Ask the materialist...

[FrankSchnabel]

Schnobble sed:

OK, provisionally anyway, we dub thee Logical Positivist. It is my fond wish to turn you into a Metaphysician, that is one who not only admits the meaningfulness of merely empirical and rational propositions but also propositions of a third kind which are unavoidably true.

Ateista replied:

I am not sure that it fits completely (Just like OJ’s famous glove. )

Here is the reason. Logical poistivists deny the “merit” of any statement or proposition which cannot be empirically verified. At least that is my understanding, and I am too lazy to look it up.

I don’t agree with them. I think that the Pythagoras theorem cannot be empirically verified, and yet, it has “merit”.

The logical positivist’s Verifiability Principle is two-fold, addressing both the empirical and rational. LP’s say that only propositions dependent on either (1) factual or (2) definitional circumstances make sense (are meaningful) or have “merit.”

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Where I am confused is that you posit (1) empirically verifyable proposiitons, (2) logically deductible propositions (from some set of axioms) and (3) some other kinds, which are not axioms, nor are they the corollaries of axioms, and also not something that pertain to reality, and as such empirically verifyable. I maybe wrong, but this is my perception.

If I am right in my perception, then we disagree. I cannot see this third kind of propositions at all.

By limiting meaningful propositions to either the empirical or rational type, LP’s exclude metaphysical propositions from consideration. If an LP encounters a metaphysical proposition, which by definition is one which claims to be both rational and empirical, he will be willing to investigate its rational aspect (logical consistency and coherence), but he will reject out of hand the claim of empirical meaningfulness. Remember, if it isn’t possible to find factual evidence that can prove a proposition true or false, it is not meaningful, LP’s believe.

The consequence of adhering to the Verifiability Principle is the belief that all meaningful propositions are contingent. There are no necessary truths.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Now if you believe that there are some meaningful metaphysical propositions, then you are a metaphysician, not a logical positivists. Whether or not they significant and nontrivial is another issue.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

So LP’s deny (illogically) that there are necessary truths except the Verifiability Principle.

This makes me think of a necessary truth put forth by that famous folk floffsfer Gilda Radner: “There’s always somethin…” (rant follows). My version is “Something must exist.” Now LP’s don’t think this is a meaningful proposition, there being no possibility of finding factual evidence that could prove it true or false. Yet everyone else in the world thinks, “Duh, of course this true. Who in their right mind would doubt it?”

Incidentally, this metaphysical proposition provides one avenue into the Ontological Argument.

 

[ateista]

Not limited to nature vs nurture. There is another possibility: that a person may forge their own conscience using reason and truth as guiding principles. This means a person may overcome both the effects of nurture and alter natural “tendencies.”

Yes, we can. The fact is that very few people do. It requires a lot of incentive and effort to overcome the indoctrination we receive in childhood. Our sense of right and wrong is established at a very young age and to “revise” that is a very hard task. But I agree, that it can happen.

 

[ateista]

The logical positivist’s Verifiability Principle is two-fold, addressing both the empirical and rational. LP’s say that only propositions dependent on either (1) factual or (2) definitional circumstances make sense (are meaningful) or have “merit.”

We have not even touched the concept of “meaningful” or “having merit”, and it is cruical. Just what is a “meaningful” statement?

My answer is: “something that has informational value”. Information can be measured, can be quantified.

Example: “I can say that there is a small swimming pool in my backyard”. It is a true statement, subject to verification. It has a lot of informational value - giving you information what you did not have before.

If I would say a more generic sentence: “I have something in my backyard”, that would carry a lot less information. It would still give you information, namely that I do not live in an apartment.

Now, if I would say: “there is something where I live”, that would give you absolutely no new information. Obviously there is “something” no matter where I live.

All three sentences are “true”, and they carry less and less information as we go from the specific to a general.

Are they equally “meaningful”? I don’t think so. The merit of a proposition can be evaluated by calculating the informational value of it. Obviously information presupposes a sender, a receiver and a communication channel. The actual amount of information is contingent upon all three of them.

I deny that there is “merit” in the abstract sense - independent of the recipient. The merit of any proposition is contingent upon existing information that the receiver already has.

By limiting meaningful propositions to either the empirical or rational type, LP’s exclude metaphysical propositions from consideration. If an LP encounters a metaphysical proposition, which by definition is one which claims to be both rational and empirical, he will be willing to investigate its rational aspect (logical consistency and coherence), but he will reject out of hand the claim of empirical meaningfulness. Remember, if it isn’t possible to find factual evidence that can prove a proposition true or false, it is not meaningful, LP’s believe.

Well, if a proposition does refer to something that requires empirical verification and at the same time it denies even the possibility of this empirical verification, then it is simply speculation. If there is no way - in principle - to find out if the proposition is “true” or “false”, then what use is it? A proposition which denies its own requirement is self-contradictory - and as such it is truly without any “merit” whatsoever - since it offers no information.

The consequence of adhering to the Verifiability Principle is the belief that all meaningful propositions are contingent. There are no necessary truths.

I accept that there are propositions which are always true, but they are axiomatic and as such - carry no informational value. It does not make them useless, after all they are the foundation of everything else, but they are purely rational in nature.

Now if you believe that there are some meaningful metaphysical propositions, then you are a metaphysician, not a logical positivists. Whether or not they significant and nontrivial is another issue.

Give me a few please. I am very visual in nature, and one good example gives more insight to me than pages of abstract descriptions.

Note: tomorrow morning I will leave for a week long vacation. I will have no access to a computer. I can hardly wait.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Even though everything we see is just “dancing” of the electrons (or subatomic particles) the complexity creates new attributes…No one assumes that the properties of molecules must be either reduced to the properties of atoms (impossible) or be explained as a divine action (unneccesary).

Take 2 hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. When they combine, they will form a water molecule. The properties of the water cannot be reduced to nor explained by the molecule’s physical structure. The attributes of the water are emerging attributes.

I follow you. However I see this as no different than the materialist views addressed by Dr. Stephen Barr in my first post in this thread. The explanation involves the inclusion of unobservable “subsitutes” for the supernatural, as Dr. Barr puts it. (i.e. “new attributes” unobservable in the physical components.) And somewhere in there, morality is added to the extra-physical attributes of the dancing electrons.

This sounds to me, especially from your first paragraph I quoted here, that it is more an argument against proving God specifically via the theory of Irreducible Complexity. I would not necessarily have a problem with that.

What I maintain, is that either the materialist must appeal to a Godly “substitute” (like the unexplainable emerging attributes you mentioned)…or if reality is bound to physical reactions only, he must insist that morality is an illusion.

 

[brycelaliberte]

An analogy will suffice: to compare two objects and decide if one is lighter or heavier than the other, there is no need to have an “absolute” measurement of weight. A simple balance scale will do.

This is true, yet you showed nothing. It is entirely possible for something to be heavier and lighter, just like societies can be either more or less moral. But, with the two either more/less weights, we still use the absolute ‘weight’ of measurement. Just like one would use ‘morality’ to see whether a society is more or less moral.

(And in the case of using a scale, gravity will be the absolute. )

True, they are not. Certain behaviors - which are not “important” are simply judged to be in “bad taste”, for example being dirty and stinky without any good and compelling reason. One might get shunned or ostracized but not considered immoral. Only when something is “important” do we start to impose the label, moral and immoral unto it.

Well, at least we understand this. (My friend doesn’t)

True again. As a side note here (not wishing to derail the conversation) is the problem that the Bible is not simple, straightforward, and easy to understand. Even for two Christians, who hold that the Bible is “essentially” true there are many “local” issues, where they disagree and still both can find “supporting arguments” from the very same Bible. Among other things this is why atheists reject that the Bible could have come from an infallible deity.

Just because there can be differing opinions (and opinions are allowed actually quite a lot) does not mean something is untrue. But, don’t want to derail the conversation, but know that is hardly an argument in reality.

Ah, the good old problem of abortion.

First, I wish there would never be an abortion, if every child brought into this world would be expected with a happy smile on the parents’ face. I wish that every child would have a reasonable chance to live a healthy, loved and careless childhood. I wish that every conception would be a conscious decision, practiced by two responisble adults, after careful deliberation. But obviously this is not a practical expectation.

Having said that, I do not believe that existence per se is preferable to nonexistence. I do not believe that a few cells after the fusion of the sperm and egg is already a full-blown human being, with equal rights and protection. This comes from the fact that I consider the concept of an “immortal soul” nonsensical and without merit.

I differentiate between the potential and the actualized. When I eat an omlette, I am not under the delusion that I just had a fried chicken.

I see. Obviously, you would prefer quality of live over sanctity of life. If one is able to unaccept the importance the another’s life, no matter what their condition, how is one to know theirs is ‘worthy’ to another? (And so hence, if not worthy, removable?)

But, what quality of life can be had if it is at the sacrifice of others’?

Very good problem. My view is that everyone is responsible for himself first. If one can speak out against real or perceived injustices without fear for “loss of limb and life”, if one can rectify injustices without fear of repercussions, than one is morally obligated to do so.

An example would be watching a child who plays with a ball close to a road with heavy traffic. It can be reasonably expected that the ball will roll out into the traffic, and child will run out to retrieve it. To stand by and do nothing I consider immoral and unacceptable.

However, this is a simple problem. Speaking out against the Holocaust would have brought beatings, and murders from the thugs. Not speaking out may be termed “cowardly”, but most of us are not heroes, and cannot stand a chance against an armed and ruthless opponent. Most people chose silent opposition, hiding and helping the persecuted ones.

Now, just because I am an evil atheist (), I will turn the table. The difference between comission and omission is irrelevant if the being in question has nothing to fear. If the being can do whatever he wants to do without even the possibility of repercussions then there is no excuse not to act - obviously I am talking about God here. I do not see any difference between comission and omission, when God is considered. (Let’s not get into this problem any further, but - since you asked - I wanted to give a full answer and of course, I am “evil” - by definition ).

Never said you were evil. (Not to mention we didn’t define it, but hey, if you want to call yourself that, then do I win? )

Cowardice is not a virtue. How does one know their beliefs are worth having if they are not worth dieing (sp?) for? It is obvious to see the split between one who believes in eternal life and so has nothing to lose by forfeiting this life for the next, while the one who has everything staked in this life will lose everything no matter what. Better to die than to lie, I always say.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

HeyAteista,

In your backyard example it is true that less and less information is conveyed the more general and unspecified the statement. But note that it is less and less information about the same subject. The information conveyed by a statement can vary according to how much specific information it contains about a particular subject and also by how many subjects that information is attributed to. So we can say many things about one thing, but we can also say just few things or even just one thing about many. There is value or merit in both types of statements, depending on what you are trying to accomplish.

When it comes to metaphysical propositions, one attempts to say something about everything. We are talking about extreme generality. IOW universal applicability, ultimate generalizations. LP’s deny that this is possible. Take a proposition like “Every event must be creative in some way.” LP’s will observe that this proposition attempts to formulate a necessary truth. Mindful of the LP’s First Principle that all truth is contingent, they will reject it.

God grant you a fun time on your vacation.

FS

 

[FrankSchnabel]

I deny that there is “merit” in the abstract sense - independent of the recipient. The merit of any proposition is contingent upon existing information that the receiver already has.

So we can have an information-laden statement and an intended receiver toward whom we direct that statement. But if the intended reciever is unable to process or comprehend the statement, the statement has no merit or information value or merit at all.
Hmm.

I would say that objectively we have a statement with information but a failure to communicate.

We can objectively evaluate a statement and determine that it says X and Y about subject Z. That fact that the intended recipient of this information has no concept of X does not change the fact that the statement contains information X.

I guess I believe in objective truth.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Schnobble sed:

By limiting meaningful propositions to either the empirical or rational type, LP’s exclude metaphysical propositions from consideration. If an LP encounters a metaphysical proposition, which by definition is one which claims to be both rational and empirical, he will be willing to investigate its rational aspect (logical consistency and coherence), but he will reject out of hand the claim of empirical meaningfulness. Remember, if it isn’t possible to find factual evidence that can prove a proposition true or false, it is not meaningful, LP’s believe.

and the Material Guy replied:

Well, if a proposition does refer to something that requires empirical verification and at the same time it denies even the possibility of this empirical verification, then it is simply speculation. If there is no way - in principle - to find out if the proposition is “true” or “false”, then what use is it? A proposition which denies its own requirement is self-contradictory - and as such it is truly without any “merit” whatsoever - since it offers no information.

I need to be more clear. I can make a statement about mah huntin’ dawg Zoe. Let’s say I say that she is a black German Shorthair Pointer (GSP). This is empirically verifiable. An LP would say that this is a meaningful statement. My statement can be proved true or false by an observable fact. I could make a general statement about this specific breed or Fleischhunds in general. They would still be regarded as meaningful by LP’s.

But if I said that Zoe really is a black GSP but that the moment anyone except me looks at her in any way she appears to be a white poodle. LP’s would say that this statement is not meaningful and utter nonsense, and metaphysicians would agree with them. The statement by definition rules out empirical verification. It is a statement about reality, but it is in principle non-verifiable.

But let’s say we attempt to address reality in the most general way possible. We want to say something true about every thing. LP’s would say, “Hold on der. Sure you trying to talk about every thing that exists. But how in the heck, as a practical matter, are you gonna empirically verify a metaphyscial statement like “Something must exist”? Can’t be done.” Besides, say LP’s, our foundational principle rules out metaphysical truths. Any proposition that purports to be a metaphysical truth is not meaningful (nonsense).

The Material Guy also sed:

I accept that there are propositions which are always true, but they are axiomatic and as such - carry no informational value. It does not make them useless, after all they are the foundation of everything else, but they are purely rational in nature.

If they are offered as always and unavoidably being true, they are not merely rational. They are also empirical in that they speak about all of reality.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Schnobble said in conclusion:

Now if you believe that there are some meaningful metaphysical propositions, then you are a metaphysician, not a logical positivists. Whether or not they significant and nontrivial is another issue.

And Ateista replied:

Give me a few please. I am very visual in nature, and one good example gives more insight to me than pages of abstract descriptions.

Alas, I cannot accommodate you. Metaphysical propositions are of necessity abstract. Voskuil says this about that (p. 59):

After millenia, philosophers are beginning to see that concreteness is always particular, and universals or necessities are necessarily abstract. A question to be examined later is, Is it possible for there to be a necessarily existing reality, if all acts of existence are particular and contingent? This question has significant impact on the possibility of making sense of divinity.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Of course, Voskuil was referring in the last sentence to the Ontological Argument.

 

[ateista]

Short note: I am back from a wonderful vacation. I will address all the points brought up, but cannot promise that I will be able to do it quickly. So, please be patient.

I follow you. However I see this as no different than the materialist views addressed by Dr. Stephen Barr in my first post in this thread. The explanation involves the inclusion of unobservable “subsitutes” for the supernatural, as Dr. Barr puts it. (i.e. “new attributes” unobservable in the physical components.)

Dr. Barr is wrong. It is not “magical”, or unobservable. It is all material, but the laws governing the more complex behavior of more complex arrangements of matter are different from the simple laws of simpler organizations.

And somewhere in there, morality is added to the extra-physical attributes of the dancing electrons.

It depends on what you mean by the word “physical”. If you mean “mechanics”, you are correct. Morality is a derivation of socially accepted behavior, which is far from mechanical.

This sounds to me, especially from your first paragraph I quoted here, that it is more an argument against proving God specifically via the theory of Irreducible Complexity. I would not necessarily have a problem with that.

The whole concept “irreducible complexity” is bogus. I agree with that.

What I maintain, is that either the materialist must appeal to a Godly “substitute” (like the unexplainable emerging attributes you mentioned)…or if reality is bound to physical reactions only, he must insist that morality is an illusion.

Since the “emerging attributes” are not unexplainable, morality is not an illusion. You have to make a distinction between a “miracle”, which cannot be explained by natural laws, and the problem of “complex behavior”, which is explainable, but the explanation is not “simple”.

Let’s be precise: the “dancing” of the electrons - in theory - can explain the morality of a given society. Practically, however, it is probably impossible.

An example: The laws of gravity explain exactly the “dancing” of a planet around its star. If you try to find the exact movements of only five bodies, the differential equations become so complex, that a precise solution cannot be found. No magic, no supernatural is assumed. The equations are clear and correct. The solution is “there”, it just cannot be described in a simple y = f(x) equation - though it can be expressed in the form of F(x, y) = 0.

The problem is that we are “trained” to accept a y = f(x) equation as an “explanation”. “y” is the behavior, “x” is the cause, and the function “f” is the way how the cause creates the effect. Reality, however, is not that simple. The equation of “F(x, y) = 0” is just as precise, but it cannot be visualized.

 

[ateista]

This is true, yet you showed nothing. It is entirely possible for something to be heavier and lighter, just like societies can be either more or less moral. But, with the two either more/less weights, we still use the absolute ‘weight’ of measurement. Just like one would use ‘morality’ to see whether a society is more or less moral.

(And in the case of using a scale, gravity will be the absolute. )

Gravity is not “absolute” either… it depends on the mass of the planet. The point is that the “morality” of different societies is measured by our standards - and that is the “problem”. We cannot walk in their shoes, can we?

I see. Obviously, you would prefer quality of live over sanctity of life.

Absolutely! I would never want to live a life I deem not worth to live. I have a living will, which stipulates that I do not wish to be kept “alive” under certain conditions - and I made this decision in full command of my faculties. The trouble is that I cannot specify the exact conditions. They would include a severe Alzheimer disease. I am my mind - and if my mind would be gone, I would not want to vegetate.

I would not mind to be “disposed of” under these conditions - in a humane manner - but the laws do not allow that. Disconnecting the feeding tubes allow slow starvation and dehydration, which is much more cruel than a simple overdose of morphine. How come that we are more humane to our pets than to our own kind? Isn’t that strange?

If one is able to unaccept the importance the another’s life, no matter what their condition, how is one to know theirs is ‘worthy’ to another? (And so hence, if not worthy, removable?)

Well, this is a different problem, which needs more consideration to prevent possible abuses. And, of course, the responsibility which would come with such decision. I think this could (and should) be explored in a thread of its own.

But, what quality of life can be had if it is at the sacrifice of others’?

That is a decision to be made by the person who wishes to make that sacrifice.

Never said you were evil. (Not to mention we didn’t define it, but hey, if you want to call yourself that, then do I win? )

I was just kidding, and I am sure you know that.

Cowardice is not a virtue.

Can you substantiate that?

How does one know their beliefs are worth having if they are not worth dieing (sp?) for? It is obvious to see the split between one who believes in eternal life and so has nothing to lose by forfeiting this life for the next, while the one who has everything staked in this life will lose everything no matter what. Better to die than to lie, I always say.

My beliefs are worth to live for… Especially since there is no afterlife - as far as I am concerned.

 

[ateista]

When it comes to metaphysical propositions, one attempts to say something about everything. We are talking about extreme generality. IOW universal applicability, ultimate generalizations. LP’s deny that this is possible. Take a proposition like “Every event must be creative in some way.” LP’s will observe that this proposition attempts to formulate a necessary truth. Mindful of the LP’s First Principle that all truth is contingent, they will reject it.

I would not reject it, I would just say that I received no information.

God grant you a fun time on your vacation.

Thank you! I had great fun in Sin City (though I did not sample all the “sins” it offers).

However, here is a joke I heard a long time ago:

A union guy goes to Vegas for a vacation. He wants to have a loose night and goes to one of the houses of “ill repute”.

He asks the madame what kind of compensation do the girls receive who provide the sevices. She says: “The house keeps 90% of the profit, and the girls get 10%”.

The union guy is outraged at the inequitable distribution of the money and goes to another place. He asks the same question and the madame answers: “The house keeps 10% of the profit, and the girls get 90%”.

“Now that is much better”, say the guy. He looks around and says: “I would like to spend a few hours with that pretty little blonde there”. The madame answers: “I am sure you would”, and points to an old woman with a sagging cleavage… “but Martha here has seniority!”.

So we can have an information-laden statement and an intended receiver toward whom we direct that statement. But if the intended reciever is unable to process or comprehend the statement, the statement has no merit or information value or merit at all.
Hmm.

Not in that relationship, no. It would have a lot of merit in another. Think about telling a deep philosophical truth to a 3 years old child. He will not understand a word, so for him the essay would be pure gibberish. Or, tell that same truth to someone who does not speak English. What informational value would he get out of it?

I would say that objectively we have a statement with information but a failure to communicate.

Same difference… wouldn’t you say?

We can objectively evaluate a statement and determine that it says X and Y about subject Z. That fact that the intended recipient of this information has no concept of X does not change the fact that the statement contains information X.

I guess I believe in objective truth.

Sure, but what is the “truth” worth to someone, who is unable to process it?

Suppose I would have said this post in my mother tongue (which is not English). What information would you have gleaned out of it?

I need to be more clear. I can make a statement about mah huntin’ dawg Zoe. Let’s say I say that she is a black German Shorthair Pointer (GSP). This is empirically verifiable. An LP would say that this is a meaningful statement. My statement can be proved true or false by an observable fact. I could make a general statement about this specific breed or Fleischhunds in general. They would still be regarded as meaningful by LP’s.

But if I said that Zoe really is a black GSP but that the moment anyone except me looks at her in any way she appears to be a white poodle. LP’s would say that this statement is not meaningful and utter nonsense, and metaphysicians would agree with them. The statement by definition rules out empirical verification. It is a statement about reality, but it is in principle non-verifiable.

OK. So far we agree.

But let’s say we attempt to address reality in the most general way possible. We want to say something true about every thing. LP’s would say, “Hold on der. Sure you trying to talk about every thing that exists. But how in the heck, as a practical matter, are you gonna empirically verify a metaphyscial statement like “Something must exist”? Can’t be done.” Besides, say LP’s, our foundational principle rules out metaphysical truths. Any proposition that purports to be a metaphysical truth is not meaningful (nonsense).

I am not sure about the “nonsense”. Not meaningful does not equal “nonsense”.

If they are offered as always and unavoidably being true, they are not merely rational. They are also empirical in that they speak about all of reality.

Now this is the crux of the matter: “why are they not merely rational”? Everything is itself (or A is A), is an axiom. It is a principle, which cannot be “proven” in the sense that it can be reduced to something even more fundamental. It does not make it nonsensical, it cannot be proven. It says something about “everything”.

Alas, I cannot accommodate you. Metaphysical propositions are of necessity abstract.

But I hope you can. If there are actual metaphysical truths, you can name a few. Something that is not an axiom, and therefore it is not trivial. Something that carries information. If there are no such statements, then what are we talking about?

 

[brycelaliberte]

Gravity is not “absolute” either… it depends on the mass of the planet. The point is that the “morality” of different societies is measured by our standards - and that is the “problem”. We cannot walk in their shoes, can we?

Yes still true, but then mass would be the absolute. There is mass, therefore there is gravity, therefore there can be weight. Comes back to the mass. And mass does not uphold itself, does it? (Unless we are to make the claim we have the found, er, the Higgs boson I would believe? It has been a little while since I have read up though…) But then, if there were a cause to mass, then that cause of mass must be taken as an absolute (unless of course, there was a cause to that, and then a cause to that cause, and that sounds eerily like St. Tommy’s first proof…) so still, your use of the analogy only implements itself to help what I am saying.

Shall we let go of the analogy?

Still though, who could we ever possibly be to claim that another society wasn’t ‘enlightened’ if morality is only dependent upon the society one lives in? You have not answered this yet.

Absolutely! I would never want to live a life I deem not worth to live. I have a living will, which stipulates that I do not wish to be kept “alive” under certain conditions - and I made this decision in full command of my faculties. The trouble is that I cannot specify the exact conditions. They would include a severe Alzheimer disease. I am my mind - and if my mind would be gone, I would not want to vegetate.

I would not mind to be “disposed of” under these conditions - in a humane manner - but the laws do not allow that. Disconnecting the feeding tubes allow slow starvation and dehydration, which is much more cruel than a simple overdose of morphine. How come that we are more humane to our pets than to our own kind? Isn’t that strange?

The Church also says that care must be taken so that the person is not in pain, although I’m sure you know that. Part of ordinary care.

And indeed true, if I were to fall to a fatal and slowly destructive disease, I should wish that not too much care should be wasted on me, for that care would be better used on others.

It may be considered humane to put pets to sleep because there is no gain to their suffering, for they have not eternal souls.

Well, this is a different problem, which needs more consideration to prevent possible abuses. And, of course, the responsibility which would come with such decision. I think this could (and should) be explored in a thread of its own.

Sounds good. I’ll look to see if you’ve created it, or I’ll create it myself.

That is a decision to be made by the person who wishes to make that sacrifice.

Decision made about what? Can we decide for someone else? I find it rather more often that many have lived in what we might consider ‘unqualified’ reasons to live (for instance, most of the people for most of the history of the world) would rather live in those situations alive than give up their life because they won’t have your ‘qualified’ reasons to live.

Life is reason enough to live.

I was just kidding, and I am sure you know that.

Don’t worry, I know.

Can you substantiate that?

“Cowardice is not a virtue.”

Certainly, though I doubt you will accept the reasoning for that, since it is dependent upon an eternal soul to be truly substantiated. And since you do not believe in an eternal soul, I fail to see how anything, virtue or vice, can be substantiated as such. Why don’t you substantiate how it isn’t?

My beliefs are worth to live for… Especially since there is no afterlife - as far as I am concerned.

And when you die, then your beliefs will be as nothing. And if your beliefs die with you, why are they worth holding onto while you are alive? You would have to compromise yourself to fulfill your beliefs… And as we know, faith and reason do not contradict each other.

 

[ateista]

Yes still true, but then mass would be the absolute.

No, mass is not absolute either, it depends on the speed of the obkect.

Shall we let go of the analogy?

Sure. The point originally was that we can measure another society’s morality from our point of view, even in the absence of an absolute measuring rod. We can decide that **from our point of view **one society is more moral than another one.

Still though, who could we ever possibly be to claim that another society wasn’t ‘enlightened’ if morality is only dependent upon the society one lives in? You have not answered this yet.

I don’t understand this question. Please reformulate.

And indeed true, if I were to fall to a fatal and slowly destructive disease, I should wish that not too much care should be wasted on me, for that care would be better used on others.

Well, we seem to agree here.

It may be considered humane to put pets to sleep because there is no gain to their suffering, for they have not eternal souls.

What difference does it make? How can a slow and painful starvation and dehydration (of which the person is not even aware) give a “gain” to the person’s suffering? How is that preferable to a quick and painless death?

If you think that prolonged life is always “worth” living (as you state below), then you may think about an infiltrating team into enemy territory, where one of the teammates is injured and unable to continue with the mission. It is expected of the others to give a quick and painless “way out”, and not allow the person to be captured and tortured - even if this injured person does not know any significant “secrets” (and thus cannot compromise the mission). The same applies to all the mercy killings.

Life is reason enough to live.

Do you really think so, in the light of the example above? Don’t forget, we are talking about general principles here, and must account for every possible circumstance, no matter how extreme it might be.

You argue that “Life is reason enough to live”, so please explain how that injured soldier’s future life - which will be only pain, torture, humiliation and slow death - is “worth” living.

And when you die, then your beliefs will be as nothing. And if your beliefs die with you, why are they worth holding onto while you are alive? You would have to compromise yourself to fulfill your beliefs…

I disagree. My beliefs influence others in some small ways. They inflenced my child, and hopefully they influence some people on this board - even if they disagree with them. So they will not disappear without a trace even when I die.

And as we know, faith and reason do not contradict each other.

That is definitely not true for certain types of “faith”. This word has many different meanings, and some of them do contradict reason.

 

[FrankSchnabel]

Hey welcome back,

Good union joke.

You sed regarding the metaphysical proposition “Every event must be creative in some way”:

I would not reject it, I would just say that I received no information.

I would say that you did. Granted, you received no information about the specific creative element present in a particular concrete event (e.g. Zoe saying “woof.”). But you did receive information that something called “creativity” exists and that it is necessarily present in all events.

 

[ateista]

I would say that you did. Granted, you received no information about the specific creative element present in a particular concrete event (e.g. Zoe saying “woof.”). But you did receive information that something called “creativity” exists and that it is necessarily present in all events.

It all depends on what you mean by “creativity”.

If you say that every event entails a change, then the sentence becomes trivial - no information in it. If, however, you speak of intellectual creativity, then I will reject your assertion as being false, or at the very least unsupportable.

Where is the intellectual creative element in the wind blowing three twigs, so they happen to form a triangle? Where is the intellectual creative element in a snowflake, which happens to have a nice symmetrical hexagonal pattern? The examples are endless.

Either one accepts that there are laws of nature, and no intellectual creativity is needed in most events, or one assumes that the seemingly natural laws of nature do not exist, and every event we see is the “micromanaging tinkering” of some intelligence (God?). Even if this scenario would be correct, what would we gain by stipulating it?