Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

10 Reasons Why Atheists Are Delusional

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Atheists/materialists/physicalist/naturalists are delusional. Here are 10 reasons why:

1. They dismiss morality as nothing more than strongly felt subjective preference, but admit they act as if morality is objective in nature.

2. They speak, act and hold others responsible for their behaviors as if we all have some metaphysical capacity to transcend and override the deterministic effects of our body’s physical state and causative processing, yet they deny any such metaphysical capacity (like free will) exists.

3. They deny truth can be determined subjectively while necessarily implying that their arguments and evidences are true and expecting others to subjectively determine that their arguments are true.

4. They deny that what is intelligently designed can be reliably identified when virtually every moment of their waking existence requires precisely that capacity.

5. They deny that some abstract concepts are necessarily true and objectively binding on our existence (such as the fundamental principles of math, logic and morality) yet reference them (directly or indirectly) as if they are exactly that.

6. They deny humans are anything other than entirely creatures of nature, yet insist that what humans do is somehow a threat to nature or some supposed natural balance.

7. They insist humans are categorically the same as any other animals, but then decry it when humans treat other humans the same way other animals treat their own kind (alpha male brutality, violence, etc), as if humans have some sort of obligation to “transcend” their “animal” nature.

8. They insist that physical facts are the only meaningful truths that exist, but then want to use force of law to protect subjective concepts that contradict physical facts, like “transgenderism”.

9. They insist spiritual laws that transcend the physical do not exist, but then insist that all humans are equal, when they factually, obviously are not equals at all – either physically or intellectually.

10. They pursue social systems that attempt to force the concept of equality on everyone as if they expect that through ignoring the physical realty of human inequality they can build a sound social system, which would be comparable to ignoring the inequality of building materials and insisting that they all be treated as equal when building a skyscraper.

