Is an appeal to authority a proper justification of knowledge?

[Tree of Life]

What makes something a fact?

It would depend on the nature of the fact. A historical fact is something that actually happened. A scientific fact is an accurate description of the created world. A moral fact is an accurate description of God's law. Etc...

What if facts contradict norms?

In a theistic world this could never happen. I suppose if you throw God out the window then anything is possible, even absurdities like facts contradicting norms. But since facts and norms never contradict one another then it's clear that God exists.

Huh?

A belief has to be personally, epistemically satisfying in order for you to accept it. You'll never believe something unless it "seems right" based on facts and norms.

 

[Loudmouth]

It would depend on the nature of the fact. A historical fact is something that actually happened. A scientific fact is an accurate description of the created world. A moral fact is an accurate description of God's law. Etc...

How do you determine if something really happened? How do you determine if it is an accurate description of the created world? How do you determine if God's laws are moral?

In a theistic world this could never happen. I suppose if you throw God out the window then anything is possible, even absurdities like facts contradicting norms. But since facts and norms never contradict one another then it's clear that God exists.

If the accepted norm is that the Sun moves about the Earth, but the facts are just the opposite, which do we go with?

A belief has to be personally, epistemically satisfying in order for you to accept it. You'll never believe something unless it "seems right" based on facts and norms.

Then the third part seems redundant since it circles back to facts and norms. Quantum mechanics is really counter-intuitive and not that satisfying as an answer, but it also appears to be correct. It is also not satisfying to some that the Earth is not the center of the Universe. I see no reason why our desire for what we want to be true should line up with what is really true.

 

[Tree of Life]

How do you determine if something really happened? How do you determine if it is an accurate description of the created world? How do you determine if God's laws are moral?

Now you're asking about epistemic method - how do we go about discovering facts? Depending on the facts in question the methods will be different. God's law and morality are synonymous. "God's laws are moral" is tautological.

If the accepted norm is that the Sun moves about the Earth, but the facts are just the opposite, which do we go with?

You misunderstand my use of the word "norm". By "norm" I mean the norms of thought and of revelation. Logic is a norm, or law, of thought. God's revelation is also a norm.

Then the third part seems redundant since it circles back to facts and norms. Quantum mechanics is really counter-intuitive and not that satisfying as an answer, but it also appears to be correct. It is also not satisfying to some that the Earth is not the center of the Universe. I see no reason why our desire for what we want to be true should line up with what is really true.

Simply this: you'll never believe something that's not persuasive. Persuasive = epistemically satisfying. There is a personal, existential component of belief and knowledge.

 

[Loudmouth]

Now you're asking about epistemic method - how do we go about discovering facts? Depending on the facts in question the methods will be different.

What are the methods, and what does it depend on?

God's law and morality are synonymous.

Under what justification?

Why can't I also claim that My Laws and morality are synonymous?

You misunderstand my use of the word "norm". By "norm" I mean the norms of thought and of revelation. Logic is a norm, or law, of thought. God's revelation is also a norm.

What if God reveals that the Sun moves about the Earth, but the facts show otherwise?

"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

At one time, the norm was that scripture revealed a Geocentric universe with the Sun moving about the Earth, and it was considered a revelation from God.

Simply this: you'll never believe something that's not persuasive. Persuasive = epistemically satisfying. There is a personal, existential component of belief and knowledge.

What we are asking is what makes something persuasive.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

..God's law and morality are synonymous. "God's laws are moral" is tautological.

Why do you believe that?

Torturing atheists for all eternity for a belief, let alone a belief they have no control over, is certainly not moral.

 

[Tree of Life]

What are the methods, and what does it depend on?

Depending on the nature of the fact the methods would vary. The scientific method is relatively helpful for discerning facts about how creation works. There's a certain historic method for discovering historic facts. If you want to discover moral facts you can look at your conscience or at God's law.

Under what justification?

According to the Christian worldview this is so. But if they're not tautological then it seems to me that morality totally loses its meaning. People have tried to explain morality without referencing God but in my estimation they've totally failed. It becomes an incoherent concept.

Why can't I also claim that My Laws and morality are synonymous?

You can claim whatever you like. In fact, if you dismiss God's law you'll probably make a claim that's not far from this. I for one won't find it persuasive, though.

What if God reveals that the Sun moves about the Earth, but the facts show otherwise?

I'm not even sure what this would mean.

"First, . . . to want to affirm that in reality the sun is at the center of the world and only turns on itself without moving from east to west, and the earth . . . revolves with great speed about the sun . . . is a very dangerous thing, likely not only to irritate all scholastic philosophers and theologians, but also to harm the Holy Faith by rendering Holy Scripture false."--Cardinal Bellarmine, 1615

At one time, the norm was that scripture revealed a Geocentric universe with the Sun moving about the Earth, and it was considered a revelation from God.

Again, when I say "norms" here I don't mean "what most people believe". I mean the "rules". Logic is a rule, or a norm, of thought. Facts and logic don't contradict one another.

 

[Tree of Life]

Why do you believe that?

Torturing atheists for all eternity for a belief, let alone a belief they have no control over, is certainly not moral.

If you reject the existence of God then "morality" as a concept totally collapses.

 

[Loudmouth]

If you want to discover moral facts you can look at your conscience or at God's law.

Why the Bible? What makes it an authority?

According to the Christian worldview this is so.

What makes the Christian worldview an authority on morality?

But if they're not tautological then it seems to me that morality totally loses its meaning. People have tried to explain morality without referencing God but in my estimation they've totally failed.

What makes you a moral authority?

You can claim whatever you like. In fact, if you dismiss God's law you'll probably make a claim that's not far from this. I for one won't find it persuasive, though.

Why not?

Again, when I say "norms" here I don't mean "what most people believe". I mean the "rules". Logic is a rule, or a norm, of thought. Facts and logic don't contradict one another.

When did the circular logic of "because the bible says so" become logical?

 

[Loudmouth]

If you reject the existence of God then "morality" as a concept totally collapses.

Why can't we use empathy and reason as a foundation for morality?

 

[sarxweh]

If you reject the existence of God then "morality" as a concept totally collapses.

At least morality that is functional in a way that lasts. Lots of moral systems have come and gone where the proponents reject a deity, but they don't last or accomplish the end game.

Why can't we use empathy and reason as a foundation for morality?

We can. Its just a matter of whose empathy and reason are we referring to.

 

[PsychoSarah]

At least morality that is functional in a way that lasts. Lots of moral systems have come and gone where the proponents reject a deity, but they don't last or accomplish the end game.



We can. Its just a matter of whose empathy and reason are we referring to.

I actually cannot think of any societies that have existed in which religion wasn't present in some form. Take that as you will, I suppose.

 

[sarxweh]

I actually cannot think of any societies that have existed in which religion wasn't present in some form. Take that as you will, I suppose.

True. Moral frameworks do seem to follow deities around. That's revealing.

Personally, having "always been a christian" I've always felt like morally sensitive atheism is equivalent to an anarchist police-force. I'm sure I have probably misunderstood that POV to a large extent, but for me, I feel like I would just flush all pretense and be reasonable. Joker's a pretty good example actually.

And with that, I'm gonna make this pencil disappear

 

[Loudmouth]

At least morality that is functional in a way that lasts. Lots of moral systems have come and gone where the proponents reject a deity, but they don't last or accomplish the end game.

What does a deity add to a moral system? We are still talking about religious texts written by men, justified by men, and enforced by men (and some women ). The only reason that a deity is thrown into the mix appears to be as a source of false justification.

We can. Its just a matter of whose empathy and reason are we referring to.

So what is the justification for going with one moral system over another? Claims that you got them from a deity?

Person A: "I say that we should not allow women to own property."
Person B: "That doesn't sound very moral."
Person A: "Okay. I say that we should not allow women to own property because God says so."
Person B: "Now that makes total sense. Let's not let women own property."

If a moral code can not stand on its own, how does adding "because God says so" make it any better?

 

[Loudmouth]

True. Moral frameworks do seem to follow deities around. That's revealing.

Personally, having "always been a christian" I've always felt like morally sensitive atheism is equivalent to an anarchist police-force. I'm sure I have probably misunderstood that POV to a large extent, but for me, I feel like I would just flush all pretense and be reasonable. Joker's a pretty good example actually.

And with that, I'm gonna make this pencil disappear

If you claim that the actions of religious extremists are immoral, then you are using the same sense of morality that atheists are using.

 

[ThinkForYourself]

...
Personally, having "always been a christian" I've always felt like morally sensitive atheism is equivalent to an anarchist police-force. ...

I think there is a strong case to be made that morals came about through evolution. There are lots of studies that show animals understand fairness.

I think there is also a strong case to be made that secular morality is superior to religious morality. For instance, if I tortured someone for a year for not believing in unicorns, everyone would call my actions immoral. But if God tortures me for all eternity for not believing in him (an infinitely more immoral act), many Christians consider that moral "because God says so".

 

[sarxweh]

If you claim that the actions of religious extremists are immoral, then you are using the same sense of morality that atheists are using.

What I consider moral is none of your business. How dare you?

 

[sarxweh]

I think there is a strong case to be made that morals came about through evolution. There are lots of studies that show animals understand fairness.

First you'd have to prove evolution which is a sketchy pursuit. So we can let that endless debate drop before we start. But I'm with you on the animal behavior thing.

I think there is also a strong case to be made that secular morality is superior to religious morality.

I totally agree. Morality has been a weak point for all gods chosen people throughout time. I'm actually under the persuasion that this characteristic is one of the main reasons god chooses us as believers. Its the whole "righteousness by grace thing"

 

[ThinkForYourself]

First you'd have to prove evolution which is a sketchy pursuit. So we can let that endless debate drop before we start. But I'm with you on the animal behavior thing.

LOL, Sounds good!

 

[Davian]

If you reject the existence of God then "morality" as a concept totally collapses.

In your religion-based morality, tell me what is not forgivable, as an offence to another person. What would keep me out of "heaven"?

 

[Tree of Life]

Why can't we use empathy and reason as a foundation for morality?

Because morality deals with what we ought to do and the way that the world ought to be. Empathy and reason can tell us nothing about the way the world ought to be or what we ought to do.