A World without Religion?

[PRmerger]

Let me just follow up on this rather peculiar proposition you are making.

Your daughter comes home with a D in math because she keeps saying that 3+3 = 7.

She tells you: I am not inherently compelled to follow any truth. So this D is a sign of the injustice of my teacher who is compelling me to follow this truth.

Would you buy that excuse from your daughter, Animal?

And another follow up: perhaps you are asserting that only moral truths have no compulsion to be followed, but other truths, like mathematical truths, do?

If so, why the exception for moral truths?

 

[inocente]

So it’s curious that you are citing an example of something that is ostensibly objectively moral–a man killing his daughter because 2 people putatively agreed that it was (J and his daughter), but not recognizing that there are at least 3 people on this forum who see it as immoral.

How can it be objectively moral to kill your child because 2 people have declared it to be so?

You appear to be claiming that morality is a popular vote.

Our discernment that his action is immoral, however, is obtained through our appeal to objective morality.

1. Jephthah and his daughter believed that it was objectively immoral to renege on a vow to God, and so Jephthah killed his daughter.
2. Your Muslim father may also have made a vow to God, and so killed his daughter rather than renege.
3. Just as you, presumably, believe it would be objectively immoral to make marriage vows before God and then renege on them.

So in each case, Jephthah, his daughter, your Muslim father, and you all believe it is objectively immoral to break a vow to God.

So as I said, not a great example of objective morality in action.

I’ll leave you to your cigarette (#479). btw I think you overdid the henna in your hair dye.

 

[PRmerger]

You appear to be claiming that morality is a popular vote.

I read your post as this being your claim: J believed slaying his daughter was moral, and this was confirmed by her…therefore it’s objectively true.

I don’t believe that just because something is confirmed by another that this makes it objectively true.

That was your paradigm. You are rejecting that now?

1. Jephthah and his daughter believed that it was objectively immoral to renege on a vow to God, and so Jephthah killed his daughter.

And they were wrong in their discernment. And I don’t even know that they believed it was “objectively immoral”. Where do you get that from?

1. Your Muslim father may also have made a vow to God, and so killed his daughter rather than renege.

1. Just as you, presumably, believe it would be objectively immoral to make marriage vows before God and then renege on them.

Some vows are moral. Not all vows are moral.

No need for all or none thinking, inocente.

Sheesh! What is it with non-Catholics who think in all or none paradigms?

I’ll leave you to your cigarette (#479). btw I think you overdid the henna in your hair dye.

Huh? Do you think all GIFS I post are of me?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Huh? Do you think all GIFS I post are of me?

I think it is referred to as literalism.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Let me just follow up on this rather peculiar proposition you are making.

Your daughter comes home with a D in math because she keeps saying that 3+3 = 7.

She tells you: I am not inherently compelled to follow any truth. So this D is a sign of the injustice of my teacher who is compelling me to follow this truth.

Would you buy that excuse from your daughter, Animal?

I’d say that math class is about teaching a specific largely agreed upon framework, and testing the ability of one to operate within that framework. It’s certainly not true in all systems that 3+3=6. You need an agreed upon definition for the 3, 6, +, and =. We have a set of definitions that most people are found of, and people who say 3+3=7, given acceptance of those definitions, can be shown to be wrong.

And there’s the rub- to my knowledge, we don’t have an agreed upon set if starting points to form “moral rules.”

 

[PRmerger]

I’d say that math class is about teaching a specific largely agreed upon framework,

Why is truth dependent upon a “largely agreed upon framework”?

Do you believe in free will? There are some here (hi, Bradski! ) who have stated that they entertain the idea that we do not have a free will, despite the fact that this is a “largely agreed upon framework”. Should these folks not even entertain this idea, since free will is, indeed, “largely agreed upon”?

and testing the ability of one to operate within that framework.

Do you believe in the existence of the mind? How do we test for its existence?

It’s certainly not true in all systems that 3+3=6.

Guess what. Every single time you have 3 dollars, and you add 3 more dollars, you will get 6 dollars. Every. Single. Time.

Now, if your daughter wants to tell you that she is not compelled to follow this truth, and you believe her…well…

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

And there’s the rub- to my knowledge, we don’t have an agreed upon set if starting points to form “moral rules.”

Really.

Do you know any morally sane person who believes it’s ok to kill a person because you don’t like his race?

 

[PRmerger]

To the extent that it protects the rights of others (as I understand them), certainly.

Fair enough.

I, too, agree upon imposing my morality on others.

But it doesn’t seem consonant with your point of view that there is no objective morality–here you are even imposing your view “It’s wrong to hurt others”.

When someone doesn’t believe in objective morality, and insists on imposing his morality on others…that seems quite imperialistic, pompous, and even terroristic–don’t you agree?

The picture is of someone who says, “Hey, if you believe it’s moral to kill your daughter, well, it *is *moral, to you! That’s what I believe! But I’m not going to actually let you practice this morality. Because, guess what, I’m going to inflict my morality on you!” #imperialistic #pompous #terroristic.

Now, with someone who actually believes in objective morality, when there is someone who is doing something objectively immoral, we step in and say: you are acting immorally and I cannot permit you to do this.

Not imperialistic, pompous or terroristic. But rather consonant with truth.

 

[Bradski]

Guess what. Every single time you have 3 dollars, and you add 3 more dollars, you will get 6 dollars. Every. Single. Time.

You’ll only get 6 every time if you’re counting in base 10 (but you will always get six whichever base you use).

Now, with someone who actually believes in objective morality, when there is someone who is doing something objectively immoral, we step in and say: you are acting immorally and I cannot permit you to do this.

So I say he’s wrong (I have come to the conclusion that he is wrong) and stop him or you say it’s wrong (you have come to the conclusion that he’s wrong) and you stop him. We both tell him that we understand that he believes he’s doing the right thing, but we believe otherwise. Am I missing something here?

The only difference between us doing exactly the same is you placing the word ‘objective’ into the sentence. For the sake of argument, let’s say you are right and what he is doing is objectively wrong. We both still think he’s doing wrong and will stop him and he will still think he is right and carry on doing it.

The only thing to prevent someone doing something wrong is not just pointing out the fact that it may be objectively wrong (he’ll ignore that claim because as he has a different view he will quite reasonable state that it must be relative).To prevent someone doing wrong you must use reasonable arguments to convince that person. If you do, you may (only may) be able to convince him of its objectivity, but that is a by-product of the process. And a completely useless one at that.

Someone does something which you consider to be wrong.
You offer reasonable arguments against it.
He accepts your arguments and stops.

That’s all there is.

Maybe you might make a case that anything that all reasonable people would agree is wrong is objectively wrong. I would actually say that all you have done is reach a consensus and you can’t take a vote on it anyway. So I’m afraid that you are left saying that anything that you personally believe to be objective must be so. If that wasn’t the case, then you’d surely be able to come up with objective truths with which you’d disagree.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Why is truth dependent upon a “largely agreed upon framework”?

Mathematics as a whole is built upon an agreed upon framework. Whenever a proof is given from first principles, that’s the framework I’m discussing

Do you believe in free will? There are some here (hi, Bradski! ) who have stated that they entertain the idea that we do not have a free will, despite the fact that this is a “largely agreed upon framework”. Should these folks not even entertain this idea, since free will is, indeed, “largely agreed upon”?

Do you believe in the existence of the mind? How do we test for its existence?

I’d say “free will” is a pretty nebulous concept. I’m not claiming that truth is a popular vote and that the largely agreed upon conclusion is objectively true. Rather, what you deem “true” will be relative to your framework. If you assume free will is a thing, you might deem some propositions true that would be false if you assumed no free will.

Guess what. Every single time you have 3 dollars, and you add 3 more dollars, you will get 6 dollars. Every. Single. Time.

Based on the agreed upon definitions of 3, 6, plus, and equals.

Really.

Do you know any morally sane person who believes it’s ok to kill a person because you don’t like his race?

Bias much? Unless there’s an objective definition of “morally sane” (tough to do without objective morality), then this is going to be no true scotsman epitomized. If someone believed that, I suspect their views would appear insane to me out of hand.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Fair enough.

I, too, agree upon imposing my morality on others.

I agree in imposing my morality in precisely one class of circumstances.

The picture is of someone who says, “Hey, if you believe it’s moral to kill your daughter, well, it *is *moral, to you! That’s what I believe! But I’m not going to actually let you practice this morality. Because, guess what, I’m going to inflict my morality on you!” #imperialistic #pompous #terroristic.

Now, with someone who actually believes in objective morality, when there is someone who is doing something objectively immoral, we step in and say: you are acting immorally and I cannot permit you to do this.

Not imperialistic, pompous or terroristic. But rather consonant with truth.

But the person who believes in objective morality is not the arbiter of said morality- thus they can still be said to be imposing their interpretation of their supposed objective moral rules. Thus the criticisms levied above still apply.

But in any event, whether the world is nicer with or without objective moral rules is wholly beside the point. The world might be nicer if Santa was real (free presents!), but that doesn’t make it so. I generally don’t choose my beliefs based on what I wish were true- otherwise I most certainly wouldn’t go to work tomorrow (they wouldn’t fire me! Imagine how sad the world would be if that were the case)

 

[PRmerger]

You’ll only get 6 every time if you’re counting in base 10 (but you will always get six whichever base you use).

I tell you what, Bradski: you go down to your local bank and tell them exactly what you told me here, explaining that 3 + 3 only equals 6 every time “if you’re counting in base 10” and see what happens.

Tell them you actually want them to record a different amount of cash you’ve deposited because* you *count in base 12.

(Incidentally, 3 + 3 = 6 in bases 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, etc.)

 

[Bradski]

I tell you what, Bradski: you go down to your local bank and tell them exactly what you told me here, explaining that 3 + 3 only equals 6 every time “if you’re counting in base 10” and see what happens.

Tell them you actually want them to record a different amount of cash you’ve deposited because* you *count in base 12.

(Incidentally, 3 + 3 = 6 in bases 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, etc.)

It’s the same amount, whichever base you count in. Just different notation. I’ll still get six dollars, but not 6. The symbol will be different. That’s why you need definitions.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s the same amount, whichever base you count in. Just different notation. I’ll still get six dollars, but not 6. The symbol will be different. That’s why you need definitions.

Sure. Definitions are important.

And 3+3 = 6 every single time.

 

[stewstew03]

…
But the person who believes in objective morality is not the arbiter of said morality- thus they can still be said to be imposing their interpretation of their supposed objective moral rules.

One’s interpretation of objective morality does not weaken the objective nature of said morality.

…
I generally don’t choose my beliefs based on what I wish were true
…

How do you know? Isn’t it possible that you’ve chosen a set of beliefs and confirmed those beliefs with supporting evidence, while suppressing contradictory evidence?

 

[AnimalSpirits]

One’s interpretation of objective morality does not weaken the objective nature of said morality.

No, but when you show up and say “You may not do X, the objective rules of the universe forbid it!” and the other guys says “No, this is not the case!” then it’s a battle of interpretations.

How do you know? Isn’t it possible that you’ve chosen a set of beliefs and confirmed those beliefs with supporting evidence, while suppressing contradictory evidence?

Considering my beliefs have shifted substantially and generally I’ve found that the world I lived in before was a “happier” place- there could be some subconscious selection going on, but it’s not “wouldn’t it be swell if XYZ.” Which is precisely what theists appeal to when they talk about how much nicer the world is with the all powerful spiritual overlord(s) around.

 

[PRmerger]

I’d say that math class is about teaching a specific largely agreed upon framework, and testing the ability of one to operate within that framework.

This is curious, given that you list your religion as “none”.

Do you believe in the existence of God?

If not, do you realize that you are rejecting a “specific largely agreed upon framework”–something that (way beyond the majority) of the 6 billion people on this planet have embraced. And that number (6 billion) increases dramatically when we take into account the billions of believers in history, who have now died…

 

[PRmerger]

I agree in imposing my morality in precisely one class of circumstances.

LOL!

Can you give your rationale for why it’s wrong to impose your morality on others while at the same time advocating that it is right to do it for this “one class of circumstances”?

 

[PRmerger]

So I say he’s wrong (I have come to the conclusion that he is wrong) and stop him or you say it’s wrong (you have come to the conclusion that he’s wrong) and you stop him. We both tell him that we understand that he believes he’s doing the right thing, but we believe otherwise. Am I missing something here?

Important questions: The Muslim father believes that he is right. In your opinion, is he doing the moral thing since he believes he is right?

Or do you believe that, regardless of his opinions of his action, it is wrong?

 

[PRmerger]

I’d say “free will” is a pretty nebulous concept.

Well, I put anyone who denies the existence of free will in the same category as those who believe we never landed on the moon, holocaust deniers, 6000 year old earthers, those who deny the historical Jesus ever walked the planet…

My reaction to their assertions:

 

[AnimalSpirits]

This is curious, given that you list your religion as “none”.

Do you believe in the existence of God?

If not, do you realize that you are rejecting a “specific largely agreed upon framework”–something that (way beyond the majority) of the 6 billion people on this planet have embraced. And that number (6 billion) increases dramatically when we take into account the billions of believers in history, who have now died…

So first, the existence of a deity isn’t an entire framework, it’s just an element of one. Christians have a different set off assumptions that druids, who had a different set than Roman pagans, who were different from Hindus. Moreover, even within Christianity it’s nut like everyone agrees.

Moreover, at the end of the day either a given set of beliefs is true or it isn’t. This isn’t really the case with mathematics. A mathematical statement can be true, false, or indeterminate given the your starting set of rules. Most of us live in Peano’s world and I do too. But if you decide to take a rule away or add one yourself, then you’ll be able to prove a different set of propositions from first principles.