(January 6, 2015 at 11:07 am)*steve* Wrote: Take the US Supreme Court as metaphor for it. That court is the final adjudicator for what is consistent with the constitution and what is not. There is no higher authority that can be appealed to in that adjudication. It stops there.

Ah, so an "ultimate purpose" would be an externally-applied reason by a conscious agency?

Because, no, I don't believe that exists, and I'm thankful that it doesn't.

(January 6, 2015 at 11:07 am)*steve* Wrote:

(January 6, 2015 at 10:54 am)Alex K Wrote: What precisely do you mean by ultimate?

Take the US Supreme Court as metaphor for it. That court is the final adjudicator for what is consistent with the constitution and what is not. There is no higher authority that can be appealed to in that adjudication. It stops there.

Not quite the metaphor you are looking for

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ove..._decisions

But my last post still stands, why can't I just define something as ultimate? Is there a deeper criterion?

(January 6, 2015 at 1:36 am)*steve* Wrote: In my view there is an ultimate basis for value, grounded in God.

Defining God as the ultimate basis for value, the unmoved mover, the un-caused cause doesn't narrow the field to a personal god, particularly one who wants and deserves worship. There has to be more.

Quote:You mentioned ineffable.

For a reason. Ineffability potentially eliminates access to any attribute of God. If there is something unknown about him/her/it/them it may hide an unlimited number of alternative qualities. Not that without knowing everything, you know nothing, but when a primary characteristic of the subject of study is mystery....unknowns abound. Lack of evidence is not proof of absence. But the longer God goes without unambiguously showing him/her/it/them self(ves), the higher my intuitive suspicion that he just ain't there grows.

Quote:So now we get to religious experience. Another tough one. The great theologian Paul Tillich spoke of the "mystical a priori". Calvin spoke of "sensus divinitatis". Both reflect some sort of ontological and epistemic union with the divine.....I add to this dynamic with what I call an informed intuition.

Each of these, distilled and filtered through my worldview, reduce to "because it feels right," with more flowery language. I prefer to maintain my model of reality on those observations which have reliably been shown to be 'true' in the past. (note: my definition of truth is that a proposition contains truth in direct proportion to the degree to which that proposition correctly predicts the future.) This entails evidence shown to have been factual and a network of concepts (call it theory) which serves to bind the factual observations together. I cannot claim to know the future, only what appears to be the past. My faith lies in the belief that the future will closely resemble the past simply because it appears to have always done so (Hume acknowledged.)
In this context, I find the "because it feels right" rational to be highly suspect. What we observe about maladaptive minds, mental illness, psychedelic drugs, trans cranial magnetic stimulation of the sense of the transcendent etc. is more consistent with God (the more anthropomorphic, personal god of the major religions) being a mechanistic imaginary construct of brains which developed and served to keep us alive and reproducing (hence the concentration on sex.) Note, I am not claiming a teleology for this mechanism. Chemistry doesn't care if we have children, but we do. Those minds who didn't care one way or the other about getting through to the next generation were supplanted by those that did. And the ones that did are the ones that we see around us.

There does seem to be a need for something outside of our universe to have caused it. Big bang and all that. However it is not required to be a personal, intelligent entity. Every time we have looked where God should be, in the clouds, on the mountain tops, in the life essence of protoplasm, He wasn't there. I expect to find the same result if or when we are able to observe directly the factors reasonably able to be credited with kicking off the universe. It is possible we will never be able to look in that direction: flatlanders can't look up. But we may find evidences in our universe which at least hint at its cause: gravity as a bleed through from another dimension, whatever the hell dark matter & dark energy are. But at the bottom, I expect there will always be a limit to what we can observe, the directions we can see if you will. We have found ourselves to be very small in a very big universe. If God is still fixated on a very small patch of sand in the middle east, it doesn't show. It is rationally unwarranted to assume or claim that the places we can't look are the places which contain God though it may be socially advantageous to do so.

Thank you for your insightful and civil approach. I think that folks around here appreciate that though it is uncommon. Most theists we see dive in with hackneyed arguments about second law or un-caused cause. It becomes tiresomely repetitive. I think you're wrong if you believe in one of the internally contradictory gods, but at least you are examining carefully the reflex hammer before you hit yourself in the head with it.

Julia

You seem to be assuming things cannot have any value unless there is some ultimate authority giving them value. This also assumes that there is, or even could be, such an authority. You always need to consider what you are assuming when asking a question.

This is a much more civilized and sensible conversation that we usually get with theists. By a huge margin

(January 6, 2015 at 11:01 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: As to your other two "points", you'll have to describe them more. What the hell is a "ultimate basis for value" or an "ultimate intentionality associated with reality"?

I would say that "value" is what we base our moral decisions on. Say for instance, if life is valuable then our moral decisions and behaviors attempt to honor and protect that value.

For most people an ultimate intentionality would probably be termed as "God". Theism posits an ultimate intentionality (God) that is somehow actively associated with our reality. Deism posits the presence of that ultimate intentionality but rejects its active association with this reality. Buddhism, as I understand it, posits ultimate "laws" but not intentionality.

(January 5, 2015 at 8:07 pm)*steve* Wrote: There is no ultimate meaning. Therefore, all lives and events are ultimately meaningless.

The meaning is what we give it now. Believing in a non-existent god will change the end how?

(January 6, 2015 at 11:20 am)robvalue Wrote: You seem to be assuming things cannot have any value unless there is some ultimate authority giving them value.

No, I'm not assuming that. Things can certainly be attributed a value whether or not they are based on an ultimate value.

(January 6, 2015 at 11:20 am)*steve* Wrote:

(January 6, 2015 at 11:01 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: As to your other two "points", you'll have to describe them more. What the hell is a "ultimate basis for value" or an "ultimate intentionality associated with reality"?

I would say that "value" is what we base our moral decisions on. Say for instance, if life is valuable then our moral decisions and behaviors attempt to honor and protect that value.

For most people an ultimate intentionality would probably be termed as "God". Theism posits an ultimate intentionality (God) that is somehow actively associated with our reality. Deism posits the presence of that ultimate intentionality but rejects its active association with this reality. Buddhism, as I understand it, posits ultimate "laws" but not intentionality.

1) To the "value" question.
So you're asking if there is a supreme, authoritative agency that cannot be appealed ("ultimate" from your supreme court analogy) that determines the basis for our moral decisions ("value").

No. I don't believe that there is any objective, proscribed code of conduct carved into the universe by a supreme agency, and I'm glad there isn't. Relying on an authority for your morality removes the ability to make moral decisions for yourself. The best and most effective way to discuss and evolve moral systems is through debate, evidence, empathy, and an understanding of what makes healthy human societies. No "ultimate" authority needed.


2) Intentionality
Nope. No reason to think there is, and in my opinion no reason to wish there was.

Our supreme court would be a poor metaphor if we're using it in the context of some gods moral commands or the ultimate source of -anything-. The SC doesn't derive it's power from a divine claim or writ. It's utterances are not taken to be or meant to be moral absolutes and they only apply to those the SC is appointed to serve. Neither do they create or sustain the environment, actors or actions occurring within that system. They exist only to mediate between two parties where a conflict of interest arises and whatever decision they make refers to both the provisional source of their authority and only extends to what that provisional authority explicitly states. Also...the buck doesn't stop with them at all. Lets say we had a legitimate greivence and took it all the way to the SC - whereupon it was shot down for no other reason than "I am the law" - we would, could, and should revolt.

If the SC can be used as a metaphor for ultimate anything in the context of a god (lets not forget what we're talking about here) then you're going to need to get your god down here right now to negotiate a contract and limitations in full view and with the participation of all interested parties......all with the understanding that we've been known to flat out strangle a motherfucker who breaks the wrong agreements at the wrong time.

(January 5, 2015 at 11:45 pm)*steve* Wrote: Hmmm. So your argument against genocide is that morality needs conscious agents which it would eliminate. So something is morally wrong if it would eliminate morality. Sounds somewhat circular to me. Why not just do away with morality and everyone just does what they want, even if it eliminates all moral agents?

Look, don't ask me questions about how moral systems work, and then leap to asking me why we should have a moral system at all once you've been given an answer, those are two completely different questions. As it stands, there's nothing circular about the maintenance of moral system contributing to the reasoning behind that same system; eliminating morality necessarily opens the door to behavior that the now non-existent moral system would hold to be immoral. In short, it is immoral to eliminate morality, because that leads to the propagation of acts that morality has, for a variety of reasons, defined to be immoral. It's not circular, it's definitional; if something allows for immoral things to happen, it is an immoral thing.

As to why you shouldn't get rid of morality altogether, the answer is simple and rational, so it's obvious why you, with your ridiculous ideas about how morality is grounded- which I'll get to in just a minute- didn't get it immediately: It's beneficial. A society that lives according to moral strictures that are grounded in what I've listed is demonstrably healthier than one that does not. See, the problem with this interrogation you keep conducting isn't with my answers, it's with you for refusing to modulate your position in the slightest; you aren't actually thinking through the consequences of the things you're asking, you're just thinking about how they would affect you, even after we've established that morality considers all people, not just the individual. Why keep morality? Do you understand how much of your comfortable life is bound up in the social contract every member of your culture has made? If everyone acted like the amoral monster you keep asking me why it's not okay for you to act like, your access to food, medical care, technology, everything that your society produces, diminishes immediately, because those things are made on the basis of trust that wouldn't exist in a world where everything is permissible. What would prompt the farmer, after all, to put his wares out for sale when it's totally okay for you to just murder him and take it all?

You like the life you lead? You like not having to be your own farmer, and doctor, and dentist, and scientist, and everything else, because your society allows people to specialize and depend on each other for individual expertise? Then that is why you should keep morality in place, even if your own evolved sense of empathy somehow isn't preventing you from acting like a monster anyway. I'm sorry if the rational answer isn't sufficient to you, and you were looking for an irrational one for some reason, but there you go.

Now, as for your own ideas of morality, which I did promise I'd get to, why is god's opinion on what's right and wrong the "ultimate grounding" for morals? Aside from the simple fiat assertion that it is, what reason do you have? Without referring to his power (might makes right isn't ultimate morality, it's a dictatorship) or to his creating everything (that's just an act, it doesn't imbue him with control over morality) what do you actually have to justify this absurd claim? Or hell, the further claim you make that morality requires an ultimate grounding at all? You've made two completely unjustified claims and so far have been happy to just sit there and make us all dance to your burden of proof shifting bullshit, but how about you start justifying your assumptions before we continue, eh? Because from where I'm standing, all you're doing is claiming that because some guy created the universe and was there before everyone else, his unjustified opinions on what's right and wrong are somehow objectively true, and I'm sorry, but that doesn't follow at all.

If that's not enough for you, I'll end on the Euthyphro Dilemma, which is still something that you theists have never been able to answer properly: Is something moral because god commands it, or does god command it because it is moral? If it's the former, then morality to you is just fiat command and is useless. If it's the latter, then morality is external to god and does not require him to be discovered and used.

Have fun with that.

Quote:But what if I ( as a rational human being ) don't care about society? I just want what I want and I want to kill redheads, and will try to get away with it. Is that somehow fundamentally wrong irrespective of what society thinks? If so, how?

You've missed the point of the veil of ignorance, but that's hardly surprising. You seem intent on missing every point that isn't just "because maaaagic!"

The veil of ignorance forces the participants in it to consider moral choices from purely moral standpoints, without self interest or bias interfering, because there is no self to be interested or biased until the moral choices are made. Simply put, you cannot make moral decisions from behind the veil in such a way that they benefit you, because you don't know what you'll be until the veil is lifted. It has nothing to do with society, really; as a rational human being behind the veil you cannot make the decision to make killing redheads moral, because once the veil is lifted you yourself could be a redhead.

Besides, I literally explained this in the post you're responding to: if you, as a "rational" human being, don't care about society and just want to do whatever you want, then you aren't making a rationally tenable decision because you're using special pleading to make your moral decision. In sort, you aren't a rational human being if you make that decision, especially when you factor in that the chances of getting caught and punished are higher that way. Stop asking me to consider scenarios that I've already explained to you are malformed and pointless, it just makes it seem like you've already decided to disagree with me before you started reading, and so aren't paying much attention.

Quote:I don't think it was by accident that Thomas Jefferson invoked the creator in the Declaration of Independence, "that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". Full stop. All other opinions are subordinate to that ultimate endowment. No more "why that" questions.

Except there is another why question, you just don't want anyone else to be thinking about it, which is why you're stressing that there aren't any so hard: why does "creator says so," endow one with anything, let alone unalienable rights? Why does creator's opinion matter at all?

Can you answer that question, without resorting to a tautology like every other theist I've asked it to?