Atheism and nihilism

[Ken-1122]

Fair enough. But you can understand that there are two separate arguments here. One is about objective morality an ontological claim. If objective morality is supported then it bolsters support for there being a transcendent being like God. Then a case for the Christian God can be made as this being the transcendent being.

The problem with your logic is it is all based on faith. You believe by faith that only a transcendent God can be morally perfect, and you believe every single person on Earth is morally imperfect. What do you base this on? Did you interview all 7 billion people on earth and find flaws in them morally? No; you just assume because you aren’t perfect, nobody else is. I can proclaim myself perfect, and you have no way of proving me wrong. So if objective morality DID exist, as far as you know, it could be based on my nature; instead of your God’s.

It is if you are not an evil dictator and just want to prove a point.

Ah so it is possible if you are an evil dictator huh? Look; your argument fails because we all know it is possible to kill a human being regardless of their ethnicity. If you can kill one, you can kill them all.

But when you say that objective morals need to be demonstratable to me that is a vague word which can mean scientific verification.

No. Give me a few apples and I can demonstrate 1+1=2 without any scientific verification.

Proving there are objective moral values naturally follows that there must be an independent source for those objective morals that are perfectly good.

Which could be me.

I am not sure what we were talking about. I think I was saying that a logical argument can be used to support objective morals. Or an example of a real-life situation where a moral value is given objective status or 'truth' value like with how people use 'honesty' in a debate. You cannot deny the objective status of honesty so therefore it is an objective fact that stands when people engage in debates that require people to be honest. Otherwise, it is all meaningless and we can never engage in anything that requires some sort of standard to determine whether people are just trotting out any rubbish or telling the truth.

Debates do not require honesty, and honesty is subjective not objective because it is based on your personal thoughts not objective proven facts.

You were saying that objective morals should be demonstrated like math. I said that objective morals can be supported by demonstrating them directly just be the realness and 'truth' status given to them in how people use moral values. I used math as an example in that some formulas for math that are accepted as fact have no physical demonstration like dark matter.

The formulas used to detect dark matter IS demonstrable; otherwise they wouldn’t be able to use it.

That is how morality is determined. A truth claim can be made and then someone has to argue that the truth claim is not supported by a counter-argument. My claim is that objective morals do exist (ontology). I just have to show one objective moral to show it exists. I gave an example of an objective moral. You then have to argue that this is not an objective moral. If you cant then I have supported my claim.

No, the only way you can support your claim is by demonstrating it is wrong to kill a child for fun. Thus far you have failed to demonstrate this claim, I eagerly await your attempts.

It is the fact that people give a moral value realness and 'truth' status that makes it objective. It is giving the moral a status outside themselves. Because if we use the moral value of honesty when people engage in a debate for example they assume that no one will lie or misrepresent arguments.

The value placed on honesty is subjective; not objective.

No you can be charged with stealing even if you take something that does not legally belong to a person..

I said taking something that doesn’t belong to YOU

Actually they are different. Codes of conduct are usually code of ethics that an organization imposes on its employees.

So how are company codes of conduct different than company laws?

 

[Ken-1122]

Fair enough. But you can understand that there are two separate arguments here. One is about objective morality an ontological claim. If objective morality is supported then it bolsters support for there being a transcendent being like God. Then a case for the Christian God can be made as this being the transcendent being.

The problem with your logic is it is all based on faith. You believe by faith that only a transcendent God can be morally perfect, and you believe every single person on Earth is morally imperfect. What do you base this on? Did you interview all 7 billion people on earth and find flaws in them morally? No; you just assume because you aren’t perfect, nobody else is. I can proclaim myself perfect, and you have no way of proving me wrong. So if objective morality DID exist, as far as you know, it could be based on my nature; instead of your God’s.

It is if you are not an evil dictator and just want to prove a point.

Ah so it is possible if you are an evil dictator huh? Look; your argument fails because we all know it is possible to kill a human being regardless of their ethnicity. If you can kill one, you can kill them all.

But when you say that objective morals need to be demonstratable to me that is a vague word which can mean scientific verification.

No. Give me a few apples and I can demonstrate 1+1=2 without any scientific verification.

Proving there are objective moral values naturally follows that there must be an independent source for those objective morals that are perfectly good.

Which could be me.

I am not sure what we were talking about. I think I was saying that a logical argument can be used to support objective morals. Or an example of a real-life situation where a moral value is given objective status or 'truth' value like with how people use 'honesty' in a debate. You cannot deny the objective status of honesty so therefore it is an objective fact that stands when people engage in debates that require people to be honest. Otherwise, it is all meaningless and we can never engage in anything that requires some sort of standard to determine whether people are just trotting out any rubbish or telling the truth.

Debates do not require honesty, and honesty is subjective not objective because it is based on your personal thoughts not objective proven facts.

You were saying that objective morals should be demonstrated like math. I said that objective morals can be supported by demonstrating them directly just be the realness and 'truth' status given to them in how people use moral values. I used math as an example in that some formulas for math that are accepted as fact have no physical demonstration like dark matter.

The formulas used to detect dark matter IS demonstrable; otherwise they wouldn’t be able to use it.

That is how morality is determined. A truth claim can be made and then someone has to argue that the truth claim is not supported by a counter-argument. My claim is that objective morals do exist (ontology). I just have to show one objective moral to show it exists. I gave an example of an objective moral. You then have to argue that this is not an objective moral. If you cant then I have supported my claim.

No, the only way you can support your claim is by demonstrating it is wrong to kill a child for fun. Thus far you have failed to demonstrate this claim, I eagerly await your attempts.

It is the fact that people give a moral value realness and 'truth' status that makes it objective. It is giving the moral a status outside themselves. Because if we use the moral value of honesty when people engage in a debate for example they assume that no one will lie or misrepresent arguments.

The value placed on honesty is subjective; not objective.

No you can be charged with stealing even if you take something that does not legally belong to a person..

I said taking something that doesn’t belong to YOU

Actually they are different. Codes of conduct are usually code of ethics that an organization imposes on its employees.

So how are company codes of conduct different than company laws?

 

[stevevw]

The problem with your logic is it is all based on faith. You believe by faith that only a transcendent God can be morally perfect, and you believe every single person on Earth is morally imperfect. What do you base this on? Did you interview all 7 billion people on earth and find flaws in them morally? No; you just assume because you aren’t perfect, nobody else is.

We do have scientific evidence through behavioural studies that humans are morally fallible. By nature, they can act in ways that experts would regard as inconsistent with even their own morality which has been supported through tests. We don't need to test all people as by nature all humans are the same in this regard.

Moral humility: In life and at work
If behavioral ethics research from the past two decades has taught us nothing else, it has made it abundantly clear that humans are morally fallible. Indeed, there are everyday examples—in the workplace and beyond—of people who unwittingly violate their personal moral values, finding numerous ways to rationalize and justify otherwise morally objectionable behavior.
Moral humility: In life and at work

I can proclaim myself perfect, and you have no way of proving me wrong. So if objective morality DID exist, as far as you know, it could be based on my nature; instead of your God’s

As mentioned in the above paper humans also try to rationalize and justify their behaviour as OK when it is not. Humans have a tendency to minimize their own faults. This is the nature of humans and the fact that someone tries to deny this only shows a lack of humility which shows a lack of moral discernment. The other problem in claiming you are perfect is that you also have to claim that the perfect morality you have is the only true objective moral. It is easy to claim you are perfectly moral to your own version of morality. That could be anything even what others would say was immoral.

The difference with the Christian God is that we have a clear example in Jesus and no one even His accusers and detractors have been able to show that Jesus was anything but a great moral character and did no wrong. Even Pilot said he could find no fault in Jesus when on trial. Jesus was crucified an innocent man.

Ah so it is possible if you are an evil dictator huh? Look; your argument fails because we all know it is possible to kill a human being regardless of their ethnicity. If you can kill one, you can kill them all.

My argument isn't that it is impossible to kill all Greeks theoretically. It is that it is impossible to do so in reality as no one could even begin to get away with it in trying. They would get to about 1000 Greeks and have the UN or some other authority come down on them. Hitler tried to wipe out the Jews and look what happened to him. He never had a chance. No one would.

No. Give me a few apples and I can demonstrate 1+1=2 without any scientific verification.

You have just supported what I was saying. Using a practical demonstration through observation is using the scientific method. You said that you were not claiming objective morality should be measured by scientific demonstrations. Now can you apply the apple example to morality?

Which could be me.

I have just shown above that this cannot be the case. Your idea of perfect is subjective so it is not an independent measure. And as science shows people cannot even adhere to their own ideas of morality.

Debates do not require honesty, and honesty is subjective, not objective because it is based on your personal thoughts, not objective proven facts.

OK then when you asked me above "Did you interview all 7 billion people on earth and find flaws in them morally? No;" I will say yes I interviewed everyone and found lots of flaws. You cannot object and say I am falsifying things as you regard honesty as not being required. You have no way of objecting to what I claim anymore as you have abandoned the value of honesty in our debate. I can now claim anything and you cannot dispute it.

See how important the value of 'honesty, is when 2 people engage where they need to determine false claims from true claims. All interaction would break down into a load of rubbish that no one could make any claims about anything. When you protest to me that I haven't done this or that or I am misrepresenting what you say you are appealing to the value of 'honesty'. You cannot help but do it.

The formulas used to detect dark matter IS demonstrable; otherwise they wouldn’t be able to use it.

The formula they use only tells them that dark matter should be there. It doesn't detect it. They then have to look for it and so far no one has seen it or detected it as yet. They have built million-dollar machines used deep underground to try and detect it but still without success. In fact after years of searching some scientists say it doesn't exist. But despite this many scientists have claimed it a fact without it ever being directly demonstrated. So math equations can be regarded as fact even without physical direct evidence. The same for morality.

Dark matter may not actually exist
Almost a century after it was first postulated, dark matter remains elusive.
Dark matter may not actually exist - Cosmos Magazine

No, the only way you can support your claim is by demonstrating it is wrong to kill a child for fun. Thus far you have failed to demonstrate this claim, I eagerly await your attempts.

So after saying you were not claiming that we have to demonstrate morality with scientific testing you are now saying we do. What do you mean by demonstrate that it is wrong to kill a child for fun? I cannot even begin to imagine how this could be done scientifically.

As I mentioned we can argue certain truths and make moral values real in the way we use them which give them objectivity. This is another way of supporting objectivity. The fact that you or no one can come up with a justified reason or example that killing a baby for fun is morally good is the support that this example is objective.

The value placed on honesty is subjective; not objective.

Why, when you and I engage and assume that we are both being honest so that we can have a coherent debate without making wild claims we are both making 'honesty' an objective value. Whether we like it or not or personally agree or not about the value of 'honesty' we both know we cannot do without it.

Even when someone subjectively thinks honesty is not needed, they sooner or later will appeal to honesty when they protest that someone is making false claims or misrepresenting what they say. Otherwise, they can never engage with anyone about anything that requires people to be honest. They banish themselves from the debate and this forum.

I said taking something that doesn’t belong to YOU

OK sorry I misunderstood. So taking something that doesn’t belong to you is that the legal or moral definition.

So how are company codes of conduct different than company laws?

What is company law. A company code of conduct is not a law. You cannot be prosecuted for breaking a company code of conduct.

 

[FireDragon76]

Since it seems like almost all atheists are hostile towards religion, particularly Christianity, which is an inherently peaceful faith that improves morals

Some of us just don't see it that way, or at the very least, we wouldn't say that without some significant qualifications.

wouldn’t it make sense to think that atheism is inherently nihilistic? It’s not like you ever see atheists praising religion and talking about how good it is. If that is what they believed, they probably wouldn’t be atheists in the first place.

I could say something equally absurd, like just because you don't acknowledge the Supreme Enlightenment of the Buddha, you would be a nihilist, despite protestations to the contrary.

But that would be absurd, wouldn't it?

My point is that just because somebody doesn't find meaning in life on your terms, doesn't mean they see life as lacking meaning. There are more ways to find significance in life than the worship of a creator god.

The problem with your logic is it is all based on faith. You believe by faith that only a transcendent God can be morally perfect, and you believe every single person on Earth is morally imperfect. What do you base this on? Did you interview all 7 billion people on earth and find flaws in them morally? No; you just assume because you aren’t perfect, nobody else is. I can proclaim myself perfect, and you have no way of proving me wrong. So if objective morality DID exist, as far as you know, it could be based on my nature; instead of your God’s.

Ah so it is possible if you are an evil dictator huh? Look; your argument fails because we all know it is possible to kill a human being regardless of their ethnicity. If you can kill one, you can kill them all.

No. Give me a few apples and I can demonstrate 1+1=2 without any scientific verification.

Which could be me.

Debates do not require honesty, and honesty is subjective not objective because it is based on your personal thoughts not objective proven facts.

The formulas used to detect dark matter IS demonstrable; otherwise they wouldn’t be able to use it.

No, the only way you can support your claim is by demonstrating it is wrong to kill a child for fun. Thus far you have failed to demonstrate this claim, I eagerly await your attempts.

The value placed on honesty is subjective; not objective.

I said taking something that doesn’t belong to YOU

So how are company codes of conduct different than company laws?

Making sweeping generalizations about human nature, based on limited experience, is all par for the course for many Christians.

 

[zippy2006]

Is belief a choice?

Yes and no, but belief based on demonstration probably isn't.

If I believe it might make me happier, then I will "decide" to listen to you. If I do not believe it might make me happier, then I will not "decide" to listen to you. My actions are determined by my beliefs.

And you decide whether it will make you happier. Your beliefs are based on your decisions.

(I'm tired today, so this might not be an overly fruitful post, but I wanted to give you something to look at. )

I don't think I'm importing anything. We've agreed that people will do what they believe makes them happy without exception. That's it right there.

Honestly I think you should try to construct a more formal argument to at least identify a universal and particular premise. You seem to be saying, "If we act for happiness then we are not free," or, "If we believe what we see to be true then we are not free." Er.. but why? Is acting for an end incompatible with freedom? Or is that connection between truth and belief incompatible with freedom? I'm still not seeing where your conclusions are coming from. I'm still wondering if your determinism is coming from somewhere other than our exchange.

Oddly enough I just read a piece by David Bentley Hart on topic (What Is a Truly Free Will? - David Bentley Hart - Public Orthodoxy). Part of his argument is that freedom makes no sense apart from fixed ends and goals (such as happiness). He says that apart from a fixed goal freedom becomes entirely arbitrary and pointless. Granted, his ultimate conclusion is universalism, which I disagree with and which is similar to your determinism in some respects, but I think he is right about freedom & ends.

Our actions are determined by our beliefs. Trusting and investigating and digging and arguing are just actions like any other.

And yet our beliefs are informed by our actions, and also by who we choose to trust, what we choose to investigate, how far we dig, the manner in which we argue, etc. There are reciprocal relations between all such things, and every one of these acts is apparently voluntary. To take a very simple example, a basketball player who has acted in such a way that his right hand is stronger than his left will believe--almost subconsciously--that he should cut to his right rather than his left when trying to move past a defender. His past actions have formed this belief, which in turn informs his future actions.

I didn't conceive of free will in any specific way. Like I told you, I've been doubting free will for a while now. I assumed it was possible to not pursue happiness, and that it was possible to pursue suffering, but now I'm not so sure.

In which case our conversation probably had little effect on your opinions regarding free will, for even if it were possible to avert from happiness we could still be unfree, no? The determinism question is difficult because it is so "a priori." The determinist colors their whole world deterministic before they begin, and the libertarian colors their whole world free before they begin, and the fundamental disagreement is difficult to breach. A posteriori arguments are scarce in this area.

Now it seems like it appears as though we can choose to avoid happiness or pursue suffering because the world and our minds are so complex that we're always doing both. But whatever action we believe will cause happiness to be maximized and suffering to be minimized is the action we will take.

I think I see what you are saying. I just hope I didn't oversimplify a complex issue. For example, happiness is a complicated term, and I don't think its complement is suffering per se. Nor do I think Utilitarianism is unavoidable. Maybe that's part of the issue. Maybe you think we seek pleasure and I think we seek good and the first is more deterministic than the second since there are so many goods that are not pleasurable.

In general I would say that I have no knockdown arguments against determinism and determinism cannot be demonstrated, so how to adjudicate this question of freedom becomes important. Granted, if my own premises entail determinism then that would be a problem for me. For example, if you can show that the premise which says we pursue happiness entails determinism then I would be in a pickle. I don't think it does. Even if I said we pursue a car I don't think determinism would be entailed, for there is more than one car, and more than one manufacturer, and more than one model within each manufacturer, and more than one color within each model, etc., and even if there were only one car in existence we would still pursue it in different ways.

 

[Ken-1122]

We do have scientific evidence through behavioural studies that humans are morally fallible. By nature, they can act in ways that experts would regard as inconsistent with even their own morality which has been supported through tests. We don't need to test all people as by nature all humans are the same in this regard.

You cannot judge the entire of mankind from the actions of a few. You have no scientific evidence that I am imperfect.

The other problem in claiming you are perfect is that you also have to claim that the perfect morality you have is the only true objective moral. It is easy to claim you are perfectly moral to your own version of morality.

Isn’t that what your God does?

You have just supported what I was saying. Using a practical demonstration through observation is using the scientific method.

No, I was using math.

You said that you were not claiming objective morality should be measured by scientific demonstrations. Now can you apply the apple example to morality?

The apple demonstration was not natural science, it was math

OK then when you asked me above "Did you interview all 7 billion people on earth and find flaws in them morally? No;" I will say yes I interviewed everyone and found lots of flaws. You cannot object and say I am falsifying things as you regard honesty as not being required. You have no way of objecting to what I claim anymore as you have abandoned the value of honesty in our debate. I can now claim anything and you cannot dispute it.

People lie while debating all the time; does this surprise you?

See how important the value of 'honesty, is when 2 people engage where they need to determine false claims from true claims. All interaction would break down into a load of rubbish that no one could make any claims about anything. When you protest to me that I haven't done this or that or I am misrepresenting what you say you are appealing to the value of 'honesty'. You cannot help but do it.

Of course honest is important! I’m just saying people are not always going to be honest while debating.

The formula they use only tells them that dark matter should be there. It doesn't detect it. They then have to look for it and so far no one has seen it or detected it as yet. They have built million-dollar machines used deep underground to try and detect it but still without success. In fact after years of searching some scientists say it doesn't exist. But despite this many scientists have claimed it a fact without it ever being directly demonstrated. So math equations can be regarded as fact even without physical direct evidence. The same for morality.

Dark matter is not math, and there is always direct evidence when it comes to math.

So after saying you were not claiming that we have to demonstrate morality with scientific testing you are now saying we do.

I never said anything about scientific testing, I said morality has to be demonstrable in order to be objective. Again; objectively prove killing a baby is wrong.

Why, when you and I engage and assume that we are both being honest so that we can have a coherent debate without making wild claims we are both making 'honesty' an objective value.

If honesty has objective value, how much is honesty worth?

OK sorry I misunderstood. So taking something that doesn’t belong to you is that the legal or moral definition.

Taking something that doesn’t belong to you is the moral definition; taking something that is not legally yours, is the legally definition. See the difference?

What is company law. A company code of conduct is not a law. You cannot be prosecuted for breaking a company code of conduct.

Perhaps not legal action, but they can enact disciplinary action against you.

 

[stevevw]

You cannot judge the entire of mankind from the actions of a few. You have no scientific evidence that I am imperfect.

These are not the actions/behaviour of a few. These are behavioural theories that have been around for a long time and are accepted by all the experts and used as the basis for how we can understand humans in a professional capacity. We have been doing this for a long time so we know and understand humans very well, their weaknesses and their strengths.

No expert would concede that humans are perfect and that's not to say that we are amazing creatures in many ways. You just have to look at our behaviour and our history to see we are no perfect in a moral sense.
Human behaviour
human behavior | Definition, Theories, & Development

Isn’t that what your God does?

The difference is as mentioned humans by nature have a subjective view of things. We can only understand and know through our senses and we cannot know everything there is to know to be able to ensure everything is taken into consideration in making our determinations of what we perceive. As mentioned we are weak and prone to mistakes and imperfections as a race.

Whereas God is all-knowing and morally perfect. He is not guided by a weak human nature prone to sin but is God who has no sin. That is His nature compared to ours. Christ was sent so that we could have an example of how to live so that we could believe in Him to overcome our weak sinful nature. We see the evidence for this in Jesus. So Christ is in a position to make these claims. It is up to us to accept or rejecting this.

No, I was using math.

The apple demonstration was not natural science, it was math

Isn't math a form of scientific demonstration. Many scientific theories are based on math IE Theory of special relativity E = mc2.

People lie while debating all the time; does this surprise you?

No but you are missing the point. Because people are prone to lie we put some measuring values in place to minimize this so that we can have a coherent and rational engagement. That being the value of honesty which we use to help us set some criteria for weeding out the lies and chaos from the truth. Two people coming together agree to be honest so that they can have a decent debate. Honesty is then given status as a value.

Of course honest is important! I’m just saying people are not always going to be honest while debating.

Yes, that is true. But by giving a value like honesty 'truth' status as a real value to measure things by people can then use that basis to object to potential dishonesty. If they didn't then they would have nothing to object to and people could present lies as the truth. But with using honesty they could say " Yes but earlier you said this which is a contradiction" or " you are misrepresenting what I said" or present other support for exposing those lies.

Dark matter is not math, and there is always direct evidence when it comes to math.

The only reason scientific propose dark matter is because of the math IE Einsteins theory of relativity. According to the Maths for the Theory of relativity, there is not enough matter in the universe to hold everything in place. So scientists proposed there must be some invisible matter that helps do this. Therefore they came up with Dark Matter which they say makes up most of the universe. The visible matter we see is only around 5% and the rest is dark matter around 25% and Dark energy 70%.
The mystery of dark matter
100 years of general relativity — and why it matters

I never said anything about scientific testing, I said morality has to be demonstrable in order to be objective. Again; objectively prove killing a baby is wrong.

How do you think we could objectively prove that killing a baby for fun is wrong.

If honesty has objective value, how much is honesty worth?

What do you mean by this.

Taking something that doesn’t belong to you is the moral definition; taking something that is not legally yours, is the legally definition. See the difference?

Can you both take something that doesn’t belong to you and take something that is not legally yours at the same time?

Perhaps not legal action, but they can enact disciplinary action against you.

Yes I agree and that is my point. They are using moral and ethical codes of conduct as being objective by saying these are the only codes you must have and follow and if you break them I can punish you. They are saying I hold the truth when it comes to moral codes of conduct and whatever your view is that doesn't count.

Yet under a subjective moral system, no one holds the truth to morality. There are no truths as everyone's views are just different and not morally wrong in any sense of 'truth' or fact. So even non-theists think there are objective morals and try to force them on others.

 

[Leaf473]

hi!
(I haven't read all the posts in this thread, so apologies if these ideas have already been covered.)

one observation is that atheism is basically a negation.
it's similar to how the term "nonfiction" doesn't say what a book is (an encyclopedia? A biography?),
only what it is not.

"atheist" tells us that the person is without belief in God or gods, but not what they do believe.

The atheists that I've talked to seem to believe that a person ought to do what they expect will bring them the most happiness.

but I've never heard an atheist say that people ought not to kill or hurt lots of people, unless they think that will bring them the most happiness.

my sense is (and I'm open to hearing other sides) that the same approach that leads to the denial of the possibility of God or gods would also lead to nihilism or apathy.

 

[Ken-1122]

No expert would concede that humans are perfect and that's not to say that we are amazing creatures in many ways. You just have to look at our behaviour and our history to see we are no perfect in a moral sense.

I find it interesting how you are so eagerly to consort with experts when it suites your agenda, but are quick to dismiss the same experts when it goes against your agenda.
Those same experts who would not concede humans are perfect are the same experts who dismiss the very existence of your God. If those experts don’t know what they are talking about when they dismiss your God, why would you all of a sudden take their word for anything else? Sounds like special pleading to me.

Isn't math a form of scientific demonstration. Many scientific theories are based on math IE Theory of special relativity E = mc2.

I said natural science. Math is not natural science.

No but you are missing the point. Because people are prone to lie we put some measuring values in place to minimize this so that we can have a coherent and rational engagement. That being the value of honesty which we use to help us set some criteria for weeding out the lies and chaos from the truth. Two people coming together agree to be honest so that they can have a decent debate. Honesty is then given status as a value.

But that value is subjective; not object.

The only reason scientific propose dark matter is because of the math IE Einsteins theory of relativity. According to the Maths for the Theory of relativity, there is not enough matter in the universe to hold everything in place. So scientists proposed there must be some invisible matter that helps do this. Therefore they came up with Dark Matter which they say makes up most of the universe. The visible matter we see is only around 5% and the rest is dark matter around 25% and Dark energy 70%.

That has nothing to do with anything I said. Again; dark matter is not math, and there is always direct evidence when it comes to math equations.

How do you think we could objectively prove that killing a baby for fun is wrong.

We can’t! That’s my point.

What do you mean by this.

If honesty had objective value, you would be able to determine it's worth.

 

[Ken-1122]

my sense is (and I'm open to hearing other sides) that the same approach that leads to the denial of the possibility of God or gods would also lead to nihilism or apathy.

Why?

 

[stevevw]

I find it interesting how you are so eagerly to consort with experts when it suites your agenda, but are quick to dismiss the same experts when it goes against your agenda.
Those same experts who would not concede humans are perfect are the same experts who dismiss the very existence of your God. If those experts don’t know what they are talking about when they dismiss your God, why would you all of a sudden take their word for anything else? Sounds like special pleading to me.

The difference is the experts have scientific evidence for showing that humans are not perfect morally. They have a history of human behavioral information that shows that humans are weak when it comes to following morals and laws. But they could never verify that there is no God as that is a negative assertion. They would have to be all-knowing and have access to all possible alternative realities to confidently claim there is no God which they cannot possibly do.

I said natural science. Math is not natural science.

OK sorry about that. I misunderstood you. Nevertheless, Math is still a way of determining a fact without having any physical evidence just like we can do with moral values.

But that value is subjective; not object.

Yet using the value of 'honesty' between two people seems to stand objectively, independent of their subjective views about honesty. One or both could have a subjective view and deny that honesty is a value in the first place. But the moment they begin to appeal to 'honesty' and object the other is lying that is making 'honesty' a truth independent of themselves whether they like it or not.

In other words, even if their subjective view was there is no such thing as 'honesty' they act hypocritically in appealing to the value of 'honesty' when they protest that the person they engage with is lying. They are making 'honesty' objective when they do that because 'honesty' is made a fact independent of their subjective view. That is what objective morality means, morals are facts/truths independent of human's opinion.

That has nothing to do with anything I said. Again; dark matter is not math, and there is always direct evidence when it comes to math equations.

OK so even if we use Dark matter as a scientific claim for being real or fact we still cannot see it. There is no direct physical evidence that dark matter is real. Yet scientists still claim it is a fact. So here we have a fact that has no direct physical evidence. It cannot be directly demonstrated.

That is what I am saying we can also do this with morality. We can make 'truth' or 'fact claims about certain moral values even though we don't have direct physical evidence. Not all 'truth', 'fact', or 'realness' claims are based on the scientific method. They can also be based on the philosophy and make ontological claims that are argued logically.

We can say that what we experience with morality by intuitively knowing that certain acts are always morally wrong (objective) or are made 'truth' in how we use them is a true representation of reality if there is no contrary evidence. Just like we can say that our experience of the physical world is a true representation of reality and not some virtual reality if there is no contrary evidence. There is no way for us to get outside ourselves to verify there is no alternate reality. So we are justified to believe that both these propositions are 'truth' (objective) in the light of no evidence that defeats this.

We can’t! That’s my point.

If we can't then why do just about every person say it is wrong to kill a baby for fun. They say that anyone who claims that you can are objectively wrong and are unsound and deranged despite their subjective view. So they are making a 'truth' claim that it is always wrong. They are making an objective claim despite them saying that there are no objective morals. That is why I am saying that people verbalize that morals are subjective but in reality act like morals are objective.

The problem with your position that we can never prove that killing a baby for fun is morally wrong means that someone can object that they are being discriminated or condemned for killing a baby for fun without any independent way to say they are doing wrong. There is no objective measure to say they are really morally wrong.

Linking this back to the OP this is a receipt for moral nihilism because no one can say that there is any truth to any moral values beyond human personal opinion. Any talk of moral values would just be an illusion and a make-believe exercise in trying to give morality some meaning and 'truth' value that isn't really there.

If honesty had objective value, you would be able to determine it's worth.

We can. It is worth the value of making human engagement coherent and rational. Without it, all human engagement when it comes to having debates or conversations that require being honest would reduce into chaos and be meaningless. So honesty carries a lot of value in that sense.

 

[Leaf473]

Why?

hi Ken-1122,

well, assuming that you're asking why I think that the same approach that leads to the denial of the possibility of God or gods would also lead to nihilism or apathy,

thanks for asking!

if a person denies even the possibility of God or gods,
it's probably because they believe that reliable knowledge can only be arrived at by using the scientific method.

if we attempt to use the scientific method to gain knowledge about meaning, purpose, values, or morality, it doesn't work, imo.

science is great at predicting the outcome of experiments.
for example, if we cool water, will it turn into a solid?

is there an experiment that can tell us about the existence of meaning, purpose, values, or morality?
I'd say no.

so, if we refuse to deal with anything that can't be evaluated by the scientific method, then imo we are basically at a common definition of nihilism:
"...existential nihilism, in which life is believed to be without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[3] Moral nihilists assert that morality does not exist at all."
Nihilism - Wikipedia

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes and no, but belief based on demonstration probably isn't.

Mmm... This question deserves it's own post, maybe even it's own thread... (pssst! Don't tell Philo we're encroaching on epistemological territory!) I was going to write more yesterday since I had a vacation day from work, but they called me in because they just can't run that place without me!

Now I would say that if you believe something, you have some sort of feeling about how confident you are that it's true. That isn't contentious is it? So if X and Y are mutually exclusive, and you believe X is true, you would essentially feel more confident to bet on X than you would be to bet on Y. Because belief requires some sort of feeling, it could only be demonstrated to exist to either of us subjectively, really. So I can't really argue for the idea that belief isn't a choice, but I think we can do a little experiment.

If you've ever seen this question pop up in other threads and topics before, you might have seen folks in my position demand to folks in your position "Okay, then choose to believe God doesn't exist". Or even outside of theism something else that's an enormous claim like, "Okay, then choose to believe that I'm 500 feet tall!". I think there's an okay argument to be had about why big beliefs like that aren't a good test. I think we should try something completely boring and mundane. If belief is a choice, then you should be able to choose arbitrarily to believe something that is completely insignificant, right?

So I'm going to give you a list of things to believe. I'm not claiming any of them is true, because I wouldn't want whatever trust you have in my honesty to cause you to be convinced, it has to be your choice.

Choose to believe that my shirt is solid blue.
Choose to believe that my shirt is solid white.
Choose to believe that my shirt is solid black.
Choose to believe that I am not wearing a shirt.
Choose to believe that my shirt is striped horizontally.
Choose to believe that my shirt is striped vertically.
Choose to believe that my shirt is plaid.

So, for each belief, did you suddenly feel more confident that it was true when you "chose to believe" it? I'm not even asking you to "know" what my shirt is like, you don't need 100% confidence in the truth of any of them. Does your confidence level change at all? Personally, I can't do it. I don't know how it's done. If we were talking about your shirt, I could arbitrarily place a bet on any one of those, I could imagine that your shirt matched whatever criteria hypothetically, but I can't cause myself to feel confident about any one of them being true without some kind of evidence which would cause me to be convinced.

Honestly I think you should try to construct a more formal argument to at least identify a universal and particular premise. You seem to be saying, "If we act for happiness then we are not free," or, "If we believe what we see to be true then we are not free." Er.. but why? Is acting for an end incompatible with freedom? Or is that connection between truth and belief incompatible with freedom? I'm still not seeing where your conclusions are coming from. I'm still wondering if your determinism is coming from somewhere other than our exchange.

Once you hold a belief about what will make you happy, your actions are determined. If I fully believe that buying a specific car will make me the happier than selecting any of the other cars I have to choose from, I cannot choose to not buy that specific car. We know this because all of us will choose the thing that makes us happiest without exception.

And yet our beliefs are informed by our actions, and also by who we choose to trust, what we choose to investigate, how far we dig, the manner in which we argue, etc. There are reciprocal relations between all such things, and every one of these acts is apparently voluntary. To take a very simple example, a basketball player who has acted in such a way that his right hand is stronger than his left will believe--almost subconsciously--that he should cut to his right rather than his left when trying to move past a defender. His past actions have formed this belief, which in turn informs his future actions.

Our actions are determined by our beliefs, and our beliefs are affected by the outcomes of our actions. Okay, I don't disagree, but I don't see how this contradicts anything I've said.

In which case our conversation probably had little effect on your opinions regarding free will, for even if it were possible to avert from happiness we could still be unfree, no? The determinism question is difficult because it is so "a priori." The determinist colors their whole world deterministic before they begin, and the libertarian colors their whole world free before they begin, and the fundamental disagreement is difficult to breach. A posteriori arguments are scarce in this area.

Oh no, these threads on morality and values, of which our conversation has only played a part, has pushed me further into the determinist camp. Silmarian actually gave me the first nudge a few years ago.

I think I see what you are saying. I just hope I didn't oversimplify a complex issue. For example, happiness is a complicated term, and I don't think its complement is suffering per se. Nor do I think Utilitarianism is unavoidable. Maybe that's part of the issue. Maybe you think we seek pleasure and I think we seek good and the first is more deterministic than the second since there are so many goods that are not pleasurable.

I disagree. I don't think there are any goods that are not pleasurable. If you do a good deed, you don't feel good about it?

 

[Ken-1122]

hi Ken-1122,

well, assuming that you're asking why I think that the same approach that leads to the denial of the possibility of God or gods would also lead to nihilism or apathy,

thanks for asking!

if a person denies even the possibility of God or gods,
it's probably because they believe that reliable knowledge can only be arrived at by using the scientific method.

if we attempt to use the scientific method to gain knowledge about meaning, purpose, values, or morality, it doesn't work, imo.

science is great at predicting the outcome of experiments.
for example, if we cool water, will it turn into a solid?

is there an experiment that can tell us about the existence of meaning, purpose, values, or morality?
I'd say no.

so, if we refuse to deal with anything that can't be evaluated by the scientific method, then imo we are basically at a common definition of nihilism:
"...existential nihilism, in which life is believed to be without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[3] Moral nihilists assert that morality does not exist at all."
Nihilism - Wikipedia

Thanks for your reply. I think I see where your mistake lies; you seem to assume that because I am skeptical of your religious claims, therefore I blindly accept anything from science. I can assure you atheism does not mean embracing science, it just means to not believe in God.

 

[Ken-1122]

The difference is the experts have scientific evidence for showing that humans are not perfect morally. They have a history of human behavioral information that shows that humans are weak when it comes to following morals and laws. But they could never verify that there is no God as that is a negative assertion. They would have to be all-knowing and have access to all possible alternative realities to confidently claim there is no God which they cannot possibly do.

There is no scientific evidence that states every single human ever born is morally imperfect. If you disagree, I challenge you to provide said scientific evidence.

OK sorry about that. I misunderstood you. Nevertheless, Math is still a way of determining a fact without having any physical evidence just like we can do with moral values.

I didn't say that which is objective is based on physical evidence, I said it is demonstrable. Math is demonstrable, morality is not.

Yet using the value of 'honesty' between two people seems to stand objectively, independent of their subjective views about honesty. One or both could have a subjective view and deny that honesty is a value in the first place.

No they would claim honesty has a subjective value, rather than an objective value. No reasonable person is gonna claim there is no value to honesty.

OK so even if we use Dark matter as a scientific claim for being real or fact we still cannot see it. There is no direct physical evidence that dark matter is real. Yet scientists still claim it is a fact. So here we have a fact that has no direct physical evidence. It cannot be directly demonstrated.

Dark Matter is a scientific hypothesis, not a scientific fact.
Dark matter - Wikipedia

If we can't then why do just about every person say it is wrong to kill a baby for fun.

Because they subjectively believe it to be morally wrong.

We can. It is worth the value of making human engagement coherent and rational

That value varies from person to person; because the value is subjective not objective.

 

[stevevw]

There is no scientific evidence that states every single human ever born is morally imperfect. If you disagree, I challenge you to provide said scientific evidence.

The evidence doesn't need to be based on testing every single person. It only has to show human limitations IE what a human is capable and incapable of. We have this evidence with the results from 1,000s of tests and observations of human behavior through the years.
This allows scientists to them make informed assessments about what a human being can and cannot do.

For example, we know that humans cannot survive in freezing temperatures for too long based on how the body works and needs to be maintained at a certain temperature. This can be applied to all humans without testing all humans. Or that due to the way the human brain works humans have a tendency to deceive themselves into thinking something is good when it is bad. We don't have to test every human to know this. We just have to know the human condition and this can be applied to all humans.

I didn't say that which is objective is based on physical evidence, I said it is demonstrable. Math is demonstrable, morality is not.

On the contrary, morality can be demonstrated like Math. For example, take a math equation like 2+2+4. This is said to be a fact in Math yet there is no physical evidence. The same with moral values IE honesty is a necessary value in human debates. This is a fact. You cannot have a debate without honesty otherwise no one can could protest that someone is lying. Yet there is no physical evidence for honesty the same as the Math equation used.

No,they would claim honesty has a subjective value, rather than an objective value. No reasonable person is gonna claim there is no value to honesty.

Of course people will claim there is no such thing as honesty for any given situation. They don't have to say it applies always but just the situation they are engaging in. Having you ever heard someone say "who says that you know what is truth" or "there is no such thing as truth". People will dispute the validity of 'honesty' if they don't believe it applies or they want to avoid facing the truth.

The whole point of subjective morality means that moral opinions can range from someone saying there is no honesty to making versions of honesty according to the way they see things or don't want to see things.

I heard a news story today about a young guy who was pulled over by the police doing a border check for people coming into Queensland from NSW because of the Coronavirus. The young guy refused to give his details and claimed that there was no Coronavirus and it was all a conspiracy. that the police had no right to stop him. He didn't believe what the POlice were saying and had his own views about what was the truth and whether he had to be honest with the police. So people can opt-in and out of making honesty real or not depending on their personal views and ideology.

Dark Matter is a scientific hypothesis, not a scientific fact.

Dark matter is the result of a scientific theory, not hypothesis which is Einstein's theory of general relativity. Because the calculations for gravity as compared to the amount of visible matter don't add up it calculates that there has to be some invisible matter as well. So it is a fact according to the theory of general relativity. That's unless Einsteins theory is wrong of course.

Because they subjectively believe it to be morally wrong.

How do you know that all those who agree that killing a baby for fun is wrong are not just acknowledging a moral truth that they intuitively know? Could anyone who had a subjective view say that it was OK to kill a baby for fun?

That value varies from person to person; because the value is subjective not objective.

The point is the value doesn't vary from person to person in reality. It may in claims but it doesn't when put into practice in situations where people need to engage.

 

[Leaf473]

Thanks for your reply. I think I see where your mistake lies; you seem to assume that because I am skeptical of your religious claims, therefore I blindly accept anything from science. I can assure you atheism does not mean embracing science, it just means to not believe in God.

I hear what you're saying.
and as I said earlier, as far as etymology goes,
atheism is simply a negation.

would you agree that the majority of atheists embrace science?

what positive terms would you use to describe your worldview?

do you believe life has an objective meaning?

 

[Ken-1122]

would you agree that the majority of atheists embrace science?

I agree.

what positive terms would you use to describe your worldview?

What is a "worldview"? I don't know if I have one of those.

do you believe life has an objective meaning?

My life has meaning. But the meaning I bring to my life is subjective, not objective.

 

[Ken-1122]

The evidence doesn't need to be based on testing every single person. It only has to show human limitations IE what a human is capable and incapable of.

Well going by that logic, they don’t have to be all-knowing, and have access to all possible alternative realities to confidently claim that there is no God! (a claim you made earlier). If they don’t have to cover all bases to make conclusions about each individual human, they don’t have to cover all bases to make conclusions about God

On the contrary, morality can be demonstrated like Math. For example, take a math equation like 2+2+4. This is said to be a fact in Math yet there is no physical evidence.

But there is physical evidence that 2+2=4. As I said before, give me a bunch of apples and I can provide the evidence.

The same with moral values IE honesty is a necessary value in human debates. This is a fact. You cannot have a debate without honesty otherwise no one can could protest that someone is lying.

The inability to protest someone lying does not prevent a debate from taking place.

Of course people will claim there is no such thing as honesty for any given situation. They don't have to say it applies always but just the situation they are engaging in. Having you ever heard someone say "who says that you know what is truth" or "there is no such thing as truth". People will dispute the validity of 'honesty' if they don't believe it applies or they want to avoid facing the truth.

The world is full of crazy people who will deny the obvious; my point is no reasonable person who recognize morality as subjective will claim honest is not important

The whole point of subjective morality means that moral opinions can range from someone saying there is no honesty to making versions of honesty according to the way they see things or don't want to see things.

None of this goes away by proclaiming morality to be objective.
I will respond to the rest later

 

[Ken-1122]

Dark matter is the result of a scientific theory, not hypothesis which is Einstein's theory of general relativity. Because the calculations for gravity as compared to the amount of visible matter don't add up it calculates that there has to be some invisible matter as well. So it is a fact according to the theory of general relativity. That's unless Einsteins theory is wrong of course.

I provided an outside source that said Dark Matter was a hypothesis. Do you have an outside source that says it is a scientific fact? Or am I just expected to take your word for it.

How do you know that all those who agree that killing a baby for fun is wrong are not just acknowledging a moral truth that they intuitively know?

If they can't articulate this moral truth, they shouldn't be surprised if they aren't taken seriously.

The point is the value doesn't vary from person to person in reality. It may in claims but it doesn't when put into practice in situations where people need to engage.

My cousin was killed over cheating (drug deal gone bad) this guy felt honesty was worth my cousin's life. Not everybody feels honesty is worth a life. I maintain; the value of honesty will vary from person to person, and from situation to situation.