Morality Poll

[thewanderer]

You do claim to objectively use a thought process, but as it can’t be validated then it is essentially meaningless. The only meaning it contains is that meaning which you give to it…subjectively. I can argue all day with someone that bigfoot exists, and I can 'objectively show you why, but unless these proofs can be validated they are really just words, and then one should realize that the objectiveness of the process was probably flawed. Everything has to be validated. That was one of the major points of the philosophy that everyone constantly overlooks - it has to be validated. Ayn Rand was fond of saying that there is nothing wrong with being wrong…Meaning that we think we may have objectively come to a conclusion…and then it has to be a validated standard…if it can’t be done then back to the drawing board you go.

I understand that the definition I just put forward is not what you mean by an objective thought process, but, if you were to accept this definition ( I realize that in reality you will not) would you still claim that no theist is objective?

 

[Robert_Caritas]

You do claim to objectively use a thought process, but as it can’t be validated then it is essentially meaningless. The only meaning it contains is that meaning which you give to it…subjectively. I can argue all day with someone that bigfoot exists, and I can 'objectively show you why, but unless these proofs can be validated they are really just words, and then one should realize that the objectiveness of the process was probably flawed. Everything has to be validated. That was one of the major points of the philosophy that everyone constantly overlooks - it has to be validated. Ayn Rand was fond of saying that there is nothing wrong with being wrong…Meaning that we think we may have objectively come to a conclusion…and then it has to be a validated standard…if it can’t be done then back to the drawing board you go.

Just a fun little argument:

Saying that the only valid criterion of knowledge is objective justification is self-contradictory – because this criterion can’t be objectively justified!

I haven’t gone over the whole debate your having – so I’m not sure if this is relevant – but I thought that I’d post this.

 

[thewanderer]

Just a fun little argument:

Saying that the only valid criterion of knowledge is objective justification is self-contradictory – because this criterion can’t be objectively justified!

I haven’t gone over the whole debate your having – so I’m not sure if this is relevant – but I thought that I’d post this.

That is a point I brought up that wasn’t answered, but thats ok, because I’m not trying to prove ManRay wrong, just trying to get him to realize that there are theists with much more intellectual integrity and honesty than he currently assumes.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Iron Donkey;9934833:

Dude this is insane. You and I have a completely different understanding of what words and concepts mean. If I give you a flippin map that uses a language we (supposedly) understand, with coordinates borne of that language. Rigor. Validated standards, etc…etc… and I follow it, and the lake isn’t there - Then the MAP IS WRONG or THERE ISN"T A LAKE…I can validate this

…Give to a cartographer…let every human being on earth follow the map, WHATEVER YOU WANT- and if one finds it then- show it to me!!! Demonstrate it! In a way that I CANNOT INVALIDATE. Coming back and stating that you don’t really have evidence of the lake being there, and then stating that you believe it’s their anyway…because this map just has to be right IS NOT TRUTH…IT JUST ISN’T MAN - You are arguing in circles…it’s all falling apart for you…seriously. Give up.

I CAN VALIDATE THAT THE MAP IS WRONG OR THE LAKE ISN"T THERE - OBJECTIVELY
YOU CANNOT VALIDATE THE MAP IS CORRECT WITHOUT DEMONSTRATING THE LAKE OR VICE VERSA… WITHOUT A BELIEF COMPONENT

THAT IS THE DIFFERENCE>

Man I can’t talk to you anymore. I’m sorry…we just aren’t on the same page, and we never will be. I wish you the best…thanx for your time.

Ha, very well. Last point then: You mention 2 options: wrong map, or lake isn’t there.

Option 3: you aren’t as adept at reading maps as you thought. Because many people have used the map and gotten to a lake. Or at the very least, have thought they got to a lake. Not all people who follow the map will do so correctly, this is an empirical fact based on the fact that people will disagree over whether an argument is sound or not.

To claim otherwise is to claim that you have the magical ability to understand and follow every logical argument without making a mistake. You almost seem to be claiming this, but even if you have this ability, it’s clearly not universal - otherwise we wouldn’t be disagreeing. Therefore different people will think that different questions are verifiable, hence objective.

Since there’s really no way to tell who has your magical map reading skills - no way for an outsider to verify that any other person has them, since without considering his own magical map reading skills there would be no reason to believe that he was correct even if he came to the conclusion that the other person did have them - then by your definition the very question of which questions are objective is subjective.

Which is insane, I agree. I just think it’s because your definition is silly rather than because we must assume that everyone is capable of verifying everything that is in some sense verifiable.

 

[StevenFrancis]

I’m not sure what an “absolute morality code” is. What I DO believe is that there is only one truth. One right set of ethics. One right morality. I am not a moral relativist. Whether a person sets their life towards morality vs. immorality doesn’t require religion, however, to be fair, the greater number of persons who live towards morality, seem more often than not to embrace a religious faith and practice.

Morality comes from natural law which is in all of our hearts. The Church not only orders and codifies the natural law, but provides an outlet for gratitude, worship, and participation in grace through sacramental life. If rightly thought of and practiced, the Catholic faith can help us to more easily order our lives towards morality than someone without a compass, organization, or sacraments.

Yours in Christ,

Steven

 

[thewanderer]

Just a fun little argument:

Saying that the only valid criterion of knowledge is objective justification is self-contradictory – because this criterion can’t be objectively justified!

I haven’t gone over the whole debate your having – so I’m not sure if this is relevant – but I thought that I’d post this.

ManRay;9935355:

Ha, very well. Last point then: You mention 2 options: wrong map, or lake isn’t there.

Option 3: you aren’t as adept at reading maps as you thought. Because many people have used the map and gotten to a lake. Or at the very least, have thought they got to a lake. Not all people who follow the map will do so correctly, this is an empirical fact based on the fact that people will disagree over whether an argument is sound or not.

To claim otherwise is to claim that you have the magical ability to understand and follow every logical argument without making a mistake. You almost seem to be claiming this, but even if you have this ability, it’s clearly not universal - otherwise we wouldn’t be disagreeing. Therefore different people will think that different questions are verifiable, hence objective.

Since there’s really no way to tell who has your magical map reading skills - no way for an outsider to verify that any other person has them, since without considering his own magical map reading skills there would be no reason to believe that he was correct even if he came to the conclusion that the other person did have them - then by your definition the very question of which questions are objective is subjective.

Which is insane, I agree. I just think it’s because your definition is silly rather than because we must assume that everyone is capable of verifying everything that is in some sense verifiable.

Well put both of you!

 

[ManRay]

I understand that the definition I just put forward is not what you mean by an objective thought process, but, if you were to accept this definition ( I realize that in reality you will not) would you still claim that no theist is objective?

(At risk of offending you - I hope that I don’t! Because you seem to be a right cool person) I think a theist comes to their belief from a probably hidden pre-conceived notion. I would argue that a theist was already probably of the position that they thought there was some supernatural force outside of the universe. I would argue that there are two types of people in that regard. The one being a person that not only needs an explanation…but WANTS an explanation. The other really doesn’t care in that sense. (not that environment, and geographical location don’t have a heavy influence) I reason that every person comes to their conclusion objectively in that sense, but not every person seems to come to grips with the possibility/reality that their standards, and methods of validation were wrong. This is where cognitive dissonance comes into play. My philosophical hero is Ayn Rand. I don’t think her epistemology in regards to reality can be broken - she sums it up quite well in a few paragraphs:

*Every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to Him rests on a false metaphysical premise. None can survive for a moment on a correct metaphysics.

For instance, God is infinite. Nothing can be infinite, according to the Law of Identity. Everything is what it is, and nothing else. It is limited in its qualities and in its quantity: it is this much, and no more. “Infinite” as applied to quantity does not mean “very large”: it means “larger than any specific quantity.” That means: no specific quantity—i.e., a quantity without identity. This is prohibited by the Law of Identity.

Is God the creator of the universe? There can be no creation of something out of nothing. There is no nothing.

Is God omnipotent? Can he do anything? Entities can act only in accordance with their natures; nothing can make them violate their natures . . .

“God” as traditionally defined is a systematic contradiction of every valid metaphysical principle. The point is wider than just the Judeo-Christian concept of God. No argument will get you from this world to a supernatural world. No reason will lead you to a world contradicting this one. No method of inference will enable you to leap from existence to a “super-existence.”*

 

[ManRay]

This just further proves my point. You aren’t comprehending language- Everything you just postulated was dealt with in my post. you either ignored it, or don’t understand it.

