(March 10, 2015 at 1:10 pm)Esquilax Wrote: The claim that personally derived meaning and, to some extent, meaning and value derived by the people who care about us is, somehow, invalid … has not been demonstrated.

It has been demonstrated. You just don’t like the answer.

(March 10, 2015 at 1:10 pm)Esquilax Wrote: If my meaning and purpose is self-derived, and you have a problem with that, why is that?

No problem. It’s just that you, Esquilax, with a tacit acceptance of a naturalism, cannot rationally defend meaning using a metaphysic that dismisses personal identity, intentionality, and universal essences.

(March 10, 2015 at 1:10 pm)Esquilax Wrote: The point is, what's the actual difference? In both cases, god-derived or human-derived, the meaning is resolved from a subjective mind and applied to reality.

Your underlying assumption is that physical reality is the whole of reality. In such a reality, humans are an inalienable physical process, an electro-chemical reaction, without definable boundaries between it and the rest of physical reality.

(March 10, 2015 at 1:38 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: It has been demonstrated. You just don’t like the answer.

How? Once again, all you've done is made the assertion.

Quote:No problem. It’s just that you, Esquilax, with a tacit acceptance of a naturalism, cannot rationally defend meaning using a metaphysic that dismisses personal identity, intentionality, and universal essences.

Personal identity and intentionality are products of sufficiently advanced brains, which are themselves natural products. It's not really that hard, but I don't think "universal essence" is a coherent or relevant part of this conversation.

Quote:Your underlying assumption is that physical reality is the whole of reality.

If you have to begin your rebuttals by dictating to your opponent what their position must be in order for your rebuttal to stand, then you do not have a rebuttal.

Quote: In such a reality, humans are an inalienable physical process, an electro-chemical reaction, without definable boundaries between it and the rest of physical reality.

Consciousness is the boundary. I am a conscious, self aware portion of physical reality, and that self awareness is sufficient to differentiate me from the other bits.

This is exactly what I'm talking about: the theist having this conversation either has to invent a problem out of whole cloth for their god to "solve," or else they've got to remain obtusely ignorant of simple responses to their attempts to cut a god-shaped hole in the world via arguments from incredulity.

Here's one for you, Chad! I've been doing the rounds with it.

If there is a god, what difference does it make to me?

(March 10, 2015 at 1:47 pm)robvalue Wrote: If there is a god, what difference does it make to me?

The existence of God is necessary for you to be a 'me'. Without the ideal 'I AM" there cannot be any universal essence of which particular personal existants, or any particular sensible being, can partake.

(March 10, 2015 at 1:10 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(March 10, 2015 at 12:26 pm)SteveII Wrote: So, there is no intrinsic meaning, value or purpose to anything? We have to make it up? So...the "noble lie"?

The claim that personally derived meaning and, to some extent, meaning and value derived by the people who care about us is, somehow, invalid or less valuable has not been demonstrated. You yourself are just assuming it to be true and, in fact, it's not a "problem" that is solved by your own beliefs, if you wish to continue this argument further.

If my meaning and purpose is self derived, and you have a problem with that, why is that? What are the actual issues at play here? I read the WLC article you cited, and he too seems to skip over actually explaining why what he says is true; he just asserts that it is, in a series of appeals to consequences that are rooted in baseless, unjustified fiat demands. One gets the feeling that no matter what we would produce in response, Craig would find that unsatisfactory, merely because it's not the god he's already hitched his wagon to. In fact, I recall a debate that demonstrates this quite clearly, where Craig makes essentially the same points he makes in his article, that without god we're just physical components, and his opponent replies by asking, essentially, how god makes that better. Craig's response was to repeat his original point.

The point is, what's the actual difference? In both cases, god-derived or human-derived, the meaning is resolved from a subjective mind and applied to reality; is there an actual difference between the two states that you can point to that wouldn't seem petty and insignificant without front-loading it with a lot of assumptions?

Is it that god's meaning comes prior to the existence of the thing, while human meaning comes after? In that case, the quality of the meaning is just temporal, and the content is irrelevant. Is it that the meaning comes specifically from our creator? Then it's dependent on the ability to create stuff, and the content is similarly irrelevant. In both of those cases, god could have decided to give you all no meaning, to purposefully give you nihilism, and you'd just be bound to that.

I don't think either of those points are why you're arguing this, though they do handily demonstrate what I'm getting to, which is that the reason you think godly meaning is superior is because it comes from god. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, if you have some actual reason that god meaning is better then just say so, but if all this comes down to is that it's better because it's god, then you have no case at all. It's just the authority you've imbued in god, making that meaning worthwhile, and you certainly can't justify giving that authority to him.

That's the problem with these discussions: the theist argument only stands if you assume a whole lot of hidden premises to be true. Taken from actually neutral ground, the theist can hardly justify their own meaning any more than the atheist, it's just that they've taken it upon themselves to be the interrogator rather than the interrogated.

So what "inspires us to live beyond selfish interests and so achieve social coherence...and compels us beyond self-interest, beyond ego, beyond family, nation, and race." Why don't we live only for self-interest like evolution taught us to do?

(March 10, 2015 at 2:01 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(March 10, 2015 at 1:47 pm)robvalue Wrote: If there is a god, what difference does it make to me?

The existence of God is necessary for you to be a 'me'. Without the ideal 'I AM" there cannot be any universal essence of which particular personal existants, or any particular sensible being, can partake.

We gonna get any evidence for the necessity of, let alone the existence of, any of this vague philosophical woo?

(March 10, 2015 at 2:14 pm)SteveII Wrote: So what "inspires us to live beyond selfish interests and so achieve social coherence...and compels us beyond self-interest, beyond ego, beyond family, nation, and race." Why don't we live only for self-interest like evolution taught us to do?

Here's a serious question: did you think about the world you live in at all before you wrote that post? I don't mean to be nasty, but come on: you live in a world in which social coherence is beneficial to your selfish interests! You don't have to grow your own food, be your own doctor, make your own clothes, you get to specialize and have your own career precisely because of social coherence. The idea that you can characterize society as nothing but some great sacrifice we're all making is completely baffling.

Also? We are evolved to be a social species. Community building is our prime survival trait; we were not "taught" by evolution to only value individual self interest. One wonders how much research into human evolution you actually did before deciding that.

(March 10, 2015 at 1:25 pm)Esquilax Wrote: This question comes up a lot, and it has the same problem I pointed out in my last post, where if the theist stopped questioning the atheist for a second and allowed their own beliefs to be questioned, it'd become pretty clear that A: the theistic position contains no answer for the problem they poke into the atheist one, and that B: the theist already has an answer, not specifically present in their theism, that works.

What if there's a conflict between two theistic moral absolutes, Steve?

You're not supposed to bear false witness, and you're not supposed to allow the innocent to come to harm, so what if you're in a situation where not lying will directly lead to someone innocent coming to harm? Chances are you'll weigh the two options, think about the consequences, and- I hope- pick the one that saves the innocent from harm.

Why would that not be sufficient for an atheist, too?

There is at least some agreement on this forum that philosophically speaking, atheism leads to ethical nihilism. Is that your position?

If so, how does one condemn someone for pursuing self interest. Let's take something that is not so "front-loaded". How about selling drugs to adults?

(March 10, 2015 at 2:22 pm)SteveII Wrote: There is at least some agreement on this forum that philosophically speaking, atheism leads to ethical nihilism. Is that your position?

Actually, no, it's not my position, as I believe reality to be a sufficient objective framework upon which to hang morality. In fact, reality is more of an objective framework than god, as it's actually objective, rather than subjective but tarted up with authority and language equivocations.

Quote: If so, how does one condemn someone for pursuing self interest. Let's take something that is not so "front-loaded". How about selling drugs to adults?

Moot point, considering the above. Your self interest does not override the- by necessity- blind considerations of a moral framework based on the real world we all inhabit. With regards to drugs, that's a contextual discussion: if the drug causes little harm, then there is little harm in selling it. The reverse is also true.

(March 10, 2015 at 12:36 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(March 10, 2015 at 12:28 pm)Alex K Wrote: There is no lie.
It's only a lie if you deny how you obtained your ethics.

An how does an atheist obtain ethics?

The same way everyone else does: a mixture of inheritance from parental views, human empathy, and the ability to use reason to apply those two bedrocks to novel experiences.

Yes, that includes religionists.

---

(March 10, 2015 at 12:55 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Existential and ethical nihilism go hand in hand. The logical progression from one to the other follows directly from the foolish abandonment of formal and final causes. Any ethical system requires people to identify essences, like that of a moral agent, based on the formal and final causes of moderate realism. Post-modern philosophy has exhaustively revealed the big gaping hole in modern alternatives to moderate realism: nominalism and conceptualism. The post-modernists have shown that only convention links signs to that which is signified. Thus there is no conceivable solution to the Problem of Universals. Without a solution to the Problem of Universals, people lack the means of concept formation needed to even form a theory of ethics. This is why Western cultures have become obsessed with issues of identity and power-dynamics.

A bunch of high-falutin' words explaining why you need a book to tell you right from wrong.