Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-02-2017, 06:54 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 06:37 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 06:27 PM)mordant Wrote:  You haven't engaged on any of my actual points. I don't honestly give a fig what Stanford says philosophically about skepticism. I'm interested (or was, anyway) in what YOU think about it and whether you can argue for a better use of it than I have.
If you're referring to doubt, then I agree with you. There's no reason to believe something unless you have logical justification. But even to claim doubt, you would have to work under fallibilism.
Doubt, to my mind, presupposes a bias against a proposition. I prefer a neutral stance. Not affording belief is not the same as doubting. Doubting is (at least a provisional) knowledge claim. With respect to unfalsifiable propositions such as the existence of invisible supernatural beings and realms, I make no knowledge claim and assert that no one else legitimately can either. I simply see no valid evidence, argument or reasoning that would persuade me to think the existence of such things at all likely. In fact I have quite a bit of reason to think them exceedingly unlikely. As such I don't afford belief to them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes mordant's post
02-02-2017, 07:00 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 06:54 PM)mordant Wrote:  I simply see no valid evidence, argument or reasoning that would persuade me to think the existence of such things at all likely. In fact I have quite a bit of reason to think them exceedingly unlikely. As such I don't afford belief to them.

I've used that same argument against dualism many times.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 07:03 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 06:49 PM)mordant Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 06:34 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Skepticism is not the same as doubt. You are using them as synonyms.
As I use the term, skepticism has nothing to do with doubt. Doubt is uncertainty / lack of conviction. By itself it is not informed by facts, but by perception and emotion that may or may not be accurate. I doubt many things about which I am not skeptical. Mostly inconsequential things or things I have extensive experience with.

To me, skepticism is simply an understanding that my minds tends to want to believe things that aren't so. I was a theist for a long time, despite that the tenets of my religion of origin utterly failed to explain experienced reality or predict outcomes. At some point the cognitive dissonance was more than I could bear and I found an epistemology that explained experienced reality and the outcomes in my life. To do this I had to not doubt my former beliefs so much as be committed to believe them only if they could survive falsification. They completely failed on that score.

Now that may not be Stanford's approved meaning of skepticism, or even the best meaning, but it is what I am talking about when I use the word.

Your skepticism is not a traditional skeptic epistemology. It seems you're simply stating that people believe things they want to believe? Well yes, but that seems somewhat obvious. I think we both understand that belief should originate from a logical justification. Right? I was a theist when I was very young, but by seventh grade, I was an atheist. I debated the subject on the side of atheism for years. It was pithy slogans and surface-level arguments that converted me to atheism. It was an understanding of philosophy that made me question atheism. Simply asserting science isn't enough. You need further justification. For example, why are you able to use inductive reasoning? That's the foundation of science and yet most scientists never deal with this problem.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 07:05 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 06:54 PM)mordant Wrote:  Doubt, to my mind, presupposes a bias against a proposition. I prefer a neutral stance. Not affording belief is not the same as doubting. Doubting is (at least a provisional) knowledge claim. With respect to unfalsifiable propositions such as the existence of invisible supernatural beings and realms, I make no knowledge claim and assert that no one else legitimately can either. I simply see no valid evidence, argument or reasoning that would persuade me to think the existence of such things at all likely. In fact I have quite a bit of reason to think them exceedingly unlikely. As such I don't afford belief to them.

Ok let's work with your implicit claims that you've failed to support. You implicitly assert that you can falsify anything from your worldview. How do you know this?

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 07:06 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 07:00 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 06:54 PM)mordant Wrote:  I simply see no valid evidence, argument or reasoning that would persuade me to think the existence of such things at all likely. In fact I have quite a bit of reason to think them exceedingly unlikely. As such I don't afford belief to them.

I've used that same argument against dualism many times.

How does that affect dualism?

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 07:10 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 09:28 AM)mordant Wrote:  1) State clearly what you claim is true
2) State clearly your evidence for (1)
3) State clearly how (2) proves (1).

This makes for an interesting exercise. I'll play the Christian nerd first:
1) State clearly what you claim is true
There is no truth.

2) State clearly your evidence for (1)
Goedel's incompleteness theorems

3) State clearly how (2) proves (1).
I can't follow Goedel's proof. quod erat suckonthat

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
02-02-2017, 07:14 PM (This post was last modified: 02-02-2017 07:18 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 07:06 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 07:00 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  I've used that same argument against dualism many times.

How does that affect dualism?

(02-02-2017 06:54 PM)mordant Wrote:  I simply see no valid evidence, argument or reasoning that would persuade me to think the existence of such things at all likely. In fact I have quite a bit of reason to think them exceedingly unlikely. As such I don't afford belief to them.

I simply see no valid evidence, argument or reasoning that would persuade me to think that the mind and brain aren't roommates for life at all likely. In fact I have quite a bit of reason to think that exceedingly unlikely. As such I don't afford belief to it.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 07:24 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 07:10 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 09:28 AM)mordant Wrote:  1) State clearly what you claim is true
2) State clearly your evidence for (1)
3) State clearly how (2) proves (1).

This makes for an interesting exercise. I'll play the Christian nerd first:
1) State clearly what you claim is true
There is no truth.

2) State clearly your evidence for (1)
Goedel's incompleteness theorems

3) State clearly how (2) proves (1).
I can't follow Goedel's proof. quod erat suckonthat

Amusing depiction.

"I think part of the appeal of mathematical logic is that the formulas look mysterious - you write backward Es!" - Hilary Putnam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 07:37 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 05:17 PM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 05:13 PM)adey67 Wrote:  Lol, maybe bro maybe, I'm off to watch family guy before I lose anymore brain cells.

I'd appreciate some decency here. I don't recall insulting your intelligence in this manner.

To be fair, you did not. I apologize for the chimpanzee comment. In retrospect, it does sound a bit harsh.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
02-02-2017, 07:41 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 07:37 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 05:17 PM)Naielis Wrote:  I'd appreciate some decency here. I don't recall insulting your intelligence in this manner.

To be fair, you did not. I apologize for the chimpanzee comment. In retrospect, it does sound a bit harsh.

I lol'ed. Thumbsup

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheInquisition's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: