Atheism and nihilism

[2PhiloVoid]

The alternative to wisdom-based morality

Not sure what youre asking in the first question. The Biblical God seems to me a transitional hybrid of a Hebrew tribal god and philosophical ideal God on display in the book of John.

I would add: the alternative to wisdom-based morality that I'm defending is arbitrary "because I said so" command-morality. Command morality may have been a useful formula for enshrining collected wisdom for a tribal society. But its the human project of collecting wisdom that underlies the command-morality God, I think.

Why is it no one seems to "get what I'm asking?" Or is it because, politically speaking, no one wants to?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The alternative to wisdom-based morality

Not sure what youre asking in the first question. The Biblical God seems to me a transitional hybrid of a Hebrew tribal god and philosophical ideal God on display in the book of John.

I would add: the alternative to the wisdom-based morality that I'm defending is an arbitrary "because I said so" command-morality. Command morality may have been a useful formula for enshrining collected wisdom for a tribal society. But its the human project of collecting wisdom that underlies the command-morality God idea, I think.

Moreover, what I'm asking above has essentially very little to do with Divine-Command Theory.

 

[durangodawood]

Why is it no one seems to "get what I'm asking?" Or is it because, politically speaking, no one wants to?

No, it really is the way you put your question. A few re-readings havent helped.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, it really is the way you put your question. A few re-readings havent helped.

That's alright. Take your time for it to soak in and saturate ...

You'll get it eventually. I hope.

 

[durangodawood]

That's alright. Take your time for it to soak in and saturate ...

You'll get it eventually. I hope.

In wisdom-based morality we dont define the good. We discover it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In wisdom-based morality we dont define the good. We discover it.

That's just the point about the definitional and semantic obscurity I'm attempting to get you (and some others here) to see.

Whose 'wisdom'? Ours ? ...................... or that of God (assuming He's real and all 'dat,' of course!) ?

 

[stevevw]

It can be observed that people are generally happier in a society without pedo predators running amok. So its not just random opinion.

One thing that confuses people in this argument is that human satisfaction is both felt subjectively AND observed objectively. Many people never get past the former in these discussions.

How is human satisfaction felt objectively? Feelings seem quite arbitrary to me.

 

[durangodawood]

How is human satisfaction felt objectively? Feelings seem quite arbitrary to me.

I didnt say its felt objectively. Feelings are internal by definition.

I'm saying satisfaction can be observed objectively. We can see when people are happy vs miserable. Just like how we can tell an abused dog is miserable compared to one in loving care. Yes, there's more subtleties at play in humans, but the basic idea is the same.

 

[durangodawood]

That's just the point of definitional and semantic obscurity I'm attempting to get you (and some others here) to see.

Whose 'wisdom'? Ours ? ...................... or that of God (assuming He's real and all 'dat, of course!) ?

Yes, our hard won wisdom, often enshrined in religious scripture.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, our hard won wisdom, often enshrined in religious scripture.

Our hard won wisdom? Really? It's not mine. At the least, it's that of ancient Israelites/Jews, although I might freely, and without fight, adopt it as mine.

 

[KCfromNC]

There is a problem here in all of this, Steve, but I'm not sure that that average atheist here has the imagination or the motivation to understand the essential problem with and in the Euthyphro Dilemma.

So, it's probably best just to bow out of this because they have their hearts set upon what they have their hearts set upon and reason doesn't really come into the picture for them on this ontological and axiological issue.

Just a word to the wise, Steve.

Leading with poisoning the well normally reads like a preemptive admission of defeat to me.

 

[Moral Orel]

For you, it does.

However, reality remains reality despite whatever labels we may like to slap onto our perceptions about it all.

And the reality is that the argument:

P1 X is Z
C Y is Z

Is a non-sequitur. It's super-duper if you feel you've got a better explanation than the one provided, but if you weren't going to share with the rest of the class, why interject at all?

 

[durangodawood]

Our hard won wisdom? Really? It's not mine. At the least, it's that of ancient Israelites/Jews, although I might freely, and without fight, adopt it as mine.

"Ours" as in: embedded in the society generally, in religions, in works of art, in cultural traditions, in family and education traditions. If every single individual had wisdom fully internalized, we wouldnt need any of those things.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Leading with poisoning the well normally reads like a preemptive admission of defeat to me.

Ok. So, don't do it, KCfromNC. And since I've implied that there IS an analytic difference between concepts in the moral and ontological dilemma, I'm personally not going to accept the accusation of having "poisoned the well." I will accept the accusation that my implication can (and will) make it definitively inconvenient for people to keep harping upon Euthyphro's dilemma.

So don't harp about it! Your harping doesn't really make any music.

 

[KCfromNC]

?

Assertions piled on assertions don't really add much to the conversation.

You cannot ground morality in subjectivity as it is always changing. What would be determined as a grounding for what is right one minute would change the next. Therefore there is no grounding.

That's certainly one opinion.

Because if a person is making a "truth" claim about morality then using personal opinion is not very supportive and convincing. If there is no independent grounding then people could claim all sorts of things with a good argument.

Given that even people who think their opinions about morality are grounded in something don't all agree, I'm not sure why this "grounding" is supposed to matter, whatever it means.

Of course, they do. When they claim God does horrible acts in the Old Testament for example. Or when they appeal to certain moral values in arguments with others and expect people to abide by that.

What gives you the idea that these are claims about absolute objective truth, though?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And the reality is that the argument:

P1 X is Z
C Y is Z

Is a non-sequitur. It's super-duper if you feel you've got a better explanation than the one provided, but if you weren't going to share with the rest of the class, why interject at all?

And the reality is that the argument you've laid out .... doesn't apply, analytically speaking. The whole Euthyphro Dilemma, when applied to Christianity, involves an equivocation of denotations. And it's time to just knock that little crap pile over for once.

 

[KCfromNC]

The job is to preach the Gospel.

I wish I understood how this related to my initial request, but I'm at a loss here.

 

[KCfromNC]

Ok. So, don't do it, KCfromNC.

Oh, well, you got me. I'm glue, you're rubber, dot dot dot. I can't possibly rebut the sophisticated philosophy behind that line of discussion.

And since I've implied that there IS an analytic difference between concepts in the moral and ontological dilemma, I'm personally not going to accept the accusation of having "poisoned the well."

I'm not sure in what sorts of fields this kind of reasoning is convincing.

I will accept the accusation that my implication can (and will) make it definitively inconvenient for people to keep harping upon Euthyphro's dilemma.

Has anyone actually felt inconvenienced by someone implying they have an opinion on a subject?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh, well, you got me. I'm glue, you're rubber, dot dot dot. I can't possibly rebut the sophisticated philosophy behind that line of discussion.



I'm not sure in what sorts of fields this kind of reasoning is convincing.



Has anyone actually felt inconvenienced by someone implying they have an opinion on a subject?

Thanks for the fake responses, KCfromNC, responses that sound 'like' they're saying something but actually don't.

 

[Moral Orel]

And the reality is that the argument you've laid out .... doesn't apply, analytically speaking.

What argument is that? What a non-sequitur is?