Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-02-2017, 07:13 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(27-11-2016 02:07 PM)Rik Wrote:  That is a rather simplistic and ignorant portrayal of humanist morality. Are you intentionally insulting?
Versions of the Golden Rule form the basis - others have the same rights that I do, so I treat them the way I want to be treated.
It's pretty straightforward.

I agree Rik, it is straight forward, Occam's razor.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 08:01 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 07:03 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Why do others have any rights? Why do you have rights? In many atheist worldviews, morality is just taken for granted. You haven't given a justification for your moral claims. You've just asserted your subjectivist morality onto everyone else.

Morality, like everything else, is built on presuppositions.

We presuppose our senses are accurate until proven otherwise. This gives us the framework to explore our reality and understand our experiences.

Science presupposes that the universe is both consistent and understandable. This gives us the framework to learn about our universe and increase our understanding.

To build a morality only takes one presupposition:

Quote:All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
UDHR - full text

That one presupposition is the only justification that you need to build a secular morality.

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
[+] 2 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
02-02-2017, 08:13 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 07:07 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Skepticism is a position.

Skepticism must be the default position. Skepticism demands justification in proportion to the claims being made.

(02-02-2017 07:07 AM)Naielis Wrote:  It's a claim that requires justification.

If you believe all claims regardless of merit, you will immediately find yourself believing in contradictory claims. This is an untenable position.

That alone justifies the skeptical position as the default rational position.

(02-02-2017 07:07 AM)Naielis Wrote:  The obvious problem is that the claim states ultimate justification is impossible. Skepticism requires certainty to fuel it's doubt.

No one needs "ultimate" justification. There is such thing as "100% certainty" in any field of discussion.

Additionally, claiming such certainty discredits the pursuit of knowledge and limits growth. It leads to regression and stagnation.

When conflicting claims are made, one evaluates the evidence and bases their belief on the most reliable of the competing claims.

If your belief is proven to be false, the evidence must be re-examined and your belief must be revised.

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
[+] 4 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
02-02-2017, 08:54 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(01-02-2017 04:02 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  So you are advocating doing damage to the world with your religious beliefs?

At least you're honest about what effects it will have. Drinking Beverage

No that's not what I said. That seems to be an evasion of my question. Why is it wrong to do damage to society?

"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, 09:05 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 08:01 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Morality, like everything else, is built on presuppositions.

We presuppose our senses are accurate until proven otherwise. This gives us the framework to explore our reality and understand our experiences.

Science presupposes that the universe is both consistent and understandable. This gives us the framework to learn about our universe and increase our understanding.

To build a morality only takes one presupposition:

Quote:All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
UDHR - full text

That one presupposition is the only justification that you need to build a secular morality.

Your first presupposition is the foundation of empiricist knowledge. If you can't justify it, then you have a problem. Your second presupposition, is critical to the foundation of the Baconian method and all inductive reasoning. If you can't justify that, you have another problem. Your epistemology is a blend of multiple epistemologies but with no consideration of the contradictions that arise. For example, how do you know that you can learn about the universe with science? You assume universality of physical laws, but what if they're not universal? You can't even ask this question because you haven't shown that the universe is real. You just assume your senses are valid. If every point in your epistemology is an assumption, you're left with confusion instead of knowledge. Your final presupposition is the most ridiculous. All human beings are born equal in rights? But this doesn't follow from your epistemology. And how do you refute someone who presupposes black people have less rights?

"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, 09:10 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 08:13 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Skepticism must be the default position. Skepticism demands justification in proportion to the claims being made.

If you believe all claims regardless of merit, you will immediately find yourself believing in contradictory claims. This is an untenable position.

That alone justifies the skeptical position as the default rational position.

No one needs "ultimate" justification. There is such thing as "100% certainty" in any field of discussion.

Additionally, claiming such certainty discredits the pursuit of knowledge and limits growth. It leads to regression and stagnation.

When conflicting claims are made, one evaluates the evidence and bases their belief on the most reliable of the competing claims.

If your belief is proven to be false, the evidence must be re-examined and your belief must be revised.

I'm not sure you know what skepticism is. Skepticism is the idea that all beliefs should be questioned. This means that even the skeptical position should be questioned. There's no foundation for the skeptical worldview.

"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, 09:12 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Hello Naielis! Big Grin

(02-02-2017 08:54 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(01-02-2017 04:02 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  So you are advocating doing damage to the world with your religious beliefs?

At least you're honest about what effects it will have. Drinking Beverage

No that's not what I said. That seems to be an evasion of my question. Why is it wrong to do damage to society?

Consider

Really? You're asking for a... justification? of why keeping a soceity going is not a good thing?

Or... why should the individual care about the other individuals within the society around them?

Have I got this right? Consider

The answer that "Humans are a social species and as a species whole together we survive" would seem to answer the question, no? Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Peebothuhul's post
02-02-2017, 09:14 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 09:10 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 08:13 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Skepticism must be the default position. Skepticism demands justification in proportion to the claims being made.

If you believe all claims regardless of merit, you will immediately find yourself believing in contradictory claims. This is an untenable position.

That alone justifies the skeptical position as the default rational position.

No one needs "ultimate" justification. There is such thing as "100% certainty" in any field of discussion.

Additionally, claiming such certainty discredits the pursuit of knowledge and limits growth. It leads to regression and stagnation.

When conflicting claims are made, one evaluates the evidence and bases their belief on the most reliable of the competing claims.

If your belief is proven to be false, the evidence must be re-examined and your belief must be revised.

I'm not sure you know what skepticism is. Skepticism is the idea that all beliefs should be questioned. This means that even the skeptical position should be questioned. There's no foundation for the skeptical worldview.

You listed the foundation for Skepticism, but then claim there is no foundation for it? Shocking

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 09:17 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 09:12 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Hello Naielis! Big Grin

Consider

Really? You're asking for a... justification? of why keeping a soceity going is not a good thing?

Or... why should the individual care about the other individuals within the society around them?

Have I got this right? Consider

The answer that "Humans are a social species and as a species whole together we survive" would seem to answer the question, no? Consider

Yes I am asking for a justification. I don't see why that's a problem. But your answer isn't an answer. You state that humans survive together. This could be true, but it could easily be false. One person could continually clone himself/ herself. Let's assume it's true. So what? Why is human survival good? This just seems to push the justification back one level.

"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, 09:17 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 07:03 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Why do others have any rights? Why do you have rights? In many atheist worldviews, morality is just taken for granted. You haven't given a justification for your moral claims. You've just asserted your subjectivist morality onto everyone else.
Morals do not require a backing authority, particularly one that people simply assert without evidence. This is a fetish of fundamentalist god-believers, and is wholly unconnected from the real world.

There are no legitimate "why" questions and no justification needed.

Morality is a closed-loop feedback mechanism. When society is as most people prefer it to be -- civil and peaceful -- then this is what demonstrates that the moral and ethical system generally being followed is "best". There is nothing more than that to it.

As to motivation, others have said it better than I can. Our rational self-interest includes living in peace and prosperity and harmony.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes mordant's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: