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
KF,
DS, The force of cruelty: callous indifference to or pleasure in causing physical and/or mental pain and suffering, such as by torture, bullying or abuse. If this is not evil and indeed a yardstick of evil, nothing is. KF
I agree again, but I am less certain about the truth of this than I am about "I exist". Do you feel the same way?
DS, + is the operator, the operation is in the process 2 + 3 –> ____, in effect take 2 as addend (first operand), then augment with 3 as augend (second operand). The result is the sum, here 5.
Do you therefore agree that 2 + 3 is a number? It seems silly to go further on this tangent, so I'll read your answer and leave it there.daveS
June 11, 2016
June
06
Jun
11
11
2016
08:28 AM
8
08
28
AM
PDT
DS, + is the operator, the operation is in the process 2 + 3 --> ____, in effect take 2 as addend (first operand), then augment with 3 as augend (second operand). The result is the sum, here 5. KFkairosfocus
June 11, 2016
June
06
Jun
11
11
2016
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT
DS, The force of cruelty: callous indifference to or pleasure in causing physical and/or mental pain and suffering, such as by torture, bullying or abuse. If this is not evil and indeed a yardstick of evil, nothing is. KFkairosfocus
June 11, 2016
June
06
Jun
11
11
2016
08:01 AM
8
08
01
AM
PDT
William J Murray @ 90
I’m going to break down my response to Seversky’s #66 into individual components to allow for more focus on specifics.
WJM said: 1. They dismiss morality as nothing more than strongly felt subjective preference, but admit they act as if morality is objective in nature.
Seversky responds:
Some atheists may take the position that they act as if morality is objective but I don’t. In my view, we choose to observe a moral code out of respect for our own interests and those of others. It is similar, in principle, to the way players of a particular sport will abide by its rules during a game. You could argue that they are acting as if the rules are objective but it’s really only because they want a good game. If everybody ignored the rules and did their own thing, there wouldn’t be a game, just a free-for-all.
Seversky is apparently contradicting himself by first claiming that he doesn’t hold the view that atheists act as if morality is objective, then claiming that the players only act as if the rules are objective because they want a good game. Acting as if the rules are objective because one wants a good game is acting as if the rules are objective all the same.
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. My argument is that moral codes are similar to the rules of a sport in the sense that both are rules of behavior that groups of people have consented to abide by in order to achieve certain outcomes which they agree are desirable.
And yes, the players do indeed act as if the rules they are playing are objective. (Actually, the rules are objective; they’re just not considered metaphysically absolute. There are referees at games whose job it is to enforce those objectively detailed rules and penalize anyone who doesn’t obey them.)
You can certainly interpret that behavior as indicating that they are acting "as if" those rules are objective in some sense but appealing to appearance is hardly evidence of the rules of football being woven into the fabric of the universe from its beginning. The fact that the rules are recorded in documentary form, for example, is only evidence for the objective existence of the document, not the rules. I have a large book on my shelf which is a very solid object but that doesn't mean that the story of The Lord of the Rings is anything other than a wonderfully inventive fiction. I don't infer from it that Middle Earth exists anywhere but in our imaginations.
Seversky here admits that if people actually acted as if the rules were subjective, you’d have a free-for-all, and counters that they act as if morality is objective (1) in order to best pursue their own interests and (2) out of respect for other people pursuing their interests ((2) actually being a subset of (1) – seversky implies it’s in your own best interest to respect others’ pursuit of their own interests).
No, I argued that if the rules were ignored there would be a free-for-all, as we sometimes see in various team sports where players lose their self-control. But, generally, players observe the rules of the game because they have a common interest in playing and, hopefully, winning the game. To a person living alone on a desert island proscriptions against murder or theft are simply irrelevant. There is no one there to kill and no property to be stolen. But human beings in society have a number of common interests which it is to their mutual benefit to protect from harm by others. Developing and agreeing on rules of behavior which protect those interests makes good sense on its own. There is no need to invoke objectivity as if it were somehow a warrant for those rules.
IOW, Seversky is making the case that it is not delusional to act as if morality is objective in nature while believing it is not when you are acting that way in pursuit of your own interests. IOW, seversky is using a deceitful facade of acting as if morality is objective in order to pursue his self-interests.
No, I am allowing that your interpretation of that behavior as acting as if that morality is objective is one possibility. I don't agree with it but, even if true, it would be flimsy evidence for the objectivity of morality. Attendees at fan conventions will act, for all intents and purposes, as if the worlds of Star Trek or Star Wars are objectively real but that doesn't mean they are for a moment.
Extending that logic, Seversky will act as if morality is subjective when and where he thinks it is in his personal self-interest to do so.
No, I will abide by the morality I was raised to observe because it is in my interests and that of the society in which I live that I do so. I could ignore them if I chose, just as you could, and if we were not caught in our transgression we might escape any unfavorable consequences. But we would ignore the force of gravity, for example, at our peril.
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.
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.
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.
Again, I would hope I would. The problem with the morality of such cultures - which, it has to be said, existed in western societies not that long ago - is that the women and children had - and in some areas still have - no say in the matter. They are decided by the men who rule and who often invoke religious beliefs as a justification for preserving their privileges.Seversky
June 11, 2016
June
06
Jun
11
11
2016
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
WJM,
So to you, “cruelty is good” is not an immediate contradiction? “Love is evil” is not an immediate contradiction?
To me, they are contradictory. 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?daveS
June 11, 2016
June
06
Jun
11
11
2016
07:52 AM
7
07
52
AM
PDT
KF @ 163: You're right. The only issue is whether or not people take the time and effort to think it through and are willing to upend ideological/emotional commitments that preclude accepting morality as an objective or absolute aspect of existence. If one says "cruelty is good", they may as well be saying "I do not exist" or "a thing can be both X and not-X at the same time" or "1+1=4". It's a nonsensical assertion only the mad and those deep in denial can assert. For any sane person, cruelty is absolutely and undeniably immoral. I'm thinking that DaveS just hasn't thought about it in the proper light before.William J Murray
June 11, 2016
June
06
Jun
11
11
2016
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT
KF,
DS, First 2 + 3 is a binary operation that yields a number, not a number itself. 5 is the result and this is a number. These are strictly categorically distinct things.
Eh? The binary operation is +. 2 + 3 is the result of applying the binary operation to 2 and 3, which is itself a number. Note that we could be having this discussion in the context of Presburger arithmetic, which is not in danger of being overturned.
DS, it directly leads to emptying “moral” of relevant meaning once we properly understand cruelty. As in if cruelty is not immoral then nothing else is immoral.
I agree, but how do I know this just isn't my personal preference? The reasoning here is more complicated than natural number addition. We are also dealing with the inherent vagueness of human language. I don't think it's possible to define "cruelty" exactly. Is caning children for minor offenses cruel? BTW, I'm not saying above that, because there is not universal agreement on what cruelty is, therefore "cruelty is immoral" is not an objective moral truth. I'm trying to illustrate why I am reluctant to claim to hold such objective knowledge.daveS
June 11, 2016
June
06
Jun
11
11
2016
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
daveS @164: So to you, "cruelty is good" is not an immediate contradiction? "Love is evil" is not an immediate contradiction?William J Murray
June 11, 2016
June
06
Jun
11
11
2016
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
DS, it directly leads to emptying "moral" of relevant meaning once we properly understand cruelty. As in if cruelty is not immoral then nothing else is immoral. KFkairosfocus
June 11, 2016
June
06
Jun
11
11
2016
06:45 AM
6
06
45
AM
PDT
WJM,
Can the proposition “I exist” be verified in any purely mechanical, absolutely certain way?
I don't believe so. I do accept that I can know, without a doubt, that I exist. However, I don't see that doubting "cruelty is immoral" leads to an immediate contradiction, as does doubting "I exist".daveS
June 11, 2016
June
06
Jun
11
11
2016
06:41 AM
6
06
41
AM
PDT
WJM, I am thinking there is an underlying issue with the concept of self-evidence, which is not currently fashionable. The point is, some beliefs are properly basic, and in this case are understood to be manifestly and necessarily true, on pain of immediate patent absurdity on attempted denial. Such absurdity in some cases is logical, in others, self-undermining, dynamical incoherence or reduction to confusion, or general delusion or the Plato's cave type fallacy of a regress of grand delusions or vicious infinite regress etc. But to properly have the belief one needs to have sufficient reflective understanding to be able to see the point clearly. Which, requires a general base of knowledge of reality and some introspection. As I just noted, too, there is a tendency to try to collapse into the analytic/ synthetic, a priori/ a posteriori categories but as we saw SETs do not fit in well there as happened with Hempel's attempt. 2 + 3 --> 5 is a MORE certain and far more readily accessible indubitable truth than something like ZFC could hope to be. (Don't get us started on degrees and types of certainty.) Where also SETs are key points of bridging the thought world and the outer reality of things in themselves. That is, they are key vehicles of truth and soundness. Which, are not exactly fashionable today. Then there are MORAL SETs. That one opens up an even bigger can of worms. That is why in my current argument I take time to start as follows:
1] The first self evident moral truth is that we are inescapably under the government of ought.
(This is manifest in even an objector's implication in the questions, challenges and arguments that s/he would advance, that we are in the wrong and there is something to be avoided about that. That is, even the objector inadvertently implies that we OUGHT to do, think, aim for and say the right. Not even the hyperskeptical objector can escape this truth. Patent absurdity on attempted denial.)
2] Second self evident truth, we discern that some things are right and others are wrong by a compass-sense we term conscience which guides our thought. (Again, objectors depend on a sense of guilt/ urgency to be right not wrong on our part to give their points persuasive force. See what would be undermined should conscience be deadened or dismissed universally? Sawing off the branch on which we all must sit.) 3] Third, were this sense of conscience and linked sense that we can make responsibly free, rational decisions to be a delusion, we would at once descend into a status of grand delusion in which there is no good ground for confidence in our self-understanding. That is, we look at an infinite regress of Plato’s cave worlds: once such a principle of grand global delusion is injected, there is no firewall so the perception of level one delusion is subject to the same issue, and this level two perception too, ad infinitum; landing in patent absurdity.
It seems people are unaware of just how pervasively our thoughts, words and acts are morally regulated and thus how conscience colours all of our thought life. If this be tarred with the taint of delusion, grand delusion is let loose and a vicious cascade of delusional cave worlds begins. We have no good reason to dismiss conscience on the whole. Which then points to the objectivity of morality and to our being in a kind of world where such is well founded. That, being momentous. KFkairosfocus
June 11, 2016
June
06
Jun
11
11
2016
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT
Someone has said that logical positivism (verificationism) “died a death of a thousand cuts.” Even major proponents like A.J. Ayer admitted “it was false.” If it wasn’t so sad, it would be amusing to watch our internet interlocutors trying to revive it in 2016 and apply it to ethics and morality. We could probably list this as another example of a delusion. Or maybe we should call it desperation. Here an interview with a chain-smoking Ayer candidly discussing logical problems of logical positivism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cnRJGs08hEjohn_a_designer
June 11, 2016
June
06
Jun
11
11
2016
06:06 AM
6
06
06
AM
PDT
DaveS said:
That 2 + 3 = 5 is true by definition can be verified in a purely mechanical, absolutely certain way. I don’t know of any way to likewise verify that “cruelty is immoral”.