Comments
Delusional indeed. And retarded :)Truthfreedom
August 8, 2020
August
08
Aug
8
08
2020
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
Seversky @200 Perhaps because there is gain to be had in immoral acts. The conscience is easily seared and justification can be imported to maintain pretty much any position. I am sure the children experiencing such abuse would have held a different view to the abusers. Their thinking was more likely to be on the lines of survival of the fittest and might and manipulation makes right. The fruit gained from this evil fulled pompous life styles for the elites (through ruthless armies) would have had the intellectuals encouraging (or at least justifying) such things. A lesson for you from history? NO of course not! What you are doing is new under the sun. You have no god. You get a free pass in life and the here after. I would say it would have been self evidently wrong to every Spartan at some time in their life and they either fought against it or seared the conscience to it (to reap the 'benefit' from it) Scientism or evolutionism is merely a tool to sear the (God given) conscience with. Nothing more.DillyGill
June 28, 2016
June
06
Jun
28
28
2016
01:27 AM
1
01
27
AM
PDT
@ zeroseven #20 'It’s amazing how all those hundreds of millions of cognitively deficient, delusional atheists around the world seem to be able to live such successful and fulfilled lives. I guess they are the type of delusions and cognitive dissonances that don’t have any effect on the ability to live successful lives.' It is anything but amazing. For them, cognitive dissonance would be one of their most felicitous gifts. They don't even have to be psychopaths, though it is evidently very helpful, as the complexion of the upper tiers of government and Big Business attests ; not to speak of the history of mankind, which is largely the history of their ministrations, whether as largely hidden malefactors of the 'deep state' or the political minions they buy. Why would worldlings not achieve eminent worldly success : 'Where your treasure is, there also will be your heart.'Axel
June 23, 2016
June
06
Jun
23
23
2016
09:51 AM
9
09
51
AM
PDT
Barry Arrington @ 194 My apologies, for some reason I missed this:
Consider this statement: Torturing a child for pleasure is good. Is it possible in any conceivable universe for the statement to be true?
Yes. In fact, it's more than possible and you don't have to look for other universes to find an example. Recently, I was reading reviews of the movie 300 which led me to research more about the city-state of Sparta. If you do the same you will find that, not only were babies of suspect fitness left out on a hillside overnight to see if they survived but that children were forcibly drafted into the Spartan army from aged 7, subjected to a harsh and violent training regime and even exploited sexually. Today, we would regard such treatment as the most extreme child abuse on an institutional scale. Yet, for the warrior culture of Sparta this was an honorable hence moral hence good thing to do. Why wasn't this self-evidently wrong to the Spartans?Seversky
June 14, 2016
June
06
Jun
14
14
2016
02:58 PM
2
02
58
PM
PDT
Seversky in response to my challenge at 194: [crickets] I thought so.Barry Arrington
June 13, 2016
June
06
Jun
13
13
2016
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT
seversky @192 said:
I assume you consider all of the above grossly immoral just like the rest of us. So who’s right, then or now, and how do we know? Objective phenomena like gravity or light were the same for the people of 1848 as they are to us. If morality’s objective then how come they didn’t see it just as clearly as we do?
Were objective phenomena like gravity or light explained/described the same way, and viewed the same way, then as they are now? Were they explained/described the same way, and viewed the same way, in the 1600's? In every culture in every time? It seems you and others in your camp are utterly incapable of grasping a very easily understood point: just because descriptions of a thing vary from time to time and from culture to culture does not mean the thing itself is subjective in nature. It's really quite remarkable to see you and others trot out this same failed, debunked argument over and over. It's like it is a cornerstone of your objection to moral objectivism and, no matter how well refuted or how often, you simply cannot let it go or else your whole defense crumbles.William J Murray
June 13, 2016
June
06
Jun
13
13
2016
07:22 AM
7
07
22
AM
PDT
I'll now address another one of Seversky's points @66, where he said:
We all have the appearance of having free will to some extent but how do we know if that appearance or sensation is not predetermined?
We don't know. That's not the point. The point is how we must act, think and argue - as if we and others have free will.
There is also the problem of an omniscient God with demonstrable foreknowledge of the future rendering this appearance of free will an illusion
Seversky led of his comments in this post accusing me of offering up straw men, but it is he who offers up a big fat one here: whatever god might be is entirely irrelevant to the question of how people must act, argue and even think - as if we have free will.
In practice all we can do is act as if we have free will and see where it gets us.
It appears that Seversky is here agreeing that we all indeed act as if we have free will.
And since when does free will have to be a metaphysical capacity?
"Metaphysical" meaning, transcending the cause and effect, deterministic/chance processes of happenstance interacting matter and energy. We do not act, argue or talk as if everything everyone says, does and thinks is due to physical determinism/happenstance chemical interactions. The statement "we do not have free will" requires an assumption of metaphysical free will to be taken as anything more than a dog barking or the wind rustling leaves and making happenstance sounds.William J Murray
June 13, 2016
June
06
Jun
13
13
2016
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
Serversky said @170, wrt playing games according to rules:
Not precisely, I wrote that “You could argue that they are acting as if the rules are objective”- as, indeed, you do – but I do not agree.
Seversky makes the argument that he (and by extension other sane people) can act as if morality is a kind of social game where he can adopt the rules for the benefit of himself, others, and society (the game). Later, I challenged him about what he would do in a scenario where a different set of rules was adopted by society and then majority:
However, I don’t believe any of it. Seversky, like the rest of us, deeply understands there is a right way and a wrong way to play the game of life regardless of what arbitrary rules and laws may say, and I’m sure he doesn’t act for a second in his life as if morality was an arbitrary set of rules he can simply ignore for his own selfish self-interests. In fact, I’d wager Seversky is quite willing to ignore his own self-interests to obey certain moral principles even when there appears to be only potential negative ramifications in store for him for obeying moral obligations which conflict with the majority.
Seversky responds, trying to have it both ways:
I would hope I would act in defense of people whose rights and interests were being violated, whether by individuals or a majority. Majorities can be wrong, in my view, if they violate the agreed rights of a minority of their members without good cause.
What "agreed rights of a minority" is he referring to? Minorities only have the "rights" given them by the government or the majority. Is he attempting to draw a distinction between the majority and the law, as if "the law" was somehow a higher arbiter of oughts than the majority? Seversky's hypiocrisy becomes clear in the following exchange. I challenged Seversky with just such a hypothetical based on laws and culture:
Or, perhaps if a certain Muslim culture took over in the USA an passed corresponding laws, Seversky would be all too willing to treat women like property and sexually abuse children in order to “play the game” the masses have consented to. I sorta doubt it, though. I sorta think that, like me, Seversky would disregard and oppose those “arbitrary rules” to the death.
To which Seversky responded:
I would hope I would.
The question is, why would Seversky "hope he would" disobey the rules of the muslim/sharia culture game" when obeying those rules as if a game is being played is the cornerstone of his argument for subjective morality? If cultures can be likened to football vs basketball vs soccer vs golf, the very definition of immoral behavior would be breaking those rules while playing that particular game since there is nothing which transcends those games to tell us which game is better.William J Murray
June 13, 2016
June
06
Jun
13
13
2016
07:04 AM
7
07
04
AM
PDT
Vivid and HEKS, excellent. KFkairosfocus
June 12, 2016
June
06
Jun
12
12
2016
11:51 PM
11
11
51
PM
PDT
Seversky @ 192 You delight in hijacking threads and changing subjects. I decline your invitation, but I will make you a deal. Answer this question in good faith and I will answer yours: Consider this statement: Torturing a child for pleasure is good. Is it possible in any conceivable universe for the statement to be true?Barry Arrington
June 12, 2016
June
06
Jun
12
12
2016
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT
Sev "So logically even you have to allow that it is possible just like the rest of us." Heks had this to say on another thread about logical possibilities which I thought might be apropo. "Is it a mere logical possibility, without reference to any other background factors, that the belief of a moral objectivist about the moral status of any given act is mistaken? Sure it is. It’s also logically possible that moral objectivists are wrong about the existence of any objective morality. It’s also logically possible that I’m a brain in a vat, that no minds external to my own exist, than you’re merely a figment of my imagination, or that I (and everyone else, if they exist) just winked into existence with memories of a past that never happened. We don’t typically consider the fact that some proposition or state of affairs is merely logically possible to necessarily mean that it is remotely plausible, or reasonable to believe, or, especially, something that ought to guide our actions in important aspects of life. For example, it is logically possible that the extremely consistent ways in which we’ve observed physical reality behave throughout history are not the result of a set physical laws that constrain its behavior but are merely the result of an astronomically improbable string of chance outcomes, such that it is entirely possible that the next time you drop a hammer it will hit the ceiling instead of the floor. Does the knowledge that this is logically possible make you feel emboldened to jump off a tall building this afternoon? If you are not seriously considering taking a swan dive off the nearest skyscraper right now then you should realize that the mere acknowledgement of the logical possibility that one might be wrong on some highly important issue is not likely to impact their actions unless they think they have good reasons to think they’re wrong. If they think all of the available evidence most reasonably indicates that they’re right then they are going to continue to act in accord with their existing belief. As I said earlier, I consider a belief in Objective Morality to be properly basic, and I addressed in more detail what I mean by that in my second article here responding to Popperian (linked in comment #52). So I can acknowledge the mere logical possibility that I or anyone else could be mistaken in my view of the moral status of any given action, but I also recognize that I have no rational reason to believe I am mistaken in the absence of any powerful reason to think I am." Vividvividbleau
June 12, 2016
June
06
Jun
12
12
2016
02:08 PM
2
02
08
PM
PDT
Barry Arrington @ 185
daveS, do you assert that it is possible in any conceivable universe for the statement “torturing a child for pleasure is good” to be true? If you are, then you are hopeless and we will end the discussion. If you are not, then the matter is resolved. It really is that simple. Put up or shut up Dave.
The inauguration of the women's rights movement in the US is customarily dated to 1848. In July of that year Elizabeth Cady Stanton published a Declaration of Sentiments, Grievances, and Resolutions. It included this list of grievances which effectively summarized the status of women in American and European Society:
Married women were legally dead in the eyes of the law Women were not allowed to vote Women had to submit to laws when they had no voice in their formation Married women had no property rights Husbands had legal power over and responsibility for their wives to the extent that they could imprison or beat them with impunity Divorce and child custody laws favored men, giving no rights to women Women had to pay property taxes although they had no representation in the levying of these taxes Most occupations were closed to women and when women did work they were paid only a fraction of what men earned Women were not allowed to enter professions such as medicine or law Women had no means to gain an education since no college or university would accept women students With only a few exceptions, women were not allowed to participate in the affairs of the church Women were robbed of their self-confidence and self-respect, and were made totally dependent on men
This was considered permissible and moral at that time - by the men, at least. And if the situation were bad enough for white women consider how much worse it was for black women slaves. Yet slavery was considered permissible and even moral, by some at least. I assume you consider all of the above grossly immoral just like the rest of us. So who's right, then or now, and how do we know? Objective phenomena like gravity or light were the same for the people of 1848 as they are to us. If morality's objective then how come they didn't see it just as clearly as we do? Oh, and as for your question, I don't know anything about alien civilizations elsewhere in this universe or any other universe and neither do you. So logically even you have to allow that it is possible just like the rest of us.Seversky
June 12, 2016
June
06
Jun
12
12
2016
12:35 PM
12
12
35
PM
PDT
It’s tragic that daveS (along with several other recent interlocutors here) has such a shallow view of his fellow man and his own humanity. Society can survive with a few incorrigible cynics, I don’t think it can survive with a large number of them. As ancient Geek thinkers like Plato understood, one of the goals of moral ethical theory was the question of how one can create or establish a just society. However, you cannot even begin down that path without the presupposition that man-to-man moral obligations are real and binding.john_a_designer
June 12, 2016
June
06
Jun
12
12
2016
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT
DS, much pivots on that word, hope; sadly -- at obvious cash value -- it implies that you find yourself unable to rule out BA's possibility. KF PS: I read 184, that's why I am stressing the concerns I have raised about mathematical SETs.kairosfocus
June 12, 2016
June
06
Jun
12
12
2016
11:07 AM
11
11
07
AM
PDT
KF, Re #187: Again, please read the last three sentences of my #184. Re #188: I would hope that "torturing a child for pleasure is good" is false in any possible world. I prefer not to affirm statements that I cannot justify, however.daveS
June 12, 2016
June
06
Jun
12
12
2016
10:48 AM
10
10
48
AM
PDT
DS, do you then affirm that “torturing a child for pleasure is good” is false in this or any other relevant possible world? KFkairosfocus
June 12, 2016
June
06
Jun
12
12
2016
10:23 AM
10
10
23
AM
PDT
DS, the theories are less certain that what they "verify." ZFC for instance was built to be compatible with these facts. If it was not it would have never been taken seriously. Nor is the truth of the claim a mere matter of definitions that are essentially arbitrary, the understandings of 2, 3, 5 the addition operation and equality as used are connected to and embedded in reality. KFkairosfocus
June 12, 2016
June
06
Jun
12
12
2016
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
Barry, No, I do not assert that.daveS
June 12, 2016
June
06
Jun
12
12
2016
07:26 AM
7
07
26
AM
PDT
daveS, do you assert that it is possible in any conceivable universe for the statement "torturing a child for pleasure is good" to be true? If you are, then you are hopeless and we will end the discussion. If you are not, then the matter is resolved. It really is that simple. Put up or shut up Dave.Barry Arrington
June 12, 2016
June
06
Jun
12
12
2016
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PDT
KF,
DS, you keep referring to what seems so to you.
Yes. I would be referring to a statement which I believe to be true, but about which I have reservations. What would be a better way to phrase this?
Likewise, I suggest that self evident basic mathematical truths of order || + ||| –> ||||| are utterly beyond doubt, they are prior to and utterly more certain than axiomatised schemes such as ZFC (I speak here as one humbled by a former hallmate on the point by concrete demonstration which forced me to open up bit by bit to SETs and their independent stature).
That's fine, but that's not the issue I'm debating. I assert that it is the case that "2 + 3 = 5 is true by definition" can be verified in certain theories. I don't think you disagree with that, do you?daveS
June 12, 2016
June
06
Jun
12
12
2016
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
WJM, Just a couple of comments on the rest of your post, starting at the end:
There is no argument I can muster to force doubt from you because, presumedly, you have free will. Free will can maintain doubt even where it is absurd. IMO, at the end of the day, a person simply has to choose whether or not to accept morality as an objective phenomena. No argument can pry doubt from the minds of those wishing not to believe.
It's not the case that I "[wish] not to believe". Rather, I don't feel I can make a strong case myself in favor of objective morality. I'm a skeptic by nature, and some find my doubts unreasonable of course.
Here is the thought process I use to quantify moral truths as objective phenomena; first, I experience moral good and evil via my conscience. Second, I immediately recognize them as categorically different than subjective preferences and values the same way I recognize the principles of logic, math and sensory input as categorically different from subjective feelings. Third, I necessarily act as if clear moral oughts are as objectively binding as clear mathematical principles, logical principles, and sensory input. I recognize the absurdity of trying to think, act or argue as if those principled systems are subjective in nature. I cannot act like a solipsist; I cannot argue as if logic is not binding; I cannot act as if morality is subjective in nature.
I hope I'm not being unfair in summarizing the second step as "I immediately recognize good and evil as objective entities, so they in fact are objective entities". If that's a fair reading, and you do indeed have the ability to make this determination, then I have no criticism of your thought process.daveS
June 12, 2016
June
06
Jun
12
12
2016
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
DS, you keep referring to what seems so to you. This, in context raises the Kantian ugly gulch issue. Hence my pointing out F H Bradley's 1897 corrective. Likewise, I suggest that self evident basic mathematical truths of order || + ||| --> ||||| are utterly beyond doubt, they are prior to and utterly more certain than axiomatised schemes such as ZFC (I speak here as one humbled by a former hallmate on the point by concrete demonstration which forced me to open up bit by bit to SETs and their independent stature). Such simply are not proved by procedures in such systems, at most the systems show connexion to reality by leading to such bedrock results and agreeing with them; a proposed scheme that fails to do so would be seen as a dead end and abandoned. As I in effect said above. Finally, I gave the context, testing claimed prophecies. KFkairosfocus
June 12, 2016
June
06
Jun
12
12
2016
06:35 AM
6
06
35
AM
PDT
KF,
DS, do you notice your focus on the world of appearances?
No, could you point to some instances of this?
Even in mathematics, the issue of the bridge between the world of things in themselves and our inner mental life needs bridging, hence my focus above on the SET nature of 2 + 3 –> 5. Where, such is much more directly and irrefutably certain than any scheme such as ZFC.
To clarify, I don't believe that axiomatic or formal systems are "irrefutably certain"; that doesn't quite make sense to me. It's like saying that a car is irrefutably certain. What I claim is that in certain theories (e.g., Presburger arithmetic), one can prove that 2 + 3 = 5 starting from the definitions.
PS: Prove all things is actually a guidance regarding testing things in a particular context:
Of course.daveS
June 12, 2016
June
06
Jun
12
12
2016
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
PPS: A particularly relevant application of that, c 65 AD, from Peter, then chief eyewitness; about to be judicially murdered by Nero on a patently false accusation of treasonous arson against Rome (that demonically mad and utterly perverted emperor hoping thereby to extinguish the suspicion that he had given the order on or about July 18, 64 AD):
2 Peter 1:10 Therefore, brothers,[g] be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. 11 For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. 12 Therefore I intend always to remind you of these qualities, though you know them and are established in the truth that you have. 13 I think it right, as long as I am in this body,[h] to stir you up by way of reminder, 14 since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ made clear to me. 15 And I will make every effort so that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things. 16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son,[i] with whom I am well pleased,” 18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 19 And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. 21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. [ESV]
kairosfocus
June 12, 2016
June
06
Jun
12
12
2016
02:09 AM
2
02
09
AM
PDT
DS, do you notice your focus on the world of appearances? I suggest that this points to issues on the Kantian style ugly gulch that will need to be resolved by you, thence the question of objectivity of truth as what is credibly true beyond the mere perception of an individual or group. Even in mathematics, the issue of the bridge between the world of things in themselves and our inner mental life needs bridging, hence my focus above on the SET nature of 2 + 3 --> 5. Where, such is much more directly and irrefutably certain than any scheme such as ZFC. In the moral province, there are incorrigible truths of conscious experience regarding conscience as a sense that urges us to the right and the true that can only be relegated to delusion on pain of letting grand delusion loose in our inner lives without firewalls. Thus, these and closely connected matters are also self evident. Of course, in the end we have a residual freedom of choice . . . which itself (as well as consciousness in general) is utterly unaccounted for on evolutionary materialism. KF PS: Prove all things is actually a guidance regarding testing things in a particular context:
1 Thess 5:12 We ask you, brothers, to respect those who labor among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, 13 and to esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves. 14 And we urge you, brothers, admonish the idle,[c] encourage the fainthearted, help the weak, be patient with them all. 15 See that no one repays anyone evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to everyone. 16 Rejoice always, 17 pray without ceasing, 18 give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. 19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not despise prophecies, 21 but test everything; hold fast what is good. 22 Abstain from every form of evil. [ESV]
kairosfocus
June 12, 2016
June
06
Jun
12
12
2016
02:00 AM
2
02
00
AM
PDT
WJM, Thanks for laying out your thought process. I've had a busy day, so I won't be able to read it in detail for a day or two. I will reply to some of the rest of your post.
You keep reiterating “what you believe” as if it somehow counters the potential for others to reject or doubt those things you personally hold as objectively binding.
I don't think it counters anything; I'm simply describing some of my positions FTR when asked about them. Anyone who rejects or doubts my claims to know certain objective truths is of course invited to respond.
I understand that, for whatever reason, you draw the line at morality and feel such doubt is warranted. However, I do not see how such doubt is warranted other than by drawing an entirely arbitrary line in the sand of personal, plato’s-cave experience.
For me, the line is not at morality specifically. My interest is how we separate mere opinion from objective truth in general.
What’s to stop me from saying that I hold the principles of logic or analytic propositions to be opinions that lie upon the myth of the given and reject foundationalism altogether as an oppresive form of thought control?
Well, I find that to be an uninteresting position, so I'm not at all motivated to argue against it at the moment. Now if someone could make a compelling case for it, that might pique my interest.
Doubting the objective nature of morality might be an interesting sojourn into sophistry, and it might provide one intellectual distance from unpalatable ideas, but it is as functionally barren a proposition as “I may not exist” or “A may not always equal A, depending on my personal preference”.
Whether you find it sophistry or not, some of us do indeed find it interesting. "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good."daveS
June 11, 2016
June
06
Jun
11
11
2016
03:47 PM
3
03
47
PM
PDT
DaveS @176: You keep reiterating "what you believe" as if it somehow counters the potential for others to reject or doubt those things you personally hold as objectively binding. I understand that, for whatever reason, you draw the line at morality and feel such doubt is warranted. However, I do not see how such doubt is warranted other than by drawing an entirely arbitrary line in the sand of personal, plato's-cave experience. What's to stop me from saying that I hold the principles of logic or analytic propositions to be opinions that lie upon the myth of the given and reject foundationalism altogether as an oppresive form of thought control? Here is the thought process I use to quantify moral truths as objective phenomena; first, I experience moral good and evil via my conscience. Second, I immediately recognize them as categorically different than subjective preferences and values the same way I recognize the principles of logic, math and sensory input as categorically different from subjective feelings. Third, I necessarily act as if clear moral oughts are as objectively binding as clear mathematical principles, logical principles, and sensory input. I recognize the absurdity of trying to think, act or argue as if those principled systems are subjective in nature. I cannot act like a solipsist; I cannot argue as if logic is not binding; I cannot act as if morality is subjective in nature. I recognize that questioning "I exist" is as absurd as questioning, (as KF points out), "I ought" or "A=A" or "1+1=2" or "error exists". Doubting the objective nature of morality might be an interesting sojourn into sophistry, and it might provide one intellectual distance from unpalatable ideas, but it is as functionally barren a proposition as "I may not exist" or "A may not always equal A, depending on my personal preference". It seems to me that you are simply insisting on having doubt about the objective nature of morality, even when faced with moral statements you immediately and unequivocally recognize as true and would immediately and unequivocally react to as if objectively true and metaphysically absolute. even to the point of putting your own safety in jeopardy. There is no argument I can muster to force doubt from you because, presumedly, you have free will. Free will can maintain doubt even where it is absurd. IMO, at the end of the day, a person simply has to choose whether or not to accept morality as an objective phenomena. No argument can pry doubt from the minds of those wishing not to believe.William J Murray
June 11, 2016
June
06
Jun
11
11
2016
09:56 AM
9
09
56
AM
PDT
WJM,
How is “I exist” not also necessarily true only “to me”? Do you presume to speak for the existential experience of everyone else when you insist that “I do not exist” is objectively self-contradictory?
Well, the argument is that it's logically impossible for any being to doubt his existence without existing, correct? So I do presume to speak for everyone else in that case.
Do you also claim that the analytic propositions and mathematical truths you experience as categorically, objectively valid with absolute certainty necessarily extend beyond your personal experience?
Analytic propositions, yes. The mathematical truths that I assert are objectively true are statements of the form "under these definitions and stipulations, X follows", and I do believe they extend beyond my personal experience. By that I mean, for example, that any being capable of understanding "in natural number arithmetic, 1 + 1 = 2" would also accept it as true.
How do you determine 1+1=2 is an objective truth and not simply an aspect of a solipsistic delusion?
Just to be clear, I claim it's objectively true that 1 + 1 = 2, assuming the standard definitions and stipulations, as Hempel puts it. I believe that it's objectively true because one can form a valid argument starting with those definitions and stipulations and arrive at 1 + 1 = 2.
If one wishes to, they can extend their doubt into analytic propositions, mathematical principles and even to the SET principles of logic itself (as we have seen people do here). The question is, why stop here, and not there? Why draw the line at that which you agree are experiential moral certainties which cannot be traversed without rendering “good” and “evil” absurd notions?
I'm up for investigating doubt in any setting, really. Do you have any specific suggestions?
It seems to me you are working overtime and employing arbitrary objections you refuse to employ elsewhere to cast doubt on the concept that morality refers to an objective commodity. The question is, why? What is about morality that drives you and other to cling to the idea that it may not be an objective commodity even if it means absurdity and hypocrisy?
More accurately, I'm trying to understand more clearly the thought process one uses in identifying objective moral truths, and specifically, distinguishing them from mere opinions. Is there a process, other than just saying that "any sane person knows that X is an objective moral truth"?daveS
June 11, 2016
June
06
Jun
11
11
2016
09:02 AM
9
09
02
AM
PDT
DS, strictly 2 + 3 is an operation on two operands (2, 3) using the + operator yielding as result the sum, here, 5. Next, the fact of error means that degree of personal certainty of belief is not a reliable index of warrant. In this case cruelty is always evil; privation, frustration or wrenching of the good and valuable from its proper place, form or fulfillment. In this case cruelty is indifferent to or positively delights in disregard for rights and duties of care through inflicting harm callously or even for pleasure. This is doubly evil, not only in the harm/ wrong to the victim but the degradation of the one resorting to cruelty. Attempted denial of the evil in cruelty would have such a sweeping impact that if cruelty -- a very yardstick -- is not evil, nothing would then be evil. KFkairosfocus
June 11, 2016
June
06
Jun
11
11
2016
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
DS said:
To me, they are contradictory.
How is "I exist" not also necessarily true only "to me"? Do you presume to speak for the existential experience of everyone else when you insist that "I do not exist" is objectively self-contradictory? Do you also claim that the analytic propositions and mathematical truths you experience as categorically, objectively valid with absolute certainty necessarily extend beyond your personal experience?
How do I determine “cruelty is not good” is an objective moral truth, rather than just my opinion? If I think denial of it is an absurdity, is that good enough?
How do you determine 1+1=2 is an objective truth and not simply an aspect of a solipsistic delusion? If one wishes to, they can extend their doubt into analytic propositions, mathematical principles and even to the SET principles of logic itself (as we have seen people do here). The question is, why stop here, and not there? Why draw the line at that which you agree are experiential moral certainties which cannot be traversed without rendering "good" and "evil" absurd notions? It seems to me you are working overtime and employing arbitrary objections you refuse to employ elsewhere to cast doubt on the concept that morality refers to an objective commodity. The question is, why? What is it about morality that drives you and other to cling to the idea that it may not be an objective commodity even if it means living in a state of absurd hypocrisy?William J Murray
June 11, 2016
June
06
Jun
11
11
2016
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
1 2 3 7

Leave a Reply