Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 4 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-07-2014, 04:58 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(11-07-2014 04:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  McGill University is a private institution, not a 'government university', whatever that is.
Private institution? Sounds good to me! Government university is a university financed by these people:
[Image: 10527321_715195691884233_8947187971333937844_n.jpg]
Such a source of financing has an unfortunate effect that it can't be criticized.

(11-07-2014 04:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  Please enlighten us about 'government academical Philosophy'. I haven't a fucking clue what you're on about.
Me neither! From what I heard, I suppose it is a history of Philosophy, that places a great emphasis on authors justifying government and religion and very little emphasis on authors criticizing government and religion.
My formal training was just a bit of history but main emphasis on practical skills of refuting fallacious arguments against certainty of knowledge (Gorgias, Descartes, etc) and proper classification of things. (epistemology, logic, etc)
I used to take classes on Philosophy of science and also language, but that was years before that. I don't remember much from these.

(11-07-2014 04:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  That video doesn't load for me. But I don't care much for Plato or Socrates - they are as obsolete as papyrus, fascinating museum pieces, curiosities that can do no real work in the intellectual world of today.
Obsolete? No real work in the world today? I would hope so. The problem is, this is precisely what our world today runs on, politically and socially. Very ancient classical fallacies blown out of proportion and none of the intellectuals today are brave enough to touch them critically. If you want to know why, listen to these directly linked mp3s, these should load without a problem.

http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FD...Family.mp3
http://media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FD...it_Man.mp3
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2014, 05:10 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(11-07-2014 07:55 AM)Luminon Wrote:  ...
social or moral.
...

Actually, here's something that's been bugging me for a while, particularly with regard to incentives.

I can't tell the difference between the two.

As far as can tell, morality does not exist beyond the social.

Advice, anyone?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
11-07-2014, 05:44 PM (This post was last modified: 11-07-2014 06:08 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(11-07-2014 05:10 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Actually, here's something that's been bugging me for a while, particularly with regard to incentives.

I can't tell the difference between the two.

As far as can tell, morality does not exist beyond the social.

Advice, anyone?
Society is necessary but not sufficient condition for morality. IOW, morality can only manifest socially, but society is not always moral. Usually not, I would say. One should not call a welfare/warfare tax farm (U.S.) or an Islamic state with Sharia law a moral society.

Verily, we live in dark ages of morality. Morality is not arbitrary, it is based on the first principles. But in culture, nobody has any principles at all, people make up rules as they go, whatever they can get away with - and then they call that moral. For example, when parents are bigger and stronger, it's all punishment and responsibility for the child. When they get old and frail, it's suddenly all forgiveness and not dwelling on past mistakes. Either way, they define morality and you are immoral (and should be punished!) if you disobey them.

Hijacking definitions of morality and making other people internalize false arguments from morality (resulting in self-attack) is called moral violence. Morality was invented as a powerful weapon. Nobody can live very functionally believing that he is immoral. To actually convince someone that he acts immorally is extremely compelling, no wonder that people recoil in anger and revulsion from arguments that would classify them as immoral. Such as I just said about violent, hypocrital parents. These people use every dirty trick to turn the argument away and against us, because they fight for their souls, their self-image, their self-worth. For immoral people, moral arguments are a death threat. Philosophers should know that and should not take that lightly. Virtuous people underestimate virtue, because it is not a mortal danger for them, usually just an intellectual exercise... We need to get passionate about virtue! Virtue is rational, evil is inconsistent. Isn't that enough?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2014, 05:55 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(11-07-2014 05:10 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(11-07-2014 07:55 AM)Luminon Wrote:  ...
social or moral.
...

Actually, here's something that's been bugging me for a while, particularly with regard to incentives.

I can't tell the difference between the two.

As far as can tell, morality does not exist beyond the social.

Advice, anyone?

It doesn't. Objective morality is simply an unattainable goal to strive towards.

Otherwise, we would have had the same moral standards for thousands of years, at minimum, when obviously that hasn't been the case. We only make moral judgements in hindsight, no matter how moral we ourselves try to be in daily life.

“It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”
― Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2014, 06:11 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(11-07-2014 05:44 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Verily, we live in dark ages of morality. Morality is not arbitrary, it is based on the first principles. But in culture, nobody has any principles at all, people make up rules as they go, whatever they can get away with - and then they call that moral. For example, when parents are bigger and stronger, it's all punishment and responsibility for the child. When they get old and frail, it's suddenly all forgiveness and not dwelling on past mistakes. Either way, they define morality and you are immoral (and should be punished!) if you disobey them.

Translation:
"All other ideas and principles besides mine are Wrong™ because I am objectively right because my feels say so. Anyone who disagrees is a reptiloid."

Hobo

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2014, 06:16 PM (This post was last modified: 11-07-2014 06:28 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(11-07-2014 05:55 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  It doesn't. Objective morality is simply an unattainable goal to strive towards.

Otherwise, we would have had the same moral standards for thousands of years, at minimum, when obviously that hasn't been the case. We only make moral judgements in hindsight, no matter how moral we ourselves try to be in daily life.
What do you mean is unattainable, objective morality itself, or our striving towards it?
Long story short, objective morality is possible and definable, or at least there is a book that makes a case for it. If you are interested in objective morality, you should read books about it. You have brought the old is-ought problem that David Hume wrote about. There seems to be no way to derive the morality (what ought to be) from what is. The book is a proposal for solution of this problem. I am part grateful for opportunity to propagate discussion on objective morality (which is obviously a desirable thing) but at the same time, I wish people would study and search the subject before they come up with it.
I must wonder - how did you research the subject of objective morality? What did you read on that? I might want to broaden my own sources Consider (don't worry, I'm not asking about Bible Tongue )

Another long story short, as I said, we have mistaken culture for morality and culture has no principles. People who have no principles can turn on a dime and make up bullshit as they go, no wonder there are no the same moral standards for thousands of years. Morality is rational, but violence and trauma in early childhood destroys people's ability to reason. That is a pretty powerful argument, backed up by the whole field of psychology and childhood experiences of half of atheists on this forum, I mean the ex-Christians.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2014, 06:59 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(11-07-2014 04:58 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(11-07-2014 04:30 PM)Chas Wrote:  Please enlighten us about 'government academical Philosophy'. I haven't a fucking clue what you're on about.
Me neither! From what I heard, I suppose it is a history of Philosophy, that places a great emphasis on authors justifying government and religion and very little emphasis on authors criticizing government and religion.
My formal training was just a bit of history but main emphasis on practical skills of refuting fallacious arguments against certainty of knowledge (Gorgias, Descartes, etc) and proper classification of things. (epistemology, logic, etc)
I used to take classes on Philosophy of science and also language, but that was years before that. I don't remember much from these.

You haven't answered the question. It's your phrase, you brought it up, now explain it.

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
11-07-2014, 07:15 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(11-07-2014 05:55 PM)rampant.a.i. Wrote:  
(11-07-2014 05:10 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Actually, here's something that's been bugging me for a while, particularly with regard to incentives.

I can't tell the difference between the two.

As far as can tell, morality does not exist beyond the social.

Advice, anyone?

It doesn't. Objective morality is simply an unattainable goal to strive towards.

Otherwise, we would have had the same moral standards for thousands of years, at minimum, when obviously that hasn't been the case. We only make moral judgements in hindsight, no matter how moral we ourselves try to be in daily life.

Sure, I get that.

I'm wondering specifically about incentives and penalties.

When I do governance training, I cover culture, ethics and behaviour, principles, policies and frameworks and all that stuff.

When it comes to implementation of policy (practice from theory) we discuss the methods of influencing behaviour and (leaving aside Luninon's bugbear regarding violence) there are a few approaches e.g. the use of champions and incentives.

From somewhere (Freakonomics, I think) the incentive types are listed as:
Financial
Moral
Social

Leaving aside the possibility or otherwise that there may or may not be an external measure / metric for morality, that would allow us to objectively judge the comparative moralities of different societies, can anyone think of an example of a moral incentive (or penalty) that is distinct from a social incentive (or penalty)?

To give some context, I can explain (as an example of a social incentive) that people will follow a policy simply because their colleagues are doing so i.e. peer pressure but I won't be telling an employee that they need to perform a task in a certain way or they will go to Hell (which I think might be classifiable as a moral incentive).

The best I can come up with is the example of parents feeling a duty to pick up their children from a day care centre on time; but I have difficulty explaining why this could be a moral incentive rather than a social incentive.

Guidance appreciated.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2014, 11:10 PM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(11-07-2014 06:16 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Another long story short, as I said, we have mistaken culture for morality and culture has no principles. People who have no principles can turn on a dime and make up bullshit as they go, no wonder there are no the same moral standards for thousands of years.

I think you'll find those with ideological principles are more than capable of intellectual contortionism in order to preserve them.

Prevailing moral standards have quite often been set by very principled groups and individuals.
(which drops us right back down the failure hole of "but only the right principles count, which is to say mine")

(11-07-2014 06:16 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Morality is rational, but violence and trauma in early childhood destroys people's ability to reason. That is a pretty powerful argument...

No, that's a baseless and deranged argument.

(11-07-2014 06:16 PM)Luminon Wrote:  ... backed up by the whole field of psychology and childhood experiences of half of atheists on this forum, I mean the ex-Christians.

Telling half the people here that their childhood destroyed their ability to reason is not particularly compelling.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
12-07-2014, 12:35 AM
RE: Why Do Most Atheist Let Religion Define Metaphysical Questions?
(11-07-2014 11:10 PM)cjlr Wrote:  ...
Telling half the people here that their childhood destroyed their ability to reason is not particularly compelling.

If their ability to reason was destroyed, which sounds like a permanent condition, why are they now ex-christians?

Consider

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: