Philosophy Forums
Forums Links Articles Gallery Chat
Style:



Register | Forgot Password
MembersCalendarNew Posts Help
Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Religion » Moral Argument for God » Moral Argument for God

Moral Argument for God

printPrint


Page: First 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Last

Moral Argument for God
Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 746
Posted 10/07/07 - 04:42 PM:
quote post
#376
Buddahchuck wrote:

What I don't see is why you persist in proclaiming that everything that occurs that could be considered immoral is actually just an exception to existence.


Er, I don't believe I've been claiming that. Again, just because a person ought not to do X does not necessarily mean that the person will not do X.




Of course, if we wish to say that existence tells us how we ought to behave in that there is some sort of communication involved, there is still some circumstantial evidence that this is the case. There are some ideas on morality that are shared upon by nearly all cultures. Even disagreements among cultures tend to arise from an agreement of some other agreed upon moral value (e.g. benefiting society).


Which shared ideas? Murder? There are societies that are cool with that.


Almost no societies exist where there are not some limitations on violence and theft. Different societies may have different ideas of what constitutes murder versus justified homicide (e.g. killing the enemy) but in all or nearly all cultures it is not the case where you can just kill anyone you want for any reason.




Please explain. What part of the argument is unclear to you and why cannot it be a brute fact using my definitions?


1) You are not even presenting why morality is a brute fact, only the conditional.


I'll try explaining myself again. My main claim: if there are objective moral values they are evidence for the existence of God. How do I justify this? A couple things.

  1. I am claiming that the only plausible alternative to God-based morality is the "brute fact" position (note: I do not actually adhere to the brute fact position).
  2. I am claiming this ends up being pantheism, which ends up providing evidence for the existence of God (I explained my reasoning behind this in post #362).



2) Because you are only supporting a conditional, when you say morality is a brute fact, nobody knows what that means; it has no comprehensible translation.


I'll try explaining this again then. The core idea of a "brute fact" is that is true only because "that is the way things are," and there is no further foundation or reason for why that fact is true.

Something is based in existence if and only if it exists. If morality is a brute fact, then the sole basis for moral values existing is simply existence itself. In contrast, a cultural relativist would say that the basis for morality is the culture (a part of existence). A "brute fact" ethical objectivist would say that there is no metaphysical basis of morality (not the culture, not the individual etc.) except for existence itself. Moral values simply exist and that's that.



In order for me to even consider if objective morality exists, it is evidence that god exists, two pretty wild claims, then you must at least prove that objective morality exists.


Why? There are a lot of proofs I could construct that do not depend on proving the antecedent is true. So why do we need to prove the antecedent to prove the conditional here? If there is a flaw in my argument (the one that says "if objective morality exists, it is evidence for the existence of God"), can't you point it out without presupposing objective morality? Others have at least attempted to do just that. Surely you can as well?



So seeing as how you are not arguing for a pantheistic God, meaning that you do not define God as existence, how does the existence of objective morality prove the existence of a non-pantheistic God, where god is some concious moral entity and that existence dictates morality?


First, bear in mind I'm not saying that objective morality provides a strict proof for God, but I am claiming it provides evidence. I've already explained to you why this pantheistic God would provide evidence for theism before, but for the moment I don't mind repeating myself.

In short, my claim is that even if we accept the most atheistic form of pantheism, this God would by necessity possess several interesting characteristics.

This pantheistic God might not contain consciousness but would have to possess supremely transcendent moral authority (transcending all peoples and cultures) while also possessing perfect moral correctness (it cannot be mistaken about what is right). Since a pantheistic God is equated with the universe/reality/existence, this supreme metaphysical reality is omnipresent and eternal. This is perhaps to be expected however, given that objective morality commands our behavior regardless of where we are and when we are. Interestingly, the essence of this pantheistic God must also be incorporeal if objective morality is not dependent on collections of atoms. Suppose for instance we took everything away from the physical universe except Mount Rushmore. Would Mount Rushmore be the source of objective moral values? No, moral values are incorporeal and their underlying basis (the supreme metaphysical reality that says how we ought to behave) must also be incorporeal.

Yet a God that is transcendent, eternal, omnipresent, incorporeal and perfectly moral is treading awfully close to theism. Not to mention a moral God sounds an awful lot like a person—a moral God that says what everyone ought to do, a God that is the basis of morality and a God that everyone ought to obey. So even if it’s not an outright proof, to the very least the existence of objective morality still provides strong evidence for theism (by suggesting the existence of a God that is transcendent, omnipresent, perfectly moral etc.).



you were discussing the "reality" of physics saying that all physicists believe that the physical world is "reality". But without this physical world, what would mathematics be other than merely an idea?


It would indeed be an idea, but I think most professional mathematicians would agree that even if there was a certain branch of mathematics that has no known practical application, it would still be worth pursuing, if for no other reason because it is good to pursue knowledge for its own sake.



Where is the "reality" of mathematics that exists outside and independent of our own thoughts, that is existence itself and not contingent on something that has the quality of existence?


Mathematics deals with abstract entities that are incorporeal, and there is no physical location of their "reality." I can't tell you how they exist (though I do have one theory) but most mathematicians will agree that mathematical truths exist independently of the human mind. For instance, we can't make 9 a prime number.




Physics studies matter and energy. If the properties of matter are knowable, then there is at least one metaphysical truth that is knowable as well (namely, the existence of matter.)


Which has an equal level of existence alongside mathematics, right?


Matter and energy exist, but they don't have the same type of existence as mathematical truths (since the latter are wholly abstract and incorporeal).




Perhaps so, but we don't need to rely on physics for mathematical truths.


Truths that were established from physical observation.


There are many mathematical truths that cannot in principle be established via physical observation. Suppose for instance we wanted to prove that there is an infinite number of prime numbers. We cannot establish that by physical observation; we need a proof that relies on rules of abstract reasoning.



Er, how does finding a piece of silver containing fifty silver atoms falsify the claim that there has been/will be a piece of silver containing fifty silver atoms?


Once we find a piece of silver containing fifty silver atoms, there has been and still is a piece of silver containing fifty silver atoms. Claim falsified.


?? So the fact that here has been a piece of silver containing fifty silver atoms falsifies the claim hat there has been/will be a piece of silver containing fifty silver atoms? Sounds a wee bit contradictory. But I think you just misread what I was saying.




This is a fairly well known fact in philosophy of science. Take for instance the Duhem-Quine problem. A theory’s predictions do not usually come from a vacuum but from a background system of theories, principles and assumptions that are unproven. At one point people believed that if the Earth was moving as some people thought, birds would get thrown off their tree branches at high velocity. We no longer take that as evidence against the Earth moving because we have a different background system of physics that allows us to make different predictions.


Tell that to Popper:


Can't quite do that, because he's dead. Popper was right on some things, but he was wrong on some other things. The idea that one can conclusively falsify a theory via data alone was one of them, in part because of the Duhem-Quine problem (the necessity of background assumptions for a theory to make predictions; see my example above). In practice, a theory rests on background assumptions so that the data alone cannot conclusively falsify it. Let's take another example. Give me one piece of data that could possibly be discovered that would give a 100% ironclad proof that evolution is false. I doubt you'll be able to do that. And yet evolution is clearly a legitimate scientific theory.



Additionally, if make the claim that All apples have worms, then this claim is strictly falsifiable. Want me to prove it?


Yes. You could perhaps examine an apple and proclaim "this apple has no worms!" but this does not strictly falsify the theory for a number of reasons. If I were defending the theory I could say (1) perhaps you did not look hard enough; (2) perhaps the worm exists but we just haven't found it yet; (3) your perceptions could be illusory.

These may be irrational ad hoc hypothesis, but these are all logically possible and thus prevent the "All apples have worms" theory from strict falsification.

Consider also this example: suppose one claims I have no free will and that I cannot control my own actions. I respond by trying to move my arm, and behold it moves. So my perceptions tell me that I am in control of my actions. A hard determinist could then reply that my perceptions are illusory. I think that is an irrational ad hoc hypothesis, but the fact remains that I have not strictly falsified his claim. Strict disproofs are found only in mathematics and logic.
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.
Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 746
Posted 10/07/07 - 04:46 PM:
quote post
#377


Then please at least address the evidence that seems to strongly suggest otherwise.


You are either totally out of your depth with the discussion or playing us for dummies.


You presented a claim, I presented evidence against it. I request you at least address the evidence before repeating said claim. Why is this an unreasonable request?



If you think I'm wrong and there were no issues of definition, please at least address the evidence rather than ignoring it.


You have accused me of ignoring it.


Yes. Have I been wrong? You have complete ignored it in the post I am responding to, for instance.



In post 294 I offered a lot more than just issues with definition.


Perhaps, but I felt it prudent to deal with one issue at a time (at least in part to make the colloquy easier). Since you ignored the evidence against one issue I was dealing with when I was only dealing with a single issue, what profit is there for me in dealing with all the issues you brought up?

If you wish though, we can discuss some other issue of that post. Is there any specific issue that you are willing to discuss should I provide evidential arguments against it?
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.
Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 746
Posted 10/07/07 - 04:51 PM:
quote post
#378
Kwalish Kid wrote:


I might agree with that statement unless the individual in question gave very specific post numbers where the justification could be found, and the individual did so because he has repeated those points several times already and did not wish to repeat himself again.

Can you tell me why this constitutes a "poor reason"? At what point does it become legitimate for one to refer to previous specific posts for points (as the justification behind a given claim) already made?


Come on. I am quite familiar with symbolic logic (having taught classes on the subject), and you had a woefully incomplete argument that was assisted in a number of places with hand-waving to other posts.


First, I salute you for teaching symbolic logic. It's a very nice field of philosophy. nod

Second, as a teacher in symbolic logic did you find anything wrong with how the premises were deduced via rules of logic? Or is your only issue with the belief that I had not adequately justified my premises (as opposed to the symbolic logic itself)?

I referred to other posts on the justification of those premises because I did not wish to repeat myself (again). Is there any premise in particular those referenced posts did not adequately justify? If so, please provide a specific example and I will be happy to provide justification for that premise.
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.
Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2566
Posted 10/07/07 - 06:18 PM:
quote post
#379
The purposed of symbolizing the argument is to show the form of the justifications. You pretty much skipped that part, or at least the parts that seemed the most contentious. The symbolization should be quite a bit longer than that presented and go back further in presenting the argument.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P

"A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger

"…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]
Bryn
Initiate

Usergroup: Under Review
Joined: Aug 16, 2007
Location: Winchester, England.
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 12
Posted 10/08/07 - 03:21 AM:
quote post
#380
So saying all humans are born with a perception of jealousy and imbalance means there is God? Not really, it's just common sense to know when someone is getting more than you. I don't think this argument has any real relevance. I can understand what you mean though, but can't agree.

Edited by hyena in petticoat on 10/09/07 - 12:57 AM
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan
TMB
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2007
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 275
Posted 10/09/07 - 02:29 AM:
quote post
#381
Tist, you say,

You presented a claim, I presented evidence against it. I request you at least address the evidence before repeating said claim. Why is this an unreasonable request?
.

I presented a detailed analysis of your efforts at symbolic logic that were practically useless because they contain so many flaws. This is done after you suggest that I might have some trouble working through symbolic logic without research. You asked if there were disagreements about defining OM, and this appeared to be your only contribution (ie. you did not suggest we take each point in additional, pointlessly avoiding posts). If you had said at that point that you would address the possible issue with definitions first before reviewing the others, you might have a case. However issues with definition are not fundamental problems. The other issues with your symbolic logic were all far more serious that this. You are trying to dodge the issues in your case by using the definition as a red herring. This is very naughty.

Yes. Have I been wrong? You have complete ignored it in the post I am responding to, for instance.


In the hope that this will soothe your ruffled feathers. The issue with defining the use aspects of OM, the fact that you suggested that it 'commanded' and I considered it an attempt to command what we ought to do. I think our outcomes were the same. As I said the issues with definitions are minor, and not a good place to invest time if we want to understand the reality of things.

Perhaps, but I felt it prudent to deal with one issue at a time (at least in part to make the colloquy easier). Since you ignored the evidence against one issue I was dealing with when I was only dealing with a single issue, what profit is there for me in dealing with all the issues you brought up?


Let me help you with this. You offer an argument that I raise a number of issues with. You decide that only the one around definitions needs ot be addressed (but effectively in doing this you ignore the others). Multiple posts later, inclusing specific responses to the definition issue, and we are still chasing this one. Perhaps you need to move forward on this.

If you wish though, we can discuss some other issue of that post. Is there any specific issue that you are willing to discuss should I provide evidential arguments against it?


You can assume that if I raised a number of other issues I though they were relevant to discuss. Now you are asking if I am willing to discuss them. Duh. Did you imagine I raised all the points I did, because I did NOT want to discuss them?
Buddahchuck
Bodhisatva
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 16, 2006
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 561
Posted 10/09/07 - 04:02 PM:
quote post
#382
So I'm thoroughly disappointed in this discussion for a number of reasons. It fails to move forward, and Tist just keeps repeating himself thinking the next time he says something it will make more sense. He really doesn't seem to understand symbolic logic; so, I don't see the point in discussing it with him. Furthermore, he is presenting nothing more than a premise; so, his claim wouldn't mean anything even if he were right. So I really don't see much of a point in posting beyond this, but I, just for shear determination, I will give this one last shot.

Tisthamerrew wrote:

Er, I don't believe I've been claiming that. Again, just because a person ought not to do X does not necessarily mean that the person will not do X.


And just because a person ought to do X does not necessarily mean that the person will do X. You never give a reason why immoral things are immoral. There is no intelligible significance to your conception of Brute fact morality.

The Root of the matter in the thread is that there is a major objection that you merely shrug off: if everything in existence details what morality is, then that means that even the immoral acts are entailed in the everything in existence that details what morality is, making immoral acts on the same par as moral acts. Your answer as been to say that morality tells us what we ought to do, not what we will do. I have provided many reasons to believe the contrary. 1) The most powerful leaders among man and nature consistently commit atrocious acts and nature/existence rewards them with power. This is a trend in existence showing that immoral acts are the best way to rise-to-the-top.2) Many societies exist that do not put a high value on life. Look at Africa.3) If it is truly all of existence that dictates morality, then why are humans the only ones affected, and why do we seem to lack the knack for interpreting existence's idea of morality?

Also, earlier you contradicted yourself with this argument very grossly. You claimed immoral actions are not the whole, much as the wing of a plane cannot fly alone, I believe that was your reference. Then you went on to argue for pantheism. The problem, as I stated in my original post, is that there is a contradiction in the claim if objective morality exists, then it is evidence that god exists because, and this point will be expounded upon later, if objective immorality exists, then it is evidence that god does not exist. You have provided no reason why we should believe the former and not the latter, and that is the biggest problem I have with your argument thus far.


Almost no societies exist where there are not some limitations on violence and theft. Different societies may have different ideas of what constitutes murder versus justified homicide (e.g. killing the enemy) but in all or nearly all cultures it is not the case where you can just kill anyone you want for any reason.


Falsified. Africa


I'll try explaining myself again.


Please don't. You aren't doing any better and you are even using the exact same phrases as other posts; so you are guaranteed not to get any better.



I am claiming that the only plausible alternative to God-based morality is the "brute fact" position


Why is either of them "plausible"? Why should anyone pick either of them?


I am claiming this ends up being pantheism, which ends up providing evidence for the existence of God


What ends up being pantheism? Brute fact morality? So someone can't believe in your version of brute fact morality unless he/she is a pantheist? Why is it required that someone who believes that morality comes from existence (which no one could actually believe because it doesn't make sense), why does that person have to view existence and God the same way?


I'll try explaining this again then. The core idea of a "brute fact" is that is true only because "that is the way things are," and there is no further foundation or reason for why that fact is true.


Still doesn't help. Not only can we not know what this is, but it also has no reason. It's enough to befuddle the best.


If morality is a brute fact, then the sole basis for moral values existing is simply existence itself.


What's the difference in the meaning between this sentence and "Morality as a brute fact means that the sole basis for moral values existing is simply existence itself". My point: you aren't using logic, you are using language, poorly. This is a definition wrapped in the guise of a conditional statement, not any sort of genius logical thought.


A "brute fact" ethical objectivist would say that there is no metaphysical basis of morality (not the culture, not the individual etc.) except for existence itself.


This is a ridiculously loaded statement. Ethical Objectivist is not an accepted metaphysical stance. This makes it nearly impossible for us to even know what the Ethical Objectivist actually means when he talks of existence. Additionally, the phrase "no metaphysical basis" followed by "except for existence" strikes me as a bit odd, for existence is the ultimate metaphysical basis; it is the entire question of metaphysics. What exists?


First, bear in mind I'm not saying that objective morality provides a strict proof for God, but I am claiming it provides evidence.


Oh, I'm bearing it.


I've already explained to you why this pantheistic God would provide evidence for theism before, but for the moment I don't mind repeating myself.


I see that.


it cannot be mistaken about what is right


No, nobody ever is mistaken about what is right.


objective morality commands our behavior regardless of where we are and when we are.


So it even "commands" our immoral acts; it is existence after all.


Interestingly, the essence of this pantheistic God must also be incorporeal if objective morality is not dependent on collections of atoms.


What does it mean for the "essence" of existence to be incorporeal? I'm not even sure what the "essence" of existence is supposed to be. It's like talking about the stripes of a Leopard and the spots of a Tiger.


Suppose for instance we took everything away from the physical universe except Mount Rushmore.


Including people? Including animals? So the only thing that exists is Mount Rushmore. What possible moral application is there to a mountain? Are mountains immoral? Are they moral? My point: People must exist in order for there to be morality.


No, moral values are incorporeal and their underlying basis (the supreme metaphysical reality that says how we ought to behave) must also be incorporeal.


So why can't the underlying basis for morality be the human mind. It is incorporeal. Apparently everything in the human mind is reality. So let's stick with that.


objective morality still provides strong evidence for theism (by suggesting the existence of a God that is transcendent, omnipresent, perfectly moral etc.).


But it only suggests this to a pantheist. Not someone who vehemently denies that existence is God.


It would indeed be an idea, but I think most professional mathematicians would agree that even if there was a certain branch of mathematics that has no known practical application, it would still be worth pursuing, if for no other reason because it is good to pursue knowledge for its own sake.


Again, you missed the point. Mathematics as reality was the topic. If mathematics is just an idea, then there is no reason to presume that it is any more part of reality than anything else.


Mathematics deals with abstract entities that are incorporeal, and there is no physical location of their "reality." I can't tell you how they exist (though I do have one theory) but most mathematicians will agree that mathematical truths exist independently of the human mind.


Oh yeah? Let's see them prove it.


For instance, we can't make 9 a prime number.


But we defined the number 9, we defined "prime number". Numbers do not exist anymore than any other idea. I have ideas of purple headed dragons that sniff gym shorts, but I am not about to call that reality. Numbers even have a unique use in language as they serve the place of adjectives (nine-headed dragon), but they are all conventions of language that are based on our observances of physical reality. When we first started counting, we counted how many rocks we could throw, how many children we had and that sort of thing. We worked with what we labeled "whole" numbers. Then somebody developed "integers", another way to view quantities that included a deficit. Then "real" numbers that filled in the gaps between all integers for clearly one apple is not equal to another; so, we need a new way to describe it. Now we cannot fathom a world without numbers anymore than we can fathom a world without physical things.


Matter and energy exist, but they don't have the same type of existence as mathematical truths (since the latter are wholly abstract and incorporeal).


But if physical reality doesn't exist, then matter and energy are just ideas, like mathematical truths. Matter and energy, in that case, are wholly abstract and incorporeal.


Give me one piece of data that could possibly be discovered that would give a 100% ironclad proof that evolution is false.


Psshht. Give me one piece of data that could possibly be discovered that would give 100% proof that God is existence and the basis for objective morality.

Some of your own medicine:

If God is existence, then it is God himself that gives evidence that evolution occurred. And no word is higher than God.


If I were defending the theory I could say (1) perhaps you did not look hard enough


You could, but I would make you look like a jackass by slicing the apple open and demonstrating to you that there are no worms.


perhaps the worm exists but we just haven't found it yet


It's not like I am picking-up a random apple. If you likewise said "No apples have worms", I could falsify the statement by finding a worm. I think you don't quite understand the principle of falsifiability, which is why I posted the Popper article.



your perceptions could be illusory.


Easily rectified--"I perceive no worms in this apple."


These may be irrational ad hoc hypothesis


Yup


these are all logically possible and thus prevent the "All apples have worms" theory from strict falsification.


No, they are ad hoc. Wiki has a good description of why we reject ad-hoc arguments:

Wiki wrote:

Philosophers and scientists are often suspicious or skeptical of theories that rely on continual, inelegant adjustments, and ad hoc hypotheses are often a characteristic of pseudoscientific subjects. See Skeptic's Dictionary: Ad hoc hypothesis. Much of scientific understanding relies on the modification of existing hypotheses or theories, but these are distinguished from ad hoc hypotheses in that the anomalies being explained propose a new means of being falsified.

Theories that have been empirically tested and rather than being confirmed they seem either to have been falsified or to require numerous ad hoc hypotheses to sustain them include applied kinesiology, astrology, biorhythms, creationism, facilitated communication, plant perception, and ESP.[1] Despite evidence contrary to the theories, adherents do not give them up. For example, ESP researchers have been known to blame the hostile thoughts of onlookers for unconsciously influencing pointer readings on sensitive instruments.



the fact remains that I have not strictly falsified his claim.


But it remains that he must prove his claim, for his is the absurd one. It is not your burden to prove him wrong; he must prove himself right, by offering falsifiable evidence that supports his claim. Otherwise, it is like flipping a one-sided coin. A big part of proving logic is presumption, and a major part of presumption is that the new claim must be proven before it is accepted. What you are offering in this thread is none of the above. You offer no conclusion, no thesis, you are only claiming a conditional true, but as I stated earlier, conditionals are insubstantial. THERE IS NO LOGIC BEHIND YOUR CLAIM! The burden of proof is on YOU to demonstrate SOMETHING. And you are not. I can prove a bunch of things with your conditional, equally logical with what you are saying now:

1) If objective morality exists, then it is evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

2) If pink elephants exist, then they are evidence of God.

3) If Strawberry Soda exists, then it is evidence of God.

4) If Mother Theresa farted, then it is evidence of God.

5) If Objective morality exists, then it is evidence of the internet.

6) If time stopped moving, so would God.

