Why science and religious fatih need not be in conflict: It's as easy as 1-2-3!

[Mister Agenda]

The revulsion people feel towards the holocaust is evidence that there are moral opinions, not that there are moral facts.  This is weak, Chad.  The feelings are evidence that people have feelings.  Nothing more.  Perhaps you'd like to explain how you torture moral facts out of this?

You seem to have a penchant for ignoring intentionality. Feelings are not just feelings - they are feelings about something. Feeling don't just arise for no reason in response to nothing. The horror of tragedy, outrage at injustice, and the pangs of conscience are responses tosomething about or in the world. Sorry, but I'm going to go with the idea that the wrongness of the Holocaust is immediately obvious to anyone with a properly functioning conscience. If someone is going to say that it isn't they better have a damn good reason. Do you?

Hmm. Feelings are indeed about something. They are reactions to input from either the sensory world or our imaginations or memories. They seem to act as an unconscious shorthand for our values, and how we react and what we react to with emotion is heavily culturally influenced. Unlike our sensory perception, they are not a registering of some fact about our environment, but some fact about ourselves in combination with a particular kind of stimulus, which can be internal. We don't register revulsion the way we register a bird flying by, we learn to feel revulsion in response to certain stimuli.

I'm not against an objective component to morality, but a moral system is ultimately grounded on axioms, and if we disagree on the axioms, we may not agree on the morality. If we accept as an axiom that human lives are valuable and that Jewish lives are equally as valuable as Aryan lives, then the holocaust was monstrous and we likely feel revulsion. If we hold the opposite, we might feel, as some Nazis did, guilt for not killing Jews enthusiastically enough.

Almost all of us with normal wiring feel the same range of emotions. What triggers those emotions is highly influenced by our experiences. Given the right culture, you might feel bad for not torturing a captured prisoner or enthusiastically look forward to being tortured yourself if captured. You could be outraged if a member of your family refused to eat a portion of your dead wife's body.

Feelings are not where you are going to find the basis for an objective morality, they are at least partly a consequence of the moral views that you hold, not the source of them.

[Amarok]

You seem to have a penchant for ignoring intentionality. Feelings are not just feelings - they are feelings about something. Feeling don't just arise for no reason in response to nothing. The horror of tragedy, outrage at injustice, and the pangs of conscience are responses tosomething about or in the world. Sorry, but I'm going to go with the idea that the wrongness of the Holocaust is immediately obvious to anyone with a properly functioning conscience. If someone is going to say that it isn't they better have a damn good reason. Do you?

Hmm. Feelings are indeed about something. They are reactions to input from either the sensory world or our imaginations or memories. They seem to act as an unconscious shorthand for our values, and how we react and what we react to with emotion is heavily culturally influenced. Unlike our sensory perception, they are not a registering of some fact about our environment, but some fact about ourselves in combination with a particular kind of stimulus, which can be internal. We don't register revulsion the way we register a bird flying by, we learn to feel revulsion in response to certain stimuli.

I'm not against an objective component to morality, but a moral system is ultimately grounded on axioms, and if we disagree on the axioms, we may not agree on the morality. If we accept as an axiom that human lives are valuable and that Jewish lives are equally as valuable as Aryan lives, then the holocaust was monstrous and we likely feel revulsion. If we hold the opposite, we might feel, as some Nazis did, guilt for not killing Jews enthusiastically enough.

Almost all of us with normal wiring feel the same range of emotions. What triggers those emotions is highly influenced by our experiences. Given the right culture, you might feel bad for not torturing a captured prisoner or enthusiastically look forward to being tortured yourself if captured. You could be outraged if a member of your family refused to eat a portion of your dead wife's body.

Feelings are not where you are going to find the basis for an objective morality, they are at least partly a consequence of the moral views that you hold, not the source of them.

Yup emotions are an effect of out brain not a platonic entity in themselves and there is nothing to show otherwise . As for revulsion I know people who think my cultures eating habits see the picture (https://atheistforums.org/thread-48647-page-3.html) but does that make it wrong ?

As for collective revulsion evoloved empathy explains this pretty well

---

Hmm. Feelings are indeed about something. They are reactions to input from either the sensory world or our imaginations or memories. They seem to act as an unconscious shorthand for our values, and how we react and what we react to with emotion is heavily culturally influenced. Unlike our sensory perception, they are not a registering of some fact about our environment, but some fact about ourselves in combination with a particular kind of stimulus, which can be internal. We don't register revulsion the way we register a bird flying by, we learn to feel revulsion in response to certain stimuli.

I'm not against an objective component to morality, but a moral system is ultimately grounded on axioms, and if we disagree on the axioms, we may not agree on the morality. If we accept as an axiom that human lives are valuable and that Jewish lives are equally as valuable as Aryan lives, then the holocaust was monstrous and we likely feel revulsion. If we hold the opposite, we might feel, as some Nazis did, guilt for not killing Jews enthusiastically enough.

Almost all of us with normal wiring feel the same range of emotions. What triggers those emotions is highly influenced by our experiences. Given the right culture, you might feel bad for not torturing a captured prisoner or enthusiastically look forward to being tortured yourself if captured. You could be outraged if a member of your family refused to eat a portion of your dead wife's body.

Feelings are not where you are going to find the basis for an objective morality, they are at least partly a consequence of the moral views that you hold, not the source of them.

Yup emotions are an effect of our brain and varied stimuli not a platonic entity in themselves .And there is nothing to show otherwise . As for revulsion I know people who think my cultures eating habits see the picture (https://atheistforums.org/thread-48647-page-3.html) but does that make it wrong ?

As for collective revulsion evoloved empathy explains this pretty well

outraged if a member of your family refused to eat a portion of your dead wife's body.

Indeed in  Endocannibalist cultures refusal to eat is considered as horrible as urinating in the dead's casket is in ours

---

Indeed what makes more sense . Our brain and reality link because they are elements of same reality and one evolved to survive in the other. Or our mind is magic jo jo dust that exists in magic land. Because a wizard made it because he likes smart things. And it has no reason to be accurate or connected to reality because there are no consequences if it does not. Because god can always intervene or change reality.

[Whateverist]

Just want to say how much I'm enjoying everyone's input here.  Definitely Neo too.  We certainly wouldn't be having this conversation without you.  Not your fault those bastards got you hooked on god crack.  

[Little Rik]

Just want to say how much I'm enjoying everyone's input here.  Definitely Neo too.  We certainly wouldn't be having this conversation without you.  Not your fault those bastards got you hooked on god crack.  

So you reckon that to get addicted to God is bad?  
What about if He really exist and the sky is no longer the limit?  

I guess you never thought about that Whatever, did you?  

(color mine)

[Cyberman]

Pascal's wager.

[Amarok]

Pascal's wager.

The stupid version. Because it implies that even if you don't believe you should make believe you do . Any god that needs false love is a loser. And anyone who follows a god for rewards or to avoid punishment is a coward. Plus there the simple fact that this assumes the judgmental god of Abraham. Oh and for theists who say they lose nothing you devoted your life to a lie for nothing. And even if god exists it might not be your god so....

Second even if god existed it says nothing about why you should worship it . Nor does it mean the addiction is good ( addictions are not good)

Not thinking is the trade mark of Rik

[Fake Messiah]

Didn't Swedenborg describe the aliens living on other planets?  Must be them.

Yes, he did, in "Life on Other Earths." It is heavily laden with alchemical symbolism, something the reader should always keep in mind. Nevertheless, I do not consider myself a true Swedenborgian; but rather, a student of his work, which I find fascinating and insightful though not necessarily authoritative. This does not undermine my point that his uncanny predictions and incidents of clairvoyance are documented facts.

This is for instance what Swedenborg "discovered" clairvoyance from "Concerning the earths in our solar system, which are called planets Concerning the earths in our solar system, which are called planets":

It was declared to me by the angels, that the most ancient people on this earth lived in like manner as the inhabitants of the planet Jupiter, viz. that they were distinguished into nations, families, and houses, and that all at that time were content with their own possessions;

I guess it would be a miracle that there are still people that think there is any merit to Swedenborg even at this day and age, but let's face it when it comes to Christians no matter how stupid and erroneous something is, they'll still believe it.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Exactly right. I want you to come out clearly and say that the evil of the Holocaust is not a moral fact. If someone has to explain to you why it was wrong then you wouldn't understand anyway.

You're fucking hysterical. If there are moral facts, they exist only in as much as they are a reflection of a shared, evolved psychology. As such, I don't believe there are any absolute moral facts, including whether the holocaust was evil. Moral truth is relative, the appropriate level of context being that of the species. A lion cares not one whit that humans were killed during the holocaust.

I must give you credit for managing to fit 3 logical fallacies in less than a paragraph. First, you try to invalidate my replies with an ad hominen. Then you make the genetic fallacy as if the origin of conscience has any bearing on its current relevance. Finally, you issue a non-sequetor because of course the scope of moral obligations is limited to human agency in the same way that structural failure is relevant only to buildings and bridges. Limited applicability has no bearing on its reality.

Your appeal to emotion with the "wouldn't understand [it] anyway" remark is noted and ignored. You're simply begging off on providing an explanation because you, yourself, are incapable of providing an explanation...

You misunderstood my intention. I’m saying that moral realism is a properly basic belief. It only loses its warrant if there is a valid objection or defeater. A properly functioning conscience operating in an environment amenable to its use prompts us with what appear to be real moral imperatives. It is no different than a properly functioning memory allows someone to recall past events. It’s not perfect; people forget. Or they’re too tired to think. And sometimes people disagree. But it is silly to conclude based on its limitations that there are no facts about the past. Everyone assumes their memories are true until shown otherwise. It is the same with moral imperatives.

That doesn't even remotely follow. Any connection between something real and our mind's contents is a result of selective pressures upon the evolution of the brain. Only under your theory of the mind is the connection between reality and the contents of the mind fortuitous, literally. You call it God. It's nothing more than explaining the resemblance between mind and reality as something that "just happened"; it's magic, according to you.

Magic is when people try to use symbolic representations to produce effects or extract information from reality. That sounds more like what you are proposing. You seem to have forgotten that I consider cognition as participating to various degrees in actual reality not some parallel subjective world that may or may not correspond to external reality (your claim). Natural selection works equally well with my model so that is not a valid way to distinguish between our stances.

So I'm expected to accept whole hog your metaphysical gobbledy gook about moral facts, but you don't need to do squat.

My only epistemic obligation I have in claiming warrant is to consider possible objections and defeaters to moral realism. It is no different than other properly basic beliefs like the belief that external objects exist or that other people have minds like my own. (Actually, according to you I don’t need to do anything, do I? And yet you stated it as a moral fact, didn’t you?) You have no defeaters.

Moreover, if there are no moral facts then moral opinions are nonsense since they have no object. It’s like debating the color of Abraham Lincoln’s cell phone. Without some external reference point moral opinions have no content and are absolutely worthless.

[Whateverist]

Just want to say how much I'm enjoying everyone's input here.  Definitely Neo too.  We certainly wouldn't be having this conversation without you.  Not your fault those bastards got you hooked on god crack.  

So you reckon that to get addicted to God is bad?  
What about if He really exist and the sky is no longer the limit?  

I guess you never thought about that Whatever, did you?  

(color mine)

Dang, never thought about it that way.  What if the preposterously absurd should turn out to be true?  Maybe I've been going about it all wrong.[/sarcasm]

---

Pascal's wager.

As conveyed by a communicationally challenged, RL avoidant pedant.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Mister Agenda, I’m not seeing a clear dispute here. I agree with much of what you say.

Hmm. Feelings are indeed about something. They are reactions to input from either the sensory world or our imaginations or memories. They seem to act as an unconscious shorthand for our values, and how we react and what we react to with emotion is heavily culturally influenced.

If feelings are, as you say, shorthand for our values, then it can still agree with my position. Transcendent values can be known by means of feelings in the same way that sensations allow us to perceive physical objects. Nor do I deny the power of cultural influence. Repeated exposure to atrocities can dull our sympathies. A good analogy would be the ability of a beer snob to cultivate his discernment of hops varieties or the subtle influence of roasted malt. Another is the acquired knowledge of a engineer that allows him to spot dangerous structural deficiencies.

Unlike our sensory perception, they are not a registering of some fact about our environment, but some fact about ourselves in combination with a particular kind of stimulus, which can be internal. We don't register revulsion the way we register a bird flying by, we learn to feel revulsion in response to certain stimuli.

Internal facts are still facts. The question remains as to whether those facts are universally applicable. Perhaps it would help to think about the similarities between recognition of moral facts and recognition of universals, i.e. the idea that there are actually kinds of things and real distinctions between particular things. Of course that only works if one is some kind of realist; no nominalist would find this comparison useful.

I'm not against an objective component to morality, but a moral system is ultimately grounded on axioms, and if we disagree on the axioms, we may not agree on the morality. If we accept as an axiom that human lives are valuable...

Of course that depends on whether axioms are actually true or convenient fictions - or to put it another way, can we trust reason. Should everyone accept that other people’s lives are equally valuable as their own? I don’t think that can be rationally justified based on observations from nature (and you have already dismissed conscience as a guide). The book of nature suggests that when resources are scarce the survival of the group will be increased by abandoning its weak and unproductive members.