Where is the hope in atheism?

[Ana the Ist]

Legality and morality are different concepts entirely.

Just because slavery was at one point legal does not mean it was ever moral. Even most societies that did not view it as controversial recommended treating slaves kindly, so there are certainly moral dimensions to the question of slavery that have not changed at all.

No, morality and legality are not the same...but when we're talking about history, laws are useful for getting an idea of what people felt was moral. I could show that the prevailing attitude towards slavery for many years was just that...morally acceptable, if not good.

Likewise, the legality and morality of gay marriage do not necessarily match up. There are people who would hold that marriage has always been a political tool of control and therefore that no form of marriage has ever been moral.

You can certainly hold that opinion if you like...I see nothing immoral about it.

This argument is not going to work against anyone who believes in moral progress and rejects the notion of a morally perfect society.

I don't see what a "morally perfect society " has to do with it at all.

Only in that nihilism is honest, whereas you guys are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

I'm not trying to do anything other than describe morality as it is.

I'm a bit of a student of comparative mysticism, so I'm thinking more along the lines of how the relationship is described by the various saints of different traditions. I would not expect it to be like human relationships--what I am interested in is the transformative nature of what they seem to experience.

Granted, I suspect that there is a lot of craziness and self-hypnotism going on in Born Again circles, but this is not all you see if you actually look.

I've looked...and I'm guessing that this "transformation" you're speaking of isn't a physical one...so we're back to where we started. It's a one-sided relationship that's mainly about feelings. I'm not saying that's a bad thing...I'm sure it's very helpful for a lot of people. Some people don't need it though...and they aren't lacking anything by not having it.

You can say it, but that certainly doesn't make it true. Your stance on morality would be considerably different if you were Christian, so if Christianity is an accurate description of reality, there is at least one pretty significant hole in your life.

Which is what? An emotionally transformative relationship?

To prove such a thing, you'd have to show that one cannot experience an emotional transformation without the "relationship "....and I'm sure we both know you can't show that.

You're about 1 step away from the old esoteric knowledge gambit. All you need to do now is claim you have some knowledge which cannot be explained...that one has to have the relationship with god to have it.

Really, really important? Good luck finding a social reformer who didn't believe that their moral principles were in some sense objectively true--you can't get that sort of depth of conviction if you think that morality is ultimately just a free-for-all.

Why would I need to find a social reformer? Why does the depth of someone's convictions matter?

I certainly like having civil rights, and if they ever get stripped away, you guys will be the ones saying, "Oh well, that's just how societies change."

Lol they do get stripped away....and added to and changed....all the time. There's lots of people right now who want to severely restrict freedom of speech. We recently extended the right to marry to homosexuals. Once upon a time, women weren't allowed to vote.

Why do you think I'd just sit back and accept it if, for example, my right to a trial was taken away? Why do you think I wouldn't fight for that right? It's as important to me as it is to anyone else...arguably. Just as you pointed out that there's a difference between laws and morality...there's also a difference between civil rights and morality.

 

[Silmarien]

No, morality and legality are not the same...but when we're talking about history, laws are useful for getting an idea of what people felt was moral. I could show that the prevailing attitude towards slavery for many years was just that...morally acceptable, if not good.

And a moral realist would reply that for many years, the prevailing attitude was simply wrong. There are many practices that have been common in various cultures, from mass human sacrifice in Mesoamerica to sati in India that I would certainly condemn.

You seem to be assuming your conclusion if you think that the existence of various different moral standards implies moral relativism.

I've looked...and I'm guessing that this "transformation" you're speaking of isn't a physical one...so we're back to where we started. It's a one-sided relationship that's mainly about feelings. I'm not saying that's a bad thing...I'm sure it's very helpful for a lot of people. Some people don't need it though...and they aren't lacking anything by not having it.

Would a person born blind who had never been told about sight know that they were missing something? Presumably not, but they would certainly be missing something the rest of the world had.

Similarly, if Christian theism is true, then you are missing something. It doesn't matter if you believe otherwise--you would effectively be spiritually blind, insisting that the spiritual doesn't exist. I do not see why this is so hard to comprehend.

Which is what? An emotionally transformative relationship?

No. I thought it was obvious that I was referring to moral realism.

To prove such a thing, you'd have to show that one cannot experience an emotional transformation without the "relationship "....and I'm sure we both know you can't show that.

You're about 1 step away from the old esoteric knowledge gambit. All you need to do now is claim you have some knowledge which cannot be explained...that one has to have the relationship with god to have it.

Why would I do that? I am a non-naturalist, but otherwise agnostic. The only special knowledge I have involves being able to wrap my head around the various religious traditions and actually contemplate what it would mean if they were true.

I wouldn't appeal to special knowledge in the gnostic sense, since despite not having a relationship with the Christian God (or at least not a conscious one), I'm perfectly cognizant of what I'm missing if Christianity is true. Sorry, Calvinists. I really do not know why so many atheists are incapable of even conceptualizing it, though.

Why would I need to find a social reformer? Why does the depth of someone's convictions matter?

Do you really think the civil rights movement would have happened if people did not have strong enough convictions to make it happen? Do you think the abolition of slavery would have happened if people weren't convinced it was wrong and willing to risk their lives to prove a point? If you think moral realism isn't important, you're not paying attention to what the people who actually spearhead social reform movements actually believe. If you care about your rights, even subjectively, clearly this stuff matters.

Lol they do get stripped away....and added to and changed....all the time. There's lots of people right now who want to severely restrict freedom of speech. We recently extended the right to marry to homosexuals. Once upon a time, women weren't allowed to vote.