None of these mean anything. None of them have any logic behind them. None of them are arguments, yet they are all on the same level as the argument you are presenting. Why? Because you have no advocacy, no logic, nothing. You probably don't even know the first step of modus ponens before you went and looked it up on wikipedia. Once you understand this objection and quit restating trite pseudoproofs, then you can develop what you are saying into some sort of argument. Until I see that argument, There is no sense in taking this any further.
Makarismos
Professor
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 06, 2007
Location: Uk, Midlands
Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 636
Posted 10/11/07 - 01:53 PM:
quote post
#383
Three hundred and eighty four posts. And we call our selves philosophers wink.
Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 746
Posted 10/13/07 - 12:55 PM:
quote post
#384
Kwalish Kid wrote:
The purposed of symbolizing the argument is to show the form of the justifications. You pretty much skipped that part, or at least the parts that seemed the most contentious. The symbolization should be quite a bit longer than that presented and go back further in presenting the argument.


The symbolic logic argument (in post #287) contained six "core" premises and six "derived" statements (proved from the first six). The six core premises do well to symbolize the part of the argument they convey, but I am not immediately aware of any means to break down those premises in any useful way. I'm afraid we may have to rely on more prosaic justification for those premises (hence my reference to previous posts to provide that justification).

So yes, you have a valid point. It is not obvious to me how I can justify via symbolic logic the most contentious parts of the argument, which is why I said (in post #287) that when it comes to using symbolic logic to explain the argument instead of normal language, "I'm not sure it would be much better....I would have to justify the premises with regular English anyways."
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.
Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 746
Posted 10/13/07 - 12:58 PM:
quote post
#385
Bryn wrote:
So saying all humans are born with a perception of jealousy and imbalance means there is God?


Not necessarily.

I would however say that the existence of objective moral values constitutes evidence for the existence of God. Note that my argument is not that human perception of morality is evidence for God, but rather the existence of objective morality itself.
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.
Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 746
Posted 10/13/07 - 01:31 PM:
quote post
#386
TMB wrote:
If you had said at that point that you would address the possible issue with definitions first before reviewing the others, you might have a case.


Well, I apologize for not making clear that I was willing to deal with the other parts of the argument after we dealt with the point I addressed.

So are you willing to deal with another point of your objections?




If you wish though, we can discuss some other issue of that post. Is there any specific issue that you are willing to discuss should I provide evidential arguments against it?


You can assume that if I raised a number of other issues I though they were relevant to discuss.


Perhaps, but I cannot assume that you would be willing to discuss them. You attacked one premise via reasoning that only worked because you were operating on a different definition than I was. I criticized further points and you essentially ignored them. Hence, it did not at all appear to me that you were willing to discuss some other issue of the post. I'll start with another point (note: I am not necessarily unwilling to discuss further points; I'm dealing with issues in a more "one at a time" fashion).

In post #242 you have very specifically stated that "I agree with you that morality does have authority." So for now I'll skip that aspect of the argument, since it doesn't seem very contentious for us.

From #294:



S --> (G or P)


OM carries supreme authority and transcends human relativity, opinions, thoughts etc MIGHT lead to God, but its not a definite unless you have explored other options like as you say P.


To justify the symbolic statement to English, I am claiming that given that objective morality carries with it a supreme authority that transcends human beliefs, opinions, and thoughts; the only plausible alternative to God being the basis of morality is pantheism.

I have explored the option of pantheism, and have several times already provided justification that this ends up pointing to theism anyway. You may say that this justification does not work, but it might behoove us to address it if you wish to argue against this premise.




(G or P) --> E


Existence of God, itself carried through this muddy, illogical process, leads you draw the conclusion that OM is evidence for the existence of God.


Er, that's not quite what this symbolic statement says. It says that given that either (1)God is the correct explanation for the existence of objective moral values or (2) Pantheism is the only plausible explanation for the existence of objective moral values (except perhaps for theism), then objective moral values are evidence for the existence of God. I have repeatedly provided justification that pantheism being the foundation of objective morality ends up with objective moral values constituting evidence for God's existence, and again it might behoove us to address that justification.

Perhaps then the most contentious point for my claim (that if objective moral values exist they are evidence for the existence of God) are (1) Pantheism is the only plausible alternative to the foundation of objective morality, and (2) Pantheism being the foundation of objective morality eventually leads us to objective morality constituting evidence for the existence of God.


Edited by Tisthammerw on 10/13/07 - 06:47 PM
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.
Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 746
Posted 10/13/07 - 02:31 PM:
quote post
#387
Buddahchuck wrote:
Tist just keeps repeating himself thinking the next time he says something it will make more sense.


No, I repeat myself because the point is relevant, and in some cases the relevant point has not been addressed my position has been misconstrued (see the below "Er" quote for an example).



He really doesn't seem to understand symbolic logic


On what grounds do you believe this?




Er, I don't believe I've been claiming that [immoral behavior is an "exception" to existence]. Again, just because a person ought not to do X does not necessarily mean that the person will not do X.


And just because a person ought to do X does not necessarily mean that the person will do X.


I agree.


You never give a reason why immoral things are immoral.


With the exception of providing a metaphysical basis for objective morality, then what what you say is correct.



The Root of the matter in the thread is that there is a major objection that you merely shrug off: if everything in existence details what morality is, then that means that even the immoral acts are entailed in the everything in existence that details what morality is, making immoral acts on the same par as moral acts.


Let’s take this as an example of why I repeat myself. I have never said nor implied that everything in existence details what morality is. I do not believe you can find any place where I have said that. But if I have never specifically stated this, have I ever implied it? No. The idea that "reality says what ought to be" does not at all imply that every individual unit will behave morally, and it does not even imply that every individual unit will have the correct idea of what ought to be.

Consider for instance the fallacy of division. A plane is capable of flying. However, that does not imply that each individual unit of the plane (e.g. a chair) is capable of flight. Similarly, if reality says X is true, that does not imply that a every individual component of reality will say X is true.

I have never claimed that every component of reality says what ought to be, just reality itself (if the brute fact position is true). Similarly, just because I say a plane is capable of flight does not mean I am saying that every individual component of the plane is capable of flight.

This is all why I consider the major objection in question to be groundless. If you think my rebuttal is flawed in some way, fine. But please do not accuse me of sidestepping or shrugging off the objection, because I have indeed provided reasoning why I believe this objection does not work.



Also, earlier you contradicted yourself with this argument very grossly. You claimed immoral actions are not the whole, much as the wing of a plane cannot fly alone, I believe that was your reference. Then you went on to argue for pantheism.


So how did I contradict myself here? You went on to say,


The problem, as I stated in my original post, is that there is a contradiction in the claim if objective morality exists, then it is evidence that god exists because, and this point will be expounded upon later, if objective immorality exists, then it is evidence that god does not exist. You have provided no reason why we should believe the former and not the latter, and that is the biggest problem I have with your argument thus far.


Note that this here is another example of why I repeat myself some times. I have repeatedly provided such reasons, yet statements like these act as if I never did so. Here has been my justification:

In a nutshell, I am claiming that the only plausible alternative to God being the foundation of objective morality is that objective morality has no basis other than reality and existence itself (the "brute fact" position). And thus the answer to the question of "who or what" says what ought to be is reality/existence.

The idea that the universe or existence somehow says how we ought to behave may sound like a strange consequence for a brute fact. Existence normally says what is, not what ought to be. So why would this consequence follow from morality and its basis? Something is based in existence if and only if it exists. According to the brute fact explanation, the sole metaphysical basis for moral values existing is simply existence itself (as opposed to a person or culture). Yet morality prescribes our behavior. So existence itself says how we ought to behave, and does so with authority. The prescriptive nature of morality permits this otherwise bizarre implication. Additionally, as the sole basis of objective morality existence says how we ought to behave with supreme (e.g. transcending Hitler’s) authority.

The universe (or reality, or existence) as the supreme metaphysical authority over right and wrong above us mortals would by definition be some form of pantheism. A more general definition of God is “the ultimate and supreme metaphysical reality.” Pantheism is simply equating the supreme metaphysical reality with the universe/reality/existence. It should be noted that some of the traditional aspects of God—like omnipotence and consciousness—are not necessarily associated with pantheism. Thus a pantheistic God may seem like a relatively harmless implication, but even if we accept the most atheistic form of pantheism, this God would by necessity possess several interesting characteristics.

This pantheistic God might not contain consciousness but would have to possess supremely transcendent moral authority (transcending all peoples and cultures) while also possessing perfect moral correctness (it cannot be mistaken about what is right). Since a pantheistic God is equated with the universe/reality/existence, this supreme metaphysical reality is omnipresent and eternal. This is perhaps to be expected however, given that objective morality commands our behavior regardless of where we are and when we are. Interestingly, the essence of this pantheistic God must also be incorporeal if objective morality is not dependent on collections of atoms. Suppose for instance we took everything away from the physical universe except Mount Rushmore. Would Mount Rushmore be the source of objective moral values? No, moral values are incorporeal and their underlying basis (the supreme metaphysical reality that says how we ought to behave) must also be incorporeal.

Yet a God that is transcendent, eternal, omnipresent, incorporeal and perfectly moral is treading awfully close to theism. Not to mention a moral God sounds an awful lot like a person—a moral God that says what everyone ought to do, a God that is the basis of morality and a God that everyone ought to obey. So even if it’s not an outright proof, to the very least the existence of objective morality still provides strong evidence for theism (by suggesting the existence of a God that is transcendent, omnipresent, perfectly moral etc.).

To be fair you seemed to have addressed this sort of thing, but please be aware I have provided justification for why objective morality existing would be evidence for the existence of God.




Almost no societies exist where there are not some limitations on violence and theft. Different societies may have different ideas of what constitutes murder versus justified homicide (e.g. killing the enemy) but in all or nearly all cultures it is not the case where you can just kill anyone you want for any reason.


Falsified. Africa


Please be more specific. Africa is a very big place whose peoples have existed for a very long period of time. Can you point to even one specific counterexample here? I'm not sure you can. You couldn't point to the Rwandan Genocide for instance, because even here the people who perpetrated the atrocity could not kill anyone (e.g. the leaders) for any reason, and they considered the ethnic cleansing to be solving Rwanda's problems. Consider for instance this:


Kambanda described, according to Melvern, how one cabinet minister said she was personally in favour of getting rid of all Tutsi; without the Tutsi, she told ministers, all of Rwanda's problems would be over.


This of course does not make such a thing morally acceptable, nonetheless this isn't an instance of a culture where you can just kill anyone you want for any reason. The general idea of homicide is still present even if not applied well enough.




I am claiming that the only plausible alternative to God-based morality is the "brute fact" position


Why is either of them "plausible"? Why should anyone pick either of them?


Suppose objective morality exists. Can you think of even one other plausible alternative?



If morality is a brute fact, then the sole basis for moral values existing is simply existence itself.


What's the difference in the meaning between this sentence and "Morality as a brute fact means that the sole basis for moral values existing is simply existence itself".


One has a conditional, the other does not. I mean both statements to be true however.




A "brute fact" ethical objectivist would say that there is no metaphysical basis of morality (not the culture, not the individual etc.) except for existence itself.


This is a ridiculously loaded statement. Ethical Objectivist is not an accepted metaphysical stance.


But a "brute fact" ethical objectivist is.

You have seemed to attacked my reasoning behind the "In a nutshell..." argument lately, so I will address that next.



objective morality commands our behavior regardless of where we are and when we are.


So it even "commands" our immoral acts


I do not see how this logically follows. Can you justify yourself here? Please remember also my response to the claim that I say/imply that everything in existence is speaks moral truths or behaves morally.




Interestingly, the essence of this pantheistic God must also be incorporeal if objective morality is not dependent on collections of atoms.


What does it mean for the "essence" of existence to be incorporeal?


Essence as in "the ultimate nature of the thing." Just as the truths of mathematics are incorporeal, so is objective morality. Collections of atoms of any kind do not affect such truths, and thus their foundational essence is incorporeal.



People must exist in order for there to be morality.


Moral truths could conceivably exist without people (e.g. in the form of conditional statements), just as mathematical truths could exist without something to apply them to. I'm not sure people works as the basis of morality. Consider my next paragraph:



So why can't the underlying basis for morality be the human mind.


Because cultural relativism and ethical subjectivism do not lead to objective morality. If morality is objective, it must transcend human thoughts, beliefs, and feelings.




objective morality still provides strong evidence for theism (by suggesting the existence of a God that is transcendent, omnipresent, perfectly moral etc.).


But it only suggests this to a pantheist. Not someone who vehemently denies that existence is God.


But can you point to even one plausible alternative for the foundation of objective morality? I have been claiming that pantheism (which is implied from a "brute fact" position) is the only plausible alternative to theism. Can you think of even one counterexample?




I am claiming this ends up being pantheism, which ends up providing evidence for the existence of God


What ends up being pantheism? Brute fact morality?


Yes, and I have repeatedly provided justification for this claim.



Why is it required that someone who believes that morality comes from existence (which no one could actually believe because it doesn't make sense)


Why doesn't it make sense? Something is based in existence if and only if it exists. So if morality exists and is a "brute fact" would it not make sense to say that the only basis for morality existing is existence itself?



why does that person have to view existence and God the same way?


I have explained this before. For my answer to this question, please see the "In a nutshell" part of this post. You might claim that this justification does not work. Fine. But it might be best to address my answer to the question instead of repeating it. It would not for instance be useful for anyone to ask a question I have already addressed, have me repeat myself by giving you my answer (because I have already addressed this question), and then simply complain about me repeating myself. Surely we can be more productive than this. So far you have done so lately by addressing the reasoning I offered in my previous post (e.g. the "in a nutshell" part I repeated). I see then no reason to ask this question again when I have already answered it. The most logical thing to do would seem to be to discuss the validity of my response.

Edited by Tisthammerw on 10/13/07 - 03:31 PM
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.
Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 746
Posted 10/13/07 - 03:17 PM:
quote post
#388
This post I'll devote to philosophy of science and mathematics (because it's a bit off topic from the argument of morality).




Mathematics deals with abstract entities that are incorporeal, and there is no physical location of their "reality." I can't tell you how they exist (though I do have one theory) but most mathematicians will agree that mathematical truths exist independently of the human mind.


Oh yeah? Let's see them prove it.


Mathematicians have constructed many perfectly sound proofs without "human minds exist" being one of the premises.




It would indeed be an idea, but I think most professional mathematicians would agree that even if there was a certain branch of mathematics that has no known practical application, it would still be worth pursuing, if for no other reason because it is good to pursue knowledge for its own sake.


Again, you missed the point. Mathematics as reality was the topic. If mathematics is just an idea, then there is no reason to presume that it is any more part of reality than anything else.


Except of course those mathematical proofs demonstrating beyond all reasonable doubt that these mathematical claims are based in reality.




For instance, we can't make 9 a prime number.


But we defined the number 9, we defined "prime number".


True, but given those definitions of "nine" and "prime number," we cannot make "nine" have the property of being a "prime number."




Matter and energy exist, but they don't have the same type of existence as mathematical truths (since the latter are wholly abstract and incorporeal).


But if physical reality doesn't exist, then matter and energy are just ideas, like mathematical truths. Matter and energy, in that case, are wholly abstract and incorporeal.


Perhaps, if physical reality doesn't exist. I believe it does exist however and thus I believe matter has a very different type of existence from mathematical truths.




Give me one piece of data that could possibly be discovered that would give a 100% ironclad proof that evolution is false.


Psshht. Give me one piece of data that could possibly be discovered that would give 100% proof that God is existence and the basis for objective morality.


This does not address my claim that evolution is not a strictly falsifiable scientific theory.




If I were defending the theory I could say (1) perhaps you did not look hard enough


You could, but I would make you look like a jackass by slicing the apple open and demonstrating to you that there are no worms.


And then perhaps I could say that I did not look hard enough. I'm not saying this is rational, only that it is logically possible.




perhaps the worm exists but we just haven't found it yet


It's not like I am picking-up a random apple.


Fine, but that does nothing to falsify the ad hoc hypothesis.




your perceptions could be illusory.


Easily rectified--"I perceive no worms in this apple."


This does not however rectify the real problem we were discussing. The claim "this apple has worms" is not a strictly falsifiable statement. Sure you could say "I perceive no worms in this apple" but science is more than just annotations of what we perceive; scientific theories purport to tell us what actually is. Scientific theories of what the world is actually like, e.g. atomic theory, the kinetic theory of heat, relativity, quantum mechanics, and evolution are not strictly falsifiable.




these are all logically possible and thus prevent the "All apples have worms" theory from strict falsification.


No, they are ad hoc.


Of course they are ad hoc and unreasonable, but they are still logically possible, and this prevents strict falsification from taking place. And don't forget the Duhem-Quine problem; scientific theories typically make predictions from a background system of other theories and beliefs that are not strictly proven. This too would prevent strict falsification from taking place. Note that I did not simply make this up. This is well known in the philosophy of science (see for instance here).




the fact remains that I have not strictly falsified his claim [of free will not existing].


But it remains that he must prove his claim, for his is the absurd one.


I agree wholeheartedly. Nonetheless my point remains: I have not strictly falsified his claim, which is partially why there continue to be people who deny the existence of free will. Such people may be horribly irrational in doing so, but their belief is not falsifiable.


Edited by Tisthammerw on 10/13/07 - 05:15 PM. Reason: wording error.
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.
TMB
Assistant Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 14, 2007
Total Topics: 24
Total Posts: 275
Posted 10/15/07 - 01:15 AM:
quote post
#389
Tist, you say,



Well, I apologize for not making clear that I was willing to deal with the other parts of the argument after we dealt with the point I addressed.

So are you willing to deal with another point of your objections?


Of course yes, thats why I offered the points into my post

Perhaps, but I cannot assume that you would be willing to discuss them. You attacked one premise via reasoning that only worked because you were operating on a different definition than I was. I criticized further points and you essentially ignored them. Hence, it did not at all appear to me that you were willing to discuss some other issue of the post. I'll start with another point (note: I am not necessarily unwilling to discuss further points; I'm dealing with issues in a more "one at a time" fashion).


Fair enough. Dealing with criticisms one at a time is difficult if you are offering an entire process of symbolic logic. If you break mine into single points, and given the way forums operate, any continuity would be lost, so I suggest a better way to do this is to retain its wholeness.

In post #242 you have very specifically stated that "I agree with you that morality does have authority." So for now I'll skip that aspect of the argument, since it doesn't seem very contentious for us.


Let me be clear as to what I am agreeing with as (in the next stage) you introduce something additional as an assumption. Morality does have authority, because regardless of being relative, objective, absolute, subjective, moral systems attempt to tell us how we ought to behave. This is the way we have defined and described this behavior whereby an attempt to made to prescribe behavior of humans.


From #294:


S --> (G or P)


OM carries supreme authority and transcends human relativity, opinions, thoughts etc MIGHT lead to God, but its not a definite unless you have explored other options like as you say P.


You have now modified the previous position that OM carries supreme authority. Since you are basing this on the assumption that OM DOES exist, it is a good point to test this assumption. If this authority is supreme, why is it that we see so many examples in human society where the attempt to prescribe behavior is not supreme. ie. it varies with cultures, groups, timing, contexts and does not manage to ever supremely prescribe human behavior. In fact it does NOT transcend human relativity, opinions, thoughts etc. Since you appear to have overlooked all the examples where humans impose their relative morality, you would need to offer examples where this is unequivocal for OM. I am uneasy making assumptions of this type, especially when the evidence shows otherwise. However if OM did exist it shows evidence of of something not human, either a higher being, or something the is somehow extant to ourselves. There is no indication of the extant possibility and the religious one is too political to expect real answers.


To justify the symbolic statement to English, I am claiming that given that objective morality carries with it a supreme authority that transcends human beliefs, opinions, and thoughts; the only plausible alternative to God being the basis of morality is pantheism.


None of the options for OM are plausible. If you offer counter intuitive, counter factual and inscrutable options for this, plausible does not exist. One can construct a basis of assumptions and build a logical process, but none are plausible in a reasoned way. They all demand leaps of faith.

I have explored the option of pantheism, and have several times already provided justification that this ends up pointing to theism anyway. You may say that this justification does not work, but it might behoove us to address it if you wish to argue against this premise.


Any theistic explanation has the same issues with being inscrutable. Alien options just lack credible evidence.


(G or P) --> E


Existence of God, itself carried through this muddy, illogical process, leads you draw the conclusion that OM is evidence for the existence of God.


Er, that's not quite what this symbolic statement says. It says that given that either (1)God is the correct explanation for the existence of objective moral values or (2) Pantheism is the only plausible explanation for the existence of objective moral values (except perhaps for theism), then objective moral values are evidence for the existence of God. I have repeatedly provided justification that pantheism being the foundation of objective morality ends up with objective moral values constituting evidence for God's existence, and again it might behoove us to address that justification.


I took a shortcut because of the likelihood that the a priori position with religion is that rational means get used to try and prove the existence of a God or gods. As I said any form of theism is implausible. The sense that it offers the most complete explanation for all phenomena is self fulfilling because that is the nature of something that has been assumed to be omnipotent.

Perhaps then the most contentious point for my claim (that if objective moral values exist they are evidence for the existence of God) are (1) Pantheism is the only plausible alternative to the foundation of objective morality, and (2) Pantheism being the foundation of objective morality eventually leads us to objective morality constituting evidence for the existence of God.


The contentious point for me was your misuse of symbolic logic. At each step if fell far short of the rigour needed for this. Then as you say taking the position of OM and offering unsubstantive arguments for this as a starting assumption.

You raised this point elsewhere

The idea that the universe or existence somehow says how we ought to behave may sound like a strange consequence for a brute fact. Existence normally says what is, not what ought to be. So why would this consequence follow from morality and its basis?


I get this.

Something is based in existence if and only if it exists.


I get this.

According to the brute fact explanation, the sole metaphysical basis for moral values existing is simply existence itself (as opposed to a person or culture). Yet morality prescribes our behavior. So existence itself says how we ought to behave, and does so with authority.


How have you made the transition from brute fact to a moral position, whereby brute fact says that existence itself is the basis for morality? I would like to see the argument for this. If I understand you correctly someone has suggested that morality can be derived from existence itself.
Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2566
Posted 10/15/07 - 04:06 AM:
quote post
#390
Tisthammerw wrote:
Mathematicians have constructed many perfectly sound proofs without "human minds exist" being one of the premises.

Well, yes. But no proof is presented without this being implicit.
Except of course those mathematical proofs demonstrating beyond all reasonable doubt that these mathematical claims are based in reality.

Mathematical proofs establish that, given a way of thinking, we are committed to claim certain statements given certain other statements. They are not simply claims about the nature of reality unless one posits this as a separate axiom.
This does not address my claim that evolution is not a strictly falsifiable scientific theory.

One has to be truly delusional to think that evolution is not scientific. Take a look at any thread on the topic.
Of course they are ad hoc and unreasonable, but they are still logically possible, and this prevents strict falsification from taking place. And don't forget the Duhem-Quine problem; scientific theories typically make predictions from a background system of other theories and beliefs that are not strictly proven. This too would prevent strict falsification from taking place. Note that I did not simply make this up. This is well known in the philosophy of science (see for instance here).

Why is it people that hate particular scientific results want to run to the D-Q thesis as if it will solve all their problems? Is it because they hate the hard work of actually collecting and evaluating evidence? It is also well known in the philosophy of science that there may not be any historical examples where the D-Q theory plays any great role.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P

"A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger

"…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]
Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2566
Posted 10/15/07 - 04:07 AM:
quote post
#391
Tisthammerw wrote:
The symbolic logic argument (in post #287) contained six "core" premises and six "derived" statements (proved from the first six). The six core premises do well to symbolize the part of the argument they convey, but I am not immediately aware of any means to break down those premises in any useful way. I'm afraid we may have to rely on more prosaic justification for those premises (hence my reference to previous posts to provide that justification).

So yes, you have a valid point. It is not obvious to me how I can justify via symbolic logic the most contentious parts of the argument, which is why I said (in post #287) that when it comes to using symbolic logic to explain the argument instead of normal language, "I'm not sure it would be much better....I would have to justify the premises with regular English anyways."

Not good enough. If you have an "English language" justification for your points, you should be able to symbolize them.

Perhaps there really is no content to your "English language" justification.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P

"A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger

"…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]
Az_
Aspirant
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 31, 2007
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 29
Posted 10/16/07 - 12:15 AM:
Subject: A biological origin of morality 		quote post
#392
A lot of research in the study of the brain has focused recently on a special class of neuron called a Mirror Neuron. Some scientists have called the discovery of these neurons to be on level of significance with the discovery of DNA in biology. So what is the big deal with Mirror Neurons?

They were discovered while studying monkeys. Scientists were attempting to teach monkeys to learn by means of computer screen. Their brains were wired to try to figure out which portions of the brain were active during learning. What was noticed was that when a scientist touched the screen to demonstrate for the monkey the same area of the brain fired as when the monkey touched the screen.

What they had discovered were neurons that fired when actions were observed and fired when actions were performed that duplicated the observed actions. In this way the monkeys were internalizing the actions observed.

After further study what we know of mirror neurons is that they internalize the actions or events that happen to others that we have formed connections with. This includes internalizing the emotional condition of the observed as well as the simple actions. In other words the neurons internalize pain and pleasure as well as simple actions.

It is these neurons that provide the connection and link between close bonded social creatures. They are the primary evolutionary advantage that social creatures formed around. They enabled an increase in ability to learn and teach as well as forming the basis of altruism and collective behavior in higher order species. They also provide a basic altruistic sense for species with them.

As it turns out humans have an excessive number of mirror neurons compared to other social species. It may be in large part this advantage that sets us apart from other species. Their presence enables us to learn more complex instructions, concepts, as well as form more complex social connections.

It is this ability to internalize the state of others that provides the basis for our development of morality. Because we have our own sense of what is good or bad for us (from experience) and we experience internalization of others conditions we learn to project conditions (including identity) onto others. In this way we come to realize that the things that we like or dislike they probably like or dislike. And because their emotional state becomes internalized to us we have a basis on which to see to it that good things happen to them rather than ill.

So we have a basis of morality developed by self and society. Add to this our ability to reason and form complex ideas that we can communicate to others. Self, Society, and Reason are the foundation upon which morality is formed.
Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 746
Posted 10/20/07 - 12:38 PM:
quote post
#393
TMB wrote:

You have now modified the previous position that OM carries supreme authority.


I have? Where?



If this authority is supreme, why is it that we see so many examples in human society where the attempt to prescribe behavior is not supreme. ie. it varies with cultures, groups, timing, contexts and does not manage to ever supremely prescribe human behavior.


[Off topic alert; since I am primarily defending the statement that if objective morality exists then it is evidence for the existence of God]

Let me put it this way. If reality is the supreme authority over the way things are, why is it that we have seen so many examples of humans getting it wrong? The caloric theory of heat, geocentrism, etc. Doesn't this imply there is no objective truth?

No, of course not. Statement X being objectively true does not necessarily mean that everyone will know of it. Similarly, there is no logical inconsistency with people getting objective moral truths wrong.




To justify the symbolic statement to English, I am claiming that given that objective morality carries with it a supreme authority that transcends human beliefs, opinions, and thoughts; the only plausible alternative to God being the basis of morality is pantheism.


None of the options for OM are plausible.


Not even the "brute fact" position? If so why? Remember, I'm talking about given objective morality exists, what plausible explanations for its existence are there?




Er, that's not quite what this symbolic statement says....


I took a shortcut because of the likelihood that the a priori position with religion is that rational means get used to try and prove the existence of a God or gods.


In this case I think it might be best to interpret and translate the argument "as is" without shortcuts like those, because your shortcut misconstrued the statement of my argument; the shortcut even said something my argument never said nor implied.



The contentious point for me was your misuse of symbolic logic. At each step if fell far short of the rigour needed for this.


Please provide one specific example of a statement that misused symbolic logic. (Bear in mind I have already responded to some of your previous objections, and my statements specifically saying that some of the premises would have to be justified via English anyway; I never claimed putting it in symbolic logic made my argument a rigorous proof.)



According to the brute fact explanation, the sole metaphysical basis for moral values existing is simply existence itself (as opposed to a person or culture). Yet morality prescribes our behavior. So existence itself says how we ought to behave, and does so with authority.


How have you made the transition from brute fact to a moral position, whereby brute fact says that existence itself is the basis for morality?


I'll try explaining this again. According to the brute fact position, the sole the sole metaphysical basis for moral values existing is simply existence itself (as opposed to a person or culture). So if objective morality is a brute fact, objective morality's sole metaphysical basis is existence itself. Do you agree with this?

Now we come to the question of "who or what says how we ought to behave?" The proper answer is "existence," because it is existence that is the sole metaphysical basis of objective morality (under this view). The prescriptive nature of morality permits this otherwise bizarre implication.
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.
Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 746
Posted 10/20/07 - 01:51 PM:
quote post
#394
Kwalish Kid wrote:


Mathematicians have constructed many perfectly sound proofs without "human minds exist" being one of the premises.

Well, yes. But no proof is presented without this being implicit.


Which premise makes this implicit? Can you construct a mathematical proof that human minds exist from the existence of mathematical truths alone?




This does not address my claim that evolution is not a strictly falsifiable scientific theory.


One has to be truly delusional to think that evolution is not scientific.


I never said that evolution isn't a scientific theory, I only said it is not strictly falsifiable. Science is not capable of rigorous proof, but in practice neither is it capable of rigorous disproof.

If you think I'm wrong about this, please provide one specific example of something that would strictly falsify evolution.



Why is it people that hate particular scientific results want to run to the D-Q thesis as if it will solve all their problems? Is it because they hate the hard work of actually collecting and evaluating evidence? It is also well known in the philosophy of science that there may not be any historical examples where the D-Q theory plays any great role.


It depends on what you mean by "great role." The existence of auxiliary assumptions from which a theory makes predictions is very pervasive throughout science. It's just how things work. So in that sense it plays a great role indeed. So does the underdetermination of theories, for that matter.

I'm not saying the Duhem-Quine thesis destroys all rationality of science. However, a theory failing an empirical test does not empirically falsify the theory if that test relies upon unproved auxiliary assumptions (and recall that such assumptions are typically not strictly proven). Suppose we have a theory T and auxiliary assumptions A1, A2, and A3 that an empirical test replies upon. An empirical test for this theory is not "If T, then empirical outcome O." Rather, the test is "If T, A1, A2, and A3, then empirical outcome O." If the outcome is not O, it could be that theory T is false, but it could also just mean that one (or more) of the auxiliary assumptions is wrong. In such a case an empirical test does not conclusively falsify the theory.

To take a real life example, it was once believed that if the Earth was really moving as some people thought, this motion would throw birds off their branches at high velocity. We don't any longer expect this to happen if the Earth is moving because we have a different background system of physics and testing the theory now involves different auxiliary assumptions.

