jlowder

No one faults someone who is trying to become self-educated on these matters. But I have little tolerance for someone who <strong>both</strong> makes sweeping claims about atheist morality <strong>and</strong>, by their own admission, is not well-educated about morality in general. Please do your research first, ask questions (do not make unsupported assertions), and then post an argument here.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

luvluv

Well, I am engaging in some rigorous self-education, but I haven't gotten to some of the books Lowder mentioned yet. I'm going through Plantinga's books now, so I understand a lot more of this stuff than I used to. Have some patience with the new guy!

At any rate, if I'm wrong I'm sure that will be made abundantly clear.

luvluv

How would that alter the fact that if an omniscient being believed something to be valuable, it would, by definition, actually be valuable. Not necessarily because he believed it, but because it is by definition impossible for him to hold a false belief.

brighid

Luvluv,

NO problem in the slack department, but don't get too upset if those who are more educated on the subject deconstruct your "arguments" in the mean time.

Brighid

K

luvluv:

Or I value what God values.

jlowder

This misses the point completely. We both agree that physical properties exist. We both agree that moral properties exist. (I consider them physical properties while you [apparently] consider them supernatural properties.) You claim that God exists while I do not. That is why a belief in God, unlike a belief in moral properties, requires belief in one extra type of entity.

This is not only fallacious, but prepostorous. The arguments for moral realism are not susceptible to the same objections as the arguments for God's existence. If you disagree, then provide an example of an objection to God's existence that is also an objection to the arguments for moral realism.

I thought you just said above, "If you are under the impression that I am arguing that atheism and morality are incompatible you would be incorrect." Now you are saying that a "consistent" atheist "should disbelieve in all moral claims." So which is your position?

This is fallacious. John Post has given an argument for moral realism that answers this argument. I again refer you to Post's argument.

That is not equivalent to what you wrote earlier, "All the arguments for the actual existence of a moral code that anyone should adhere to fall to the same objections that proofs for God's existence fall to, so if an atheist is to be consistent he should disbelieve in all moral claims."

(Snipping a terribly confused paragraph about the relationship between atheism and values.)

So what? Lots of things are logically "consistent" with atheism, but atheism is just one part of an atheist's worldview. A complete worldview specifies beliefs about metaphysics, ethics, etc. There are many different worldviews that are compatible with atheism. "Making children into lampshades" is not compatible with the worldview of secular humanism. Nor is it compatible with any atheist worldview that includes a commitment to moral realism.

This is a silly reply. Since you have not even bothered to read Smith's book, you are literally in no position to assess his arguments.

Frankly, I don't see any point in considering this exchange with you. This will be my last post in reply to you.

Jeffery Jay Lowder

luvluv

I'd be insulted if they did any less, brighid.

luvluv

jlowder:

I'm not sure what you mean? Do you mean we both agree that right and wrong exist? Well, that's an interesting fact about us, but we haven't proven they exist. In point of fact, in the interests of this argument I have made no such concession. I have been asking you for rational justification of these issues if I assume they don't exist. There are many atheists, obviously, who believe that right and wrong don't exist. How would you go about proving the existence of them?


Okay, are you under the impression that any of the arguments for moral realism are sound? That's my point.

That moral subjectivism, at least, is compatible with atheism, but cannot be rationally justified by atheism. I said it's only inconsistent if you disbelieve in God BECAUSE a belief in him cannot be justified rationally or empirically, because moral subjectivism cannot be justified by those means either.


Is this on the other thread?

All I meant by that was that they were all unsound.

Fine, but neither secular humanism nor moral realism can be rationally justified within an atheist framework. If an atheist who was not a secular humanist or a moral realist confronted an atheist who was both, the moral realist could not rationally justify his moral realism.

I'm sorry if you think this is silly, but the fact remains. Of course if moral realism is true life would have objective meaning, the point is to establish how moral realism could possibly be true. That's a very common sensical objection.

Sorry to see you go. You know, if I'm ignorant correct me. I might be a little brash, and if so I apologize, but the best revenge would be to put me in my place, not to leave.

Valmorian:


I think you're begging the question by saying value is subjective. That is what is at question here. If God were to say of something not "I value this" but "This is rightly valued" then the value of this thing would be established by virtue of the definition of omniscience. If an omniscient God holds the belief "x is valuable" then "x is valuable" must be true, because it is impossible for an omniscient God to hold a false belief.

K:

First off, what's up? Haven't talked to you in a while.

Well, again, it's not that God values it, but that an omniscient God holds the belief that something IS valuable.

[ November 05, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

K

luvluv:

Not much. I haven't been around too much lately. When I have, it's been mostly in Philosophy and EoG. How've you been?

OK, I'll change it to:

I value it because I believe that "an omniscient God holds the belief that something IS valuable."

It's still a reduced to a value judgement. There hasn't been any reason given to believe that valuing what God believes is any more firmly grounded than valuing self-preservation.

If valuing one's own quality of life on earth is not a rational basis for one's behavior, how can valuing the quality of life in the afterworld be any more rational?

BTW, I don't believe in objective morality. I believe that behavior that we define as moral is the result of survival instincts that evolved over time.

luvluv

Jlowder:

Well, is this Post's argument?

His formal argument is based on common statements people make? How does that establish the reality of moral realism? Animals don't use those terms and do not have organized systems of morality. How do we now we're right and there wrong. Essentially, this boils down to just what I said it does "Moral realism is true because we believe it is". That is a value-statement and not a rational justification. It provides very weak evidence for the proposition, but falls way short of rational justification.

Frankly, this sounds like a complete rip from C.S. Lewis's Mere Christianity.

Respectfully, of course.