Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
03-02-2017, 03:59 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 01:58 PM)Naielis Wrote:  How do you know the physical world exists?

I don't claim to "know" that except in an informal sense. The belief in an objective reality and that my senses are reacting to it is axiomatic because I have no other choice. I experience what appears to be a consistent reality with predictable rules and decades of interaction with it has given me reason to accept it as actually real. Unless and until somebody can show me how to detect some other reality I can do nothing but interact with the one I experience.

Quote:How do you know any result from a scientific experiment isn't just random chance?

I don't. Any single result may be interesting but is not conclusive. Repeated results are needed for confidence. An understanding of the principles in operation helps identify ways to attempt to disprove the tentative conclusions. Science doesn't provide the answers, it provides the best answers we have to explain the available information.

Quote:How do you know anything?

Evidence and repeated verification and even then "know" is really best reserved for things that are definitional. We have very limited understanding of a very complex universe and getting comfortable with "I don't know" is a valuable pursuit.

Quote:If you can't answer these, science is irrelevant.

Your questions demonstrate a misunderstanding of what science is and what we expect from it.

Quote:You're just asserting that science is the way without justifying it. I posed the problem of induction earlier. The only response I got was that we just assume laws. Great. I'll assume god then.

Nobody is assuming any laws. They are the result of painstaking study of how things actually work including cross-checking by multiple people to verify, and try to falsify, the results.

Did you ever wonder why there is only 1 science and thousands of different religious beliefs? Faith can lead you in any direction and there is nothing to curb ideas that are simply wrong because there is no right or wrong when you don't have demonstrable, testable evidence. Arguments that aren't based on actual evidence may sound compelling but they are unconfirmable and ultimately worthless.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like unfogged's post
03-02-2017, 04:26 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 03:42 PM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  Which is why I asked for clarification.

You misunderstand. Your question is unclear. I do not know what you are asking, because-

(03-02-2017 03:42 PM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  I was working with a standard model of this apprehension (the abstraction, semi Aristotelian model). If I mis categorized you I am quite sorry. Secondly, I do have to ask why is it not coherent? Clearly it is not absurd to ask what is the ontological grounding of propositions (unless you take these to be simple utterances), outside of human intellects. I would think a semi plausible debate could be made of this (and is by philosophers with no theistic bone to pick), since these seem to have truth value before human kind existed and in worlds where humanity did not exist, as we are contingent (and mind you, being a realist about concepts does not entail theism, realm based Platonism could house these plausibly). You do not even have to take intentionality to even be the mark of the intellect, as you could be a realist about powers (although I do think this works well with theism, perhaps better), so it is no issue propositions do have this feature. Why is this an incoherent statement again? Perhaps how this works is the issue, and perhaps you could appeal to mystery. but in and of itself I am not sure of the incoherence.

-you seem to have swallowed a thesaurus.

Please understand that this is not meant as an attack. You just seem to have gotten lost in jargon and poor sentence structure, and your posts, as they stand, are not coherent enough to respond to. And I say this as someone who studies both philosophy and language.

As far as I can make out, you are attempting to raise some sort of issue about mathematical statements like "1 + 1 = 2" still being true in worlds where no one is there to formulate them. Which is correct - a tree is still a tree whether or not someone is there to label it one - but I fail to see where you are going with it.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 05:40 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 04:26 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  As far as I can make out, you are attempting to raise some sort of issue about mathematical statements like "1 + 1 = 2" still being true in worlds where no one is there to formulate them. Which is correct - a tree is still a tree whether or not someone is there to label it one - but I fail to see where you are going with it.

Absolutes?
Concepts not dependent on the "physical world"?
The "transcendental"?
"Beyond time and space"?

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
03-02-2017, 05:53 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 06:50 PM)Naielis Wrote:  Life experience is a conservative value.
No, it is just life experience. Knowledge plus experience produces the potential for wisdom (the ability to effectively use and apply knowledge).

I am in fact liberal but this does not prevent me from seeing the value in experience and perspective.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 07:12 PM (This post was last modified: 03-02-2017 07:25 PM by Christian Philosophy.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 04:26 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 03:42 PM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  Which is why I asked for clarification.

You misunderstand. Your question is unclear. I do not know what you are asking, because-

(03-02-2017 03:42 PM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  I was working with a standard model of this apprehension (the abstraction, semi Aristotelian model). If I mis categorized you I am quite sorry. Secondly, I do have to ask why is it not coherent? Clearly it is not absurd to ask what is the ontological grounding of propositions (unless you take these to be simple utterances), outside of human intellects. I would think a semi plausible debate could be made of this (and is by philosophers with no theistic bone to pick), since these seem to have truth value before human kind existed and in worlds where humanity did not exist, as we are contingent (and mind you, being a realist about concepts does not entail theism, realm based Platonism could house these plausibly). You do not even have to take intentionality to even be the mark of the intellect, as you could be a realist about powers (although I do think this works well with theism, perhaps better), so it is no issue propositions do have this feature. Why is this an incoherent statement again? Perhaps how this works is the issue, and perhaps you could appeal to mystery. but in and of itself I am not sure of the incoherence.

