Debunking the Moral Argument - Tricks New Atheists Play (Part 5)

[gaara4158]

I quoted you in context. Including the entirety of your reply.

Don't know why they (I assume mods) would remove anything you posted. eightfootman child was the only one out here not engaging the topic, goading and ranting incoherently, you were engaging the topic you just didn't agree.

So you are saying my assessment of the video is correct?

You are agreeing that, "it is absurd to demand empirical proof (AKA science) to justify abstract objects that are both immaterial and causally effete like numbers, sets, concepts, morals?

After you answer those questions we can focus on how one justifies morals as objective instead of subject-dependent.

Yes, it would be absurd to do that. That’s not what he’s doing, and that’s not what I’m doing. Pointing out that it can’t be done isn’t an attempt to prove it’s not real, it’s to point out that it can’t be considered objective if it’s not discovered by the only means by which we discover objective facts. That’s the point you need to engage.

 

[Uber Genius]

it’s to point out that it can’t be considered objective if it’s not discovered by the only means by which we discover objective facts

This is scientism.

Please engage the video link I sent as you will get to see a detailed philosopher of knowledge discuss why it is incoherent.

No philosopher makes the move the video does. None. It is incoherent. You are misusing the word "Objective."

In epistemology "Objective," has a technical meaning.

It means to describe something as, "an objective feature of the world."

The correspondence theory of truth in philosophy states that the truth conditions of propositions are objective features of the world.

2 + 2 = 4
The painting, "The Mona Lisa," is beautiful
Torturing babies for fun is wrong and always wrong
It is against the law in the US to drive on the left side of the road.
Abraham Lincoln was president during the Civil War.

These are not provable using science. But in philosophical terms they are all "objective" features of the world.

So once we discover the equivocation we eliminate the general way you are using the word and apply it to the way William Lane Craig uses it in the video, and all moral ontologists use the word whether they be realists or anti-realists in regards to objective moral values and duties.

Math is similar in that it is an abstract rather than a concrete object.

It doesn't mean it is just a belief and can't be justified.

If that was all the video was purporting to claim then they didn't engage WLC's argument (didn't touch it).

But as atheist Luise Antony, in a debate with WLC on this subject says, "Any argument for moral skepticism will be based on premises that are less obvious then the claim that there are objective moral values."

see 1:33 - 1:58

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/vid...-we-affirm-objective-moral-values-and-duties/

This info I am engaging is not philosophy 101 but more 102 or 103.

There are two sites I recommend:

https://plato.stanford.edu/

https://www.iep.utm.edu/

Both engage the topics at a post-graduate level and yet with careful study are helpful to those will less familiarity.

Also the video I posted on scientism is an analytical presentation rather than a polemic. I hope this distinction helps.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I will now continue my "Tricks," series that has exposed serious fallacious rhetorical tricks played by both Atheists and Theists alike.

Here we see an attempt to undermine the moral argument for the existence of God.

Its publisher AntiCitizenX challenges the viewers to:

"Prove the objectivity of just one moral value or duty."

Watch the video and see if you can spot the absurd trick. A class in philosophy might be required in order to catch the trick, but I will let the gentle readers engage the material and comment.

So I attempted to watch the video... I made it almost 30 seconds! Craig immediately commits a logical fallacy:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

1. If X, then Y.
2. Not X.
3. Therefore not Y.

That is the structure of Craig's argument. Here's an example of it failing:

1. If the Browns win a game, there will be a parade in Cleveland.
2. The Browns did not win a game.
3. Therefore, there will be no parade in Cleveland.


Except, of course, there are lots of reasons for a parade in Cleveland, such as if their baseball or basketball teams won their respective championship.

Craig did say it was a "simple" argument and AntiCitizenX cut him off after it. Did Craig go on to fix it? I'll watch the rest of the video...

...So I watched the rest of the video and didn't see any clarification.

You do say that you're going after both theists and atheists and you also say there is an absurd trick... are you going after Craig here? If so, well done.

 

[gaara4158]

This is scientism.

Please engage the video link I sent as you will get to see a detailed philosopher of knowledge discuss why it is incoherent.

No philosopher makes the move the video does. None. It is incoherent. You are misusing the word "Objective."

In epistemology "Objective," has a technical meaning.

It means to describe something as, "an objective feature of the world."

The correspondence theory of truth in philosophy states that the truth conditions of propositions are objective features of the world.

2 + 2 = 4
The painting, "The Mona Lisa," is beautiful
Torturing babies for fun is wrong and always wrong
It is against the law in the US to drive on the left side of the road.
Abraham Lincoln was president during the Civil War.

These are not provable using science. But in philosophical terms they are all "objective" features of the world.

So once we discover the equivocation we eliminate the general way you are using the word and apply it to the way William Lane Craig uses it in the video, and all moral ontologists use the word whether they be realists or anti-realists in regards to objective moral values and duties.

Math is similar in that it is an abstract rather than a concrete object.

It doesn't mean it is just a belief and can't be justified.

If that was all the video was purporting to claim then they didn't engage WLC's argument (didn't touch it).

But as atheist Luise Antony, in a debate with WLC on this subject says, "Any argument for moral skepticism will be based on premises that are less obvious then the claim that there are objective moral values."

see 1:33 - 1:58

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/vid...-we-affirm-objective-moral-values-and-duties/

This info I am engaging is not philosophy 101 but more 102 or 103.

There are two sites I recommend:

https://plato.stanford.edu/

https://www.iep.utm.edu/

Both engage the topics at a post-graduate level and yet with careful study are helpful to those will less familiarity.

Also the video I posted on scientism is an analytical presentation rather than a polemic. I hope this distinction helps.

It’s fine if we don’t agree about this. I really, really don’t want to become embroiled in yet another debate about definitions of objectivity, truth, etc.

What I can say is that the video covers problems with craig’s argument even if premise 2 is granted. Did you see any tricks from that part?

 

[Uber Genius]

It’s fine if we don’t agree about this. I really, really don’t want to become embroiled in yet another debate about definitions of objectivity, truth, etc.

What I can say is that the video covers problems with craig’s argument even if premise 2 is granted. Did you see any tricks from that part?

this is not an agreement issue.

equivocation is the misuse of a term.

This is not an issue.

There is no one in epistemology that argues the way this video argues period.

There are sound ways to argue against moral realism. This video is a trick.

If you don't care to engage the field of epistemology that is your choice.

If you want to waste time on incoherent defeaters such as the one in the video, that is fine too.

It is puzzling that someone wouldn't want to engage the actual arguments against moral realism for fake ones based on basic misunderstandings about epistemology.

That said if you go to either of the philosophy sites I linked previously and type "moral anti-realism," you will be provided with some excellent arguments that don't "debunk," which is a childish representation, but rather "provide defeaters against moral realism."

Best of luck.

 

[Silmarien]

They have practical/psychological solutions, sure, but I don't know if they have airtight philosophical solutions. These aren't reasons not to believe in the possibilities that disturb us, they're reasons to find out which one is really true.

What do you mean by this? I agree that we should not believe anything without actual reason, but you seem to almost be implying that the default belief should be the one that disturbs us, whatever it might be. Most of the non-theists around here seem to automatically assume that subjectivism is the natural default position, which it really is not. Subjectivism does rely on an entire metaphysical paradigm which its proponents virtually never bother to defend. A more classical skeptical position would be to doubt both that morality is objective and that it is subjective, and go from there.

I would also be careful looking for airtight philosophical arguments. You will not find one for any position--even the cogito ergo sum can and has been challenged. The rabbit hole goes deep, and I think we have to be satisfied if and when the arguments on one side are stronger than the arguments on the other. This is difficult, since we're so spoiled by the success of science that we're obsessed with certainty and empirical demonstration, but that doesn't work outside of a very specific sphere of knowledge.

I do agree that premise 2 needs to be established, though--and premise 1 as well, for that matter. The polemicist in the video pointing that out as if no defender of this particular argument recognizes that they have to argue for their premises was odd, since defending premises is the vast majority of what goes on in philosophical argumentation. I tend to expect rampant idiocy from both sides when it comes to apologetics, though, since turning natural theology into a dueling arena is just a recipe for disaster.

Yes, it would be absurd to do that. That’s not what he’s doing, and that’s not what I’m doing. Pointing out that it can’t be done isn’t an attempt to prove it’s not real, it’s to point out that it can’t be considered objective if it’s not discovered by the only means by which we discover objective facts. That’s the point you need to engage.

This amounts to changing the definition of "objective," though. I don't think anyone here thinks that morals can be demonstrated empirically, and I could turn this around and argue that it cannot be an objective fact that the physical universe exists, since we can't demonstrate the existence of anything outside of mental images. The objective truth of something is not dependent upon our ability to know it.

 

[gaara4158]

this is not an agreement issue.

equivocation is the misuse of a term.

This is not an issue.

There is no one in epistemology that argues the way this video argues period.

There are sound ways to argue against moral realism. This video is a trick.

If you don't care to engage the field of epistemology that is your choice.

If you want to waste time on incoherent defeaters such as the one in the video, that is fine too.

It is puzzling that someone wouldn't want to engage the actual arguments against moral realism for fake ones based on basic misunderstandings about epistemology.

That said if you go to either of the philosophy sites I linked previously and type "moral anti-realism," you will be provided with some excellent arguments that don't "debunk," which is a childish representation, but rather "provide defeaters against moral realism."

Best of luck.

Epistemology is by no means a settled subject in philosophy. Figuring out whose is best tends to be a very drawn-out, tedious discussion that often wanders completely off track from the original subject. No, I do not feel like doing that today.

I have offered to grant you moral realism for the purpose of further examining the flaws in the moral argument that the video discusses, but if you’re content to dismiss the whole video because it uses the word “objectivity” in a way you’ve never seen before that’s your prerogative.

 

[gaara4158]

What do you mean by this? I agree that we should not believe anything without actual reason, but you seem to almost be implying that the default belief should be the one that disturbs us, whatever it might be. Most of the non-theists around here seem to automatically assume that subjectivism is the natural default position, which it really is not. Subjectivism does rely on an entire metaphysical paradigm which its proponents virtually never bother to defend. A more classical skeptical position would be to doubt both that morality is objective and that it is subjective, and go from there.

I think it's very appropriate to take that classical skeptical position starting out, yes. My press for us to be open to the possibilities that disturb us was more in response to Craig's habit of arguing from consequences in defense of premise 2.

This amounts to changing the definition of "objective," though. I don't think anyone here thinks that morals can be demonstrated empirically, and I could turn this around and argue that it cannot be an objective fact that the physical universe exists, since we can't demonstrate the existence of anything outside of mental images. The objective truth of something is not dependent upon our ability to know it.

This is the biggest challenge for me with this type of argument, whether it's about meaning, morals, or epistemology. Objectivity is a tricky concept that's used in a handful of different ways in philosophy, and it's difficult to nail down just what we mean by it in a given conversation, especially when it's the fulcrum of a debate. I see your point that the definition I used there doesn't quite work, so I'll see if I can make it better, and revise my position on the objectivity of morality accordingly.

"Objective" refers to propositions that are either true or not true, regardless of human convictions. It's easy to recognize an objective claim with this definition in respect to the existence of discrete objects, like teacups, but it gets harder to discern between objective and subjective when applied to human constructs, which are products of human convictions. Is the value of money objective? It seems to me that its value depends directly on our belief in its value, and so it couldn't be objective. On the other hand, the state of one's convictions is itself an objective fact, and yet that state is directly determined by one's convictions, so it couldn't be independent of human convictions. Something is missing from this definition as well. Maybe you have a more complete definition?

 

[tampasteve]

MOD HAT ON

This thread has undergone another major clean do to multiple posts violating the following sitewide rule:
Flaming and Goading
Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
Do not personally attack (insult, belittle, mock, ridicule) other members or groups of members on CF. Address only the content of the post and not the poster.

Keep it civil.

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[DogmaHunter]

2 + 2 = 4
The painting, "The Mona Lisa," is beautiful
Torturing babies for fun is wrong and always wrong
It is against the law in the US to drive on the left side of the road.
Abraham Lincoln was president during the Civil War.

These are not provable using science. But in philosophical terms they are all "objective" features of the world.

Wow.....

And you call yourself an uber genius?

2+2 objectively equals 4, which is objectively demonstrable using math.

A painting being "beautiful" on the other hand, is like the epitome of subjectivity.

Torturing babies: objectively wrong (assuming we agree on the premise of what the words "good" and "bad" mean)

Laws in the US: objective. Just open up the lawbook and look it up.

Lincoln: objective historical fact. Science


So, to conclude: only 1 thing on your list can't be demonstrated objectively - and it wasn't an objective statement, but a subjective one.


So....... yeah.

Moving on.

 

[Ana the Ist]

In this particular video the author suggests we "prove" moral intuitions that a objective good exists without the use of intuition.

This is like saying prove the pythagorean theorem without using math or natural language.

Can you think of things our genius videographer believes in that require intuition but are not provable?

No.

How about the existence of an external world, other minds (people), or the reality of the past? All of which are not provable since Descartes but that we take for granted based on our senses and our intuition!

We have evidence of the past and other minds. We may not be able to prove them, but that doesn't mean we require "intuition" to believe in them.

I've got no idea what you mean by "eternal world".

So our video author has to believe in tens of thousands of things he engages everyday as real and then picks our intuition that moral truths are objective (don't rely on human subjects opinions) to say "I want to change the rules on what we can call knowledge."

Intuitions are by their very definition subjective.

Let's imagine that both of us (you and I Uber) consider the same moral question. You say it is morally "bad" and I say that it is morally "good".

If morality is indeed objective, then only one of us can be correct. How do we determine which of us is correct?

 

[Uber Genius]

We have evidence of the past and other minds. We may not be able to prove them, but that doesn't mean we require "intuition" to believe in them.

So you agree with me that if we adopt the strongly skeptical epistemology of the video, we won't be able to prove historical claims, or that our friends and family exist or ancestors ever existed? Good.

You are making my point.

We on scientism and evidentialism we give up so much of what we call knowledge.

We can't even claim to know that what Adolph Hitler did to the Jews was wrong because objective morals are known through intuition.

I've got no idea what you mean by "eternal world".

Intuitions are by their very definition subjective.

Let's imagine that both of us (you and I Uber) consider the same moral question. You say it is morally "bad" and I say that it is morally "good".

"External world," is philosophical language for the world or universe. On skepticism the only think we can "know" is that we exist!

Intuition is how we know the three central laws of logic, most of our axioms in math and philosophy.

It is a technical term in epistemology. I have included links in my posts to help people get up to speed with the idea of epistemology.

The Epistemology of Religion (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

After reviewing this overview please reply with questions.

My claims are affirming that this scientistic (also verificationism also logical positivism) and evidentialism just change the rules around what we can say we know for religious questions and then loosen them for other knowledge areas. In other words, they cheat!

IN other posts I just enumerate the logical conclusions of properly extending these rules sans special pleading.

After reading the article you will see why evidentialism is almost universally rejected by even atheistic epistemologists.

Take heart in knowing there are still good reasons to affirm atheism such as the probable argument from evil, and the ever-popular problem of hell.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So you agree with me that if we adopt the strongly skeptical epistemology of the video, we won't be able to prove historical claims, or that our friends and family exist or ancestors ever existed? Good.

I didn't watch the video. Are you going to be able to have a discussion without putting words in my mouth?

You are making my point.

We on scientism and evidentialism we give up so much of what we call knowledge.

We can't even claim to know that what Adolph Hitler did to the Jews was wrong because objective morals are known through intuition.

Of course I can claim that "what Hitler did to the jews" was wrong. Why wouldn't I be able to state my opinion?

"External world," is philosophical language for the world or universe. On skepticism the only think we can "know" is that we exist!

My mistake, I misread "external".

Intuition is how we know the three central laws of logic, most of our axioms in math and philosophy.

We accept axioms....but I sincerely doubt they're known "intuitively". Just the logical errors in this thread seem to be evidence that we don't intuitively know logical axioms.

My claims are affirming that this scientistic (also verificationism also logical positivism) and evidentialism just change the rules around what we can say we know for religious questions and then loosen them for other knowledge areas. In other words, they cheat!

I totally understand that you aren't fond of "evidentialism"....but that doesn't make objective morals intuitive.

IN other posts I just enumerate the logical conclusions of properly extending these rules sans special pleading.

After reading the article you will see why evidentialism is almost universally rejected by even atheistic epistemologists.

I don't really care.

Take heart in knowing there are still good reasons to affirm atheism such as the probable argument from evil, and the ever-popular problem of hell.

I already asked you a question...and you completely ignored it and spent the rest of your post trying to dodge it. Let's try again...

Let's imagine that both of us (you and I Uber) consider the same moral question. You say it is morally "bad" and I say that it is morally "good". If morality is objective, then only one of us can be logically correct. How do we determine which of us is correct?