The Double Edged Sword

[Ana the Ist]

This is a terrible error in reasoning about natural selection.

Because along with novel traits that advance reproductive success can come many other accidental capacities that may have no bearing on survivability.

The human brain is probably the very best example of this. Lets stipulate for a second that its 'rapid' development was due to advantages it provided in hunting (survivability). Seems reasonable. But..... as a generic processing tool, the brain opened up all sort of other capacities that may have had nothing to do with hunting. Like pattern recognition generally. Or enhanced sense of the self. Or a sophisticated sense of time that permitted cause/effect reasoning. The possibilities are countless.

But that aside, there are also good rationales for a beauty sense as a survivability tool, in terms of recognizing health in a mate, in an environment, in forage and prey, etc.

You don't think general pattern recognition is an advantage to survivability?

 

[durangodawood]

You don't think general pattern recognition is an advantage to survivability?

I dont know. Not necc. Is noticing a prey object among foliage "pattern recognition"? Not sure that it is. Or maybe youre right and pattern rec is a poor example of the point I was making.

 

[Uber Genius]

I haven't seen any good arguments about the existence of god from observation...and in spite of more people than I can count trying, I've never seen a coherent argument for morality being anything other than subjective/circumstantial.

That may be a function of lack of exposure on your part or lack of agreement with premises.

Here are two atheists arguing the necessity of morals being objective rather than subjective:

Michael Ruse: “The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says 2+2=5.”

""One of the things we are looking for in a moral theory is some sort of explanation for the moral truths there are. Ethical theorist Shelley Kagan has emphasized the need for sound explanations in moral theory. He insists, “This need for explanation in moral theory cannot be overemphasized. . . . Ultimately, unless we have a coherent explanation of our moral principles, we don’t have a satisfactory ground for believing them to be true.” He anticipates the objection that all explanations must come to end somewhere. “Perhaps this is so,” he responds, “but it would still be no license to cut off explanation at a superficial level.” Short of an adequate explanation, he says, our moral principles “will not be free of that taint of arbitrariness” that characterizes ad hoc shopping lists of moral principles. He rightly maintains that “one of the things we want our moral theory to help us understand is how there can even be a moral realm, and what sort of objective status it has.” A divine command theory of ethics seeks to provide an explanation for necessary moral truths.""

The above were excerpted from:

Can God Ground Necessary Moral Truths? | Reasonable Faith

 

[Belk]

<Snip>

But my latest is the problem of evil. It's never been a convincing argument to me, though it raises some interesting issues. Still, lately I've come to think the problem of evil is a problem for everyone, not just believers.

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this. I have always found this argument lacking.

 

[Resha Caner]

I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this. I have always found this argument lacking.

I'm not sure which part of my comment you're interested in. If you're asking why I find the argument lacking, it's because I think a mundane reply is quite effective. I don't need the more sophisticated philosophical constructs mounted against the argument. The problem of evil hinges on me trying to claim omnipowers for God - omnipowers as they are defined by the unbeliever. As such, the root of the problem is really only my inability to fully describe God. That doesn't bother me. I often struggle to describe my wife, but I never doubt she exists. I am convinced she exists because of my experiences with her and what she has told me about herself. That may not be convincing to others, but it's convincing to me.

If you're asking how it can also become a problem for unbelievers, it opens the box of moral ambiguity. Does the unbeliever accept or reject objective evil? Neither position is easy to defend.

[edit] P.S. (whispering) But I'm not sure I'm allowed to talk to you about this. If people would have stuck to the request in my other thread, I think it would have fallen within the rules of the forum. However, since believers and unbelievers started arguing with each other about God's existence, it got quashed.

 

[Belk]

I'm not sure which part of my comment you're interested in. If you're asking why I find the argument lacking, it's because I think a mundane reply is quite effective. I don't need the more sophisticated philosophical constructs mounted against the argument. The problem of evil hinges on me trying to claim omnipowers for God - omnipowers as they are defined by the unbeliever. As such, the root of the problem is really only my inability to fully describe God. That doesn't bother me. I often struggle to describe my wife, but I never doubt she exists. I am convinced she exists because of my experiences with her and what she has told me about herself. That may not be convincing to others, but it's convincing to me.

If you're asking how it can also become a problem for unbelievers, it opens the box of moral ambiguity. Does the unbeliever accept or reject objective evil? Neither position is easy to defend.

Thank you. I have had much the same issues with the argument. It presumes not only to know what evil is but to claim that a god could have no other purpose but to eradicate it. Both of those are troublesome from the get go.

As far as unbelievers, I agree it would very much depend on their views. For me I don't see it as an issue since I see evil simply as the label of things we view as negative from our subjective stance.

