Morality without Absolute Morality

[o_mlly]

Self-evident claims also don't have large groups of people rejecting them.

Ad populum fallacy. Do you have an argument that moral truths are reachable through the mutable thinking of materialist's human mind?

The problem from my entry to this thread onward is and has been that I see no reason to trust any of the claimants to possessing absolute morality.

Flat-earthers also don't see any reason to trust any of the claimants who claim the earth is not flat, and color blind people see no reason to claim that the sky is blue. The point is the argument that simply because you cannot see it, therefore, it cannot be so, is fallacious. Ignorance is not an argument, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

No one is arguing "because scientism (sic)". This is about the nature of morality.

About the nature of morality? As mentioned, handicapped materialists cannot reason to the existence of essences, the nature if things, so they claim essences either do not exist or are entirely subjective. So, there is no point in arguing with the willfully blind.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Presumably Catholics and Mormons believe in the same deity, and believe this deity has revealed True Morality via the written word. But they disagree on a great many things, which shouldn't happen if the Truth is all written down.

Why would Catholics and Mormons be expected to have the same interpretive methods? Of course they disagree with each other. Do you not study the diachronic, historical development of denominational interpretive models? Do you not study the fields of Historiography and Hermeneutics by which to understand how easily different interpretive approaches are conceived by any human being among us, including yourself or me?

Some of you critical athiests make me wonder sometimes because your evaluations (and grievances) seem to emerge from confirmation bias rather than from a broad, interdisciplinary and academically balanced approach toward Christianity.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ad populum fallacy. Do you have an argument that moral truths are reachable through the mutable thinking of materialist's human mind?

Instead of worrying about those you call "materialists", you should worry about the *other* people who claim "absolute morality" on the basis of *their god* and *their religion*. If there really is "absolute morality" and you want to convince us of that, then first you are going to have to get various "fonts" of "absolute morality" to agree. (The much more parsimonious explanation is that there is no "absolute morality" and none of these claims to connect to it are credible.)

Flat-earthers also don't see any reason to trust any of the claimants who claim the earth is not flat, and color blind people see no reason to claim that the sky is blue. The point is the argument that simply because you cannot see it, therefore, it cannot be so, is fallacious. Ignorance is not an argument, and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The problem for your case is not that *I* can't see it, but that I am but one of many. Your examples are a bit extreme. Claiming the Earth is flat is something that very clearly demonstrated to be false. Those that persist in the face of overwhelming evidence are lunkheads. You "absolute morality" people have come nowhere near the level of evidence available to disprove nonsense like "flat Earth". You best evidence is "our god said so" and to cite the authority of your ancient oracles that claimed to receive information from that god.

About the nature of morality? As mentioned, handicapped materialists cannot reason to the existence of essences, the nature if things, so they claim essences either do not exist or are entirely subjective. So, there is no point in arguing with the willfully blind.

This argument was bad when Paul made it 2000 years ago and it is still bad.

 

[NxNW]

Why would Catholics and Mormons be expected to have the same interpretive methods?

Do they have different rules of logic?

Of course they disagree with each other. Do you not study the diachronic, historical development of denominational interpretive models? Do you not study the fields of Historiography and Hermeneutics by which to understand how easily different interpretive approaches are conceived by any human being among us, including yourself or me?

Of course not. If they're studying facts, they should reach identical conclusions.

If the conclusions are different, then they must not be working with facts, or very many of them.

Some of you critical athiests make me wonder sometimes because your evaluations (and grievances) seem to emerge from confirmation bias rather than from a broad, interdisciplinary and academically balanced approach toward Christianity.

I reject many of the basic assumptions that the religious take for granted.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do they have different rules of logic?

Obviously, yes.

Of course not. If they're studying facts, they should reach identical conclusions.

Lol! You really do live in a confirmation bias bubble, don't you?

If the conclusions are different, then they must not be working with facts, or very many of them.

No, that's not exactly why different people reach different conclusions about certain propositions or "facts."

I reject many of the basic assumptions that the religious take for granted.

That's fine. I do too, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you or I can't also be wrong in other ways about certain "facts," of whatever kind.

So, my point is this: being that the historical and hermeneutical 'fact' remains that Catholics differ in their interpretive methods from Mormons and always have, we shouldn't be expecting them to arrive at the same interpretations.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Why would Catholics and Mormons be expected to have the same interpretive methods?

Do they have different rules of logic?

Obviously, yes.

Mormons and Catholics have different rules of logic? Did you sleep through formal logic at philosophy school?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Mormons and Catholics have different rules of logic? Did you sleep through formal logic at philosophy school?

Obviously, you slept through Hermeneutics, and probably through a bunch of others if they didn't contain numbers and algorithms. If you had remained awake, you'd understand that I'm not saying what it is you're mistakenly interpolating about what I'm saying.

Here's a suggestion: If you're not clear on another person's meaning (such as my own), ask me for clarification. Don't just flat out tell me I'm wrong. because it might be that you've misunderstood what I was saying. Read again what I actually said. But this time, apply some interpretive "know-how" and, since you're so smart about interpreting other people's meaning as well as with the overall histories of WHATEVER religious or Christian denomination is being evaluated or compared and contrasted as the moment, tell what the difference is between these two statements:

A) Catholics and Mormons have different rules of logic.​

​

B) Catholics and Mormons have different rules of formal logic.​

And here's another suggestion: Don't punk the education of my hermeneutical gurus, Hans!

 

[o_mlly]

This is about the nature of morality.

Let's start here. Explain the nature of morality for us.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Obviously, you slept through Hermeneutics, and probably through a bunch of others if they didn't contain numbers and algorithms. If you had remained awake, you'd understand that I'm not saying what it is you're mistakenly interpolating about what I'm saying.

I never claimed to have studied hermenwhatever. It was not part of any course of study I entered, nor even a word I had heard before this decade. OTOH, I do know that logic is a part of the standard philosophy curriculum. A course of study which you have previously claimed.

Here's a suggestion: If you're not clear on another person's meaning (such as my own), ask me for clarification.

That's why the first question was part of my post.

Frankly, I thought @NxNW had misunderstood when he invoked logic and I was expecting you to indicate that you were talking about method and basis of interpretation, not "logic".

Don't just flat out tell me I'm wrong. because it might be that you've misunderstood what I was saying. Read again what I actually said.

I did.

But this time, apply some interpretive "know-how" and, since you're so smart about interpreting other people's meaning as well as with the overall histories of WHATEVER religious or Christian denomination is being evaluated or compared and contrasted as the moment, tell what the difference is between these two statements:

A) Catholics and Mormons have different rules of logic.​

​

B) Catholics and Mormons have different rules of formal logic.​

LOL. I remember Catholic "logic". Mormon "logic" no doubt involves putting ones face in a hat. (It is fairly clear, right or wrong, that @NxNW was referring to formal logic an not "logic".)

And here's another suggestion: Don't punk the education of my hermeneutical gurus, Hans!

They aren't the ones being "punked". I have no reason to know or care who you "gurus" are.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Let's start here. Explain the nature of morality for us.

Morality is the code of behavior and set of what is "right or wrong" behavior that is adopted by a society. [Did someone disable your search bar.]

 

[o_mlly]

Morality is the code of behavior and set of what is "right or wrong" behavior that is adopted by a society. [Did someone disable your search bar.]

Search bar works just fine, thanks for asking. Oddly enough, agreement must precede disagreement.

I accept your definition. If one has a "right" does that fact imply others have a duty to respect that right, and not to do so is "wrong"?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I never claimed to have studied hermenwhatever. It was not part of any course of study I entered, nor even a word I had heard before this decade. OTOH, I do know that logic is a part of the standard philosophy curriculum. A course of study which you have previously claimed.

That's why the first question was part of my post.

Frankly, I thought @NxNW had misunderstood when he invoked logic and I was expecting you to indicate that you were talking about method and basis of interpretation, not "logic".

I did.

LOL. I remember Catholic "logic". Mormon "logic" no doubt involves putting ones face in a hat. (It is fairly clear, right or wrong, that @NxNW was referring to formal logic an not "logic".)

It's really not that clear the NxNW even know what he/she is talking about if and when on invokes the term "logic" in a vague way in reference to interpretive differences between diverse religious groups. So no, one can't just say "LOGIC" like it's some sort of magic word that evinces it's own denotative or connotative meaning automatically. Like most words, with "FACT" being another ambiguous term being discussed in connection with "LOGIC," logic is also subject to its contextual use, and from that, we can differentiate what we're actually referring to.

They aren't the ones being "punked". I have no reason to know or care who you "gurus" are.

But somehow, when you atheists show up, I'm supposed to care about your gurus and place them on a pedestle, as if they could never be wrong about anything, right?

 

[Hans Blaster]

It's really not that clear the NxNW even know what he/she is talking about if and when on invokes the term "logic" in a vague way in reference to interpretive differences between diverse religious groups. So no, one can't just say "LOGIC" like it's some sort of magic word that evinces it's own denotative or connotative meaning automatically. Like most words, with "FACT" being another ambiguous term being discussed in connection with "LOGIC," logic is also subject to its contextual use, and from that, we can differentiate what we're actually referring to.

Man, and I thought I had been called a "relativist".

But somehow, when you atheists show up, I'm supposed to care about your gurus and place them on a pedestle, as if they could never be wrong about anything, right?

I have no gurus. I had a thesis advisor.

Unless you are talking about "atheism", in which case I didn't eve have any sources. Figured it out all on my own without any "training". It's easy if you don't try.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Man, and I thought I had been called a "relativist".

Nope. I don't think I've called you a relativist. If I did, please cite it and I'll see if I can reconsider.

I have no gurus. I had a thesis advisor.

Unless you are talking about "atheism", in which case I didn't eve have any sources. Figured it out all on my own without any "training". It's easy if you don't try.

This isn't a discussion about belief and I wasn't addressing it as such. With NxNW, it has been a discussion about knowing what the difference is int he interpretive methods between Catholics and Mormons. The conclusion to reach is: they're different in results because they're not the same in method, or in choices of definitional relations where even formal logic may be involved. (But for the life of me, in knowing what I know about Mormonism, I see little or no evidence of even formal logic playing a definitive and operative part in the thinking of someone like Joseph Smith or Brigham Young).

 

[Hans Blaster]

Search bar works just fine, thanks for asking. Oddly enough, agreement must precede disagreement.

I accept your definition. If one has a "right" does that fact imply others have a duty to respect that right, and not to do so is "wrong"?

I'm a bit confused here. You seem to be using "right" not as "correct" and the opposite of "wrong" but as a privilege granted to persons by government or law.

 

[o_mlly]

I'm a bit confused here. You seem to be using "right" not as "correct" and the opposite of "wrong" but as a privilege granted to persons by government or law.

No, I'm using your definition of morality which made no reference to privilege.

Morality is the code of behavior and set of what is "right or wrong" behavior that is adopted by a society.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Nope. I don't think I've called you a relativist. If I did, please cite it and I'll see if I can reconsider.

Just speaking generally (about this site).

This isn't a discussion about belief and I wasn't addressing it as such.

Fine. Then it isn't about atheists or their "gurus" either.

With NxNW, it has been a discussion about knowing what the difference is int he interpretive methods between Catholics and Mormons. The conclusion to reach is: they're different in results because they're not the same in method, or in choices of definitional relations where even formal logic may be involved.

Wasn't that obvious?

(But for the life of me, in knowing what I know about Mormonism, I see little or no evidence of even formal logic playing a definitive and operative part in the thinking of someone like Joseph Smith or Brigham Young).

A common traits for religions.

 

[Hans Blaster]

No, I'm using your definition of morality which made no reference to privilege.

Then could you rephrase your question. It left some ambiguity.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Just speaking generally (about this site).

Fine. Then it isn't about atheists or their "gurus" either.

Wasn't that obvious?

A common traits for religions.

I'm glad we've absolutely squared that away.