ManRay;9935355:

Ha, very well. Last point then: You mention 2 options: wrong map, or lake isn’t there.

Option 3: you aren’t as adept at reading maps as you thought. Because many people have used the map and gotten to a lake. Or at the very least, have thought they got to a lake.

I can validate this…Give to a cartographer…let every human being on earth follow the map, WHATEVER YOU WANT- and if one finds it then- show it to me!!! Demonstrate it! In a way that I CANNOT INVALIDATE.

Not all people who follow the map will do so correctly, this is an empirical fact based on the fact that people will disagree over whether an argument is sound or not.
To claim otherwise is to claim that you have the magical ability to understand and follow every logical argument without making a mistake. You almost seem to be claiming this, but even if you have this ability, it’s clearly not universal - otherwise we wouldn’t be disagreeing. Therefore different people will think that different questions are verifiable, hence objective.

Since there’s really no way to tell who has your magical map reading skills - no way for an outsider to verify that any other person has them, since without considering his own magical map reading skills there would be no reason to believe that he was correct even if he came to the conclusion that the other person did have them - then by your definition the very question of which questions are objective is subjective.

Which is insane, I agree. I just think it’s because your definition is silly rather than because we must assume that everyone is capable of verifying everything that is in some sense verifiable.

This is insanity…it’s like you are arguing that not a thing can be known. I think it’s fair to say that you are a Kantian subjectivist. I’m at peace with that. Like I said. I’m done.

 

[thewanderer]

(At risk of offending you - I hope that I don’t! Because you seem to be a right cool person) I think a theist comes to their belief from a probably hidden pre-conceived notion. I would argue that a theist was already probably of the position that they thought there was some supernatural force outside of the universe. I would argue that there are two types of people in that regard. The one being a person that not only needs an explanation…but WANTS an explanation. The other really doesn’t care in that sense. (not that environment, and geographical location don’t have a heavy influence) I reason that every person comes to their conclusion objectively in that sense, but not every person seems to come to grips with the possibility/reality that their standards, and methods of validation were wrong. This is where cognitive dissonance comes into play. My philosophical hero is Ayn Rand. I don’t think her epistemology in regards to reality can be broken - she sums it up quite well in a few paragraphs:

Every argument for God and every attribute ascribed to Him rests on a false metaphysical premise. None can survive for a moment on a correct metaphysics.

For instance, God is infinite. Nothing can be infinite, according to the Law of Identity. Everything is what it is, and nothing else. It is limited in its qualities and in its quantity: it is this much, and no more. “Infinite” as applied to quantity does not mean “very large”: it means “larger than any specific quantity.” That means: no specific quantity—i.e., a quantity without identity. This is prohibited by the Law of Identity.

Is God the creator of the universe? There can be no creation of something out of nothing. There is no nothing.

Is God omnipotent? Can he do anything? Entities can act only in accordance with their natures; nothing can make them violate their natures . . .

“God” as traditionally defined is a systematic contradiction of every valid metaphysical principle. The point is wider than just the Judeo-Christian concept of God. No argument will get you from this world to a supernatural world. No reason will lead you to a world contradicting this one. No method of inference will enable you to leap from existence to a “super-existence.”

Don’t worry, it takes more than someone disagreeing with me to offend me, I’ve got a thicker skin than that.

Also, as to the quotes provided, that is all assuming that metaphysics ascribed to by to by Ayn Rand is actually the correct metaphysics, but can this actually be proven? Some say yes and some say no, so how do we determine who is right in this matter? Do we just say that those who agree with us are right and those who disagree with us are wrong? Or do we make as good of an effort as we can to look into the philosophy itself and try to compare it with reality as best we can, all the while doing our utmost to remove any personal bias and preconceived notions from the mix?

This is why I am bringing the idea of an objective thought process back to the attempt to remove all subjectivity from ones reasoning about reality. Every person is subject to subjective thinking, its a part of who we are.

Also, there’s the fact that talking about whether or not all the premises are actually objective means that one is talking about the statements themselves which are held as being objective rather than talking about the thought process itself as objective. Again, hence the reason I asked about it the way that I did. I am asking about the process itself on the part of the person involved, how they go about trying to understand reality.