Are you intentionally misunderstanding me or just laboring under the assumption that everyone who doesn't identify as an atheist is an idiot? I would have thought it obvious that the fact that rights can be assigned and stripped away was precisely what I was referring to.

Why do you think I'd just sit back and accept it if, for example, my right to a trial was taken away? Why do you think I wouldn't fight for that right? It's as important to me as it is to anyone else...arguably. Just as you pointed out that there's a difference between laws and morality...there's also a difference between civil rights and morality.

Yes, I'm sure you would fight for your rights, but the fact of the matter is that I don't trust any moral relativist to fight for anyone else's. The fact that you immediately referred only to your own right to due process certainly doesn't help.

Seriously, do we need to do this? It's clear that neither of us respects the other's position, and I really have no desire to go around and around in circles a second time.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And a moral realist would reply that for many years, the prevailing attitude was simply wrong.

That would be their opinion...sure

There are many practices that have been common in various cultures, from mass human sacrifice in Mesoamerica to sati in India that I would certainly condemn.

Hey...me too.

You seem to be assuming your conclusion if you think that the existence of various different moral standards implies moral relativism.

It's one of the reasons. It's certainly not a point in favor of moral objectivity.

Would a person born blind who had never been told about sight know that they were missing something? Presumably not, but they would certainly be missing something the rest of the world had.

lol there you are...I knew we would get to an esoteric knowledge claim. Of course, we know what the blind man is missing that keeps him from seeing the world...it's not mere belief.

Similarly, if Christian theism is true, then you are missing something. It doesn't matter if you believe otherwise--you would effectively be spiritually blind, insisting that the spiritual doesn't exist. I do not see why this is so hard to comprehend.

Because there's no difference between the "spiritually blind" and the "spiritually sighted" except for claims of belief. There's nothing apparently missing.

Whereas if we took a blind man and a sighted man and put them in a room full of obstacles and told them to navigate their way across it...the sighted man can do this easily, while the blind man stumbles. It's apparent that one is missing something the other has...unlike your claims of spiritual blindness.

No. I thought it was obvious that I was referring to moral realism.

No...it wasn't. So you're claiming some moral difference between the two now? Other than their beliefs about morality?

Or are you saying somehow that if you aren't a moral realist....then your beliefs on morality leave some kind of hole in your life? That seemed like a silly claim because obviously that hole would just be filled with a different belief regarding morality....so I assumed that wasn't your claim.

Why would I do that? I am a non-naturalist, but otherwise agnostic. The only special knowledge I have involves being able to wrap my head around the various religious traditions and actually contemplate what it would mean if they were true.

I don't regard that as special knowledge.

I wouldn't appeal to special knowledge in the gnostic sense, since despite not having a relationship with the Christian God (or at least not a conscious one), I'm perfectly cognizant of what I'm missing if Christianity is true.

You already appealed to it in your "spiritually blind" statement above.

Sorry, Calvinists. I really do not know why so many atheists are incapable of even conceptualizing it, though.

What makes you think atheists are incapable of imagining the possibilities of their being wrong? I daresay that atheists imagine that more often than religious folk. I could even start a thread demonstrating it.

Do you really think the civil rights movement would have happened if people did not have strong enough convictions to make it happen?

I'm sure they did...I just don't see how that has anything to do with moral realism. I'm not a moral realist...but if there's an issue I feel strongly about, I'll gladly lend it my support. The fact that it's just my opinion doesn't change any of that.

Do you think the abolition of slavery would have happened if people weren't convinced it was wrong and willing to risk their lives to prove a point? If you think moral realism isn't important, you're not paying attention to what the people who actually spearhead social reform movements actually believe. If you care about your rights, even subjectively, clearly this stuff matters.

Morals matter...but that wasn't your claim.

This was your claim...

"if any robust form of moral realism is correct and values are an inherent aspect of reality, then anyone who denies this is deeply mistaken about the objective importance of moral imperatives."

Your claim was that they hold some "objective importance"...clearly the importance is subjective. You even said yourself that people spearheaded civil rights movements because those causes were important to them...not because they held some objective importance to everyone.

Are you intentionally misunderstanding me or just laboring under the assumption that everyone who doesn't identify as an atheist is an idiot? I would have thought it obvious that the fact that rights can be assigned and stripped away was precisely what I was referring to.

You seemed to be laboring under the impression that people would only care about morals if they were objective...that's obviously not the case.

Yes, I'm sure you would fight for your rights, but the fact of the matter is that I don't trust any moral relativist to fight for anyone else's. The fact that you immediately referred only to your own right to due process certainly doesn't help.

Why? Does believing they are object grant one special powers that I'm not aware of? I don't see any difference between a realist arguing for what he believes is right and a relativist arguing for what he believes is right.

If you do see a difference, feel free to explain what it is any time.

Seriously, do we need to do this? It's clear that neither of us respects the other's position, and I really have no desire to go around and around in circles a second time.

I'm honestly not even sure what your position is...I simply see you writing claims and I respond to them. It's called a discussion forum.

 

[Silmarien]

lol there you are...I knew we would get to an esoteric knowledge claim. Of course, we know what the blind man is missing that keeps him from seeing the world...it's not mere belief.

It's not an esoteric knowledge claim. It's an analogy. If Christianity is true, then it would follow that those in a proper relationship with the Christian God have something that that others lack. This would be an objective fact about reality, not a mere belief.

Because there's no difference between the "spiritually blind" and the "spiritually sighted" except for claims of belief. There's nothing apparently missing.

That is just patently false. Have you looked into some of the cognitive studies on prayer and meditation? It is very clear that the deeply religious come to experience things that the rest of the population does not. Prayer May Reshape Your Brain ... And Your Reality

If this is more than just brain chemistry, then yes. You are lacking something that other people have. Even if it is just brain chemistry, you may still be blind to an extra dimension of human experience.

No...it wasn't. So you're claiming some moral difference between the two now? Other than their beliefs about morality?

Well, yes. I don't think that moral relativists are as committed to morality as they would be if they were moral realists. They're undone by their own position.

What makes you think atheists are incapable of imagining the possibilities of their being wrong? I daresay that atheists imagine that more often than religious folk. I could even start a thread demonstrating it.

Because you cannot seem to grasp that in a hypothetical situation where Christianity was true, you as an atheist would be missing something in your life that a Christian had. This leads me to think that you cannot imagine a reality in which Christianity is in fact true.

It is very clear to me from virtually every discussion I've had here that theists have a much easier time wrapping their heads around atheism than atheists do with theism. (Aside from the fundamentalists, of course. Which is admittedly a large percentage around here.)

Why? Does believing they are object grant one special powers that I'm not aware of? I don't see any difference between a realist arguing for what he believes is right and a relativist arguing for what he believes is right.

If you do see a difference, feel free to explain what it is any time.

I see an enormous difference: a relativist does not actually believe that anything is objectively right. Why would you truly fight for anything if you ultimately viewed your own opinion as merely one stance amongst many? At some point the costs are going to outweight the benefits.

I'm honestly not even sure what your position is...I simply see you writing claims and I respond to them. It's called a discussion forum.

If you're not sure what my position is, maybe you shouldn't toss out constant insinuations assuming that you do. Snide comments about esoteric knowledge don't really add anything, you know.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's not an esoteric knowledge claim. It's an analogy. If Christianity is true, then it would follow that those in a proper relationship with the Christian God have something that that others lack. This would be an objective fact about reality, not a mere belief.

You still haven't explained what this "thing" they have that non Christians lack...unless you're referring to the belief in their god itself.

And yeah...it is an analogy...that makes an esoteric knowledge claim. The blind man lacks knowledge of what things look like in the way (in your opinion) that the non-christian lacks knowledge (of some kind I guess...you haven't explained that, and I suspect you won't) that the Christian has.

Also, you really should stop tacking "that's an objective fact" onto claims that you cannot prove/demonstrate/show.

That is just patently false. Have you looked into some of the cognitive studies on prayer and meditation? It is very clear that the deeply religious come to experience things that the rest of the population does not. Prayer May Reshape Your Brain ... And Your Reality

People on LSD experience things the rest of the population does not. That doesn't make them real.

Also, your link doesn't back up your claim...just the opposite. It's the same kind of neural activity one has when they focus intensely, or in the case of meditation...when they lose their sense of self.

If this is more than just brain chemistry, then yes. You are lacking something that other people have. Even if it is just brain chemistry, you may still be blind to an extra dimension of human experience.

Yet there's no evidence it's anything other than brain chemistry.

Well, yes. I don't think that moral relativists are as committed to morality as they would be if they were moral realists. They're undone by their own position.

lol why would you think that?

I'm not saying there's no differences....for example, I don't experience the kind of cognitive dissonance that most people deal with when their morals don't align with society's in some way. Other than that, it's hard to think of any difference.

Because you cannot seem to grasp that in a hypothetical situation where Christianity was true, you as an atheist would be missing something in your life that a Christian had. This leads me to think that you cannot imagine a reality in which Christianity is in fact true.

Oh I can imagine it just fine....I simply don't think it's true.

Imagine for a moment, that I told you I had something that you didn't...because of my beliefs. I can't demonstrate this thing to you...nor can I explain it. I certainly have no way of proving it or providing evidence it exists.

Would you believe my claim? I doubt it...and it's not for some inability to imagine it's true.

It is very clear to me from virtually every discussion I've had here that theists have a much easier time wrapping their heads around atheism than atheists do with theism.

That wasn't the claim. I was just talking about their difficulty imagining a hypothetical scenario where their beliefs are wrong. That doesn't automatically entail atheism...and as I already explained, this is easily demonstrated by a thread.

I see an enormous difference: a relativist does not actually believe that anything is objectively right.

Objectively morally right....of course there are things that are right, like the right way to use a parachute.

Why would you truly fight for anything if you ultimately viewed your own opinion as merely one stance amongst many? At some point the costs are going to outweight the benefits.

Because I value my beliefs/opinions...just like everyone else. Why would the fact that someone else holds a different opinion from myself cause me to devalue my opinion? You don't do that...do you?

If you're not sure what my position is, maybe you shouldn't toss out constant insinuations assuming that you do. Snide comments about esoteric knowledge don't really add anything, you know.

Wow...there's an example of the pot calling the kettle black if I've ever seen one. You assume people's positions, then draw conclusions about those assumptions, then call those conclusions "objective facts" when they're anything but.

I don't recall ever making assumptions about your beliefs...if you have any examples though, I'd like to see them. As for the esoteric knowledge claim....you made one, quite clearly in fact. You said that if Christianity is true...then Christian's have something that non-christians lack. You either can't or won't explain what that mystery thing is...but that doesn't change the fact that it's an esoteric knowledge claim.

There was a poster here years ago who almost exclusively made esoteric knowledge claims. He would say that as a Christian, he had knowledge that non-christians lacked...but he couldn't ever explain that knowledge. He simply claimed that one had to be a christian to know.

Aside from knowledge directly related to the five senses or one's own emotions...there is no such thing as "knowledge you cannot explain". If I have knowledge like 2+2=4....or who shot Kennedy....it can be explained. I can't explain what strawberry ice cream tastes like to a person without tastebuds...but their lack of tastebuds is demonstrable. That really just leaves emotions...like what it feels like when I'm in love. So what am I to think other than this "thing" Christians have that I don't is anything other than emotional? Christians may want it to be more than that...but wanting won't make it so.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Well, yes. I don't think that moral relativists are as committed to morality as they would be if they were moral realists. They're undone by their own position.

I like to make the analogy to aesthetics, and speak more of subjectivity than relativity.

Just because my disgust at Brussels sprouts is subjective does not make it any less visceral, immediate, or unshakeable.

 

[Silmarien]

lol why would you think that?

I'm not saying there's no differences....for example, I don't experience the kind of cognitive dissonance that most people deal with when their morals don't align with society's in some way. Other than that, it's hard to think of any difference.

That's a pretty big difference. If you were in Saudi Arabia and didn't experience any cognitive dissonance about women not being allowed to drive, I would certainly question to what degree you care about women's rights.

Because I value my beliefs/opinions...just like everyone else. Why would the fact that someone else holds a different opinion from myself cause me to devalue my opinion? You don't do that...do you?

That would depend. I take certain moral axioms as objectively true, so if someone denies them, then unlike a relativist, I do not have to consider their position equally valid. If I come across a strong enough argument against a position I hold, on the other hand, I will reconsider things.

I am going to have a great deal of difficulty believing that your moral opinions are not devalued in any shape or sense. There's always going to be the underlying conflict between denying that there's any objective difference and subjectively holding that there is.

Wow...there's an example of the pot calling the kettle black if I've ever seen one. You assume people's positions, then draw conclusions about those assumptions, then call those conclusions "objective facts" when they're anything but.

At this point you seem to be wilfully misreading me. Would it be easier if I wrote this out as a logical argument?

IF Christianity is true, THEN it follows that an omnibenevolent God who wishes to have a relationship with his creatures exists. Why? Because this is what Christianity posits, so Christianity cannot be true in any meaningful sense if this does not follow.

IF an omnibenevolent God who wishes to have a relationship with his creatures exists, THEN it follows that the ultimate purpose in life is in fact to enter into relationship with God. Why? Because this would be literally what we were created for. To quote Saint Augustine, "You have made us for yourself, o Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you."

IF the ultimate purpose in life is in fact to enter into relationship with God, THEN it follows that those who fail to do so are missing something that they could otherwise have had.

I am not calling this conclusion an "objective fact" outside of the chain of logic from which it follows. I'm certainly not taking Christianity as axiomatically true, but if you cannot wrap your head around the idea that you might be missing something, then you are clearly incapable of conceptualizing a reality in which Christianity is true.

I don't recall ever making assumptions about your beliefs...if you have any examples though, I'd like to see them. As for the esoteric knowledge claim....you made one, quite clearly in fact. You said that if Christianity is true...then Christian's have something that non-christians lack. You either can't or won't explain what that mystery thing is...but that doesn't change the fact that it's an esoteric knowledge claim.

Seriously, go look through this thread again? Last time we spoke, I recall you quite explicitly saying that my moral realism was not only incoherent, even though I had not defended it at all, but that I knew it was incoherent. Talk about special knowledge! And now you are insisting that a conditional statement is an esoteric knowledge claim, which is bizarre in the extreme.

If I have knowledge like 2+2=4....or who shot Kennedy....it can be explained.

Really? I'd like to see you try to explain mathematical knowledge like 2+2=4. Good luck arguing that it's anything but a priori, and a priori knowledge is notoriously difficult to explain.

So what am I to think other than this "thing" Christians have that I don't is anything other than emotional? Christians may want it to be more than that...but wanting won't make it so.

I think it's really funny that on one hand, you keep on attacking Christianity as offering nothing but mere emotional goods, and then you turn around and insist that subjective morality doesn't collapse into nihilism. Which is it? Do those Christians have something real that you do not, or does your subjective morality ultimately amount to nothing?

 

[Silmarien]

I like to make the analogy to aesthetics, and speak more of subjectivity than relativity.

Just because my disgust at Brussels sprouts is subjective does not make it any less visceral, immediate, or unshakeable.

The difference is that if you thought there was a problem with someone who did like Brussel sprouts, that would be kind of crazy.

On the other hand, if you did not think there was a problem with someone who thought slavery was good, good luck convincing anyone that you really think it's bad.

I'm fine saying that people subjectively have likes and dislikes. I wouldn't call it morality, though.

 

[essentialsaltes]

On the other hand, if you did not think there was a problem with someone who thought slavery was good

I don't think their acceptance, tacit or explicit, of slavery means that there's a problem with most of the American Founders, Jesus, or pretty much everyone who lived on planet earth before 1700.

(And I certainly do look upon Brussels sprouts eaters with a certain amount of side-eye.)

good luck convincing anyone that you really think it's bad.

I don't think that assuming that someone has some kind of moral defect is a good way to convince them of anything. 'See, the reason why you support slavery is that there's something wrong with you. So clearly we can agree that your view is invalid and I'm right.'

 

[Silmarien]

I don't think their acceptance, tacit or explicit, of slavery means that there's a problem with most of the American Founders, Jesus, or pretty much everyone who lived on planet earth before 1700.

There were people condemning slavery well before 1700. Gregory of Nyssa did in no uncertain terms, and that was the 4th century.

I would not necessarily say that there was a problem with individuals who for whatever reason did not recognize slavery as evil, but I would say that there was a moral problem imbedded within their society. Likewise, I would say that throughout most of human history, the fact that women have not been granted equal dignity to men is an objective problem that we need to address.

Societies regress all the time. If we do not care about our own values enough to defend them and argue that they are objectively better than the alternatives, do we really care about them at all? I do not think so.

(And I certainly do look upon Brussels sprouts eaters with a certain amount of side-eye.)

Really not helping your case here.

I don't think that assuming that someone has some kind of moral defect is a good way to convince them of anything. 'See, the reason why you support slavery is that there's something wrong with you. So clearly we can agree that your view is invalid and I'm right.'

In most situations, people will be working with a similar axiomatic understanding of morality--I'm a moral realist because I think that this is ultimately an aspect of human psychology (and perhaps ontology, though that is much harder to argue for), and not something fabricated by a specific culture. If this is true, then in most circumstances discussion is certainly possible.

On the other hand, if someone outright denies that human dignity matters, how can you convince them of anything at all? Either they are deeply, deeply mistaken, or everything that you have built your own sense of morality upon collapses.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's a pretty big difference. If you were in Saudi Arabia and didn't experience any cognitive dissonance about women not being allowed to drive, I would certainly question to what degree you care about women's rights.

Saudi Arabia's moral treatment of women is one of the many reasons I'm not in Saudi Arabia...so no dissonance there.

That would depend. I take certain moral axioms as objectively true, so if someone denies them, then unlike a relativist, I do not have to consider their position equally valid.

Why would I consider someone else's moral opinions equally valid as my own? If they've got a different opinion, then chances are they've got an entirely different set of reasons for that opinion. Why would I consider their reasons valid?

I am going to have a great deal of difficulty believing that your moral opinions are not devalued in any shape or sense.

Says the poster who gets upset when you make assumptions about her position.

Honestly, I don't care whether you believe it or not....it's true.

At this point you seem to be wilfully misreading me. Would it be easier if I wrote this out as a logical argument?

IF Christianity is true, THEN it follows that an omnibenevolent God who wishes to have a relationship with his creatures exists. Why? Because this is what Christianity posits, so Christianity cannot be true in any meaningful sense if this does not follow.

The word relationship is poorly defined here...so I'll have to disagree.

IF an omnibenevolent God who wishes to have a relationship with his creatures exists, THEN it follows that the ultimate purpose in life is in fact to enter into relationship with God. Why? Because this would be literally what we were created for. To quote Saint Augustine, "You have made us for yourself, o Lord, and our heart is restless until it rests in you."

This seems to go against the idea that he gave us free will....what's the point of that if he decides what we can and cannot find meaning in?

IF the ultimate purpose in life is in fact to enter into relationship with God, THEN it follows that those who fail to do so are missing something that they could otherwise have had.

Only if that relationship itself is beyond what relationships can be had without god. So far, you've given me nothing to show this is true.

Seriously, go look through this thread again? Last time we spoke, I recall you quite explicitly saying that my moral realism was not only incoherent, even though I had not defended it at all, but that I knew it was incoherent. Talk about special knowledge! And now you are insisting that a conditional statement is an esoteric knowledge claim, which is bizarre in the extreme.

My apologies...I thought you were referring to this conversation...not every conversation we've ever had. I freely admit I cannot recall everything I've ever said to you.

Really? I'd like to see you try to explain mathematical knowledge like 2+2=4. Good luck arguing that it's anything but a priori, and a priori knowledge is notoriously difficult to explain.

I remember reading a logical proof of it somewhere...I can probably dig that up if you like.

I think it's really funny that on one hand, you keep on attacking Christianity as offering nothing but mere emotional goods, and then you turn around and insist that subjective morality doesn't collapse into nihilism. Which is it?

They can both be true...one doesn't necessarily entail the other.

Do those Christians have something real that you do not, or does your subjective morality ultimately amount to nothing?

False dilemma.

 

[Silmarien]

Saudi Arabia's moral treatment of women is one of the many reasons I'm not in Saudi Arabia...so no dissonance there.

Out of sight, out of mind, eh?

Why would I consider someone else's moral opinions equally valid as my own? If they've got a different opinion, then chances are they've got an entirely different set of reasons for that opinion. Why would I consider their reasons valid?

Why would you not? If you think there is an objective aspect to moral decision making that makes reasons valid or invalid, then you are moving into the realm of moral realism. On the other hand, if underlying reasons are in fact neither valid nor invalid, then it certainly seems to follow that everyone's moral opinion is ultimately equally worthless.

Says the poster who gets upset when you make assumptions about her position.

You've made your position very clear. I would never assume that an atheist was a moral relativist, since there are plenty of moral realists in the atheistic camp. The fact that I think moral relativism is an insidious position is not really an assumption. More like a conclusion. I'm pretty equal opportunity when it comes to attacking positions I think are harmful--I'll go after the eternal conscious torment folk too, since that's another position that undermines moral reasoning.

The word relationship is poorly defined here...so I'll have to disagree.

Poorly defined how? Christian theology posits a general resurrection after which God will be "all in all." Presumably, this implies that reality will be infused with God's presence in a way it currently is not, though many Christians, particularly amongst the mystics, would claim to be experiencing something of a foretaste.

This seems to go against the idea that he gave us free will....what's the point of that if he decides what we can and cannot find meaning in?

I am not sure how you are defining free will. You have the free will to jump off of a building if you so desire--this does not mean that you can invoke the concept of free will to make that particular decision somehow good. Christian theology traditionally states that you have the freedom to either enter into relationship with God or to refuse it. This does not make refusal ultimately a better option than jumping off that building.

I remember reading a logical proof of it somewhere...I can probably dig that up if you like.

Lovely. Dig up a proof of first principles of logic while you're at it.

False dilemma.

It doesn't become one because you say it is. If I were a nihilist and asked you what the worth of moral subjectivism was, what answer could you provide? At least Christians actually believe that their "feelings" are inspired by something real.

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't think anyone is arguing that you do not subjectively dislike genocide. I can dislike dogs, but that doesn't make this a subjective moral statement. If moral statements are to be considered such because they are "more important," how do we demonstrate that they do in fact have greater importance? Perhaps I really, really hate dogs.

If you cannot provide a coherent definition of "subjective morality" that differentiates it from any other set of likes and dislikes, then the concept seems to collapse into nothingness.

You're going to have to walk me through that collapse. Even a mere set of likes and dislikes is something. How is it nothing?

By "more important" I simply meant I hold more value in them. I could give up chocolate ice cream a lot easier than I could give up free speech, so free speech is more important, or more valuable, to me.

No, it really doesn't. It's coherent to say that it is your subjective opinion that genocide is objectively wrong. Obviously all we have access to is our subjective vantage point, so this is roughly speaking the equivalent of saying that it is your subjective opinion that the external world exists.

On the other hand, if someone is skeptical enough about the external world to deny that it objectively exists, and then says that it simply exists subjectively for them, their daily existence is going to be a elaborate dance in self-deception, simultaneously accepting and denying the same thing. This is closer to your situation.

I didn't say it was incoherent. You think genocide is objectively wrong because of subjective feelings, I feel genocide is wrong because of subjective feelings. If you want to have a conversation about it, what is the effective difference? If I want to talk you out of committing a genocidal act, or if you want to talk me out of a genocidal act, how would we approach that differently? I absolutely would appeal to emotion because I see morality based on that. You seem to think it's based on objective facts that you can't demonstrate without appealing to emotion, so...

Can you claim, "I believe that Jesus was resurrected after three days" and then turn around and say, "It is not objectively true that Jesus was resurrected after three days"? Because this is effectively what you're doing. These are both subjective statements, and they are in conflict.

No. You're mixing up the two ways to make subjective statements. You're just playing with semantics. Whoever says "I believe the resurrection happened" wouldn't phrase a sentence the second way. That's my point from bringing up the semantics of it all.

 

[Moral Orel]

If you wish to argue the basis of human knowledge since time immemorial, why are some assumptions sacrosant and others not? You asked me to prove the unprovable, while blithely assuming the unprovable. People in glass houses should not throw stones, my friend.

I didn't mean that post sarcastically. Though it likely sounded that way out of frustration. Everything is built on assumptions, yep. But apparently, we don't collectively assume that the symbol '2' corresponds to the number of apples you see in this picture:

So I really have no way to judge what other things you're not assuming with me about the language we're speaking, and it just doesn't interest me to go back to the beginning and see if we agree on what the definition of "is" is.

 

[Moral Orel]

On the other hand, if someone is skeptical enough about the external world to deny that it objectively exists, and then says that it simply exists subjectively for them, their daily existence is going to be a elaborate dance in self-deception, simultaneously accepting and denying the same thing. This is closer to your situation.

This is more of a side note, just a description of my personal position.

I don't think you can deny that the external world exists. To phrase it better, I don't think you can deny that all the stuff other than your mind doesn't exist. If it turns out that I'm a brain in a vat, or asleep and being tricked by some daemon, then all that stuff is real, it just isn't what I thought it was. Even if I'm a disembodied mind, all that stuff exists, it's just a delusion, but the delusion exists even if all the stuff I see isn't made of matter and energy.

By that same token, even if all the people around me are part of some experiment or trick or delusion, I would have a hard time distinguishing between them being conscious or unconscious regardless of their source or what they're made of. As an avid sci-fi fan, there are a lot of situations that I would still consider another person worthy of consideration even if they weren't "real" in most senses of the word that people use it. So I think it's a safer bet to assume that all the people I see are other sentient beings with their own feelings.

So, no. My position isn't anything like that. My position, once again, is that morality starts with completely subjective feelings. What people find value in is based on how they feel about it. What purpose they have is (or at least can be) based on the objectively most likely path to promoting those values. Your position on most things seems to be all or nothing. Either everything is objective, or everything is subjective. Either something has intrinsic value or it's worthless. I think that's silly.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I didn't mean that post sarcastically. Though it likely sounded that way out of frustration. Everything is built on assumptions, yep. But apparently, we don't collectively assume that the symbol '2' corresponds to the number of apples you see in this picture:

So I really have no way to judge what other things you're not assuming with me about the language we're speaking, and it just doesn't interest me to go back to the beginning and see if we agree on what the definition of "is" is.

Everything is built on assumptions, or rather I'd say Axioms or self-evident truths. In my opinion, the fact that some actions are better than others, is such. Even if it is my subjective opinion that some actions are better than others, this still implies that I am weighing them against a third thing, something the one is closer to and the other farther off. To me, this is as clear as assuming the basic laws of Mathematics; as we would have to, since Mathematicians have never been able to prove them.

The assumption of the numeral 2 is a bit different though. It is more the principle of addition to which you had refered. For we are quantifying apples, creating unit in fact. Now units when added together need not give the same amount, as for instance two 2 litre volumes of gas when added together, might still only displace 2 litres dependant on pressure and temperature. Or one may dissolve in the other. This does not prove the principle therefore, as it is not universally so, nor are we able to demonstrate it as such.

2 apples can be seen as 2 apples, but we are then not proving the existence of '2 as concept', but applying that abstract universal conceptualisation of a number to them. Similarly, in moral questions, we don't prove one act better than another, but apply standards of varying levels of 'good' to them, as it were. You can't expect someone to prove an abstraction that cannot really be reified. Physics confuses people, as they try and apply ideas of predictive power from it to things like mathematics or morality, where it really cannot apply in like manner (cannot really apply it the way people do in physics either, but that is another argument).

 

[Ana the Ist]

Out of sight, out of mind, eh?

I have no problem admitting that the daily plight of the women of Saudi Arabia isn't a topic that crosses my mind often.

Why would you not?

Why would I?

It's their opinion...not mine. Are you seriously asking me why I value my opinions more than I value the opinions of others? There's going to be a lot of reasons....but it seems rather obvious why people almost always hold their opinions in higher regard than those of others.

You've made your position very clear. I would never assume that an atheist was a moral relativist, since there are plenty of moral realists in the atheistic camp.

You already made an assumption about my position when you said this....

"I am going to have a great deal of difficulty believing that your moral opinions are not devalued in any shape or sense."

....and that's in spite of the fact that I already told you my moral opinions aren't devalued. Are you just arguing for the sake of argument at this point?

The fact that I think moral relativism is an insidious position is not really an assumption. More like a conclusion.

More like an opinion...but it doesn't really matter anyway.

I'm pretty equal opportunity when it comes to attacking positions I think are harmful--I'll go after the eternal conscious torment folk too, since that's another position that undermines moral reasoning.

Harmful? What harm are we talking about here?

Poorly defined how? Christian theology posits a general resurrection after which God will be "all in all." Presumably, this implies that reality will be infused with God's presence in a way it currently is not, though many Christians, particularly amongst the mystics, would claim to be experiencing something of a foretaste.

How? In every possible way really. The only thing we know for certain about this relationship is who it is between...god and the christian. The rest of it is totally up for speculation. Even your attempt at an explanation here does nothing to clear it up. All in all? You could've said it will be "all apart from all" and it would have made the same amount of sense.

I am not sure how you are defining free will. You have the free will to jump off of a building if you so desire--this does not mean that you can invoke the concept of free will to make that particular decision somehow good. Christian theology traditionally states that you have the freedom to either enter into relationship with God or to refuse it. This does not make refusal ultimately a better option than jumping off that building.

"Better" in this context is entirely subjective. If we truly have free will, then I can just as easily choose to find meaning in something other than a relationship with god and decide it was the better choice.

Lovely. Dig up a proof of first principles of logic while you're at it.

Why? If I did this would you then admit that knowledge can be explained?

It doesn't become one because you say it is. If I were a nihilist and asked you what the worth of moral subjectivism was, what answer could you provide?

To the question of what it's worth?

That all depends on how much you value an accurate description of morality as it exists in reality. I tend to think that having an accurate understanding of reality has more worth than an inaccurate understanding of reality...because it allows one to make better decisions.

Of course, you may find that the comfort you get from believing that your morals are more than opinions is more valuable than an accurate understanding of reality.

Value, in this context, is subjective.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

This is more of a side note, just a description of my personal position.

I don't think you can deny that the external world exists. To phrase it better, I don't think you can deny that all the stuff other than your mind doesn't exist. If it turns out that I'm a brain in a vat, or asleep and being tricked by some daemon, then all that stuff is real, it just isn't what I thought it was. Even if I'm a disembodied mind, all that stuff exists, it's just a delusion, but the delusion exists even if all the stuff I see isn't made of matter and energy.

By that same token, even if all the people around me are part of some experiment or trick or delusion, I would have a hard time distinguishing between them being conscious or unconscious regardless of their source or what they're made of. As an avid sci-fi fan, there are a lot of situations that I would still consider another person worthy of consideration even if they weren't "real" in most senses of the word that people use it. So I think it's a safer bet to assume that all the people I see are other sentient beings with their own feelings.

So, no. My position isn't anything like that. My position, once again, is that morality starts with completely subjective feelings. What people find value in is based on how they feel about it. What purpose they have is (or at least can be) based on the objectively most likely path to promoting those values. Your position on most things seems to be all or nothing. Either everything is objective, or everything is subjective. Either something has intrinsic value or it's worthless. I think that's silly.

A delusion is a real thing. Just as myth is a real thing or a story. There is a difference between a True Story and a fictional one, though. The fact that it has an actuality to it, is immaterial. It is the implication that is at play. If I imagine a lion is eating me, the experience may be perceived as real, but my material existence would continue, barring a stress-induced heart attack or such.

In your example, if everyone else were automatons, then it would be indifferent as to cheating them or not. To assume they aren't so, you are applying a universality of consciousness to them. This is what I was speaking of earlier, that either Morality is universal or you would have to treat it anyway as if it is. Otherwise human society would be largely untenable.

I agree though that Morality starts with subjective feelings. The difference I have, is that I believe those feelings reflect a dim universal value, instead of being vacuous. As such, people may be more moral or less so, while if purely subjective values, everyone would be equally moral in a sense, and thus the concept is negated. For the problem is intersubjectivity, as I cannot reasonably apply my morality to you, unless it somehow also does apply in a sense. To get back to Mathematics, my concept of 2 can be applied to what you perceive as 2, only because we both hold a fundamental idea of 2 as quantity, that would not be so if it was only a subjective derivation.

 

[Moral Orel]

A delusion is a real thing. Just as myth is a real thing or a story. There is a difference between a True Story and a fictional one, though. The fact that it has an actuality to it, is immaterial. It is the implication that is at play. If I imagine a lion is eating me, the experience may be perceived as real, but my material existence would continue, barring a stress-induced heart attack or such.

It is a real experience though, it just may not have all the attributes that you would traditionally consider a lion attack. Your sensations are real, even if there isn't a material lion. Remember your post a while back about having a delusion of eating ice cream? From a neurological perspective, you did eat ice cream. All those sensations are real even if there wasn't a physical ice cream cone. It may not be what you would call "eating ice cream" anymore, but it still happened, and the experience was still a real thing.

This is the same reason I reject arguments about the non-existence of God. There's no such thing. If any argument that I've ever heard actually succeeded, at best it would show that God doesn't have the attributes we think He does, or that He didn't do things the way we think He did, but there can be no argument to show that the universe wasn't created by a person.

In your example, if everyone else were automatons, then it would be indifferent as to cheating them or not. To assume they aren't so, you are applying a universality of consciousness to them. This is what I was speaking of earlier, that either Morality is universal or you would have to treat it anyway as if it is. Otherwise human society would be largely untenable.

Like I said, as a sci-fi fan, what constitutes an unfeeling robot and a conscious machine is blurry in my opinion. A.I., Chappie, Short Circuit, Ex Machina, plus a plethora of anime... If my feelings of pleasure are simply dopamine running around in my brain, who's to say that a robot can't feel pleasure from electricity running through his? I'm not saying that's all pleasure is, just that's as far back as I (anyone?) understand it. So I'm not saying that I would treat an unfeeling robot the same way as a person. I'm saying that I would have a hard time calling something an unfeeling robot depending on how closely it resembles a human in thought and action.

I agree though that Morality starts with subjective feelings. The difference I have, is that I believe those feelings reflect a dim universal value, instead of being vacuous. As such, people may be more moral or less so, while if purely subjective values, everyone would be equally moral in a sense, and thus the concept is negated. For the problem is intersubjectivity, as I cannot reasonably apply my morality to you, unless it somehow also does apply in a sense. To get back to Mathematics, my concept of 2 can be applied to what you perceive as 2, only because we both hold a fundamental idea of 2 as quantity, that would not be so if it was only a subjective derivation.

I kind of agree with you. I'm starting to think that pleasure is, by it's nature in some way, desirable. If so, then it is intrinsically valuable. If it is, there are objectively better ways to create the most amount of pleasure possible and that wouldn't resort to ice cream and opium frenzies. In the same way that we vaccine to create herd immunity, we wouldn't focus solely on our own pleasure and turn to complete hedonism. It's still rattling around in my brain, so it isn't a fully fleshed out thought, but I see it as a better way to justify being against things like genocide than just accepting it as axiomatically true. At a minimum, I have universal intersubjectivity on my side. Everyone values pleasure, even if they have an aversion to specific sources of it.

 

[Silmarien]

You already made an assumption about my position when you said this....

"I am going to have a great deal of difficulty believing that your moral opinions are not devalued in any shape or sense."

....and that's in spite of the fact that I already told you my moral opinions aren't devalued. Are you just arguing for the sake of argument at this point?

I'm really not sure what you want me to think. You can claim that your opinions aren't devalued, but if you're going to turn around and say that you have no problem admitting that the plight of women in Saudi Arabia doesn't cross your mind, you quite clearly do not care about women's rights as much as a moral realist might. At least for the realist, it is a moral failure to pay no mind to global moral crises. For the relativist, it isn't. That's definitely a devaluation compared to what your position could be.

Harmful? What harm are we talking about here?

"If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories and those who claim to be the bearers of objective immortal truth, then there is nothing more relativistic than Fascist attitudes and activity. From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, we Fascists conclude that we have the right to create our own ideology and to enforce it with all the energy of which we are capable."
-Benito Mussolini

How? In every possible way really. The only thing we know for certain about this relationship is who it is between...god and the christian. The rest of it is totally up for speculation. Even your attempt at an explanation here does nothing to clear it up. All in all? You could've said it will be "all apart from all" and it would have made the same amount of sense.

I would suggest reading Christian theology, or even just Christian literature. The latter in particular has a way of baptising the imagination which will help you understand what Christians are talking about. Right now your disdain for the religion seems to be preventing you from even considering what it has to say.

"Better" in this context is entirely subjective. If we truly have free will, then I can just as easily choose to find meaning in something other than a relationship with god and decide it was the better choice.

You could also decide that anorexia was the better choice, but that wouldn't be conducive to a healthy existence.

Why? If I did this would you then admit that knowledge can be explained?

I'm a bona fide epistemological nihilist. I'm unconvinced that knowledge is truly possible at all. If you could prove otherwise, I would be thrilled. That said, philosophical skepticism is a very difficult, if not impossible, position to refute.

Seriously, you need to quit with this insinuation that anyone who disagrees with you needs to "admit" that their position is wrong, as if we all know the truth but are simply suppressing it. That's a particularly ugly fundamentalist tactic.

To the question of what it's worth?

That all depends on how much you value an accurate description of morality as it exists in reality. I tend to think that having an accurate understanding of reality has more worth than an inaccurate understanding of reality...because it allows one to make better decisions.

Of course, you may find that the comfort you get from believing that your morals are more than opinions is more valuable than an accurate understanding of reality.

Value, in this context, is subjective.

None of this is relevant. I asked you what you would say to a moral nihilist, not a moral realist. The nihilist has at least an accurate description of morality as you do (assuming that your supposedly accurate understanding of reality is accurate at all), because they will hold that it is fictional. That value is in fact fictional. They would also ask you to explain these "better" decisions that a supposedly accurate understanding of reality allows one to make, as the concepts of "better" and "worse" are likewise fictional. What value does holding moral opinions have over dropping them entirely?