouping of subjective moralities?

No, because that still doesn't explain the existence of morality in the first place.

Evidence of morality is nothing more than evidence of morality.
And the only position you can justify from this profound statement is skepticism.

The fact that the best morals that provide for maximum survival or maximum health of the maximum number of our species appear to be the consensus view only suggests that subjective morals exist.

No help here. Still doesn't explain "morals." It may explain certain behaviors as pragmatic, but doesn't explain our valuing of behavior which doesn't fit these categories, i.e., sacrificing your own life for someone else.

Now if you are not willing to equate your "objective standard of morality by which most people operate" to Absolute Morality (or God's rules so-to-speak) then how the hell can they be used as evidence of God's existence???????

I don't know how the hell, because that isn't what I said. I said the "idea" of objective morality.
If you want to keep mischaracterizing my argument, I'll just have to attribute it to a perverse nature.

Llyricist · 06-26-2003, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Then you should have no problem showing where I've been equivocating.

Well I would have to repost every post you've made since the first postin the thread to show it, but why bother? They are already posted for everyone to see.

Shadowy Man · 06-26-2003, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus

You cannot explain the presence of values (the essence of morality) an immaterial entity on the basis of a survival instinct. Actually, you can't even explain the survical instinct - do rocks have a survival instinct?

Following this logic, you are basically saying that a materialistic viewpoint can't even explain life itself.

So, would I be correct in saying that the fact that life exists proves to you that the materialistic viewpoint is incorrect?

theophilus · 06-26-2003, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Llyricist
Well I would have to repost every post you've made since the first postin the thread to show it, but why bother? They are already posted for everyone to see.

Intellectual cowardice.

theophilus · 06-26-2003, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shadowy Man
Following this logic, you are basically saying that a materialistic viewpoint can't even explain life itself.

That is the substance of the argument; materialism cannot accout for/explain any of the features of human experience. Therefore, materialists must import the epistemology of Christian theism to even make their attacks against God.
Materialism/empiricism cannot explain "laws" of nature, because it cannot establish causal relationships. Every event would have to be taken as a unique, unrelated phenomenon.

So, would I be correct in saying that the fact that life exists proves to you that the materialistic viewpoint is incorrect? [/B]

Well, how do you validate the "fact" that life exists? I'm not clear on this question, but I think I would say yes, in the overall context of my argument.

Normal · 06-26-2003, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theophilus
Intellectual cowardice.

Prepare for a warning.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.