Can the proposition "I exist" be verified in any purely mechanical, absolutely certain way?William J Murray
June 11, 2016
June
06
Jun
11
11
2016
04:24 AM
4
04
24
AM
PDT
Z7 @151: Cruelty reflects a predisposition or desire to inflict pain or suffering on another living being without good or necessary reason. No sane person person thinks it is good to inflict unwarranted pain and suffering on others; however, reasonable people recognize that sometimes pain and suffering are unavoidable, even necessary side effects of doing good. Harming others is not necessarily cruelty; harming others for nothing more than one's own pleasure or amusement is. Being able to recognize an SET requires conceptually understanding the terminology being used to describe it. If it can be moral to harm others for one's own pleasure (cruelty), then morality is an absurd proposition.William J Murray
June 11, 2016
June
06
Jun
11
11
2016
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT
DS, First 2 + 3 is a binary operation that yields a number, not a number itself. 5 is the result and this is a number. These are strictly categorically distinct things. The common eqn is a summmary of the operation and its result. The meaning is something like "the result of binop + applied to counting sets 2 and 3 [effectively a union of disjoint sets] is counting set 5." Though this is rather a case of sledgehammer, meet nut. Nut, it is too late for you. The RHS restates the LHS in an equation, in effect the result of specified ops as applied to given items is the same for both; numerically and as type of quantity, i.e. in the physical sense dimensionally. Thus, in simplifications or manipulations the same further ops must be applied to both sides. I am thinking there is a lot of carefully thought through wisdom in the "sums" expression so often used in teaching: 2 +3 _____ 5 Addend, augend, sum IIRC. Distinct names tied to diverse roles in a process. Hempel in effect suppressed a considerable amount of context. One thing that can be seen is that the ZFC approach and the final arrival at the result is not a proof awaited with bated breath. If it had failed here, ZFC would never have seen the light of day as a viable framework. We are more directly and substantially confident of this self-evident, easily manifested result than of the ZFC scheme. ZFC could conceivably be overturned [think say Godel], but not this result. This result stands by itself, that once the operation and its result are duly understood it will be seen that the result is so and necessarily so on pain of absurdity. Self-evidence in a way that ZFC hath not and cannot obtain. Again, distinct things with disparate, not just different, properties. However, all this allows us to see the significance of self evidence from a new angle. Where BTW part of what is involved is the further SET that a finite whole will be more than any proper part; i.e. part-whole relationship and composition as a process. I suspect this ties to the related point that functionally specific complex organisation of points is informational and that information needs a credible causal explanation. FSCO/I is not mere addition or accumulation. KFkairosfocus
June 11, 2016
June
06
Jun
11
11
2016
02:33 AM
2
02
33
AM
PDT
KF, Some interesting developments :-)
again, you cited Hempel (presumably with approval) as a source and I have responded to him, as he is trying to impose the concept that his is a matter of a priori analytic truth.
And I take it you disagree? Maybe I shouldn't be, but I am a little surprised at that.
For which in this case, the fact that the LHS enfolds an operation and two numbers whilst the RHS is a number is a key clue: in a crucial sense this is apples and oranges.
But surely we are in agreement that 2 + 3 = 5, correct? 2 + 3 and 5 do denote the same number.
Insofar as such are warranted (as opposed to proved) this is the test, to one with adequate understanding to see the connexions in the matter, is it instantly plain that the attempt to deny yields an absurdity?
Yes. Denial of 2 + 3 = 5 yields an absurdity. Yet the Hempel article does show how to verify any true natural number equation of the form a + b = c, assuming the usual definitions and stipulations.daveS
June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
10:14 PM
10
10
14
PM
PDT
DS, again, you cited Hempel (presumably with approval) as a source and I have responded to him, as he is trying to impose the concept that his is a matter of a priori analytic truth. The point is, there is far more than mere arbitrary a priori identities and definitions creating a game we may opt in or out on as it suits us at work here, hence the need for understanding of the world and key ideas connected to it that ground a SET. Lurking beneath, again, is the issue of the Kantian ugly gulch between the inner world of phenomena and thought and the outer one of things in themselves (which as noted is incoherent as to assert knowledge of an unbridgeable gap implies claimed knowledge of the outer world which then fails and by failing shows that accurate and warranted knowledge of that world is possible . . . ), where truth and warrant leading to knowledge are crucial issues; on which SETs are very important indeed. For which in this case, the fact that the LHS enfolds an operation and two numbers whilst the RHS is a number is a key clue: in a crucial sense this is apples and oranges. Likewise this case shows the significance of the patent absurdity on attempted denial test for a SET. Insofar as such are warranted (as opposed to proved) this is the test, to one with adequate understanding to see the connexions in the matter, is it instantly plain that the attempt to deny yields an absurdity? KFkairosfocus
June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
09:18 PM
9
09
18
PM
PDT
KF,
DS, the RHS states the result of an operation as a quantity, the LHS gives diverse numbers and an operation performed on same. || + ||| –> ||||| captures that aspect better than the statement as equation with equal sign (hence the wisdom of arrows in Chemical eqns); think about how we are taught basic arithmetic, concrete experience with sticks or the like, pictorial illustration then abstract formal symbolisation — a whole complex process of learning to acquire understanding. They are not at all a simple identity. One needs to understand quantities and the operation as well as the relevant equivalence relationship to see whether the sum is right or wrong.
Well, I don't see how I am implying otherwise? Clearly the left-hand side is a sum, while the right hand side is a single term. And of course we need to understand the natural numbers, addition, equality, and so forth. We are dealing with abstract entities, so we need to have clear ground rules. That's what Hempel calls "definitions" and "stipulations". Edit: I feel that this line of discussion is perhaps taking more space in the thread than it's worth, so unless there are a new and interesting developments, I will let you have the last word.daveS
June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
08:46 PM
8
08
46
PM
PDT
DS, the RHS states the result of an operation as a quantity, the LHS gives diverse numbers and an operation performed on same. || + ||| --> ||||| captures that aspect better than the statement as equation with equal sign (hence the wisdom of arrows in Chemical eqns); think about how we are taught basic arithmetic, concrete experience with sticks or the like, pictorial illustration then abstract formal symbolisation -- a whole complex process of learning to acquire understanding. They are not at all a simple identity. One needs to understand quantities and the operation as well as the relevant equivalence relationship to see whether the sum is right or wrong. The case is self evident because of its direct simple observability -- a matter of commonplace experience and memory of collective facts -- such that the absurdity of an error is patent. Hempel's presentation as cited is a strawman caricature of the situation, as is his onward forcing into the category analytic a priori truth imposed by definition in such a scheme. No, with all due respect, this is not a mere combination of definitions and game-rules yielding a result ahead of any case on the ground. Addition and standard results long preceded axiomatic systems in cultural history and personal development; we have forgotten the learning. KFkairosfocus
June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
08:23 PM
8
08
23
PM
PDT
KF,
DS, 2 + 3 = 5 is historically, factually, self-evidently and so also logically prior to any set of axioms and definitions beyond identifying what small whole numbers, addition and equality are; think in terms of bringing home the sheep and putting away in the sheep fold or picking fruit from a tree’s branches. Axiomatic systems come along MUCH later and in fact are partly accepted because they accord with what we know beyond doubt.
Yes, of course. However, can I not accurately say that "2 + 3 = 5 is true by definition"? I thought you were in agreement with this when you stated above that 2 + 3 = 5 is an analytic proposition.
And no the expression is not MERELY a way of saying the same thing twice, the LHS contains an OPERATION, not just a number.
I don't think I implied that, did I? All I'm saying is that the two sides are numerically equal.daveS
June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
08:09 PM
8
08
09
PM
PDT
07: Cruelty is evil and torture-murder of a young child is evil are both on the table. I suspect that you will find that the lesser of evils is . . . an evil; though it may well be the least of bad possibilities in a situation. That has not converted the evil into a good. To suggest that (and the points you put up seem to pivot on this suggestion . . . ) would indeed be absurd. KF PS: The posing of dilemmas forcing choices among evils has too often been used to taint people's consciences under false colour of moral education and values "clarification." In fact these are subversive exercises used to undermine values. There is an anecdotal case on I think the lifeboat who gets tossed overboard loaded case study on which the kids involved set out to work out a way to save all involved instead of playing God. They came up with a plausible solution, only to have the tutor most displeased. The Birkinhead drill is a similar solution: women and children with boat crews first. Where, reportedly some men on the Titanic made a similar choice despite social status putting them in a position to save themselves.kairosfocus
June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT
DS, 2 + 3 = 5 is historically, factually, self-evidently and so also logically prior to any set of axioms and definitions beyond identifying what small whole numbers, addition and equality are; think in terms of bringing home the sheep and putting away in the sheep fold or picking fruit from a tree's branches. Axiomatic systems come along MUCH later and in fact are partly accepted because they accord with what we know beyond doubt. Hempel puts the cart of axiomatic theory before the horse of basic mathematical fact. There is a place for that but it is not a sound answer to the point being made here. And no the expression is not MERELY a way of saying the same thing twice, the LHS contains an OPERATION, not just a number. The result of that operation yields a quantity which is the same as what we have on the RHS and is stated when the operation is correctly deployed, but a number is not to be equated to an operation. KF PS: Hempel's words:
it merely states that any set consisting of 3 + 2 objects may also be said to consist of 5 objects. And this is so because the symbols "3 + 2" and "5" denote the same number
kairosfocus
June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
07:37 PM
7
07
37
PM
PDT
Barry @146 I think the SET that wJM proposed was "cruelty is immoral" rather than "gratuitous torture of a child for pleasure is evil". So taking WJM's example, and leaving aside the problems of verification Dave S has raised, I can refute it without patent absurdity. Ever hear of the phrase "cruel to be kind"? What about waterboarding. Clearly that is cruel. But I imagine there a many people reading this who believe it is justified in certain circumstances. It's easy to think of examples where cruelty is not immoral. Torturing someone for information that will save a million lives, when the only way to get the information is to torture the person. For example.zeroseven
June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT
Barry,
2+3=5 cannot be verified. It is accepted as self-evidently true because any denial would come at the price of affirming an absurdity.
If it _were_ possible to work in a system where every true equation of the form a + b = c could be verified using some minimal set of assumptions and definitions, would that not be preferable? That's what Hempel (whom I quoted above) demonstrates on pages 546--547 of this article. In fact he verifies that 3 + 2 = 5 is true by definition in this manner.daveS
June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT
It's rather sad really, to see the clown fish meltdown. If only there were something that is objectively morally wrong. Anything.Mung
June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT
daveS "If someone told me that I simply act according to my own preferences, I don’t think I could refute that." Then you have not been paying attention.Barry Arrington
June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
JAD, I do have a moral conscience, but I don't know how to verify that it guides me to act in an objectively moral fashion. If someone told me that I simply act according to my own preferences, I don't think I could refute that.daveS
June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
daveS: "That 2 + 3 = 5 is true by definition can be verified in a purely mechanical, absolutely certain way." This may be counter intuitive to you dave, but your statement is false. There is no way to verify that statement. It is either accepted as self-evidently true, or not. Think about it. What more basic steps of reasoning would you employ to verify the equation? That's right; there are none. You can say the same thing in different ways such as || + ||| = ||||| or "a set with a cardinality of two added to a set with cardinality of three results in a set with a cardinality of five." But they all amount to the same statement. That is another feature of a self-evident truth. It does not depend upon (indeed cannot be) "verified" (as you say) by a process of "precept upon precept" reasoning. As WJM has been trying to tell you, a self-evident truth is, by definition, a truth that is accepted because rejection would be upon pain of patent absurdity. 2+3=5 cannot be verified. It is accepted as self-evidently true because any denial would come at the price of affirming an absurdity. "Gratuitous torture of a child for pleasure is evil" is accepted as self-evidently true because any denial would come at the price of affirming an absurdity in the exact same way.Barry Arrington
June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
daveS,
That 2 + 3 = 5 is true by definition can be verified in a purely mechanical, absolutely certain way. I don’t know of any way to likewise verify that “cruelty is immoral”.
So, you don’t have a moral conscience?john_a_designer
June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT
WJM,
What is of more interest to me is why you characterized your moral knowledge as less certain and more hesitant when, given the moral scenario I outlined, you appear immediately and absolutely certain of the objectively immoral nature of the act.
That 2 + 3 = 5 is true by definition can be verified in a purely mechanical, absolutely certain way. I don't know of any way to likewise verify that "cruelty is immoral".daveS
June 10, 2016
June
06
Jun
10
10
2016
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4 7

Leave a Reply