, "Ethical Subjectivism and the Argument from Outrage." The Secular Outpost
September 18, 2016 byblog URL
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/09/18/ethical-subjectivism-and-the-argument-from-outrage/Eric Sotnak Makes an interesting point about the methods of argumet used to justify "objective ethics." [1] He deals with augments that have the following structure:
In arguing for the superiority of theistic ethics over secular ethics, apologists sometimes present some version of an argument like this:1. If theism is not true, then ethics is subjective.2. Ethics is not subjective.3. Therefore, theism is true.This is the form o argument Craig often uses, Sotnak's argument is that it is emotion that moves the argument it doesn't establish a basis for moral good. The issue is usually that God gives us moral objectivity and yet this is being sold by the use of subjective emotive means rather than logic,
Note the examples that are given: Hitler’s genocidal policies, or torturing children for pleasure. In choosing these examples, the apologist is counting on the audience to feel powerful negative emotions in response to the examples. The suggestion that, say, stomping on kittens isn’t objectively wrong is just outrageous!
The irony, though, is that according to subjectivism, moral judgments are motivated not by reason, but by feeling. And the irony is that the apologetical strategy here only seems to be effective when the chosen examples can be expected to provoke strong negative feelings. Contrast the following two example arguments:
A1. If subjectivism is true, then stomping on kittens is not objectively wrong.
A2. But stomping on kittens is objectively wrong.
A3. Therefore, subjectivism is not true.
And
B1. If subjectivism is true, then gathering sticks on Sunday is not objectively wrong.
B2. But gathering sticks on Sunday is objectively wrong.
B3. Therefore, subjectivism is not true.
The point is interesting but the problem is the oral outrages used for emotional leverage by apologists and I think you are right that is not the ace card thy need to play. But they are not in themselves the grounding of ethical axioms. They merely point to a reality beyond them selves. The reason they outrages us is because they so antithetical to the nature of the good, which grounded in God's love, At some intuitive level we sense that the connivance and hater kin these examples is a violation of the ultimate nature of the good,
We need the regulatory concept because we cant use the intuitive as grounding it can only point to the grounding.
I you will recall the basis of my ethical view point is not objectivity. Even though I believe God is objective hes the only one who is. We can't be objective so must shoot for less subjective. So we need a regularity concept beyond ourselves.
.
He uses a certain concept about slavery as a further example.
Or how about:C1. If subjectivism is true, then buying slaves from foreigners is not objectively wrong.C2. But buying slaves from foreigners is objectively wrong.C3. Therefore, subjectivism is not true.These days, it is hard to find theists (even among Biblical literalists) who will disagree with C2, even though a straightforward reading of the Bible suggests that they should (Leviticus 25:44-46). Why? Isn’t it because they are motivated more strongly by their negative feelings about slavery than they are by speculation about some theistic basis for opposing slavery? Doesn’t subjectivism provide a better explanation for why opposition to slavery is much more common among contemporary theists than it was in America in the mid-1800’s?ufThe problem is he's not proving that theistic ethics is really based upon subjective premises but only that people don't worked up about abstractions, These issues like slavery are used because the users feel that the opponent will be less likely to disagree with the immorality of outrages. Like saying :if you mess around with objective moral values you will wind up justifying things you don't like. That may backfire because it has the effect of seeming to ground axioms kin the subjective. But if we understand that the emotive aspects are only pointers that bid us look at higher reasons the nvit;s not grounded imn those emotive matters.
We have to know what the secularist would turn to as grounding. I think the signpost nature of moral outrage indicates we need the regulatory concept and i doubt the secularist can find one as compelling as God.
From the commemnt section: these comments are telling in that they point up the cultural divide between theists and atheists.
One, we have no basis for saying these things are objectively wrong other than depending on the subjective declarations of God. To say a God's declarations are objective is to misunderstand what objective means. Objective can not depend on any thought or be dependent on anyone's decisions, even a Gods.
[1] , "Ethical Subjectivism and the Argument from Outrage." The Secular Outpost
September 18, 2016 byblog URL
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2016/09/18/ethical-subjectivism-and-the-argument-from-outrage/
65 comments:
“he's not proving that theistic ethics is really based upon subjective premises”
No. But that wan't the task I was undertaking. Rather, it was to highlight the irony in trying to argue against subjectivism through the use of examples which only seem to be successful because of their emotional salience. Although I am not myself a subjectivist, I was arguing in defense of subjectivism (playing devil's advocate).
“the emotive aspects are only pointers that bid us look at higher reasons”
So once we find those higher reasons, we should be able to go back and look at some less emotionally laden claims and determine their moral status rather easily. It should just be a matter of applying the higher reasons to the cases at hand. So, is gathering sticks on the Sabbath objectively wrong? Is human cloning objectively wrong? Is capital punishment objectively wrong?
“We have to know what the secularist would turn to as grounding.”
This is true only if the secularist is (a) rejecting subjectivism, and (b) claiming to offer a better account than either the subjectivist of the theist. Although it is true that I reject both subjectivism and theistically-grounded ethics, my purpose in the post is not to offer an alternative to either. It is to point to the irony of trying to motivate a rejection of subjectivism by exclusively using examples that play off subjective attitudes. It is, in effect, to say “Subjectivists think the only thing wrong with stomping on kittens is that it makes you angry to think of someone doing it. Now doesn't that make you angry? Therefore, you must reject subjectivism!”
(also posted in the comments at Secular Outpost)
“he's not proving that theistic ethics is really based upon subjective premises”
No. But that wan't the task I was undertaking. Rather, it was to highlight the irony in trying to argue against subjectivism through the use of examples which only seem to be successful because of their emotional salience. Although I am not myself a subjectivist, I was arguing in defense of subjectivism (playing devil's advocate).
that's sort of what I was trying to say, guess I did't express myself well.
