Leaning towards Skepticism

[Bradskii]

Yes, but why would your judgement be more valid than other people judgement? What is your objective standard for morality? The neo nazis for example would see the same data and came to the conclusion that genocide of a certain race is justified what would invalidate their judgement? It cause needless suffering? So what?

So if your child asked you why the holocaust was wrong, you wouldn’t be able to explain it to her without reference to God? God says it’s wrong, therefore…

If that’s the case then we’re all in a lot of trouble. Don’t you think a Hindu or an atheist might be able to give you some hints and tips without referencing the Abrahamic God?

Ah, but we’re all bags of chemicals. Heat death etc. The universe could care less. Please tell me that’s not your argument.

Edit: Apologies, the above quote was from DMSP.

 

[Bradskii]

Paragraphs are a great idea.

 

[anon99031074]

Epistemologically, belief in a god is independent of observable fact. Any god or deity is a truth and not a fact. Meaning that it’s existence is solely based on the acceptance of a conscious entity that the god or deity exists. Essentially God, in the Catholic sense (which is meaning I will use for the rest of this post), exists, epistemologically, simply and solely because we believe that God exists.

God certainly exists within the subjective minds of believers as an idea, and sometimes as the label used to identify a subjective experience. I would argue that demons also exist in the same way. So if a mental patient hears voices they identify as coming from the demon Zu, then Zu and the voices of Zu, are real within the subjective mind space of that patient, as an experience. Whether Zu also exists independently of the subjective mind of the mental patient, such that it would continue to exist even if the patient died, I sincerely doubt.

The rest of what you write is hard for me to make any kind of coherent sense out of.

 

[anon99031074]

Edit: Apologies, the above quote was from DMSP.

No problem. I did write a lot of text. In fact, a lot more than anyone who wishes to mimimize suffering should probably be reading I think a non-arbitrary morality can be constructed on the basis of universal resistance to suffering among sentient beings, and the fact that all such beings live interdependently. For people who experience empathy, it can be even further refined through the golden rule, etc.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Edit: Apologies, the above quote was from DMSP.

No problem. I did write a lot of text. In fact, a lot more than anyone who wishes to mimimize suffering should probably be reading I think a non-arbitrary morality can be constructed on the basis of universal resistance to suffering among sentient beings, and the fact that all such beings live interdependently. For people who experience empathy, it can be even further refined through the golden rule, etc.

Exactly right. And to reiterate, just because everyone has different ideas on what constitutes a morally good act, it DOES NOT mean that all those ideas are equally valid.

If we grant that avoiding suffering is a good thing (and empathy comes in kinda handy here) and we use the golden rule (aka reciprocal altruism) then there is nothing to stop us working out a system of morality that tells us that Ghandi was a good guy and Pol Pot wasn’t.

 

[PhiriTalk]

God certainly exists within the subjective minds of believers as an idea, and sometimes as the label used to identify a subjective experience. I would argue that demons also exist in the same way. So if a mental patient hears voices they identify as coming from the demon Zu, then Zu and the voices of Zu, are real within the subjective mind space of that patient, as an experience. Whether Zu also exists independently of the subjective mind of the mental patient, such that it would continue to exist even if the patient died, I sincerely doubt.

The rest of what you write is hard for me to make any kind of coherent sense out of.

But that’s the thing though, is that God is an objective experience. All truths are objective. Only observable facts are subjective to the experience of the observer. Belief in God is not comparable to mental illness. It is more comparable to a belief in capitalism or fascism or communism because those, in and of themselves, are unobservable truths which exist objectively in the minds of those who subscribe to them.

Truth is objective. Facts are subjective.

 

[Senyorico]

Thanks for the references brother!

 

[Senyorico]

Thanks for the time Brother!

 

[anon99031074]

But that’s the thing though, is that God is an objective experience. All truths are objective. Only observable facts are subjective to the experience of the observer. Belief in God is not comparable to mental illness. It is more comparable to a belief in capitalism or fascism or communism because those, in and of themselves, are unobservable truths which exist objectively in the minds of those who subscribe to them.

Truth is objective. Facts are subjective.

I don’t think we can communicate meaningfully on this issue. We lack a common language. I have no idea what you mean when you use terms such as objective, subjective, truth or facts.

 

[PhiriTalk]

I apologize for my opacity. For clarity I recommend reading a book called Quantum Mind and Social Science by Alexander Wendt.

 

[De_Maria]

Proving the universe had the beginning doesn’t automatically mean that a deity created it, how would I convince my self to believe in God? Thank you for your help!

As for me, I was once an atheist. From one day to another, I became convinced of the existence of God. It occurred on the day that my wife revealed that she was pregnant. At that moment, I entered a profound sense of wonder. At the moment that those words reached my ears, it was as though I was transported. I didn’t hear anything else that she said. All I remember is that, I walked outside and for the first time in my life, I could see the hand of God in every aspect of the world. In the clouds, in the leaves, everything.

At that moment, I came to believe in God. It was another five years or so before my studies convinced me that the Catholic Church was the true Church that God provided to Teach His Word.

I hope that helps. May God bless you and guide you to Himself.

 

[TheLittleLady]

These articles and reading lists may help:

The Existence of God : Strange Notions

 

[DMSP]

Well, first we would need to make a claim, or a statement of some sort, using humanly constructed language…

But in order for us to be able to discuss anything at all we need to default to the priori position of that this world is real right? Otherwise we can’t even be sure that the other people even exist. But naturalism would have no basis at all to affirm that priori position, because if naturalism is true everything that we perceive and all of our inferences are just biological process, we are basically a machine with no free will and therefore how would we that what we perceive and infer are true and not simply because we are wired that way? The priori position of naturalism would be solipsism but that would defeat the assertion that naturalism would be true because in solipsism nothing is known except the self

It is not whether or not I make the judgment which makes it more or less valid. Both I and nazis and all sentient beings universally dislike suffering…

Well but why would it matter if the nazis are hypocrite they have no free will, they are just following their biological-sociological protocol if naturalism is true

I don’t live in the cosmic scale. As long as I live, happiness matters and suffering matters to me …

I note that it does matter to me if I suffer, and it did matter to my cat if it suffered as long as it walked the earth on its four legs…

Yes, but by that very definition it is therefore a subjective meaning not objective. There wouldn’t be anything wrong with a psycopath that kills you or your cat any other people because no one would have an objective meaning. The nihilist atheists have it right, without God there is no objective meaning to anything

And my point was that an object like an ipad…

Yes, but the physical construct we named ipad begin to exist, apple would be its efficient cause and the bolts, wires, etc would be the material cause. In the same way the physical universe that is the stars and galaxies, the quarks, and so on begin to exist at some point. The very theory of big bang means that the universe has a beginning

Well, I don’t see how changeless agency works either…

To be fair, it is a hard concept to grasp certainly but it does not follow that therefore it is not true. I found plenty of theoritical physic to be hard to grasp that doesn’t mean that any of the theories are any less feasible. In fact I would doubt any theory that attempt to give answer to the nature of reality that is easy to grasp

 

[DMSP]

So if your child asked you why the holocaust was wrong, you wouldn’t be able to explain it to her without reference to God? God says it’s wrong, therefore…

No, I would tell my child that it is wrong because human life is invaluable and any act of killing is regrettable even more when it is done en masse with a stupid reasoning. But that would only be valid if God exist, if God does not exist then there would be no objective value to a human life which basically amount to a clump of cells in the vast empty universe

If that’s the case then we’re all in a lot of trouble. Don’t you think a Hindu or an atheist might be able to give you some hints and tips without referencing the Abrahamic God?

Certainly, the argument was never that you cannot be moral or know morality without belief in the Abrahamic God. The argument was if there is no God any God then there would be no objective moral standard and therefore no moral judgement to be made

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

So if your child asked you why the holocaust was wrong, you wouldn’t be able to explain it to her without reference to God? God says it’s wrong, therefore…

No, I would tell my child that it is wrong because human life is invaluable and any act of killing is regrettable even more when it is done en masse with a stupid reasoning. But that would only be valid if God exist, if God does not exist then there would be no objective value to a human life which basically amount to a clump of cells in the vast empty universe

If that’s the case then we’re all in a lot of trouble. Don’t you think a Hindu or an atheist might be able to give you some hints and tips without referencing the Abrahamic God?

Certainly, the argument was never that you cannot be moral or know morality without belief in the Abrahamic God. The argument was if there is no God any God then there would be no objective moral standard and therefore no moral judgement to be made

Something tells me that your discusssion with your child would go exactly as so many parent/child discussions:

P: ‘You mustn’t do that to Johhny’
C: ‘Why?’
P: ‘Well, would you like it if he did it to you?’

No need for God or any explanation that people are valuable in themselves. All you need is empathy and a sense of the Golden Rule. I am valuable to myself and to my family. Therefore other people must have value.

And nobody, and I mean nobody, considers anyone to be a simple bag of chemicals. I really don’t know why this is trotted out so often. Is that what you really think people who don’t believe in God actually think? Bizarre…

And why if there is no objective moral standard you cannot make a moral judgement? Give me any problem and I’ll give you my judgement. And then we can put forward reasons why it’s wrong or not. That’s what everyone does all the time.

