RE: Atheism and morality
July 9, 2013 at 10:19 pm
(This post was last modified: July 9, 2013 at 10:47 pm by Inigo.)
[quote]
Therein lies [part of] the problem, because no one has come close (in this thread anyway) to actually establishing that a sound moral framework requires a god, and a god of a certain sort no less. In fact, there are large problems with positing that, as some have already pointed out. [\quote]
Yes they have. Me. I have presented arguments that establish that morality requires a god. Unless you actually address those arguments and show something to be wrong with the premises (which involves more than just nay saying) then I have done exactly as you asked. Deny that morality instructs and provide supporting considertaions. Deny that moral norms have inescapable rational authority and provide supporting evidence. Unless you can do that you're just nay saying. You just dislike the conclusion and infer that the argument must be faulty because a conclusion you dislike can't possible be true (or so I suggest).
[quote]
In addition, there is good evidence that this view holds in the philosophical community as well, seeing as most philosophers are atheists (~74%) and more than half are moral realists (~58%, IIRC). Now, that obviously doesn't make it false that morality necessitates a deity, but it does form some good reasons for thinking that such is not a very widely held belief in the field (unless nearly every moral philosopher is a believer, which they aren't).
[\quote]
You think you can refute an argument with a head count do you? Even if every single philosopher thinks that morality does not require a god it does if my arguments are valid and sound. And that's that. You can head count all you want, it will never show there to be something wrong with the arguments. YOu acknowledge this to try and cover yourself. But then why mention the numbers unless you think it of some relevance?
YOu do realise that rival metaethical views - those that are defended in the literature - are all hopeless? you do realise that? You do realise that this is recognised by the philosophers who defend them? You do realise that most of contemporary metaethical debate involves merely showing that your own favoured position is only slightly less bonkers than its nearest rival?? You do realise that moral nihilism or error theory - the view that morality does not exist - is growing in popularity among moral philosophers precisely due to the apparent inability of any rival analysis to respect morality's core features?? Perhaps most philosophers are atheists. Perhaps most moral philosophers are. But one thing is also for certain: most moral philosophers recognise that there are incredible difficulties reconciling morality with an atheistic world view and none, NONE would be so foolish as to suggest that it has been done to anything remotely close to everyone's satisfaction!!!
[quote='MindForgedManacle' pid='475134' dateline='1373419940']
[quote]
I don't think that comparison is very good, since it's referring to empirical evidence that would seem to corroborate an inferencd, while the one in question relates to, as you said, a moral sense which is more abstract.
[/quote]
That's a bit like saying it isn't a very good example because morality is not a jar of marmite and god is not celery.
We have a moral sense. It gives us the impression that there are instructions with which we have inescapable reason to comply.
There is only one way that I can see such things could be a reality and that is if a god exists.
This is evidence that such a god exists in the same way that your visual sense is evidence that there is an outside world.
[quote='MindForgedManacle' pid='475134' dateline='1373419940']
[quote='Inigo' pid='475117' dateline='1373416916']
Again, this just seems, I dunno, fractally wrong. For starters, atheists are quite likely to think that morality already DOES (or could) fit quite well into the godless worldview and that theists have the real troubles, especially of the Abrahamic faiths. You also quite INcorrectly state that we recognize that bar morality, our worldview would be deficient by, because that assumes that simply because something appears to be - in William Lane Craig's parlay - "intuitively obvious", sans the truth of that impression the worldview is discredited. But that would seem to grossly ignore nearly the ENTIRE history of Western philosophy AND science, because both have dealt practically killing blows to this. If I had to rattle off a few, they'd be:
*Hume's dissection of the problems of causality
*The is-ought problem
*Scientific discoveries showing our impressions of what seemed to be the case being outright wrong, like whether or not the Earth moves or the simultaneity of events (Einstein).
[quote]
Factually incorrect? No, an awful lot of moral philosophers actually see their job to be precisely to reconcile important concepts with the naturalistic (scientifically respectable) world view. Not all, by any means. But a lot. Naturalism is taken for granted and morality's existence is taken for granted - they then set about trying to reconcile them. Rather an odd procedure, in my view, and one that can give people the misleading impression that morality 'is' compatible with the naturalistic world view simply because that has been made into a working assumption. But that's all it is. A working assumption.
The list of problems that you 'rattled off' are just statements. Kindly show how each one poses a problem. show your workings!
[quote='MindForgedManacle' pid='475134' dateline='1373419940']
[quote] Look at my above response. [\quote]
I did. I wasn't impressed. You left out all the detail. Tell me about Hume's is/ought problem. You can't refute my position with vague gestures in the direction of something. And I can't defend myself against vague gestures. Put in the detail and we'll begin. If you can't put in the detail, well done - you've discovered you're prejudiced!!
Therein lies [part of] the problem, because no one has come close (in this thread anyway) to actually establishing that a sound moral framework requires a god, and a god of a certain sort no less. In fact, there are large problems with positing that, as some have already pointed out. [\quote]
Yes they have. Me. I have presented arguments that establish that morality requires a god. Unless you actually address those arguments and show something to be wrong with the premises (which involves more than just nay saying) then I have done exactly as you asked. Deny that morality instructs and provide supporting considertaions. Deny that moral norms have inescapable rational authority and provide supporting evidence. Unless you can do that you're just nay saying. You just dislike the conclusion and infer that the argument must be faulty because a conclusion you dislike can't possible be true (or so I suggest).
[quote]
In addition, there is good evidence that this view holds in the philosophical community as well, seeing as most philosophers are atheists (~74%) and more than half are moral realists (~58%, IIRC). Now, that obviously doesn't make it false that morality necessitates a deity, but it does form some good reasons for thinking that such is not a very widely held belief in the field (unless nearly every moral philosopher is a believer, which they aren't).
[\quote]
You think you can refute an argument with a head count do you? Even if every single philosopher thinks that morality does not require a god it does if my arguments are valid and sound. And that's that. You can head count all you want, it will never show there to be something wrong with the arguments. YOu acknowledge this to try and cover yourself. But then why mention the numbers unless you think it of some relevance?
YOu do realise that rival metaethical views - those that are defended in the literature - are all hopeless? you do realise that? You do realise that this is recognised by the philosophers who defend them? You do realise that most of contemporary metaethical debate involves merely showing that your own favoured position is only slightly less bonkers than its nearest rival?? You do realise that moral nihilism or error theory - the view that morality does not exist - is growing in popularity among moral philosophers precisely due to the apparent inability of any rival analysis to respect morality's core features?? Perhaps most philosophers are atheists. Perhaps most moral philosophers are. But one thing is also for certain: most moral philosophers recognise that there are incredible difficulties reconciling morality with an atheistic world view and none, NONE would be so foolish as to suggest that it has been done to anything remotely close to everyone's satisfaction!!!
[quote='MindForgedManacle' pid='475134' dateline='1373419940']
[quote]
I don't think that comparison is very good, since it's referring to empirical evidence that would seem to corroborate an inferencd, while the one in question relates to, as you said, a moral sense which is more abstract.
[/quote]
That's a bit like saying it isn't a very good example because morality is not a jar of marmite and god is not celery.
We have a moral sense. It gives us the impression that there are instructions with which we have inescapable reason to comply.
There is only one way that I can see such things could be a reality and that is if a god exists.
This is evidence that such a god exists in the same way that your visual sense is evidence that there is an outside world.
[quote='MindForgedManacle' pid='475134' dateline='1373419940']
[quote='Inigo' pid='475117' dateline='1373416916']
Again, this just seems, I dunno, fractally wrong. For starters, atheists are quite likely to think that morality already DOES (or could) fit quite well into the godless worldview and that theists have the real troubles, especially of the Abrahamic faiths. You also quite INcorrectly state that we recognize that bar morality, our worldview would be deficient by, because that assumes that simply because something appears to be - in William Lane Craig's parlay - "intuitively obvious", sans the truth of that impression the worldview is discredited. But that would seem to grossly ignore nearly the ENTIRE history of Western philosophy AND science, because both have dealt practically killing blows to this. If I had to rattle off a few, they'd be:
*Hume's dissection of the problems of causality
*The is-ought problem
*Scientific discoveries showing our impressions of what seemed to be the case being outright wrong, like whether or not the Earth moves or the simultaneity of events (Einstein).
[quote]
Factually incorrect? No, an awful lot of moral philosophers actually see their job to be precisely to reconcile important concepts with the naturalistic (scientifically respectable) world view. Not all, by any means. But a lot. Naturalism is taken for granted and morality's existence is taken for granted - they then set about trying to reconcile them. Rather an odd procedure, in my view, and one that can give people the misleading impression that morality 'is' compatible with the naturalistic world view simply because that has been made into a working assumption. But that's all it is. A working assumption.
The list of problems that you 'rattled off' are just statements. Kindly show how each one poses a problem. show your workings!
[quote='MindForgedManacle' pid='475134' dateline='1373419940']
[quote] Look at my above response. [\quote]
I did. I wasn't impressed. You left out all the detail. Tell me about Hume's is/ought problem. You can't refute my position with vague gestures in the direction of something. And I can't defend myself against vague gestures. Put in the detail and we'll begin. If you can't put in the detail, well done - you've discovered you're prejudiced!!