“the emotive aspects are only pointers that bid us look at higher reasons”
So once we find those higher reasons, we should be able to go back and look at some less emotionally laden claims and determine their moral status rather easily. It should just be a matter of applying the higher reasons to the cases at hand. So, is gathering sticks on the Sabbath objectively wrong? Is human cloning objectively wrong? Is capital punishment objectively wrong?
No. It was never morally wrong. it was an aspect of ceremonial ritual purity. It wasn't immoral it was impure making that amounts to disobeys God.
“We have to know what the secularist would turn to as grounding.”
This is true only if the secularist is (a) rejecting subjectivism, and (b) claiming to offer a better account than either the subjectivist of the theist.
even if she is opposing it with subjective forms of morality such as aesthetic it still needs grounding.
Although it is true that I reject both subjectivism and theistically-grounded ethics, my purpose in the post is not to offer an alternative to either. It is to point to the irony of trying to motivate a rejection of subjectivism by exclusively using examples that play off subjective attitudes.
they do a lot o irony is analytical philosophy,do they? ;-)
I think the theistic dread of subjective ethics is in contrast to God as stable universal unfailing grounding.It's not just a distaste for the subjective
It is, in effect, to say “Subjectivists think the only thing wrong with stomping on kittens is that it makes you angry to think of someone doing it. Now doesn't that make you angry? Therefore, you must reject subjectivism!”
(also posted in the comments at Secular Outpost)
I get that
5:19 AM
for me all roads led to Rome, or rather, to discussion of 'God. so from jy view poimt we can't just have some irony and be done with it,
Oh come on. Try just a little irony. I promise not to tell. Everyone's doing it.
well could it be ironic that you say theists defend objective ethics ethics with subjective means then you use irony to make analytical point?
Hi Joe,
My view of ethics/morality is that they are nothing more than...the Rules of the Herd...an evolutionary development brought about for the survival of the herd, which in turn, favors survival of the individual.
A herd of water buffalo, for instance, has a much better chance of survival when facing off with a pride of lions than does one individual water buffalo. And we can same the same for herds of elephants, troops of apes, wolf packs, etc.. Herds give individual animals a higher chance of surviving and passing on their DNA. The "loner", the buffalo or chimp who likes to go off on his own...is usually someone else's dinner...and his DNA is not passed on.
And there are a couple of rules that are basic to most herds, whether a pride of lions or a troop of chimpanzees:
---killing members of the herd is usually not tolerated.
---killing the young of the herd is usually not tolerated.
Lions and chimps may kill the young of other prides/troops without any reprisals from their own pride/troop, but if they kill the young of their own "herd", the consequences can be severe.
This is where we humans get our "morality", our "ethics". It is an evolutionary development. We don't need an invisible god to tell us to be nice to the children in our "herd". It is an instinct, passed down in our DNA over millions of years.
"Morality" changes as the conditions within the herd change. There are no moral absolutes.
Gary, where is your evidence for any of this? Evolution isn't as sound as you think. Just like on the CADRE, you are posting atheist rhetoric again. You are reminding me of a guy by the username of Im Skeptical that used to post on this site (and was banned from here, the CADRE, and a few other sites). He was a troll as well.
JB,
"He was a troll as well."
I was invited here by Joe, so unless you apologize for this insult, my conversations with you are at an end.
Gary
For everyone else interested in this topic, the idea that morality comes from humans' evolutionary development as social creatures ( preferring to live in "herds"), is gaining momentum in the sciences. It is NOT just an atheist concept. Here is an excerpt from a scientific article on this topic:
"In 1975, Wilson, a colleague of Trivers at Harvard, predicted that ethics would someday be taken out of the hands of philosophers and incorporated into the "new synthesis" of evolutionary and biological thinking. He was right.
Scientists engaged in the scientific study of human nature are gaining sway over the scientists and others in disciplines that rely on studying social actions and human cultures independent from their biological foundation.
No where is this more apparent than in the field of moral psychology. Using babies, psychopaths, chimpanzees, fMRI scanners, web surveys, agent-based modeling, and ultimatum games, moral psychology has become a major convergence zone for research in the behavioral sciences.
So what do we have to say? Are we moving toward consensus on some points? What are the most pressing questions for the next five years? And what do we have to offer a world in which so many global and national crises are caused or exacerbated by moral failures and moral conflicts? It seems like everyone is studying morality these days, reaching findings that complement each other more often than they clash.
Culture is humankind’s biological strategy, according to Roy F. Baumeister, and so human nature was shaped by an evolutionary process that selected in favor of traits conducive to this new, advanced kind of social life (culture)..."
Source: https://www.edge.org/event/the-new-science-of-morality
JBsptfn, can you give us good reason to think you aren't a troll? When you post on Skept's blog, you make a lot of assertions but never seem to back them up. In addition, when someone makes a very clear, non insulting response to your assertions you seem to simply ignore them and continue posting the same assertions. This seems like something a troll would do.
you are welcome to post here Gary but you have to go on ltopic. I do the same thing when I post om secular outpost, as the guest on their blog I respect their topics,
btw I have plenty of posts on morality and ethics look one up and make your comments about that on them.
A herd of water buffalo, for instance, has a much better chance of survival when facing off with a pride of lions than does one individual water buffalo. And we can same the same for herds of elephants, troops of apes, wolf packs, etc.. Herds give individual animals a higher chance of surviving and passing on their DNA. The "loner", the buffalo or chimp who likes to go off on his own...is usually someone else's dinner...and his DNA is not passed on.
And there are a couple of rules that are basic to most herds, whether a pride of lions or a troop of chimpanzees:
---killing members of the herd is usually not tolerated.
---killing the young of the herd is usually not tolerated.
Lions and chimps may kill the young of other prides/troops without any reprisals from their own pride/troop, but if they kill the young of their own "herd", the consequences can be severe.
This is where we humans get our "morality", our "ethics". It is an evolutionary development. We don't need an invisible god to tell us to be nice to the children in our "herd". It is an instinct, passed down in our DNA over millions of years.
"Morality" changes as the conditions within the herd change. There are no moral absolutes.
that's not ethics. You re confusing meta ethical theory with logistics, That's the problem with naturalsitic ethics, it takes out the moral content,
You are also trying to make anm out from an is, like the cartoon, how's that for irony Eric?
Just because something is the case in nature doen[t jean that it ought tobe the case.
so Gary please answer:
(1) ought from is
(2) why should we think mere survival is the goal of ethical theory?
(3) what about elephants that sacrifice fpr their others? or the idea that our learning to care for the helpless represents ourt evolved state above mere animal beimng.
everyone chill out on who is a Troll an who is not, This post og G'ary's is on topic so let's just be friends and enjoy the discusssion
Ryan M JBsptfn, can you give us good reason to think you aren't a troll? When you post on Skept's blog, you make a lot of assertions but never seem to back them up. In addition, when someone makes a very clear, non insulting response to your assertions you seem to simply ignore them and continue posting the same assertions. This seems like something a troll would do.
Ryan, Skeppy is a world class troll. He had been banned from several sites. I saw the trolling that he did on Victor Reppert's site. And, he still seems to write entries attacking people like him, Crude, and Joe (he called Joe a liar on his site last month).
And, I didn't make assertions on his site. I just usually countered the crap that they were saying with info from better sources. When I did that, I would get accused of denying science (by Skeppy, who really doesn't know anything about the subject) and Merrill (he called me a Turkel fan boy when I posted something from Tektonics, but I would like to see him go to Theology Web and debate J.P. He would get slaughtered).
And Gary, if you want to be civil on this site and the CADRE, then I apologize, but you need to keep it on topic at both places.
Also, Gary, if you want to debate someone about Evolution, here is a discussion that is going on right now:
Atheism-Analyzed: Discussion Zone for Evolution
"We don't need an invisible god to tell us to be nice to the children in our "herd"."
But we do, apparently. Here's what happens when single motherhood is subsidised through welfare and the divorce business. http://newsone.com/1195075/children-single-parents-u-s-american/
what James say about widows and orphans?so helping the helpless not subsidization them is it?
Joe said: "(1) ought from is
(2) why should we think mere survival is the goal of ethical theory?
(3) what about elephants that sacrifice fpr their others? or the idea that our learning to care for the helpless represents ourt evolved state above mere animal beimng."
Gary: Your questions betray your worldview that morality is explained by philosophy. I disagree. I believe that morality is explained by biology. I believe that ALL our behaviors stem from our evolutionary biology.
Members of many different "herds" of animals are known to risk their own lives for the benefit of the herd. Why do they do this? Answer: biology. Members of the herd which display "otherness" awareness benefit the herd and the herd is therefore more likely in return to provide protection for this member, insuring the survival of that individual's DNA. The member who only looks out for himself, disregards the rules of the herd, risks expulsion from the herd and therefore decreased chances of survival, resulting in decreased chances of passing on his DNA.
In my opinion, it's all about biology. I believe that recent scientific research supports this view. And that is part of why philosophy is a dying field of study.
JB:
I have no interest in debating Evolution. It is a settled fact. The evidence is overwhelming. Science no longer debates this issue.
You sure about that, Gary? Stan and this guy would disagree:
Science Against Evolution
JB,
There are still people who believe that the earth is flat. I won't debate them either. I believe it is just as much a waste of time to debate Evolution as it is to debate a Flat Earth.
Gary:
So you admit you're unable to defend your Evolutionist beliefs. Good to know.
Joe said: "(1) ought from is
(2) why should we think mere survival is the goal of ethical theory?
(3) what about elephants that sacrifice fpr their others? or the idea that our learning to care for the helpless represents ourt evolved state above mere animal beimng."
Gary: Your questions betray your worldview that morality is explained by philosophy. I disagree. I believe that morality is explained by biology. I believe that ALL our behaviors stem from our evolutionary biology.
ethics is a branch of philosophy it is philosophy. If you don't make a philosophical argument you are not doing ethics, The attempt to explain it in terms of biology is reductionist ideology. That loses the phenomena.
Members of many different "herds" of animals are known to risk their own lives for the benefit of the herd. Why do they do this? Answer: biology. Members of the herd which display "otherness" awareness benefit the herd and the herd is therefore more likely in return to provide protection for this member, insuring the survival of that individual's DNA. The member who only looks out for himself, disregards the rules of the herd, risks expulsion from the herd and therefore decreased chances of survival, resulting in decreased chances of passing on his DNA.
that's not ethics. it may be some pre theoretical foundation in behavior that allowed humans to understand ethics but it's not ethical. Animals don't reason about instict, Ethical behavior is reasoning about how you treat others.
In my opinion, it's all about biology. I believe that recent scientific research supports this view. And that is part of why philosophy is a dying field of study.
10:30 AM
your opinion is ignorant. I bet you have never read a philosopher, your atheist masters have brain washed you, you are just spouting the stuff you are told to think by your handlers which serve as your peer group try actually thinking about it/.
btw philosophy is more popular than its ever been, Physicists are doing philosophy and think they are philosophers,
Gary:
So you admit you're unable to defend your Evolutionist beliefs. Good to know.
I can defend my evolutionist views, but we are not going to because it's off topic. If Gary wants to waste his time he'll go over to that other's guys site, the link JB put up
JBsptfn, unless Gary is a PHD biologist of some sort then he is in no position to debate evolution. I really do not understand the appeal of non experts in a field debating its subject matter. Gary shouldn't debate it, nor should Stan. But if Stan does want to show evolution is false then he should debate people with PHDs in the relevant subject area. Debating average internet atheists does nothing more than score an apparent victory in the eyes of people who cannot actually assess the soundness or cogency of the arguments presented. It's like debating the truth of the continuum hypothesis with a person unfamiliar with set theory and showing a similarly non familiar audience that you have bested the non expert. Quite silly.
My tips for you: 1). stop treating the atheist/theist internet presence as a constant war to one up one another. Try to have actual dialogues with people and do not argue anything outside your expertise (ideally, follow Grice's maxims of language too). 2). Do not use that "Science against Evolution" site as a source. Their definition of "evolution" is not the evolution studied by biologists. Their definition of evolution is actually abiogenesis + the belief that all living things have a common origin. While abiogenesis is often studied by some biologists, it is not a logical implication of what biologists call "evolution", and in fact many theistic believers in evolution would be surprised to see abiogenesis added to the definition of evolution (Kenneth Miller, for example).
I won't make more off topic posts. I just think it's important that people realize that they need to stop debating topics they aren't qualified to debate and they need to stop debating people not qualified to debate them. i.e. I should not debate people at Debunking Christianity on topics of philosophy because I have a degree in the subject but none of them are even familiar with the basics of it.
Gary should consider distinction between the following:
1. The origin of a belief.
2. The truth-maker of a belief.
Consider the proposition "It is impermissible to torture people for fun". We can fully grant that the origin of our belief in this proposition is in fact an evolutionary origin. But the fact that our belief originated from evolution does not imply that it is evolution that makes the belief true, or that the origin of the belief makes it false.
Suppose I looked at a very technical proof of some theorem, and from my knowledge of the subject the proof appears sound. As a result of my background knowledge of the subject I gain the belief that the theorem is true. We should not suppose that my background knowledge in conjunction with my viewing of the proof makes the theorem true. So the origin of my belief is irrelevant to the truth of the belief. In addition, we can suppose the proof is actually unsound. But an unsound proof does not necessitate a false conclusion so my belief that the theorem is true can still be a true belief even if the origin of my belief is faulty.
To relate this with evolution, it can be the case that belief in any moral proposition originates with evolution but that does not affect the justification of moral beliefs. Moral beliefs having an evolutionary origin doesn't imply all moral propositions are false and it doesn't imply that the origin of our beliefs affects their epistemic justification.
It is also useful to consider that science deals with descriptive propositions whereas ethics deals with prescriptive propositions. Evolutionary science simply would not include prescriptive statements so ethics is beyond the scope of evolutionary science.
I disagree somewhat with your views on qualifications. I know I should not debate Gary I didn't say I would. Frankly I,m trying to teach rather than debate,.i am teacher I just don't have class right now. I didn't want to say to him "I know much more than you he's not going to listen to that.
We need to be humble in discussion with experts but that doesn't mean we should just be told what to think either. I've argued with real actual physicists and prove my point right and their positions fall part because thy don't know how to argue. But I don't tell them I know more about physics than they do. I can still disagree with their conclusions especially whom those conclusions are out of their domain, like the existence of God.
that view could led itself to mystification of knowledge i we aren't careful. I like what you say about stop the war and get into discussion,that's what I like about Keith and Jeffand thes crewoverat SOP.
Ryan: Consider the proposition "It is impermissible to torture people for fun". We can fully grant that the origin of our belief in this proposition is in fact an evolutionary origin. But the fact that our belief originated from evolution does not imply that it is evolution that makes the belief true, or that the origin of the belief makes it false.
excellent point!
"Consider the proposition "It is impermissible to torture people for fun". We can fully grant that the origin of our belief in this proposition is in fact an evolutionary origin. But the fact that our belief originated from evolution does not imply that it is evolution that makes the belief true, or that the origin of the belief makes it false."
My point is that there is no "true" or "false". There is no such thing as absolute morality. We deny members of our society free license to kill other members of our society due to our desire to maintain the "herd", not because of some absolute moral or ethical principle.
At one time in this country no respectable physician would perform or condone an abortion. Now, it is an acceptable position for any physician to take. In fact, if you are a physician and outspoken against abortion, you are treated as a piarrhia (sp) in the medical community. There is no such thing as absolute morality. Morality and ethics adapt and evolve with changes within the herd.
You guys are thinking way too hard on this. There is no need to delve into the philosophical weeds. Biology determines our behavior.
Ethics are the principles that govern the behavior of a group and the study thereof. It is my contention that ethics are situational. Here is an example:
Today in the United States we spend BILLIONS each year taking care of the very sick and the weak members of our society (our "herd"). There are thousands of nursing homes around the country filled with seniors who need 24 hour care to survive. Thousands of these seniors are so disabled that they do nothing but lie in their beds every day, requiring frequent turning by nursing staff, toileting, bathing, and feeding. Tax payers fund a substantial percentage of this care through government assistance called Medicaid.
There are numerous "vent farms" across the country where persons with minimal or limited brain function are kept alive for YEARS on ventilators. This care costs hundreds of thousands of dollars per individual per year. The majority of the cost of this care is born by tax payers.
There are tens of thousands of disabled children in this country. Tax payers spend millions of not billions of dollars each year providing care and services for these children.
Why do we as a society provide this care to the weak and elderly? Is it because a god has instilled this altruism within us? I suggest that the reason we do so is due to our biology. Let me explain.
What would happen to all these charity/welfare programs if the United States was forced into a devastating war? The war becomes so severe that after a few years all our resources are drained. People are starving. Food is more valuable than money. Would we as a society continue paying billions of dollars to keep severely disabled people alive if it meant that thousands of other healthy people would starve? I don't think so. I believe that our "ethics" would change. I believe that the funding for the disabled and elderly would end. All resources would go to keeping the strongest alive. As things get really bad, it would truly become "survival of the fittest".
And this is what we see in the "wild". When a herd is prosperous and safe, altruism for the weak is much higher than when the herd is starving and threatened. Our ethics derive from our desire to preserve the herd and even more, to preserve ourselves.
Brutal, but I believe the evidence supports its veracity.
Ryan 1). stop treating the atheist/theist internet presence as a constant war to one up one another. Try to have actual dialogues with people and do not argue anything outside your expertise (ideally, follow Grice's maxims of language too).
I didn't start all this. Skeppy did when he came over to the CADRE blog last winter to argue with Don McIntosh about his entry that dealt with Evolution.
I told Stan and Pogge about what he was saying (they know way more about the subject than I do), and they got involved in the debate.
IMS has trolled several sites. He has been banned from Feser's blog, DI, and this blog. Him and his partners (PapaPlagiarizer and Merrill) are useless.
Ryan 2). Do not use that "Science against Evolution" site as a source. Their definition of "evolution" is not the evolution studied by biologists. Their definition of evolution is actually abiogenesis + the belief that all living things have a common origin. While abiogenesis is often studied by some biologists, it is not a logical implication of what biologists call "evolution", and in fact many theistic believers in evolution would be surprised to see abiogenesis added to the definition of evolution (Kenneth Miller, for example).
I told Pogge about this. He already addressed this here:
Science Against Evolution: Definitions and References (Dylan #1, May 2012)
Dylan #2, June 2012
The Definition of Evolution
If you have any other questions, why don't you e-mail him on his site? I told the almighty Skeppy to do that, but he probably thought he was above him because he is a science god (lol).
My point is that there is no "true" or "false". There is no such thing as absolute morality. We deny members of our society free license to kill other members of our society due to our desire to maintain the "herd", not because of some absolute moral or ethical principle.
Obviously there is true and false since there is such a thing as ethical thinking, just because you don't understand what it is doesn't mean it;snot there,
At one time in this country no respectable physician would perform or condone an abortion. Now, it is an acceptable position for any physician to take. In fact, if you are a physician and outspoken against abortion, you are treated as a piarrhia (sp) in the medical community. There is no such thing as absolute morality. Morality and ethics adapt and evolve with changes within the herd.
the moral underpinnings related to the issue interchange, people understood a different rationale a different relationship between the specific situation of absorption and the background moral assumptions that govern it, It;s also not true that no respectable doctor woudl do an abortion, In the era of civil they would. one
You guys are thinking way too hard on this. There is no need to delve into the philosophical weeds. Biology determines our behavior.
you are stupidity, issi mr sciemce man to tell you wnat's true don't think or yourself,
the new atheist movement is slave thinking you are brain washed,
Ethics are the principles that govern the behavior of a group and the study thereof. It is my contention that ethics are situational. Here is an example:
not they are not
Today in the United States we spend BILLIONS each year taking care of the very sick and the weak members of our society (our "herd"). There are thousands of nursing homes around the country filled with seniors who need 24 hour care to survive. Thousands of these seniors are so disabled that they do nothing but lie in their beds every day, requiring frequent turning by nursing staff, toileting, bathing, and feeding. Tax payers fund a substantial percentage of this care through government assistance called Medicaid.
There are numerous "vent farms" across the country where persons with minimal or limited brain function are kept alive for YEARS on ventilators. This care costs hundreds of thousands of dollars per individual per year. The majority of the cost of this care is born by tax payers.
There are tens of thousands of disabled children in this country. Tax payers spend millions of not billions of dollars each year providing care and services for these children.
Why do we as a society provide this care to the weak and elderly? Is it because a god has instilled this altruism within us? I suggest that the reason we do so is due to our biology. Let me explain.
What would happen to all these charity/welfare programs if the United States was forced into a devastating war? The war becomes so severe that after a few years all our resources are drained. People are starving. Food is more valuable than money. Would we as a society continue paying billions of dollars to keep severely disabled people alive if it meant that thousands of other healthy people would starve? I don't think so. I believe that our "ethics" would change. I believe that the funding for the disabled and elderly would end. All resources would go to keeping the strongest alive. As things get really bad, it would truly become "survival of the fittest".
And this is what we see in the "wild". When a herd is prosperous and safe, altruism for the weak is much higher than when the herd is starving and threatened. Our ethics derive from our desire to preserve the herd and even more, to preserve ourselves.
Brutal, but I believe the evidence supports its veracity.
you are totally confused about ,logic, you are totally confused about the difference between is and ought, you seem to think that if a behavior is accepted as norm that makes it right, that/s just convoluted nonsense, We do all that carjacking or people because have a value that says we act oncompassiomnand hepthose who cn't help themlves,
It is not right because we do it, we do it because it's roght
Well, you are certainly welcome to your perspective, Joe, but I disagree. Scientific research is proving more and more that our behavior is based on biology. As much as you may want to believe that there is a universal "right" and a universal "wrong", I don't think you can prove it.
In my many conversations with moderate Christians, I have noticed that their ultimate defense is to retreat into philosophy. But the problem with philosophy is that if you ask five philosophers a question, you are likely to get five different answers. Philosophy is subjective, biology is not. That is why I encourage all skeptics to refuse to engage Christians on philosophy. Philosophy is the conjoined-twin of religion. One cannot survive without the other.
I am not saying that philosophy is worthless. What I am saying is that you don't need a degree in philosophy to know that virgin births, water-walking, and resurrections are highly, highly improbable. There is no more reason to believe in these supernatural claims as to believe in the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus.
Gary: I am not saying that philosophy is worthless. What I am saying is that you don't need a degree in philosophy to know that virgin births, water-walking, and resurrections are highly, highly improbable. There is no more reason to believe in these supernatural claims as to believe in the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus.
This is typical atheist rhetoric, just like your claim above about science and biology. And, again, you are showing that you are a purveyor of scientism.
I AM a purveyor of science. I believe that the scientific method best explains our world and reality. I cannot disprove the existence of a metaphysical world but I would suggest that there is insufficient evidence to consider its existence probable.
I believe that the scientific method is our best tool yet to investigate our world. I choose to follow this principle until someone provides sufficient evidence demonstrating that their world view is superior.
Correction: I should have said, "I cannot disprove the existence of a SUPERNATURAL world..."
I believe that the morality and ethics exhibited in all human societies are due to our shared, "human herd", biology and not due to gods.
Some critics of scientism complain that if biology governs our behavior, a god-less society will degenerate into a "dog eat dog" mentality with every individual looking out for his/her own interests and disregarding/abusing the interests and well-being of others.
But this is exactly what happened in our ancient human history, even when we were highly religious! One only has to look at the horrific stories of the Old Testament; entire peoples, including the elderly, women, and children slaughtered. Only with thousands of years of first hand experience, have humans learned that "looking out for the other guy" is the best rule of thumb in a society since if everyone (or at least the overwhelming majority of people in the society) are following this behavior, YOU as an individual will benefit. When one only looks out for himself, there is always someone bigger and stronger who will crush you in HIS pursuit of self-preservation. Altruism benefits all members of a society.
And this is what we see in herds. Herds in which all members look out for each other's well-being tend to prosper and thrive. Herds in which there is a great deal of self-interest and lack of altruism function less well and often do not survive.
Altruism, morality, and ethics come from our biology! Our self interest to survive has taught us that altruistic behavior towards others, in the long run, is in OUR best interest as an individual. And THAT is why all societies (herds) have moral/ethical standards.
I believe that the best world view for societies is the combination of scientism and secular humanism.
Gary, I am just shaking my head right now. Secular humanism is a great world view? I don't think so:
Atheism Analyzed: The Humanist Manifesto search results
Here is a good definition of secular humanist ethics.
"What Are Secular Humanist Ethics?
Secular humanism propounds a rational ethics based on human experience. It is consequentialist: ethical choices are judged by their results. Secular humanist ethics appeals to science, reason, and experience to justify its ethical principles. Observers can evaluate the real-world consequences of moral decisions and intersubjectively affirm their conclusions. Kurtz and other secular humanists argue that all human societies, even deeply religious ones, invariably construct consensus moralities on consequentialist principles. Millennia of human experience have given rise to a core of “common moral decencies” shared by almost all."
Are you talking about Paul Kurtz? The founder of the Center for Inquiry and Prometheus Books? Those are propagandist organizations for Humanism. The Center for Inquiry was talking about doing something about ten years ago called The Jesus Project that was a total fraud.
Gary I just started a three parter on ethical naturalism and I'm\ doming it to show you why ethical naturalism is the destruction of ethical thinking, since this thread I've dome one on modern science rejection of God is ideological. Why don't you stop being a troll, stop pretending you know everything, try learning. I was a ph.D. candidate I was a teaching assistant in a university I'm an author of a book, published an academic journal, you need to be trying to understand my view before you can argue with it,
Gary:Secular humanism propounds a rational ethics based on human experience. It is consequentialist: ethical choices are judged by their results. Secular humanist ethics appeals to science, reason, and experience to justify its ethical principles. Observers can evaluate the real-world consequences of moral decisions and intersubjectively affirm their conclusions. Kurtz and other secular humanists argue that all human societies, even deeply religious ones, invariably construct consensus moralities on consequentialist principles. Millennia of human experience have given rise to a core of “common moral decencies” shared by almost all."
Most ethicists do not accept accept consequential. in ethical theory consequential is thought of as disprovged. my new three part series I just started on this blog will explain why. please read that series. feel free to make comment but not long harangues about how right you are,
I will address a few things:
To Joe,
If a physicist makes claims about theology which are beyond the scope of their expertise, but is within the scope of your expertise, then I do not think there is any issue in TEACHING them the issues with their comments. Lawrence Krauss makes claims which are beyond the scope of his expertise and it is perfectly permissible to point that out to him. But I think it would be impermissible to debate physics issues as a non expert and it would be impermissible to debate physics issues with non experts rather than actual experts.
To Gary,
I see a few things sort of implied in your responses.
1. You think that moral disagreement demonstrates the truth of moral nihilism (either conclusively or probably). I see this when you talk about the abortion issue. If this is what you think then I think you're mistaken. Moral disagreement does not imply moral nihilism and more than disagreement about evolution, climate change or the shape of the earth imply that there are no objective facts about those issues.
2. You think that the origin of our moral behaviours demonstrates the truth of moral nihilism (Either conclusively or probably). I see this when you talk about why we act altruistically from an evolutionary point of view. If this is what you think then I again think you're mistaken. I do not think you are mistaken because I think moral realism is true (I don't think it is). Rather, I think you're mistaken because the origin of behaviours, just like the origin of beliefs, does not imply that there are no corresponding moral truths behind the behaviours. Joe is free to admit that God used evolution to instill moral behaviours in humans that will give them unconscious reasons to perform their respected moral duties. Since Joe can do that without committing himself to a logical inconsistent beliefs, a genetic fallacy appears again.
To JB,
I see why he altered his definition, but it is still misleading and I don't think he gave good reasons to use his definition (He should make sure to watch out for using the universal quantifier over weaker ones). I wouldn't bother emailing him because scientists working in biology should be the ones addressing such issues. With respect to Skep, remember that him trolling (Though I don't think he is a troll), does not justify you in treating dialogue with atheists as a means to smear them or score rhetorical points for your preferred side. IMO, close to every theist blog is a waste outside of Prosblogion and blogs run by theist philosophers (Such as Ed Feser but not including Victor Reppert), and close to every atheist blog is a waste of time outside of the Secular Outpost (e.g. Debunking Christianity). Too many of these blogs are either full of non experts talking on subjects they lack qualifications to talk about, or the blog owners (And people commenting) are more interested in group think than actual genuine dialogue. If theists and atheists alike followed Grice's maxims of conversation and only debated topics they are qualified to debate then the blogsphere would be a much better place.
As a final note about Skeppy, I don't care how many blogs he is banned from. Bans do not necessarily occur as a consequence of trolling. For example, despite being an atheist I am banned from Debunking Christianity and am blocked by John Loftus on Facebook. I received neither by ban nor my block due to trolling. Rather, I'm trained to argue, and I like to call out bad arguments by atheists and theists alike. John does not like me making his fans nor himself look stupid so he banned me and blocked me. Skeppy comes off as very stubborn, and I can see why he would get banned for excessive stubbornness. But I doubt he was banned for trolling. Remember that a troll must intentionally try to elicit negative responses for their own enjoyment. Despite Skeppy probably eliciting negative responses in his conversation partners, I think it is an accident since he seems genuine in the beliefs he expresses.
Ryan M said...
I will address a few things:
To Joe,
If a physicist makes claims about theology which are beyond the scope of their expertise, but is within the scope of your expertise, then I do not think there is any issue in TEACHING them the issues with their comments. Lawrence Krauss makes claims which are beyond the scope of his expertise and it is perfectly permissible to point that out to him. But I think it would be impermissible to debate physics issues as a non expert and it would be impermissible to debate physics issues with non experts rather than actual experts.
I agree
Remember that a troll must intentionally try to elicit negative responses for their own enjoyment. Despite Skeppy probably eliciting negative responses in his conversation partners, I think it is an accident since he seems genuine in the beliefs he expresses.
I will comment on this one since this is one of the sites from which he is banned. I wouldn't call it Trolling, i don't think hie was trying to illicit negative responses, But he was arguing unfairly and being a jerk about it, I have two rules, be nice, be interesting. He had ceased doing either. He started running down my book which he had not read and was being unfair about my sources imn a way that I thought took unfair digs and he had not read tehm either.
Ryan,
You are absolutely correct. I cannot disprove the existence of absolute moral truths. Nor can I disprove the existence of the Christian god, Yahweh/Jesus the Christ.
I am not saying that my position is the one and only truth, I am simply saying that I believe that my position best explains the universe, to me. But it is not just my opinion. There is a lot of recent research by experts to support my position.
And this point: I do not need to be an expert to have a position on issues of reality. Some Christians seem to believe that one must have a degree in philosophy and theology to have an opinion on this issue. I contend that just as in every other area of life, most educated people rely on the position of the experts in the field in which they themselves are not experts. There is a strong group of experts who believe that biology is the source of behavior. I accept their position. You may disagree, and that's fine, but it is not unreasonable for me to hold that position without being an "expert" myself.
You definitely do not need to be an expert on a subject to have justified beliefs about topics within the scope of that subject. I am not a physicist, but I surely have justified beliefs about gravitational forces, electrons, etc. My justification is derived from experts in physics. However, I am personally unqualified to debate technical aspects of physics, and to do otherwise seems unethical (Especially to audiences that would take my word as truth).
I do happen to think biology is the source of behaviour in so far as I believe organisms are purely physical beings and their respective behaviours are fully caused by their physical states. My actual objections to absolute moral truths lies in the fact that I think moral sentences are in a sense meaningless so they do not express propositions.
"I am personally unqualified to debate technical aspects of physics, and to do otherwise seems unethical (Especially to audiences that would take my word as truth)."
I have never posited myself as an "expert" either on this blog or my own. I am simply a human being with opinions. I may be wrong. I am willing to listen to other points of view. But it is perfectly reasonable for me to debate and defend my beliefs regardless of the fact that I am not an expert.
Ryan 1:To JB,
I see why he altered his definition, but it is still misleading and I don't think he gave good reasons to use his definition (He should make sure to watch out for using the universal quantifier over weaker ones). I wouldn't bother emailing him because scientists working in biology should be the ones addressing such issues.
In reading the first link (Definitions and References), he says that Evolutionists exclude Abiogenesis when it suits their purposes. He didn't alter his definition. He just made light of a rhetorical trick.
And, it seems a little screwed up to me that you can't just e-mail him if you have a problem with it. Your last sentences about how only biologists should address that seems to ring of scientism to me. I don't put too much faith in scientists because they can have an agenda.
Ryan 2:IMO, close to every theist blog is a waste outside of Prosblogion and blogs run by theist philosophers (Such as Ed Feser but not including Victor Reppert), and close to every atheist blog is a waste of time outside of the Secular Outpost (e.g. Debunking Christianity). Too many of these blogs are either full of non experts talking on subjects they lack qualifications to talk about, or the blog owners (And people commenting) are more interested in group think than actual genuine dialogue.
Do you think that this blog is a waste of time? And, what do you and Skep have against Victor Reppert?
JB,
The most simple definition of scientism is the view that epistemic justification only comes from science. In another sense, scientism is the view that knowledge only comes from scientific methodology. So for example there would be no a priori knowledge. What I said is that only biologists, or more broadly people with relevant expertise to biology, should be debating topics that are specifically within the scope of biology. That is not scientism. Pogge could theoretically debate topics in biology which have overlap with engineering. i.e. topics which are within the scope of biology AND engineering. Scientists can have agendas, but despite that our epistemic justification of claims within their scope of inquiry (that is far removed from ours) is still sort of within their hands. All we can do is rely on peer review, do our own side research, and look for equally qualified minds with dissenting views.
I wouldn't email him because it wouldn't change his mind. I see why he altered his definition, and there is no point in asking him to demonstrate his defenses such as the defense about every textbook on evolution coupling it with abiogenesis. If anyone has actual interest in the evolution debate then they would probably use more sources than his site. i.e. Talkorigins, biology textbooks, etc. I don't think his definition(s) would fool anyone but an already existing creationist with a confirmation bias.
With respect to Joe's site, no I don't think it's a waste. Obviously Joe's dyslexia is going to hurt how he understands his opponents arguments so sometimes he will botch his responses, but at least he is reading relevant material and has relevant expertise. Joe's posts are mostly lacking in displaying the explicit logical form of his arguments.
Victor often has good posts, but much of the time he is pandering to his fans with odd anti-atheist arguments. Perhaps the worst part of his site is how downright toxic the comment section is. Victor is well aware that some of the theists in his comment section are borderline psychopathic (Illion, for example), but fails to ban such people after years. Productive dialogue seems next to impossible there. I take Victor's site to be the theist equivalent of Debunking Christianity. I think he would do well to make his blog more like Prosblogion, the Secular Outpost, or some of the philosopher's blogs such as Alexander Pruss. I can't speak for Skep, but I imagine he thinks Victor is just not great at being fair to his opposition. Most of my interactions with Skep are actually me arguing against him (Joe will recall my dismantle of Skep's arguments against David Chalmers).
Yeah, I saw that interaction you had with him on an article that Joe did earlier this year (about the hard problem).
And this point: I do not need to be an expert to have a position on issues of reality. Some Christians seem to believe that one must have a degree in philosophy and theology to have an opinion on this issue. I contend that just as in every other area of life, most educated people rely on the position of the experts in the field in which they themselves are not experts. There is a strong group of experts who believe that biology is the source of behavior. I accept their position. You may disagree, and that's fine, but it is not unreasonable for me to hold that position without being an "expert" myself.
atheists are always making statements that require specific knowledge of theology and thinking their unbelief gives them a credential to understand theology, the people on secular outpost are busily debating how they define Christianity not a one of them has bothered to quote the creeds. Atheists always think their doubt is a credential that qualifies them to talk about religion.
the attitude most of them take when this pointed out is "well theology is so stupid I don't have to waste my time knowing about it." I say if you never read it how do you know t stupid they say because I don't believe in god.
common guys I need commenmts on the new one
"atheists are always making statements that require specific knowledge of theology and thinking their unbelief gives them a credential to understand theology, the people on secular outpost are busily debating how they define Christianity not a one of them has bothered to quote the creeds. Atheists always think their doubt is a credential that qualifies them to talk about religion."
An atheist who wants to debate early Christology, textual criticism, etc. had better be a scholar. The atheist who wants to debate Justification and Predestination had better be a theologian. The atheist who wants to debate the probability of the existence of invisible beings, virgin births, water-walking, and resurrections need only possess common sense.
Let me give you an example of the primary area of criticism of the average, non-expert atheist/agnostic regarding Christianity: Errors in the Bible.
In one gospel, the resurrected Jesus tells his disciples to meet him in Galilee. In other gospel, the resurrected Jesus commands the disciples to remain in Jerusalem until the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Pentecost).
It can't be both folks. Stop the spin.
If we read one history book which says that General McArthur ordered his troops in the Philippines to fight to the last man, and another history book which says that McArthur ordered his troops to surrender when the food and water ran out...BOTH cannot be true! One of the history books contains an error!
It is all the ridiculous Christian spin, otherwise referred to as "harmonization", that is the greatest source of criticism from atheists.
Bottom line: Atheists/agnostics want to debate the errors in the Bible and the probability of its supernatural claims. One does not need a degree in philosophy or theology to debate these issues. Christians often want to debate from a completely different perspective: they want to debate the philosophical basis of reality; the philosophical basis of a moral conscience; and the evidence for the existence of a Creator. These subjects require extensive knowledge of philosophy, theology, and science.
Both sides seem to have little patience for the other's agenda.
Gary:In one gospel, the resurrected Jesus tells his disciples to meet him in Galilee. In other gospel, the resurrected Jesus commands the disciples to remain in Jerusalem until the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Pentecost).
It can't be both folks. Stop the spin.
What spin are you talking about? When he told them to meet him in Galilee, that wasn't long after he rose. When he told them to remain in Jerusalem (to wait for the Holy Spirit) right before he ascended into Heaven, that was a different event about 40 days later.
The TRUTH according to the author of the Gospel of Matthew:
"After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
2 There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. 4 The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.
5 The angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you are looking for Jesus, who was crucified. 6 He is not here; he has risen, just as he said. Come and see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples: ‘He has risen from the dead and is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him.’ Now I have told you.”
The Truth according to the author of the Gospel of Luke:
That same day (as the Resurrection)...While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.”
37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.”
40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?” 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence.
44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.”
45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.”
Gary: It's one or the other, JB. You can't order someone to go to meet you in Galilee and on the same day order them to stay in Jerusalem until the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Pentecost).
Gary stop flaming i did not put this blog here for you to have a propaganda bulletin board., if you cam'tvf ollow the rules get lost. o you are already sorry. stay on topic
Post a Comment