-you seem to have swallowed a thesaurus.

Please understand that this is not meant as an attack. You just seem to have gotten lost in jargon and poor sentence structure, and your posts, as they stand, are not coherent enough to respond to. And I say this as someone who studies both philosophy and language.

As far as I can make out, you are attempting to raise some sort of issue about mathematical statements like "1 + 1 = 2" still being true in worlds where no one is there to formulate them. Which is correct - a tree is still a tree whether or not someone is there to label it one - but I fail to see where you are going with it.

I perhaps misread your statement. My point was about the identity of concepts, and whether conceptual statements are true and valid in some sense apart from human discovery (which would sidestep your point about definitions and a priori elements. Our definitions simply denote the identity of things, which themselves would be more primitive, numbers simply would be this sort of thing, assuming they are not innate ideas, which is possible). You perhaps agreed. This is fine. The issue at stake was how definitions were being treated in your first post (which again, perhaps I misread). If you take these axioms to be simply human conventions about our understanding of the universe, then perhaps this is subject to critiques like Quine's indispensability argument, but I allowed that. I probably misinterpreted your view on propositions, which led to a mistake (assuming there is one), as I think I read it into your post. I felt like it perhaps did jump the gun a bit to claim that this as a whole makes them not a priori, as it is defensible to say these identity statements are literally about actual numbers conceived in the mind rather than treating them as mere abstractions from say, unitary things (so every being). The issue with this human conceptualist approach was what I was attacking. If these are simply treated as such, without any sort of transcendent truth maker (which I think could plausibly be God, or they could be a sort of platonic realm, if you take mathematical statements to exist like the forms), it does ultimately dissolve to saying these statements are not really the eternal truths Augustine spoke of, but lack any sort of independent validity. Even if you take this nomininalistically, this still seems like an absurd conclusion, which is why for the most part nominalists like Ockham were theists (among other reasons, which is why I think theism is ultimately the best way to ground nominalism. I should note Ockham was concerned about nominalism for other reason namely transubstantiation and Voluntarist Divine Command Theory). Another way to ground these I did not hint at is modal realism, but this has other issues and I will not treat it today. Overall, I apologize for any misunderstandings and I hope I was not too uncharitable to you.

Thanks,

Christian Philosophy

2 Corinthians 10:5
"Every creature is a divine word because it proclaims God" - Bonaventure
"Do no harm. Do good. Stay in love with God." - John Wesley
"The highest service to which a man may obtain on earth is to preach the law of God." - John Wycliffe
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 07:24 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 08:22 PM)Naielis Wrote:  You claim to be interested in the real world. Without philosophy, you fail to even know what that world is.
You claim to be interested in the real world. Without experience, you fail to even know what the world is. Or to fully know yourself. Or others.

Philosophy isn't needed to tell you that science works. You and I are conversing with nothing but inconvenienced electrons, after all. Nor do I need philosophy to know that religious faith doesn't explain experienced reality or predict outcomes.

Philosophy at the level you are talking about fails what I call the "goatherd test". If a philosophy of life requires a phD to follow and isn't accessible to ordinary mortals then it automatically is elitist and exclusionary and won't benefit most of mankind most of the time. Theology fails the same test. I note with interest that both philosophy and/or theology are often resorted to by people who want to gaslight others into doubting their own sanity rather than engage in actual honest debate on actual merits. I will grant you that philosophy is at least a less unsatisfactory refuge than the faux discipline of theology, in that it is not entirely made up like theology, so much as overthought and overdetermined. But it is still beside the point for the most part. Sorry, I know you are enamored with it and think it's the answer to everything, and it's not entirely without merit. But I am not going to argue for example how I know the salt shaker is empty, and first prove to you that the salt shaker exists, and elucidate how I know that it exists or what its current status is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like mordant's post
03-02-2017, 07:29 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 12:00 PM)unfogged Wrote:  ...
(03-02-2017 11:43 AM)Naielis Wrote:  I thought I already addressed this. The flying spaghetti monster isn't coherent. The first cause can't be material.

What do YOU mean by "material"? How exactly can something that is not material be the cause of something that is?

Silly. It's an a pastariori argument.

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like DLJ's post
03-02-2017, 07:33 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 07:12 PM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  I perhaps misread your statement. My point was about the identity of concepts, and whether conceptual statements are true and valid in some sense apart from human discovery (which would sidestep your point about definitions and a priori elements. Our definitions simply denote the identity of things, which themselves would be more primitive, numbers simply would be this sort of thing, assuming they are not innate ideas, which is possible). You perhaps agreed. This is fine. The issue at stake was how definitions were being treated in your first post (which again, perhaps I misread). If you take these axioms to be simply human conventions about our understanding of the universe, then perhaps this is subject to critiques like Quine's indispensability argument, but I allowed that. I probably misinterpreted your view on propositions, which led to a mistake (assuming there is one), as I think I read it into your post. I felt like it perhaps did jump the gun a bit to claim that this as a whole makes them not a priori, as it is defensible to say these identity statements are literally about actual numbers conceived in the mind rather than treating them as mere abstractions from say, unitary things (so every being). The issue with this human conceptualist approach was what I was attacking. If these are simply treated as such, without any sort of transcendent truth maker (which I think could plausibly be God, or they could be a sort of platonic realm, if you take mathematical statements to exist like the forms), it does ultimately dissolve to saying these statements are not really the eternal truths Augustine spoke of, but lack any sort of independent validity. Even if you take this nomininalistically, this still seems like an absurd conclusion, which is why for the most part nominalists like Ockham were theists (among other reasons, which is why I think theism is ultimately the best way to ground nominalism. I should note Ockham was concerned about nominalism for other reason namely transubstantiation and Voluntarist Divine Command Theory). Another way to ground these I did not hint at is modal realism, but this has other issues and I will not treat it today. Overall, I apologize for any misunderstandings and I hope I was not too uncharitable to you.

You still need to work on making your posts less jargon-cluttered, I'm afraid. I know the terms and names that you are throwing around, but they're arranged in such incoherent ways that it's almost impossible to get even a basic idea of what you're actually trying to say. And, like I said, I study this stuff - I can't imagine how impossible this would be to someone who didn't.

The ultimate thrust of it seems to be "there is independent truth, and therefore there must be a god", which is a non sequitur. Other than that, I'm afraid you're completely unreadable.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Unbeliever's post
03-02-2017, 07:36 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 07:33 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(03-02-2017 07:12 PM)Christian Philosophy Wrote:  I perhaps misread your statement. My point was about the identity of concepts, and whether conceptual statements are true and valid in some sense apart from human discovery (which would sidestep your point about definitions and a priori elements. Our definitions simply denote the identity of things, which themselves would be more primitive, numbers simply would be this sort of thing, assuming they are not innate ideas, which is possible). You perhaps agreed. This is fine. The issue at stake was how definitions were being treated in your first post (which again, perhaps I misread). If you take these axioms to be simply human conventions about our understanding of the universe, then perhaps this is subject to critiques like Quine's indispensability argument, but I allowed that. I probably misinterpreted your view on propositions, which led to a mistake (assuming there is one), as I think I read it into your post. I felt like it perhaps did jump the gun a bit to claim that this as a whole makes them not a priori, as it is defensible to say these identity statements are literally about actual numbers conceived in the mind rather than treating them as mere abstractions from say, unitary things (so every being). The issue with this human conceptualist approach was what I was attacking. If these are simply treated as such, without any sort of transcendent truth maker (which I think could plausibly be God, or they could be a sort of platonic realm, if you take mathematical statements to exist like the forms), it does ultimately dissolve to saying these statements are not really the eternal truths Augustine spoke of, but lack any sort of independent validity. Even if you take this nomininalistically, this still seems like an absurd conclusion, which is why for the most part nominalists like Ockham were theists (among other reasons, which is why I think theism is ultimately the best way to ground nominalism. I should note Ockham was concerned about nominalism for other reason namely transubstantiation and Voluntarist Divine Command Theory). Another way to ground these I did not hint at is modal realism, but this has other issues and I will not treat it today. Overall, I apologize for any misunderstandings and I hope I was not too uncharitable to you.

You still need to work on making your posts less jargon-cluttered, I'm afraid. I know the terms and names that you are throwing around, but they're arranged in such incoherent ways that it's almost impossible to get even a basic idea of what you're actually trying to say. And, like I said, I study this stuff - I can't imagine how impossible this would be to someone who didn't.

The ultimate thrust of it seems to be "there is independent truth, and therefore there must be a god", which is a non sequitur. Other than that, I'm afraid you're completely unreadable.

Perhaps I was unclear, because that was not the point of the post.

2 Corinthians 10:5
"Every creature is a divine word because it proclaims God" - Bonaventure
"Do no harm. Do good. Stay in love with God." - John Wesley
"The highest service to which a man may obtain on earth is to preach the law of God." - John Wycliffe
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-02-2017, 07:45 PM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(03-02-2017 01:58 PM)Naielis Wrote:  How do you know any result from a scientific experiment isn't just random chance?

Thanks for demonstrating you have no clue how science works.
Studies are designed to rule that out. But then you know zip about Probability.

Quote:How do you know anything?

You LEARN in ways that have proven reliable and reproducible.

Quote:If you can't answer these, science is irrelevant.

Nope. False generalization and a lie. If you were very ill, you would make use of all sorts of science, and not just pray. Hypocrite.

You proved you value science by using that computer, hooking up to the internet, eating dinner, turning on the light.

You go right ahead a keep your god. You'll find out how useful that is when you are seriously ill or injured and just pray. FacepalmWeepingWeeping

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: