The Science that led me away from Atheism.

[VirOptimus]

That's unfortunate, since logical positivism is pretty much dead in the water. By denying metaphysics, you've put yourself in the uncomfortable position of holding a metaphysical position that refutes itself. Most atheistic philosophers have long since moved past this.

But my point was more that you cannot talk about things like the betterment of society if you are a value nihilist. There is no such thing as better or worse. At least be consistent with your views.

Oh, I can. I can of course hold views that I can argue for. I dont belive in that my views are ”true”, its just opinion.

You should read up on the subject.

 

[VirOptimus]

That's unfortunate, since logical positivism is pretty much dead in the water. By denying metaphysics, you've put yourself in the uncomfortable position of holding a metaphysical position that refutes itself. Most atheistic philosophers have long since moved past this.

But my point was more that you cannot talk about things like the betterment of society if you are a value nihilist. There is no such thing as better or worse. At least be consistent with your views.

Also, it does not refute itself. Learn the basics.

 

[Silmarien]

Oh, I can. I can of course hold views that I can argue for. I dont belive in that my views are ”true”, its just opinion.

You should read up on the subject.

I spent my undergraduate degree reading up on the subject, but thank you for the recommendation. In any case, how can you argue for the view that the betterment of society is possible if you do not believe that the terms "good" or "bad" have any meaning? It is not merely that you don't believe your views are true; your entire system renders them incoherent. Normally, we consider that a problem.

 

[VirOptimus]

I spent my undergraduate degree reading up on the subject, but thank you for the recommendation. In any case, how can you argue for the view that the betterment of society is possible if you do not believe that the terms "good" or "bad" have any meaning? It is not merely that you don't believe your views are true; your entire system renders them incoherent. Normally, we consider that a problem.

I argue in what way I think society will change, its then up for each recipient to make a decision if its something they agree on or nor. It will all be judged on the strength of my arguments, no more no less.

Arguing that there are universal truths is in my view untenable. How do we know theese ”truths”? How do we find ”good” and ”evil”? Where is the authority?

 

[Silmarien]

Also, it does not refute itself. Learn the basics.

In that case, I would recommend reading up on the history of logical positivism and the objections to it. Karl Popper is a good source for some of the issues with it. He's generally credited with putting the stake through its heart.

One of the basic problems is that verificationism, the idea that a proposition is only cognitively meaningful if it can be definitively and conclusively determined to be either true or false, fails its own test. This statement itself cannot be definitively determined to be either true or false. For more details, you can take a look at what people have to say here: What are/were the main criticisms of logical positivism?

I argue in what way I think society will change, its then up for each recipient to make a decision if its something they agree on or nor. It will all be judged on the strength of my arguments, no more no less.

Alright, so it looks like we're into will to power territory. (Yes, I'm a legitimate Nietzschean. Well, sort of.) Truth is to be determined by whoever the most convincing rhetorician is. That's sufficiently nihilistic, I suppose. When you make a moral argument against a position other than your own, like claiming that pogroms are a crime of moral realism, you're basically just resorting to good old fashioned propaganda, though. Get people worked up about the very moral principles you deny have any intrinsic value in order to get them to believe what you want them to believe.

This is why I think there's something inherently fascist about this particular perspective. (Of course, from a fascist perspective, that would not actually be a problem.)

Arguing that there are universal truths is in my view untenable. How do we know theese ”truths”? How do we find ”goid” and ”evil”? Where is the authority?

Water molecules are formed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. That appears to be a universal truth. It doesn't specifically involve moral truths, but it can certainly be argued to be a universal metaphysical truth all the same.

I would take a look at the Philippa Foot link I posted earlier. Her view starts from the perspective that things can be good or bad for living creatures, and thus value is always present within this level of nature. Neo-Aristotelian naturalism is a pretty interesting, metaphysically robust form of naturalism in general. You might find it more interesting than the logical positivism.

 

[VirOptimus]

In that case, I would recommend reading up on the history of logical positivism and the objections to it. Karl Popper is a good source for some of the issues with it. He's generally credited with putting the stake through its heart.

One of the basic problems is that verificationism, the idea that a proposition is only cognitively meaningful if it can be definitively and conclusively determined to be either true or false, fails its own test. This statement itself cannot be definitively determined to be either true or false. For more details, you can take a look at what people have to say here: What are/were the main criticisms of logical positivism?



Alright, so it looks like we're into will to power territory. (Yes, I'm a legitimate Nietzschean. Well, sort of.) Truth is to be determined by whoever the most convincing rhetorician is. That's sufficiently nihilistic, I suppose. When you make a moral argument against a position other than your own, like claiming that pogroms are a crime of moral realism, you're basically just resorting to good old fashioned propaganda, though. Get people worked up about the very moral principles you deny have any intrinsic value in order to get them to believe what you want them to believe.

This is why I think there's something inherently fascist about this particular perspective. (Of course, from a fascist perspective, that would not actually be a problem.)



Water molecules are formed of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. That appears to be a universal truth. It doesn't specifically involve moral truths, but it can certainly be argued to be a universal metaphysical truth all the same.

I would take a look at the Philippa Foot link I posted earlier. Her view starts from the perspective that things can be good or bad for living creatures, and thus value is always present within this level of nature. Neo-Aristotelian naturalism is a pretty interesting, metaphysically robust form of naturalism in general. You might find it more interesting than the logical positivism.

I have read quite a bit on the subject. Joseph Raz is quite close to my views but fumbles when he appeal to authority.

Your idea of fascism is weird.

Your saying that there may be metaphysicsl truths is an empty assertion without backing data or evidence. Its just religion.

Also Poppers (and others) idea that its selfrefuting is in error. As metaphysics doesnt exist, using metaphysical ideas is initself not applicable.

Its like dividing with zero, it dorsnt make sense.

 

[Silmarien]

I have read quite a bit on the subject. Joseph Raz is quite close to my views but fumbles when he appeal to authority.

Hmm. Values pluralism really doesn't seem to entail either relativism or nihilism, though. If you hold something like freedom or dignity as fundamental, then secondary moral issues can be a matter of taste without the whole system collapsing into incoherence. I haven't specifically studied legal philosophy since law school, but no theory can work if you don't presuppose something like the importance of justice itself.

Your saying that there may be metaphysicsl truths is an empty assertion without backing data or evidence. Its just religion.

It really isn't. I pay as much attention to atheistic metaphysicists as I do to ones from the various religious traditions.

I am not sure how you could coherently argue that there are not metaphysical truths. Look at quantum physics: there are any number of metaphysical interpretations of it, and while none of them need necessarily match up to reality, you cannot seriously believe that there is no possible answer whatsoever. Reality is not limited to the boundaries that the natural sciences set upon themselves. Everything beyond that is metaphysics.

Unless you think that the laws of physics accurately and fully capture reality, there must be metaphysical truths. Even the question of whether said laws of physics are prescriptive or descriptive is a metaphysical question, and it presumably has an answer, even if we don't have the tools to learn it.

Also Poppers (and others) idea that its selfrefuting is in error. As metaphysics doesnt exist, using metaphysical ideas is initself not applicable.

That's the problem. Verificationism is a metaphysical principle. The logical positivist does not have access to it, therefore logical positivism falls apart. "Metaphysics does not exist" is a very strong metaphysical claim.

 

[redleghunter]

Slavery was universal in ancient times.

It was. As you mentioned one cannot compare the servitude of ancient Israel and her neighbors to the cruelty of African slavery in the American colonies and later USA.

In ancient times one either had land to farm and cattle to raise or starved. Most servitude in ancient times was survival.

Plus as you noted it was regulated in Torah, including if an indentured servant became circumcised and followed the Law he was to be treated as a brother.

 

[VirOptimus]

Hmm. Values pluralism really doesn't seem to entail either relativism or nihilism, though. If you hold something like freedom or dignity as fundamental, then secondary moral issues can be a matter of taste without the whole system collapsing into incoherence. I haven't specifically studied legal philosophy since law school, but no theory can work if you don't presuppose something like the importance of justice itself.



It really isn't. I pay as much attention to atheistic metaphysicists as I do to ones from the various religious traditions.

I am not sure how you could coherently argue that there are not metaphysical truths. Look at quantum physics: there are any number of metaphysical interpretations of it, and while none of them need necessarily match up to reality, you cannot seriously believe that there is no possible answer whatsoever. Reality is not limited to the boundaries that the natural sciences set upon themselves. Everything beyond that is metaphysics.

Unless you think that the laws of physics accurately and fully capture reality, there must be metaphysical truths. Even the question of whether said laws of physics are prescriptive or descriptive is a metaphysical question, and it presumably has an answer, even if we don't have the tools to learn it.



That's the problem. Verificationism is a metaphysical principle. The logical positivist does not have access to it, therefore logical positivism falls apart. "Metaphysics does not exist" is a very strong metaphysical claim.

No, quantum physics do not contain metaphysics.

Your argument is incoherent and you dont answer my question.

If there are metaphysical truths, where do the authority of theese truths come from?

 

[theQuincunx5]

It is recorded and regulated. What you do not see is kidnapping for the purpose of enslavement since it would violate Torah law and bring about death for the offender.

Whatever you say. So long as there's a loophole.

Besides you deflected. You never answered. I would like to know if man is animal and there is inequality then why is owning people and enslaving immoral?

-sigh- OK let me explain it to you without God:

1. Owning other people means they are inherently less valuable than the person owning them.

2. If we establish that there are less valuable and more valuable people in society then we set up a system by which some people will feel THREATENED even though they are part of that society. It establishes a sense of danger from society rather than a sense of PROTECTION which is the point of a social structure. It provides safety for each individual member through the collective of the group.

No rational atheist outside the contract would have to adhere to those restrictions.

Just as you can find a loophole in the Bible where people are allowed to own others as slaves and you don't consider it the same as slavery through some arbitrary definition.

So being atheist, lets not talk about ancient cultures because when it comes to morals the atheist is standing on air. Besides these are appeals to outrage and not reason. Outrage is no sub for reason.

I am a social animal. I am, like dogs and ants, a creature who, alone would be quite endangered living out in the open, but in a social structure I am safer. My teeth aren't very big, I'm not particularly fast, I would die rather quickly on the open savannah. But because I'm part of a SOCIETY I am safer. I am conferred a survival advantage. Just as dog packs and ant hills provide survival advantages for the members.

In return for my membership in society I am not to threaten, kill, lie about or harm my neighbors without cause.

It's pretty simple, really.

What leads away from slavery is man as image of God, equality before God and obligations to God for life lived including treatment of each other and nature.

Gen 9:25-27And he [Noah] said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.

Joshua 9:23-27 . Now therefore ye are cursed, and there shall none of you be freed from being bondmen, and hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God. ... And Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of the LORD, even unto this day.

Ex 12:44 . But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof.

DT 20:14 . But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself.

I'd say the Bible has a bit of a mixed message on the topic. But I will gladly agree that modern readings of the Bible have allowed people to become abolitionists and find the concept of slavery to be abhorrent to them due to their faith.

(As an atheist I don't have to come up with a special loophole as to why God's chosen people could, in olden days, have slaves and not today. That's just one of the things that is easier without reliance on the Bible.)

 

[Silmarien]

No, quantum physics do not contain metaphysics.

Your argument is incoherent and you dont answer my question.

If there are metaphysical truths, where do the authority of theese truths come from?

How are you defining metaphysics? It's traditionally the branch of philosophy concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being, which is broken into cosmology (the study of the nature of the universe) and ontology (the study of being). Quantum physics is where science really slams up against metaphysics, since amongst other things, it touches directly upon the question of what causality is. Special relativity brushes up against metaphysics as well with the questions it brings up concerning the nature of time.

If you think metaphysics is about magical fairies or something, you're operating under a caricature. Metaphysics is the study of existence. And I would certainly agree that the question of where metaphysical truths come from is interesting and important--this is why I am personally not an atheist, but there are most certainly metaphysicists out there who are atheists. You would need to ask them how they handle those questions.

 

[VirOptimus]

How are you defining metaphysics? It's traditionally the branch of philosophy concerned with the fundamental nature of reality and being, which is broken into cosmology (the study of the nature of the universe) and ontology (the study of being). Quantum physics is where science really slams up against metaphysics, since amongst other things, it touches directly upon the question of what causality is. Special relativity brushes up against metaphysics as well with the questions it brings up concerning the nature of time.

If you think metaphysics is about magical fairies or something, you're operating under a caricature. Metaphysics is the study of existence. And I would certainly agree that the question of where metaphysical truths come from is interesting and important--this is why I am personally not an atheist, but there are most certainly metaphysicists out there who are atheists. You would need to ask them how they handle those questions.

Metaphysics is everything beyond physical reality.

If/why I would ask others is another question. I’m asking you, and your answer is religion. Just as I told you.

 

[Silmarien]

Metaphysics is everything beyond physical reality.

If/why I would ask others is another question. I’m asking you, and your answer is religion. Just as I told you.

It wasn't always. I started out vaguely Heideggerian, which is an agnostic-atheist approach to ontology. We're big into Being while mostly ignoring the question of transcendence. I didn't start taking theology seriously until much later.

Your definition is not correct, though. Metaphysics is the study of reality, fullstop. The idea that there is nothing beyond physical reality is as much a metaphysical claim as the idea that there is.

 

[VirOptimus]

It wasn't always. I started out vaguely Heideggerian, which is an agnostic-atheist approach to ontology. We're big into Being while mostly ignoring the question of transcendence. I didn't start taking theology seriously until much later.

Your definition is not correct, though. Metaphysics is the study of reality, fullstop. The idea that there is nothing beyond physical reality is as much a metaphysical claim as the idea that there is.

If you claim there are things beyond physical reality then you need to support that claim.

 

[Silmarien]

If you claim there are things beyond physical reality then you need to support that claim.

I do not know what you mean by "things beyond physical reality" to even say whether I make this claim or not. I do not believe that reality can be reduced to the laws of physics, as this picture would exclude subjective phenomenal experience. I have also seen a professional quantum physicist (Nigel Cundy) suggest that the uncertainty inherent in particle physics points to missing information, and that the cause behind whether an electron emits a photon or not lies outside of the material universe. Which is an interesting approach, if well beyond my paygrade. I really could go on and on as to why I don't see the physical universe as self-explanatory, but the only claim I've actually made is that you are engaging in metaphysics too.

I don't really have a problem with the type of atheist who draws a line in the sand and says, "This is as far as I'm comfortable theorizing." To each their own. Their metaphysical contributions are no less interesting for it, but if you are going to say that reality is fully captured by the laws of physics, that is a positive claim that you must support as well.

 

[dmmesdale]

Whatever you say. So long as there's a loophole.

I don't think there is an exact Hebrew word for slavery. It is translated to the English to servant or slave. There is punishments handed out for abuses both to the Egyptians and Hebrews. There is multiple examples of liberation both Hebrews and non-Hebrews from Hebrew forms. Post Solomon is a result of a slave class revolt from oppression resulting in a divided kingdom. There are other provisions handed down. In the Old, if in debt then they really owned you until the debt was paid. Not much has changed in that regard. If I owe the bank 50K for my house then part of my labor goes to the bank.

