Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-02-2017, 09:21 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 09:12 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  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 sense I get - and I may be wrong on this - is that the OP is referring to the "argument from morality" - that is, we cannot know what is good without some divine guidance.

It's a standard argument often used by Frank Turek as "evidence" for theism. It falls short, of course, but that doesn't stop some people from using it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 09:24 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 09:14 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You listed the foundation for Skepticism, but then claim there is no foundation for it? Shocking

I listed the basic principle. This should be foundational. But it isn't. Because it too must be questioned. Nothing is known in skepticism.

"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, 09:26 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Hello Naielis.

(02-02-2017 09:17 AM)Naielis Wrote:  Yes I am asking for a justification. I don't see why that's a problem. But your answer isn't an answer.

It was an answer and if you simply want to trade insults, that's the second door down on the left. Tongue

(02-02-2017 09:17 AM)Naielis Wrote:  You state that humans survive together. This could be true, but it could easily be false.

But it could be tested to see if it were true or false, couldn't it?

So, you toddle off into the wilderness all naked and natural with out any social stuff around you and we'll compare notes in a dozen years or so, okay? Tongue

(02-02-2017 09:17 AM)Naielis Wrote:  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.

What? Now you're adding 'Good' into the mix?

What the heck does your lack of understanding of cloning have to do with anything, any way?

You're asking about the value of 'Society', right?

As a single hominid we, as a species, are pretty screwed/lame. As a group 'society' we thrive and multiply. Everything after that is... an extra.

Of course, if you're now going to say 'Ah but just surviving isn't anything!' well... yes it actually is.

An increase in a species number is a verifiable attribute which can be measured... even if only against that of other species numbers.

Much cheers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Peebothuhul's post
02-02-2017, 09:28 AM (This post was last modified: 02-02-2017 09:31 AM by mordant.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 09:10 AM)Naielis Wrote:  There's no foundation for the skeptical worldview.
Skepticism is a component of a worldview, not a worldview itself. It is more properly a component of one's epistemological view.

It is a question of when it is legitimate to afford belief to a thing.

The less evidence there is for a thing, and the more consequential a thing, the more sense it makes to withhold belief -- if what one believes is connected to the evidence one has for the thing believed.

I am a person who does not afford belief to extraordinary yet un-evidenced truth claims. This does, of course, strongly tend to make one an atheist as a side effect, unless one's evidentiary standards are exceedingly low and/or sloppy.

At least in the fundamentalist world, belief is afforded via religious faith rather than via an examination of facts in evidence. In other words, what is true is asserted / decided in advance, rather than determined as the outcome of an investigation of what is likely to be true.

Skepticism simply says that a thing is much likely to be untrue if there is evidence lacking for it, therefore, one does not afford belief in that circumstance. Rather, one looks for more / better evidence, if its available.

As a skeptic my message to you is that determining what is likely to be true is a process; namely:

1) State clearly what you claim is true
2) State clearly your evidence for (1)
3) State clearly how (2) proves (1).

ALL you have to do to re-convert me to theism is to successfully navigate the above simple process.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like mordant's post
02-02-2017, 09:32 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 09:17 AM)mordant Wrote:  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.

So it's not a realist morality? It seems you reduce your morality to subjectivism. What about someone who doesn't have the instinct to live in peace and harmony? Why are they wrong? Just because the majority deems it so? That opens the door for any moral system.

"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, 09:37 AM (This post was last modified: 02-02-2017 09:48 AM by Naielis.)
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 09:28 AM)mordant Wrote:  Skepticism is a component of a worldview, not a worldview itself. It is more properly a component of one's epistemological view.

This is false. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism/

(02-02-2017 09:28 AM)mordant Wrote:  As a skeptic my message to you is that determining what is likely to be true is a process; namely:

1) State clearly what you claim is true
2) State clearly your evidence for (1)
3) State clearly how (2) proves (1).

ALL you have to do to re-convert me to theism is to successfully navigate the above simple process.

There are tons of arguments for the first cause. And there are arguments that can reveal the ontology of the first cause. But full on theism is unjustified.

"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, 09:43 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 09:24 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(02-02-2017 09:14 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  You listed the foundation for Skepticism, but then claim there is no foundation for it? Shocking

I listed the basic principle. This should be foundational. But it isn't. Because it too must be questioned. Nothing is known in skepticism.

Welcome to the forum, no offence but I'm struggling to get where you are coming from rather a lot of word salad, are you or are you not claiming the position that we require a supernatural deity and or must borrow morality from a belief system ? In plain English please state your theological / philosophical position because I cannot work out where you're coming from from your previous posts thank you.
Ps, your previous post is much clearer got you now thanks
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 09:47 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 09:26 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Hello Naielis.

It was an answer and if you simply want to trade insults, that's the second door down on the left. Tongue

Why would I want to trade insults? Where did you get that idea? I was making a point about how your response didn't seem to answer my question.

(02-02-2017 09:26 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  But it could be tested to see if it were true or false, couldn't it?

So, you toddle off into the wilderness all naked and natural with out any social stuff around you and we'll compare notes in a dozen years or so, okay? Tongue

There's still been no justification for empiricist analysis.

(02-02-2017 09:26 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  What? Now you're adding 'Good' into the mix? What the heck does your lack of understanding of cloning have to do with anything, any way? You're asking about the value of 'Society', right? As a single hominid we, as a species, are pretty screwed/lame. As a group 'society' we thrive and multiply. Everything after that is... an extra. Of course, if you're now going to say 'Ah but just surviving isn't anything!' well... yes it actually is. An increase in a species number is a verifiable attribute which can be measured... even if only against that of other species numbers.

Much cheers.

Well morality is a system describing what is good and bad or right and wrong. It would seem odd to not ask why something is good in a moral discussion. And I think I understand cloning well enough. Again I don't think my question is being answered here. What about human survival is moral?

"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, 09:47 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
(02-02-2017 07:03 AM)Naielis Wrote:  
(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.

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.

Did you read what you are responding to? Apparently not as he gave a basis.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-02-2017, 09:48 AM
RE: Christian vs. Humanist Morality
Actually scratch that I'm still confused
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: