T
- Status
W
wanstronian
Guest
No, it’s not ‘objective’ significance, other than in the colloquial ‘objectivity through mass acceptance/support’ sense. It’s not objective in the sense of immutably objective. Because such objectivity cannot be proved to exist. Without someone to conceptualise, the concept cannot exist.
As stated above, there is no objective obligation. Other than in the colloquial sense as I’ve defined it above.
Not sure what you mean by stemming from the nature of reality. Reality is our lives and environment, including our societal environment - which surely shape our sense of obligation?
I haven’t! I’ve said quite clearly that there is no evidence for objective (immutable) morals. And I’ve provided solid reasons for my assertion.
I don’t understand what you’re asking me here I’m afraid. Are you asking me what stops me descending into moral decadence? I have already answered this question upthread. An evolved sense of right and wrong, and if that fails, consequence.
No, I’m pointing out that that which the Church (apparently) claims as an objective truth, cannot be shown to be anything other than its subjective belief.
Not at all. That’s my point.
Again, we’ve covered this already. In the context of the universe, I wouldn’t defend it, I’d concur. The universe doesn’t care if an individual lives or dies. We, human beings, having evolved as social animals that have formed complex societies, care. This I’d defend by pointing to countless human rights cases and legislation.
This is a sticky one - it could be (and often is) argued that to live together in dire unhappiness and constant spousal friction is not actually doing the children much good. A clean break followed by loving relationships with both parents is, anecdotally, a more stable and happy existence for the child. I’m not condoning divorce here, just pointing out that mindlessly staying in an unhappy marriage ‘for the benefit of the child’ may not actually be for the benefit of the child.
No, but nor am I aware of any statistics that support your claim that ‘co-existence has become so much more difficult…’ Certainly I’d be interested to see evidence that any such increased difficulty - if it does exist - has any causal link to your assertion that moral standards have declined.
Well, we can agree to disagree. We’ve wandered somewhat off-topic, either by accident or by design.
It seems that you are not going to provide any evidence for your original assertions - you’ve not even attempted to do so and we’re now on post #96!
Shall we stop here?
S
Syntax
Guest
Check out our “demanding evidence” thread for more clarification. You are just stipulating that empirical evidence is the only evidence, and then demanding that your opponent supply empirical evidence for his non-empirical beliefs. But you haven’t supplied any reason for thinking empirical evidence is the only kind of admissible evidence from the start.
Nice try, but you can’t do this because this move violates a crucial epistemic closure principle, namely that, “If you know that P, and you know that P entails Q, then you know that Q.” You claim to know that justice is indisputably subjective, while simultaneously claiming not to know that it is objective. This is inconsistent. Since the contrary of “subjective” just is “not-objective,” then by epistemic closure, if you claim to know that justice is subjective, then you are also claiming to know that it is not-objective. So if it is true that you really know justice is subjective, then you also know that it is not-objective. Bad move.
…because your very own principle is that a person cannot rationally hold a hypothesis for which he has little or no evidence. But then your yourself say that you can “admit a hypothesis” for which you have little or no evidence. So you are violating your own principle. Double standard. Are you saying that you hold a hypothesis, but don’t really believe it, or what?
Did you think about your post before you sent it? I am only asking because every single thing you have said about what you believe either violates an epistemic principle or violates one of your own principles.
S
Syntax
Guest
After reading your complaints about how others approach your insistent demand for evidence, I’ve noticed the following problems.
First, no scientist thinks any hypothesis is ever “proven” since it is simply impossible to observe all instances of a hypothesis. So I suggest you drop your repeated use of that term.
Second, you have a very naive view of what “evidence” means. You continue to demand it as if it existed in the outside world as some kind of “*unqualified *bit of information” that automatically confirms a given hypothesis whenever it becomes available. This is totally contrary to the actual practices of all scientists. What you fail to notice is that any collection of data is automatically hammered into some pre-theoretical form and gets interpreted by the activities of scientists prior to being said to confirm a hypothesis. For instance, provide evidence for the claim that “table X exists.” You can’t, because no one actually ever observes tables themselves, only a random series of uninterpreted sense data or patches of wavelengths of light striking your retina. So patches of color and the sensations from touch merely confirm the hypothesis “something X exists,” but not the hypothesis “object X is a table.” “Tables” are *theoretical entities *that are unobservable in the world, just like numbers, electrons, gravity, force, mass, acceleration, the consistent velocity of light from point A to point B. All of these entities are postulated to exist in order to make our theoretical models of the world work, and they are never directly observed. But most human beings consider it rational to believe these theories are true in some respect.
By the same token, moral truths are postulated to exist because they make our theories about human behavior, values, and obligations comprehensible and understandable as well, and none of these moral truths can be observed. But most people consider it rational to believe basic moral principles are true.
Third, you also fail to notice that what a community will count as “evidence” depends on which theory is guiding their inquiries into the nature of the existing world. While a black raven will have a confirmatory relationship to the hypothesis “All ravens are black,” a green shoe will not have this relationship. So what will count as evidence depends upon what it is our hypothesis dictates we should be looking for. Now moral truths cannot be empirically observed, this is true. But what makes you think physical evidence is required to comfirm the truth of moral claims? They are not empirical kinds of truths anyway–they are a priori necessary truths–, so the moral realist is doomed from the start since the criterion you offer for what counts as evidence is a criterion only applicable to physical kinds of things.
Other truths which do not demand any physical evidence to support them are logical truths, mathematical truths, aesthetic truths, scientific assumptions, and metaphysical truths such as “the external world exists” and “other minds exist,”–all of which are rational beliefs, and none of which we submit to the demands you make on them that they be empirically observable since they are, in principle, unobservable.
Simply because you cannot “see” *an obligation *does not entail that “John has the obligation to do X in circumstance Y” is no longer true. Appeals to ignorance won’t work here because obligations are not physical kinds of things. So your enterprise is vacuous from the start.
S
Syntax
Guest
Here are more instances of your poor thinking about matters.
First, you are trading on an ambiguity between “contingently/mutably objective” and “objectively morally binding.” That most people happen to find human life valuable is an almost universally true fact, but it is a contingent or *mutable *fact because the fact that most people hold it can change. This is a non-normative truth.
Second, that some moral principles fail to have application in a given context, does not entail that they are no longer objectively binding. You are confusing *absolutely binding *with condtionally binding. An objective moral principle, such as an obligation to do X, does not have to be absolute, since it can be overriden by other moral principles given an appropriate context. So that a moral principle will reign supreme in one context but not the other, does not entail the moral principle is therefore false, or subjective. For instance, the moral obligation suggested by the command “do not tell lies” does not suddenly cease to be objectively binding in those cases where telling a lie to the Nazi Gestapo will save the lives of several Jews. “Do not tell lies” just ceases to have application in this context because it is overridden by the other moral command “save human lives when the cost is minimal to yourself.” So a moral principle always remains universally binding on all individuals; it simply ceases to have application in some contexts when other factors cause it to be overridden by another moral principle.
So nothing about your so-called “evidence against” objective moral truths counts as evidence at all. So far your claims amount to an **appeal to ignorance **that “if I can’t observe its truth, it doesn’t exist.”
Nor does any of your evidence support the claim that morality is subjective either. That someone fails to apply a moral principle when it should be applied, or when one moral principle trumps another, or when someone thinks a moral principle is false–none of this is any more evidence that morality is subjective than “Jeffrey Dahmer thinks killing people for fun is morally permissible” is evidence that “killing people for fun is wrong” is a subjective claim.
You have a very limited understanding of how the study of meta-ethics is undertaken.
T
tonyrey
Guest
The question is whether significance is nothing more than a concept.
Which means obligations are self-imposed and therefore dispensable…
You make two questionable assumptions here:
- Reality is restricted to our lives and environment.
- Our sense of obligation is shaped by that environment.
Are we incapable of rejecting that sense of obligation?
Your reasons are based on your assumptions.
This seems to confirm your belief that morality is not even of our making but is the product of physical events.
So it is better to stand up for its subjective value - making it quite clear that it is only a matter of human opinion?
Again you equate reality with the physical universe. That is why I pointed out that the status of moral values is precarious in an amoral system. If life is objectively valueless it must be less significant than the law of gravitation. One becomes an opinion whereas the other is a fact. To which do you attribute more weight and importance?
The majority care but many do not. Why should the feelings of the majority be preferable to those of the minority? You are assuming it is good to care - which implies that caring is objectively valuable! Or could you be mistaken?
It is a matter of common sense. The prevailing secular mentality is that this is our only life and we have the right to do what we want with it. Moral laws are only human rules which have no binding force. Ultimately it is a case of everyone for himself or herself. The distinction between the roles of the man and the woman in society has become confused and obscure with the inevitable consequences of misunderstanding and disagreement. Money and material possessions dominate most people’s minds at the expense of moral principles and personal values. The decline of religious belief has led to excessive individualism and less concern for others. In a highly competitive, commercial society they tend to be regarded as rivals and obstacles rather members of the human family - as we see very clearly on the roads and motorways…
The fact that so many children lack a normal family life in our present society is directly related to the topic because the Church is a force for good by upholding the objective value of not only the individual but the family…
Your concept of evidence is based on your own beliefs for which you have given no evidence.
You are free to stop whenever you believe you don’t need to answer my questions.
T
tonyrey
Guest
The question is whether significance is nothing more than a concept.
Which means obligations are self-imposed and therefore dispensable…
You make two questionable assumptions here:
- Reality is restricted to our lives and environment.
- Our sense of obligation is shaped by that environment.
Are we incapable of rejecting that sense of obligation?
Your reasons are based on your assumptions.
This seems to confirm your belief that morality is not even of our making but is the product of physical events.
So it is better to stand up for its subjective value - making it quite clear that it is only a matter of human opinion?
Again you equate reality with the physical universe. That is why I pointed out that the status of moral values is precarious in an amoral system. If life is objectively valueless it must be less significant than the law of gravitation. One becomes an opinion whereas the other is a fact. To which do you attribute more weight and importance?
The majority care but many do not. Why should the feelings of the majority be preferable to those of the minority? You are assuming it is good to care - which implies that caring is objectively valuable! Or could you be mistaken?
It is a matter of common sense. The prevailing secular mentality is that this is our only life and we have the right to do what we want with it. Moral laws are only human rules which have no binding force. Ultimately it is a case of everyone for himself or herself. The distinction between the roles of the man and the woman in society has become confused and obscure with the inevitable consequences of misunderstanding and disagreement. Money and material possessions dominate most people’s minds at the expense of moral principles and personal values. The decline of religious belief has led to excessive individualism and less concern for others. In a highly competitive, commercial society they tend to be regarded as rivals and obstacles rather members of the human family - as we see very clearly on the roads and motorways… If we are only animals people cannot expect so much of one another - especially when they are married - can they?
The fact that so many children lack a normal family life in our present society is directly related to the topic because the Church is a force for good by upholding the objective value of not only the individual but the family…
Your concept of evidence is based on your own beliefs for which you have given no evidence.
You are free to stop whenever you feel you don’t need to answer my questions.
W
wanstronian
Guest
But I have invited a demonstration of how non-empirical evidence can be shown to be objectively true. Nobody has supplied such a demonstration. I’ll have a scan through the thread you suggest when I get some time, but at 283 posts so far, it’ll be tough going…
It’s no more of a bad move than to say that all planets we know of are (roughly) spherical, but there may be cuboid planets somewhere in the universe. Maybe you need to read my post more carefully before you condemn my logic.
No, I’m admitting that this particular belief I hold is not a firm conviction, but would appear to me to be true although I haven’t done any research into it. As opposed to Tony’s hypotheses which he presents as fact but then can’t substantiate when challenged.
I don’t expect everybody to be 100% rational 100% of the time. If someone showed that my hypothesis was wrong, or if I looked into it and found that I was mistaken, I would change my mind immediately. This is different to the theist that holds grimly onto a belief that has no supporting evidence even when that belief is shown to be irrational in nature. In short, I willingly admit I might be wrong, but the theist doesn’t.
The theist who believes in God gets no argument from me. The theist that claims he has evidence of God but is consistently unable to provide this evidence, or whose evidence is consistently shown to be inadequate, gets all the critical scrutiny he deserves.
Do you understand the difference now?
Hopefully I have explained in simple enough terms that you now realise your comment is incorrect.
W
wanstronian
Guest
I think I’ll stop because you, as in every other thread we have held, have failed to answer mine with anything other than mere opinion. We are starting to repeat old threads here as you attempt to change the subject. You need to realise that tautology does not equal truth, and that dodging questions is not the same as answering them.You are free to stop whenever you feel you don’t need to answer my questions.
T
tonyrey
Guest
As others have pointed out, you assume your opinions are facts! As for dodging, that is your speciality when the questions strike at the heart of the matter, e.g. your notion of what constitutes reality…
S
Syntax
Guest
.
You need to read my last two posts in your thread here. Are you just choosing to ignore them? Your own construal of what “evidence” consists in, and what should count as evidence, is both incomplete and naive. Physical evidence is not the only kind of “evidence.” There are other forms of justification found in science, mathematics, morality, logic, and metaphysics other than physical evidence, namely,
deductive/inductive reasoning
the principle of sufficient reason
inference to the best explanation
probabalistic arguments
self-justifiying axioms
–just to name a few.
The theist employs all of these different types of justification for the existence of God. Similarly, the scientist also employs all of these different types of justification for the existence of electrons, gravity, force, mass—all of which are unobservable too.
.
Certainly if some other planets you don’t know about happen to be non-spherical, they could be tetrahedrons, cubes or any other kinds of polygons. But the same reasoning doesn’t apply to what you said about justice because you are confusing the judgments about justice themselves with what those judgments are about, namely, justice. If the judgments about justice insofar as you know them are irrefutably “subjective,” then what reason do you have for thinking all judgments are not this way too? So you can’t reasonably claim that a judgment is a subjective judgment in one instance, and then possibly an objective judgment in other instances. This doesn’t make any sense.
Further, if someone happens to make a wrong judgment, this does not entail that objective justice doesn’t exist. You are obviously taking differences in objective judgments as evidence for the non-existence of objective justice. But this is no more evidence that objective justice doen’t exist than that any other disagreement about facts is evidence for the non-existence of those facts. This is a very poor argument.
.
I do. Your logic is unsound.
.
Therefore, your own hypothesis as it stands, no matter how firmly this conviction, is still irrational by your own standards. I am not defending Tony. I am challenging your own inconsistencies.
.
Of course, same for theists such as myself.
.
Again, I’ve said this numerous times. They way you are using the term “evidence” is unqualified and naive. Whenever we face the data presented to our senses there always exists a theoretical background framework that interprets that data. Further, each hypothesis will circumscribe what counts as evidence and what doesn’t count as evidence before this hypothesis places itself in front of the tribunal of experience. The data can be evidence for one hypothesis, but not the other, just like when data supports physics but not biology. But the lack of evidence for biology in this context doesn’t mean biology has no other evidence in another context. By the same token, “God exists” is not an empirical kind of claim just as claims in logic, mathematics, metaphysics, and morality are not empirical kinds of clailms. So we should not be asking physical “evidence” for them.
T
Tybourne
Guest
“You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.” --Mark Twain
S
Syntax
Guest
Haha!“You cannot depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus.” --Mark Twain
No kidding! You said it, brother!
G
GodLovesTheSpek
Guest
All Good comes from God who is Good, Truth, Life and Am. He created The Catholic Church.
Anyone who decides otherwise is deceived by The Deceiver who is Bad, Lies, Death and Not.
Want real proof?
Die. (otherwise, it is by the gift of God’s Grace that Good is revealed to those willing to accept the gift)
Who wants an imperfect, human version of “proof”? The Deceiver has captured many seeking “Proof” and “Truth” who ended up getting caught in a quagmire of Lies.
Anyone who decides otherwise is deceived by The Deceiver who is Bad, Lies, Death and Not.
Want real proof?
Die.
(otherwise, it is by the gift of God’s Grace that Good is revealed to those willing to accept the gift)Who wants an imperfect, human version of “proof”? The Deceiver has captured many seeking “Proof” and “Truth” who ended up getting caught in a quagmire of Lies.
W
wanstronian
Guest
The fact that you accuse me of traits which I have exposed in virtually every one of your posts, illustrates your ‘debating’ method for what it is: Hypocrisy and evasion.
I’ve never dodged a question about the nature of reality. I would challenge you to prove your claim, but I know you won’t, it’s not in your nature to substantiate.
S
Syntax
Guest
Why don’t you pick on someone who will directly challenge your logic, wanstronian? Or do you prefer to shout at people without actually engaging with them? You sound more like a crying demagogue than rational thinker. Afraid to engage with my own posts?
W
wanstronian
Guest
No, just haven’t got around to it. But I see that it’s not worth my time to respond. You are convinced that your standards of evidence are enough, and that mine are too prescriptive. So…
… please devise a predictive experiment that anybody can perform, that demonstrates the existence of God, using the methods you have described above. Because that’s what scientists do, you know. Until you provide this test, you’re talking fluff. And also, incidentally, implying that all atheists are less intelligent than you because they are unable to understand your devastating and irrefutable logic…
No. You still haven’t understood. There may be an objective justice, at which we irrevocably arrive while seeming to think it subjective. But there’s no evidence for it. All we can see happening (and we can see it happening, evolving over time), is that our sense of what constitutes justice changes. Witness the abolition of slavery as evidence. If justice is objective, how come slavery was once legal, but no longer? Did God show up and change the laws?