1. Owning other people means they are inherently less valuable than the person owning them.

Why is an old person at the end of his life of equal value to a young female? Is a 6-month fetus of equal value to its mother? No. At least with the 6-month fetus the nonbelievers are consistent with their assumptions of natural man from nature alone and amoral. Fetus does not even measure. The abortion justification is an ownership argument. The mother owns... So lets not talk about equality. Again, there is an assumption of equality here where none really exists in nature which is amoral. If man is natural then man is amoral and if so than equality is a religious construct. It sounds like theft from Judeo Christian Theism.

2. If we establish that there are less valuable and more valuable people in society then we set up a system by which some people will feel THREATENED even though they are part of that society.

So? Nature does not guarantee them protection or right to life.

It establishes a sense of danger from society rather than a sense of PROTECTION which is the point of a social structure.

At what cost? Gangs provide protection. The cost is usually a killing to prove loyalty.

It provides safety for each individual member through the collective of the group.

What group? You do know the husbands had to forfeit their wives to David Koresh to belong to his group.

Just as you can find a loophole in the Bible

It was a universal reality, not a loophole.

where people are allowed to own others as slaves and you don't consider it the same as slavery through some arbitrary definition.

Who made your computer? How do you know it was not a 2 dollar an hour pregnant woman working in some sweatshop over in the Orient somewhere? Your car? The clothes you wear from Wal Mart? Are they all equals?

I work with a Chinese born female born in poverty. Married an old American man to get here. Now she can support her mother. Now she has an Apple i-pad and drives around a new F-100 cherry red pick-up. She takes picture and sends them back to her relatives in China. She is able to bring her mother to the United States for extended visits. Her reality is totally different from ours. She has a responsibility to care for her mother and she will do what she has to care for her mother. Including marrying an older American and leaving her country to come to a strange land away from all her blood relatives and culture. We can just imagine what people had to do to survive 3000 yrs ago when things were far worse.

I am a social animal. I am, like dogs and ants, a creature who, alone would be quite endangered living out in the open, but in a social structure I am safer. My teeth aren't very big, I'm not particularly fast, I would die rather quickly on the open savannah. But because I'm part of a SOCIETY I am safer. I am conferred a survival advantage. Just as dog packs and ant hills provide survival advantages for the members.

In return for my membership in society I am not to threaten, kill, lie about or harm my neighbors without cause.

It's pretty simple, really.

Not that simple as demonstrated above.

Gen 9:25-27And he [Noah] said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant.
Joshua 9:23-27 . Now therefore ye are cursed, and there shall none of you be freed from being bondmen, and hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God. ... And Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of the LORD, even unto this day.

Ex 12:44 . But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof.

DT 20:14 . But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself.

I'd say the Bible has a bit of a mixed message on the topic. But I will gladly agree that modern readings of the Bible have allowed people to become abolitionists and find the concept of slavery to be abhorrent to them due to their faith.

(As an atheist I don't have to come up with a special loophole as to why God's chosen people could, in olden days, have slaves and not today. That's just one of the things that is easier without reliance on the Bible.)

We do not have to deal with their unique circumstances. It was not our time. We do not have to decide whether to keep the women and children at the expense of the in-group. Care and feed or kill or abandon. So your analysis really does not mean much. Do you think you are better than them? Superior while they were primitive? Where is the alleged equality there? You do know if not for the ancients we would not be here. Could go on but will end for now.

 

[theQuincunx5]

I don't think there is an exact Hebrew word for slavery. It is translated to the English to servant or slave. There is punishments handed out for abuses both to the Egyptians and Hebrews. There is multiple examples of liberation both Hebrews and non-Hebrews from Hebrew forms. Post Solomon is a result of a slave class revolt from oppression resulting in a divided kingdom. There are other provisions handed down. In the Old, if in debt then they really owned you until the debt was paid. Not much has changed in that regard. If I owe the bank 50K for my house then part of my labor goes to the bank.

Just so long as we know that words (all of them apparently) have dramatically different meanings when in the Bible. And we also know there are special loopholes.

Why is an old person at the end of his life of equal value to a young female?

I'm >50 years old. My value is less than those who are younger than me. I see it happening to my friends who are >50 years old and who get laid off so a younger person with less experience and less cost can be hired in.

Is a 6-month fetus of equal value to its mother?

Well, I suppose that is up to the woman whose body will be used to provide life for the fetus. That is not my choice to make.

The abortion justification is an ownership argument. The mother owns...

...her own body. Is that what you meant to say?

So lets not talk about equality. Again, there is an assumption of equality here where none really exists in nature which is amoral. If man is natural then man is amoral and if so than equality is a religious construct. It sounds like theft from Judeo Christian Theism.

Well, you seem to be building an entire system of your own to make your arguments against. It doesn't look like you need me around. I just muck things up with attempted explanations.

Gangs provide protection. The cost is usually a killing to prove loyalty.

Joshua 3:10 And Joshua said, Hereby ye shall know that the living God is among you, and that he will without fail drive out from before you the Canaanites, and the Hittites, and the Hivites, and the Perizzites, and the Girgashites, and the Amorites, and the Jebusites.

Yes, gangs do provide protection. And indeed killing is undertaken:

Joshua 6:21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.

Your car? The clothes you wear from Wal Mart? Are they all equals?

Indeed you are 100% correct. These people are treated horridly. It is not something I am happy about.

Not that simple as demonstrated above.

Sure it is, but you just don't like it when someone can explain their morality without your God. That's fine.

Care and feed or kill or abandon.

1 Sam 15:3 . Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.

So your analysis really does not mean much.

Thanks. I'll take your word on that.

Do you think you are better than them? Superior while they were primitive? Where is the alleged equality there? You do know if not for the ancients we would not be here. Could go on but will end for now.

It's too bad. I was enjoying your erudition.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Then surely you can present it.


What do you suppose the probability that one of the many ancient deities - the one you happen to believe in - is the one true deity, and created a fully grown human male from dust of the ground?

And how did you calculate that probability?


And?

You prefer unwarranted certainty, like we see in your unsupported assertions and in all creationist/ID writings?

I don't follow a religion at this time but am a bit torn about that. But I do find it humorous how the religious were right about so much from the start. I think that is very instructive and should give many a pause in their hubris.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Do you understand the math you're referring to though? Because I asked you earlier to explain the premise of the probability you keep referring to, but so far you don't appear to have done so.

Yes of course the math is the biggest problem you see if we look at the big 4 for evidence we will see serious conflicts in the records but when we look at the math we don't see any conflict it is straight up in your face.

It is impossible.
To get to a functioning protein fold we would be looking at 1 in 10^77 so this is a serious problem being that we would need to do this many times over per new life form. When we are talking just say eh 2 million brand new proteins then those will need worse odds at more like well over 1 in10^120 just giving rough off the top of my head.

So the problem is that not that we have to do something difficult once. But that we have to do it millions of times. This is the problem.

The truth is that all scientists are now bailing on this problem. Dawkins is now turning to Scy-fi Multi-verse to get around this stuff because everyone knows now the math problem is not improbable it is impossible.

 

[FormerAtheist]

If you do decide to bring a mathematical case it might be good that you are not the only one wagered. It's far too simple to pick at a thing from ones arm chair with nothing in the pot. So I would not present a negative mathematical case, which will immediately be denied by default, unless a positive case is also thrown in the pot. Then it's an abductive scenario, rather than a sit back and pick apart to affirm the consequent scenario.

That's easy you want a positive way out of this ... go have fun in the multi-verse ... or some other multi-demesion theory.

that's where everyone else is turning to because we have no other answers.

That math is beyond a single "verse" ... "Universe".