In any case, naïve falsificationism doesn't work. It is true we can have rational reason for thinking a scientific theory or belief is false, but a strict disproof is usually beyond us.



[Me admitting that some symbolic logic statements rely upon English language justification]

Not good enough. If you have an "English language" justification for your points, you should be able to symbolize them.


Suppose I break down a justification for a symbolic logic statement into further symbolic logic statements. But of course those symbolic logic points would have to be justified as well. But if the only valid justification for those points is breaking them down further for more symbolic logic statements, then we're going to have to have symbolic logic statements supporting those symbolic logic statements which support the original symbolic logic statement. The chain, as you can imagine, is going to be a bit unwieldy. It seems clear that eventually we're going to have to get to English language justification considering that my core claim being false is not logically impossible (and thus not amenable to a strict proof).
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.
Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2566
Posted 10/20/07 - 01:55 PM:
quote post
#395
Why don't you try to go one level deeper.
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P

"A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger

"…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]
Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 746
Posted 10/20/07 - 02:05 PM:
quote post
#396
Az_ wrote:

[Stuff about neurons etc.]

So we have a basis of morality developed by self and society.


I'm not sure we do. Suppose it is true that our neurons, brain chemistry and so forth is responsible for why we have certain beliefs about moral truths. This may provide a basis for why people believe in morality, but it provides no basis for morality itself. C.S. Lewis put it well when it came to some naturalistic explanations for why people behave morally. "The account may (or may not) explain why men do in fact make moral judgments. It does not explain how they could be right in making them."

We're still left with the question of who or what says how we ought to behave. If the answer is "society" then we have cultural relativism, not objective morality. If the answer is "the self" then we have ethical subjectivism, not objective morality. In neither case do we have a valid metaphysical basis for objective morality, and thus in neither case do we have a valid alternative to God as the metaphysical basis of objective moral values.
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.
Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2566
Posted 10/20/07 - 02:05 PM:
quote post
#397
Tisthammerw wrote:
If you think I'm wrong about this, please provide one specific example of something that would strictly falsify evolution.

It depends on what aspect of evolution you are talking about. That those beings most suited to survive tend to be the ones that survive is not falsifiable. However, that evolution is the sole reason that any biological organism exists is certainly falsifiable.

We could observe an organism suddenly pop into being. We could find organisms without the standard DNA characteristics that every organism has. We could find organisms with bible passages in English written into biological structures of the organism.

All of these things would falsify important aspects of evolutionary theory.
It depends on what you mean by "great role." The existence of auxiliary assumptions from which a theory makes predictions is very pervasive throughout science. It's just how things work. So in that sense it plays a great role indeed. So does the underdetermination of theories, for that matter.

Name one historical instance where there was great underdetermination of evidence between available theories.

If you can find an example, then look at how important the D-Q theorem is to that example.

That is what I mean by "no great role".
"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which catches only the delusive nature of things." - KM, V, P and P

"A fishnet is made up of a lot more holes than strings, but you can't therefore argue that the net doesn't exist. Just ask the fish." - Jeffrey Kluger

"…Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people." -Ben Stein [This is included for the irony.]
Tisthammerw
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Location: Minnesota
Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 746
Posted 10/20/07 - 03:16 PM:
quote post
#398
Kwalish Kid wrote:


If you think I'm wrong about this, please provide one specific example of something that would strictly falsify evolution.


It depends on what aspect of evolution you are talking about. That those beings most suited to survive tend to be the ones that survive is not falsifiable. However, that evolution is the sole reason that any biological organism exists is certainly falsifiable.

We could observe an organism suddenly pop into being.


You could say the eyewitness in question was hallucinating, or lying. If there is video evidence, one could claim that it had been fabricated. Such things are already used to discount claims of witnessing extraterrestrial phenomena. And so even if all this would cause the theory "evolution is the only possible cause for organisms existing" to be irrational, the theory would remain logically possible.

In any case I wasn't referring to that theory. I was talking about the theory that evolution is responsible for the basic types of life we see on Earth.



We could find organisms without the standard DNA characteristics that every organism has. We could find organisms with bible passages in English written into biological structures of the organism.

All of these things would falsify important aspects of evolutionary theory.


None of that would strictly falsify evolution. If some organisms did not have the standard DNA characteristics, you could say that evolution caused that to happen. If pressed for why there is no known mechanism to cause that, you could say that there is a mechanism and we just haven't discovered it yet.

Regarding biological structures having Bible passages on them, one could say that the Bible writers knew about them and therefore incorporated them into their Scriptures after the fact (the passages merely being random scribbles which the writers formed a language out of).

I'm not saying there aren't situations in which evolution would be irrational to believe, but none of these situations provide a strict disproof of evolution. Evolution would still remain logically possible.



Name one historical instance where there was great underdetermination of evidence between available theories.


Tyco Brahe and Copernicus each had a competing theory of the solar system. It can be shown mathematically that every bit of data that is predicted by one theory would be predicted by the other theory.

Or we could try a more controversial example.

Creation and evolution is an easy example of theories underdetermined by empirical evidence (note: empirical data underdetermining a theory was what I was referring to when I said "underdetermination of theories"). Both theories can be modified to be empirically indistinguishable, and thus if we are to favor one theory over another we are forced to justify our choice on at least some nonempirical philosophical principles (e.g. Occam's razor). If you think I'm wrong, please point to even one existing empirical fact that cannot be reconciled in one way or another with either theory. I doubt anyone will be able to do so. Both also typically use auxiliary assumptions to make their predictions.

Underdetermination of theories and the Duhem-Quine problem are very pervasive in science. It is perhaps harder to find an instance in which they would not apply.
Knowing is half the battle; the other half is a really big gun.
Kwalish Kid
Tenured Poster
Avatar

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 26, 2004
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2566
Posted 10/21/07 - 06:23 AM:
quote post
#399
Tisthammerw wrote:
I'm not saying there aren't situations in which evolution would be irrational to believe, but none of these situations provide a strict disproof of evolution. Evolution would still remain logically possible.

But your examples of how one would go about "saving" the theory are so absurd as to be utterly crazy. Only a creationist would accept such convolutions! If the examples that I presented were to be found (unless they were obvious forgeries) that would be the end of evolutionary theory as the sole reason for current diversity.
Tyco Brahe and Copernicus each had a competing theory of the solar system. It can be shown mathematically that every bit of data that is predicted by one theory would be predicted by the other theory.

It sure as heck wasn't Copernicus' theory that could match Tycho's. However, perhaps one could have one that was accurate enough.

However, there is one thing that Tycho's theory can account for that a Copernican model cannot: why do all the biggest epicycles in a Copernican model match the position of the sun relative to the Earth?
Or we could try a more controversial example.

Creation and evolution is an easy example of theories underdetermined by empirical evidence (note: empirical data underdetermining a theory was what I was referring to when I said "underdetermination of theories"). Both theories can be modified to be empirically indistinguishable, and thus if we are to favor one theory over another we are forced to justify our choice on at least some nonempirical philosophical principles (e.g. Occam's razor). If you think I'm wrong, please point to even one existing empirical fact that cannot be reconciled in one way or another with either theory. I doubt anyone will be able to do so. Both also typically use auxiliary assumptions to make their predictions.

The problem with your "challenge" is that you aren't actually talking about any actual theory. If you want to talk about specific creationist theories, then we can find plenty of problems with them. But you, like all sorts of skeptics with no real hope of building real evidence for your points, would rather talk about hypothetical convolutions than what has actually happened in science.
Underdetermination of theories and the Duhem-Quine problem are very pervasive in science. It is perhaps harder to find an instance in which they would not apply.

This is the claim of someone truly ignorant of the history of science. In the history of science the theories that were taken seriously were hardly ever in a position where there was no hope of evidence deciding between rival