Your gobbledygook about ‘subjective in one instance… possibly an objective… in other
I’ve clarified. It’s up to you to understand it. I will repeat that I haven’t said that there’s categorically no such thing as immutably objective justice. Just that we have no rational reason to believe it exists
Your comments suggest that either you haven’t understood me, or you’re misrepresenting me.
Precisely why I am not holding the conviction firmly, only anecdotally, and why I have freely and without prompting, admitted that it’s a suspicion only!
Your perception of my inconsistencies.
Yet you hold a firm conviction in the belief of an entity for which you can provide no conclusive evidence. How is that rational?
You seem to be overlooking the difference between the conceptual/mathematical ‘proofs’ arrived at by the methods you mention, and the existence of an entity. You would not use purely those methods to prove that, say, bananas exist. So I repeat my challenge to you to provide a predictive experiment that will show the existence of God consistently for all comers.
T
tonyrey
Guest
Your allegations are weakened by the fact that you have made them against others who disagree with your views. It does not illustrate but constitutes your debating method! You prefer to dedicate your time and energy to attacking the integrity of the other person rather than the integrity of his argument…
1
1holycatholic
Guest
That’s not what scientists do, that’s scientism.
S
Syntax
Guest
You are assuming the following criterion is true:
“If I can’t test or observe X, then X does not exist.”
Will you explain to me how you’ve tested for this criterion? Wait, it is untestable? Uh oh:blush:
So you just flat-out deny there are other forms of justification other than empirical evidence?? You’ve got alot exploring to do, buddy. Let me repeat, we have…
deductive/inductive reasoning
the principle of sufficient reason
inference to the best explanation
probabalistic arguments
self-justifiying axioms
“God exists” is not a verifiable claim. I told you this. But that does not entail that the claim is unjustified. There are arguments such as the Kalaam argument, argument from Design, and the Ontological arguments as logical demonstrations for the existence of God. You can read these arguments on your own time because I simply don’t have the time to explain them. You just need to recognize there are other forms of justification than empirical evidence, and stop demanding empirical evidence for things that don’t require it.
I already addressed this to you before you even responded. You apparently did not read it. That people in the past falsely thought the sun revolved around the earth doesn’t mean that all of us now who think the earth revolves around the sun, are therefore making subjective judgments. By the same token, that people thought slavery was morally permissible at one time does not constitute evidence against the claim that slavery is morally wrong tout court. This is such a bad argument—as if what people mistakenly think determines that everything is subjective. wrong. People make incorrect judgments all the time. But that does not entail there is no objective fact of the matter.
Stop with your misuse of the term “evidence.” Is there objective evidence that the speed of light has a consistent velocity in a vacuum? No, it’s an assumption in the Special Theory of Relativity. Is there evidence that the pythagorean theorem is true? No. It’s a mathematical postulate. Is there evidence that the external world exists? No. This is an assumption that cannot be demonstrated nor observed. Are the existences of electrons, gravity, and energy observed? No. They are all theoretical postulates.
(a) and (b) is a false dichotomy. The other obvious option is that many people were wrong about what justice really is. Again, you seem to think that people’s disagreements and errors provides evidence that Justice is not immutably objective. This is absurd. People’s opinions will change all the time about the facts. so what? The facts don’t change.
Further, moral claims are not empirical kinds of claims! So we simply just lack empirical evidence. And the lack of evidence is not evidence at all. Period. This doesn’t entail that moral claims are therefore irrational to believe. So stop applying your overworshipped criterion to claims that don’t require empirical evidence anyway. Do you ever intend to have an intelligent discussion, or do you want to just play the role of a hard-a** and whitewash everything with your oversimplified and misunderstood criterion of existence?
I am not overlooking anything. You are overlooking the fact that you cannot offer empirical evidence for most of things you believe anyway, such as electrons, energy, force, and gravity. But this doesn’t make the belief that these entities exist irrational. So get off your redundant high horse as if you knew what you were talking about.
You haven’t demonstrated anything. All the entailments you think exist between your premises and conclusions are invalid, and your conclusions are inconclusive at best.
- Status