So you still haven’t really answered my question.

 

[thewanderer]

This is insanity…it’s like you are arguing that not a thing can be known. I think it’s fair to say that you are a Kantian subjectivist. I’m at peace with that. Like I said. I’m done.

Since I agreed with what he had to say, I feel like I have a right to respond to this.

Again, I think the problem lies in what you mean by “known”. Trust me, I am far, far, from being a follower of Kant. But I certainly do not ascribe to the idea that there are all that many things that can be known with 100% certainty by everyone. When the average person talks about “knowing” something they do not mean that they have carefully gone back to the very first principles and built up from there on absolutely foolproof arguments with irrefutable evidence from the world around them. They mean that they have sufficient evidence of it to be confident that that statement corresponds with reality. Now, sometimes they will be wrong in their conclusions, but does that mean that it was irrational for them to be confident in its truth? I cannot validate that Africa exists. I cannot go there and personally validate it, all I can do is take other peoples word for it, and I consider that sufficient evidence to be confident that it exists and so I am willing to go around saying that I know that it exists. And to be honest, that is all that most people can do about most things, trust on authority, which hardly counts as thinking objectively according to your definition.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

This just further proves my point. You aren’t comprehending language- Everything you just postulated was dealt with in my post. you either ignored it, or don’t understand it.

I can validate this…Give to a cartographer…let every human being on earth follow the map, WHATEVER YOU WANT- and if one finds it then- show it to me!!! Demonstrate it! In a way that I CANNOT INVALIDATE.

Already addressed. Let every human on earth follow the map, and what happens is a whole bunch find it and (so far, since theism is more common than atheism at this particular point in time to the best of my knowledge) a slightly smaller whole bunch don’t.

Problem is, the journey is a journey of the mind [cue cheesy twilight zone style music]. So all we can do is tell each other that we found it and try to show the way to explain how to get there. But even in showing the way, I cannot actually take you there. I cannot take you anywhere. I cannot control your mind. All I can do is try to give you more and more detailed maps. And the fact that you find nothing when you use them does not objectively invalidate the claim that anything is there, it only subjectively does so from your point of view - because there is no outside way of verifying that you followed the map correctly.

This is insanity…it’s like you are arguing that not a thing can be known. I think it’s fair to say that you are a Kantian subjectivist. I’m at peace with that. Like I said. I’m done.

I must admit that I don’t really know what this means, however I will say that I believe there is an objective reality, and that we all have our subjective perceptions of it which can err on any particular part, and that we should do our best using reason and the like to make sure the two line up as closely as possible. But I do not think there’s a certain (as in “is incapable of being misunderstood”) way of showing that they do to anyone else - the best we can do is use reason to the best of our ability and assume that we used it correctly until we are shown that we didn’t. However, I do believe that repeated and careful use and practice of using reason will generally tend to lead our subjective perceptions towards the correct objective one.

So I suppose in the sense of “known” that I usually hear atheists use the word, then I am arguing that nothing can be known. But I tend to think of that word slightly differently as well - however, given our resounding success at settling that last difference in word meaning, I think I’ll let that one lie for now. Wouldn’t want to accomplish too much in one week.

So yeah, I think we can’t “know” anything (in your sense of the word). But I’m optimistic that much of what we believe is actually correct for the reasons we think it is, even if we cannot “know” this.

 

[ManRay]

Let every human on earth follow the map, and what happens is a whole bunch find it and (so far, since theism is more common than atheism at this particular point in time to the best of my knowledge) a slightly smaller whole bunch don’t.

Then show me the the lake in a way that I can’t invalidate it. If you ask me to demonstrate gravity…I can walk you off the edge of a building - show me this god. Demonstrate it IN A WAY THAT IS INCONTROVERTIBLE. VALIDATE IT IN A WAY THAT I CAN’T PLAUSIBLY REBUT. A bunch of people believing in something is a really weak argument (not to mention a logical fallacy). So as far as your concerned then the loch Ness monster is an incontrovertible fact that has been validated? When has it been ever been proven that the masses are the holders of deep knowledge…I can tell you right now - if general experience is all that accounts for knowledge then I will claim that the average American is a schmuck who worships at the alter of Wal-Mart…Yea!! That’s my argument!