‘I think that’s right because of X, Y and Z’
‘No, you are wrong because A, B and C’.

If one of your reasons is ‘Because God says so’, then all you have to do is prove to me that you know that’s what He wants and the reasons why. So you still need sensible reasons on which we can all agree.

If it’s just ‘God says so’ and nothing more, then we head down a slippery slope we shouldn’t go anywhere near.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Because God says so or because I say so. The “I say so” is subjective. Whichever “I” one happens to favor.

Catholic morality is objective. It’s one of the things that drew me to Catholicism.

But in the end, a moral choice must be made, even if that choice is to believe that morality is a social construct (therefore, it’s because society says so).

Catholics believe in divine revelation, and so indeed believe because God said so. We also believe God is love, and as such, following a set of rules because God said so, while right and Good, is lacking in what God calls us too…communion with Him.

We follow what God says, ultimately, as a response to God’s love, our love for God being the reason for following Him. It isn’t about rule following, as of course, rule following for the sake of rule following, is lacking in freedom. God created us as rational beings, so that we may among other things, follow Him in freedom.

For myself, following whatever human of the day, with good moral ideas, is lacking in objectivity. What is morally right can change with the wind. Following myself, well, I tried that and found I have a knack for going down trails that dead end.

 

[Bradskii]

Because God says so or because I say so. The “I say so” is subjective. Whichever “I” one happens to favor.

Catholic morality is objective. It’s one of the things that drew me to Catholicism.

But in the end, a moral choice must be made, even if that choice is to believe that morality is a social construct (therefore, it’s because society says so).

Catholics believe in divine revelation, and so indeed believe because God said so.

Morality is subjective. As you said. What is wrong or right to me is dependant on what I personally decide. But if you say that something is wrong or right because God has told you, how do I know that’s exactly what He wants? I only have your word for it. And we certainly have a problem if someone else makes a different call to you on a moral matter. She says God has told her something different.

I would prefer some reasons so I can differentiate between the two views. Isn’t that reasonable? And if we have reasons and we decide that one of you is right and the other wrong, then at least one of you was mistaken in thinking God had told you what to do.

Something of a conumdrum, eh?

 

[RebeccaJ]

Indeed, it is important., and it is subjective when it’s whatever one personally decides. I think that is the point. It’s rational to be skeptical of humanistic morality,. It’s rational to be skeptical about God. But even skepticism requires a level of faith, unless one is a nihilist, then we’re talking about something different. Faith in oneself, to always determine the object of a moral choice and the objective decision, faith in society to determine the same, or faith in God.

God is the object of Catholic morality. God is love. The goal of rule following isn’t ticking off boxes. It’s love of God, family and neighbor. As discussed, we are created ordered toward this Good, but we are fallen, and so gravitate away from good, which we call God.

Anyone who tries to live a moral life, ordered towards love, good will towards others and according to their conscience, is an ally of ours. All we have to say, is God is love, and desires our love in return. All are invited to join us at the well.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Regarding “clump of cells”. Humanist arguments usually include the argument that humans yet to be born, are not really human, that they are only clumps of cells.

Catholic morality, is such that we believe all human life should be treated with dignity. Even the human life that some seek to deny that dignity, by calling that life “a clump of cells”.

To us, if those yet to be born are just clumps of cells, well so are we, as we stand in solidarity with all human life. Not just human life that happens to have grown past an arbitrary stage. In other words, we hope to show love and goodwill to all humans, including those who are here, living in this world, yet still to be born.

 

[Bradskii]

Indeed, it is important., and it is subjective when it’s whatever one personally decides. I think that is the point. It’s rational to be skeptical of humanistic morality,. It’s rational to be skeptical about God. But even skepticism requires a level of faith, unless one is a nihilist, then we’re talking about something different. Faith in oneself, to always determine the object of a moral choice and the objective decision, faith in society to determine the same, or faith in God.

God is the object of Catholic morality. God is love. The goal of rule following isn’t ticking off boxes. It’s love of God, family and neighbor. As discussed, we are created ordered toward this Good, but we are fallen, and so gravitate away from good, which we call God.

Anyone who tries to live a moral life, ordered towards love, good will towards others and according to their conscience, is an ally of ours. All we have to say, is God is love, and desires our love in return. All are invited to join us at the well.

All very good. But you didn’t answer the question: If something is right because God says so, then how do I know that you are right in knowing what God wants and someone else is wrong?

To whom do I listen?