 

[FireDragon76]

Aesthetic beauty:

1. Examine the music of Johann Sebastian Bach or painting/architecture of Da Vinci, or sculpture of Michelangelo, one will find all are universally perceived as more beautiful than their contemporaries work.
2. Beauty can only be so objectively is there is a standard of beauty that is outside of culture
3. The only possible explanation of the existence of a standard of objective beauty is found in a personal creative being who is that standard.

This presumes we need an objective standard of beauty. We don't. It's a case of confusion of facts with values. And also part of a general tendency towards totalizing narratives of the world. I noted you took the opportunity to trash modern works of art, for instance.

Religious Experience:

1. Many people of different eras and of widely different cultures claim to have had an experience of the "divine."
2. It is inconceivable that so many people could have been so utterly wrong about the nature and content of their own experience.
3. Therefore, there exists a "divine" reality which many people of different eras and of widely different cultures have experienced.

This argument could work just as well for Vaishnava Hinduism. In fact, perhaps even more than for Christianity, which has historically often claimed that only Christians experience God in a true way. Protestants in particular have been often opposed to such "natural theology", because it leads easily to theological liberalism.

 

[Resha Caner]

Thank you. I have had much the same issues with the argument. It presumes not only to know what evil is but to claim that a god could have no other purpose but to eradicate it. Both of those are troublesome from the get go.

As far as unbelievers, I agree it would very much depend on their views. For me I don't see it as an issue since I see evil simply as the label of things we view as negative from our subjective stance.

I like your honesty. I've wondered if part of the problem with some of my latest threads was an unwillingness for people to criticize the arguments of those from their own camp in a public forum. As for me, I express my views on ineffective arguments to my fellow Christians in the (futile) hope that they will stop using them and better understand the people they're trying to persuade.

 

[Uber Genius]

This presumes we need an objective standard of beauty. We don't. It's a case of confusion of facts with values. And also part of a general tendency towards totalizing narratives of the world. I noted you took the opportunity to trash modern works of art, for instance.



This argument could work just as well for Vaishnava Hinduism. In fact, perhaps even more than for Christianity, which has historically claimed that only Christians experience God in a true way.

Firstly take a second and look at the thread you are posting on.
"Arguments that cut both ways..."
Secondly, it doesn't presume anything. Arguments from beauty have been around since Socrates and Plato. They work similarly to the argument from other abstract objects like moral values.

If abstract objects like moral duties or objective beauty don't exist then God doesn't exist,
Abstract objects like moral duties and objective beauty do exist
therefore God exists.

You have misconstrued the argument.

The argument for God's existence doesn't presume anything.

That beauty exists objectively is a premise. It would need to be defended. We aren't running the arguments just highlighting them.

Thirdly, where do I trash modern art?

I own modern art and having it hanging around my home.

Fourthly, your claim that, "Christianity, which has historically claimed that only Christians experience God in a true way," is a strawman!!

Read Romans 1:18-20
specifically,

"19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

Christianity claims that all men know God and his invisible attributes through the things that are made!!

This isn't just a strawman, but it is also misses the point of arguments from beauty which argue for THEISM not a particular instance of same. So these types of natural theology arguments often only suggest theism as a better explanation of moral values and duties, beauty, fine-tuning of the universe for life, an uncaused cause, etc.

You have given us a lot of false claims and false reasoning in such a terse post.

 

[Belk]

I like your honesty. I've wondered if part of the problem with some of my latest threads was an unwillingness for people to criticize the arguments of those from their own camp in a public forum. As for me, I express my views on ineffective arguments to my fellow Christians in the (futile) hope that they will stop using them and better understand the people they're trying to persuade.

I guess it depends on your purpose in debating. For me it is an effort to get some understanding on an issue. I try not to invest myself in any one particular outcome. That tends to skew your thinking. I think some people view the whole thing as a competition to be won.

 

[FireDragon76]

If abstract objects like moral duties or objective beauty don't exist then God doesn't exist,

What justifies this line of reasoning? Why does God have to be the source of morality or beauty? What if the ground of being is beyond these concepts?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I dont know. Not necc. Is noticing a prey object among foliage "pattern recognition"? Not sure that it is. Or maybe youre right and pattern rec is a poor example of the point I was making.

I would think that it is...but pattern recognition is a broad concept.

For example, if you were some early man tracking large game and you saw a flock of birds fly out of the trees and brush all at once somewhere in the distance....you may think "oh, a large animal must be moving around over there"...

That's a pattern that you recognized. The pattern of birds fleeing from cover near a large animal.

So I think that one is definitely a survival adaptation. It just happens to also help you play sudoku.

 

[Resha Caner]

It just happens to also help you play sudoku.

Birds fly out of your Sudoku puzzles? You might wanna get that checked.

 

[Uber Genius]

What justifies this line of reasoning? Why does God have to be the source of morality or beauty? What if the ground of being is beyond these concepts?

So as I was saying, that is a premise in an argument. It has to be defended.

These arguments cut both ways meaning not everyone who engages that premise believes it is more likely true than false.

Some argue that beauty is arbitrary. One could defend that premise by saying "Look at how subjective people's taste is." But the premise usually has to do with beauty of the universe, or platonic universals, of nature. So the awe people get when they go to Niagara Falls, or the Grand Canyon doesn't seem subjective at all.

Further, I seldom see someone saying, "Adolph Hitler was not evil he was just acting on a subjective value-neutral ethic that was endemic to the German culture of his day, who are we to judge?"

But both premises can be argued both ways and have been for 2300-2500 years.

 

[FireDragon76]

Why are the choices between beauty being arbitrary and beauty being objective? Seems like a false dilemma to me. Haven't you heard of intersubjectivity?

 

[Ana the Ist]

That may be a function of lack of exposure on your part or lack of agreement with premises.

Here are two atheists arguing the necessity of morals being objective rather than subjective:

Michael Ruse: “The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says 2+2=5.”

""One of the things we are looking for in a moral theory is some sort of explanation for the moral truths there are. Ethical theorist Shelley Kagan has emphasized the need for sound explanations in moral theory. He insists, “This need for explanation in moral theory cannot be overemphasized. . . . Ultimately, unless we have a coherent explanation of our moral principles, we don’t have a satisfactory ground for believing them to be true.” He anticipates the objection that all explanations must come to end somewhere. “Perhaps this is so,” he responds, “but it would still be no license to cut off explanation at a superficial level.” Short of an adequate explanation, he says, our moral principles “will not be free of that taint of arbitrariness” that characterizes ad hoc shopping lists of moral principles. He rightly maintains that “one of the things we want our moral theory to help us understand is how there can even be a moral realm, and what sort of objective status it has.” A divine command theory of ethics seeks to provide an explanation for necessary moral truths.""

The above were excerpted from:

Can God Ground Necessary Moral Truths? | Reasonable Faith

So... this isn't an argument you can make yourself?

 

[Uber Genius]

So... this isn't an argument you can make yourself?

So you are just a contrarian?

You pretended to be interested in the subject so I gave you scholarly sources from experts that hold your worldview to demonstrate that it was not a theist/non theist issue, and you come back with a snide remark?

What are you 12? Grow up.

 

[Uber Genius]

Why are the choices between beauty being arbitrary and beauty being objective? Seems like a false dilemma to me. Haven't you heard of intersubjectivity?

No. Please explain.

By objective I mean without regard to subjects. A feature of the world.

Secondly, We are representing, if we are trying in the least to stay on the subject of this thread anyways, arguments that cut both ways. The argument from beauty has divided up the cause of beauty to either be independent of subjects (an objective feature of the world long before humans existed) or not independent.

So I am representing the arguments. None so far as I am aware (in the last 2500 years) present more than two options. In order to support your claim of a third option you are going to have to show how intersubjectivity presents a third option other than the two mutually exclusive options historically proposed for the argument from beauty or many similar arguments.

Note: Let me help by poisoning the wells to any category errors such as the claim that morals exist independently but are perceived by humans subjectively.

 

[Ana the Ist]

So you are just a contrarian?

Nah...I don't think so.

You pretended to be interested in the subject so I gave you scholarly sources from experts that hold your worldview

No offense, but you don't know what my worldview is...so I've got no idea what makes you think that you can find "experts" on it. Furthermore, how does one become an "expert" on morality? I'll accept that a philosopher may have thought about morality more than the average person...but expertise involves are more than think about something a lot and then writing about it.

to demonstrate that it was not a theist/non theist issue, and you come back with a snide remark?

It wasn't meant as an insult. I've just noticed that instead of engaging in a discussion that you tend to offer up reading suggestions.

There's nothing wrong with that in itself, but this isn't a book club and I'm not going to research a topic in an attempt to validate a claim that you made. It's your claim...so either you can provide validation for it or not. If all you can do is suggest reading materials...then it appears as if you cannot justify your claim.

What are you 12? Grow up.

You aren't the first person to avoid validating a claim by suggesting reading materials. This is a discussion forum...if you don't want your claims challenged, then don't make them. If you can't make a valid argument for your claims, I suggest you just own up to it. People will respect you more than if you try to hide it.

 

[FireDragon76]

No. Please explain.

Intersubjectivity, in philosophy, psychology, sociology, and anthropology, is the psychological relation between people. It is usually used in contrast to solipsistic individual experience, emphasizing our inherently social being.

Intersubjectivity - Wikipedia

If we reject beauty as being objective, that doesn't necessarily mean we believe beauty is arbitrary, in the sense of being random or the result of purely individual experience.

By objective I mean without regard to subjects. A feature of the world.

That assumes an objective world, apart from minds that can observe the world, actually exists.