I think we all just have to part ways on this…thanx for your time. best of luck in all endeavors.

 

[epan]

This poll was hard to answer, because any student of history knows that no religion has ever practiced an absolute moral code over time. Yes, I know that this is a popular topic in the CC right now. But facts are facts.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Let every human on earth follow the map, and what happens is a whole bunch find it and (so far, since theism is more common than atheism at this particular point in time to the best of my knowledge) a slightly smaller whole bunch don’t.

Then show me the the lake in a way that I can’t invalidate it. If you ask me to demonstrate gravity…I can walk you off the edge of a building - show me this god. Demonstrate it IN A WAY THAT IS INCONTROVERTIBLE. VALIDATE IT IN A WAY THAT I CAN’T PLAUSIBLY REBUT. A bunch of people believing in something is a really weak argument (not to mention a logical fallacy). So as far as your concerned then the loch Ness monster is an incontrovertible fact that has been validated? When has it been ever been proven that the masses are the holders of deep knowledge…I can tell you right now - if general experience is all that accounts for knowledge then I will claim that the average American is a schmuck who worships at the alter of Wal-Mart…Yea!! That’s my argument!

I think we all just have to part ways on this…thanx for your time. best of luck in all endeavors.

Problem is, if you walk me off the edge of building, all I’ve really learned is that I fell down one time. What’s to say it’d happen every time? Why should I believe that it’s not just some fluke? As I’ve said, all we can do is give each other maps. Granted, throwing me off a building would be a rather good map to try to lead me to the conclusion that things generally fall towards the ground, if I’ve decided that my experiences are normative, but it’s nothing that would prove this point.

As I’ve said, unless you think all humans’ logical abilities are perfect, the mere fact that you do or do not agree with an argument is not enough to objectively prove to anyone else that it’s been refuted. It’s only been subjectively refuted, meaning that your best guess is that it is objectively wrong. But that means nothing to me, unless and until you can convince me that whatever reasoning you used was correct.

 

[thewanderer]

Let every human on earth follow the map, and what happens is a whole bunch find it and (so far, since theism is more common than atheism at this particular point in time to the best of my knowledge) a slightly smaller whole bunch don’t.

Then show me the the lake in a way that I can’t invalidate it. If you ask me to demonstrate gravity…I can walk you off the edge of a building - show me this god. Demonstrate it IN A WAY THAT IS INCONTROVERTIBLE. VALIDATE IT IN A WAY THAT I CAN’T PLAUSIBLY REBUT. A bunch of people believing in something is a really weak argument (not to mention a logical fallacy). So as far as your concerned then the loch Ness monster is an incontrovertible fact that has been validated? When has it been ever been proven that the masses are the holders of deep knowledge…I can tell you right now - if general experience is all that accounts for knowledge then I will claim that the average American is a schmuck who worships at the alter of Wal-Mart…Yea!! That’s my argument!

I think we all just have to part ways on this…thanx for your time. best of luck in all endeavors.

I hope you don’t think I was trying to convince you that Catholicism, or even theism is objetively true. I’m really not trying to do anything like that, I am making a very different (and much easier to prove) point, that it is wrong to say that all theists are intellectually dishonest, which is often implied by saying they are not being objective, but which I think can’t really be implied from your definition of objective, which is why I set that definition aside for the moment. I honestly think that there has been a lot of confusion on here because of equivocation and not understanding all the nuances in the other person’s opinions.

 

[ManRay]

I really have no idea what we are talking about anymore. tee hee… .

I hope you don’t think I was trying to convince you that Catholicism, or even theism is objetively true. I’m really not trying to do anything like that, I am making a very different (and much easier to prove) point, that it is wrong to say that all theists are intellectually dishonest, which is often implied by saying they are not being objective, but which I think can’t really be implied from your definition of objective, which is why I set that definition aside for the moment. I honestly think that there has been a lot of confusion on here because of equivocation and not understanding all the nuances in the other person’s opinions.

 

[thewanderer]

I really have no idea what we are talking about anymore. tee hee… .

lol, isn’t that the way every philosophical conversation goes, if we’re really honest.