Epistemology and the will to live (moved from suicide thread)

flatlanderdox
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Epistemology and the will to live (moved from suicide thread)

(For the discussion preceding this post, go to http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/rook_hawkins/biblical_errancy/7378)

Quote:
Tilberian wrote:
Majority desire has never needed to be normative in order to inform politics. The illegality of murder is a political problem, and thus an argument from civic order suffices.


Isn’t the foundation of democracy that the desires of the people are normative (i.e. “normative” in the sense that it is a standard that should be followed)?

Quote:
As for the normative status of murder, there is no intuitive "leap" required. We can observe, as a matter of behavioural analysis, that mentally healthy humans have a powerfuly negative reaction to murder. We can connect that to rather obvious evolutionary factors in the development of our species as a social mammal. Therefore we can make the moral statement, from science, that it violates our human nature to murder. If you are human, murder is simply not normative, by nature.


Again I say: simply because some thing or behavior exists does not mean that it should exist. Also, you would have to define what you mean by “mentally healthy humans.” And it does not follow that the way “mentally healthy humans” react to a certain idea makes something normative. If that is the case, then atheism would be out since the majority of “mentally healthy” humans throughout history have rejected atheism and the path of logic that leads there.

Quote:
We have to refer to human nature as well as pure logic when designing civic systems, and we can see that human empathy is offended by the killing of other people. So it makes sense to mitigate the amount of unnecessary killing that is done. Therefore, when we have a murderer in jail and no longer a threat to anyone, it actually makes more sense from a moral perspective to keep him alive.

Before you jump on empathy, let me point out that this is not a mysterious gift from Beyond. There are very easily understood reasons why we have evolved an empathetic response to the suffering of others, and other social animals share the same mechanism.
….
Only if you proceed from the assumption that a rational state would be governed by robots who are in turn governing robots. Love. empathy, mercy and compassion are all moral virtues that we share quite without the need for religion or any irrational belief in things for which we have no evidence. Plus, a broader view of society and social behaviour will show that these virtues are rational default positions for behaviour.


But which is the cart and which is the horse: logic or human nature? If the metaphysical reality of God, afterlife, etc. is rejected and it is affirmed that logic is the horse that pulls human nature along (which is what, I think, would necessarily be affirmed according to atheist logic) , then logic is what has evolved human nature into what it is (including the tendancy toward empathy, love, mercy, compassion, etc.). If atheist logic concludes that indeed death is arbitrary, then human nature will eventually evolve in that direction. And likewise the civic laws. Again, according to atheist logic it would seem to follow that our discomfort with the idea of death is shaped by the idea that seems to be as old as humanity itself: that there is some form of post-mortem consciousness (as noted from early-on burial customs).

I think it is not controversial that we have moral intuitions. I don't see how they are necessary to help us make sense of anything, however. That is what reason is for.


That’s exactly my point though: reason taken a la carte does not make sense of why death is a bad thing. It is our intuition that drives us in that direction.

Quote:
Sure, but I take issue with your use of the word "knowing" in relation to these feelings. We have emotions and they are real, but they don't impart knowledge of anything except themselves. We can use our emotions to inform our own behaviour all we want, but we can only use them to inform others to the extent that others also share the same emotions and intuitions. Knowledge arrived at through rationality is not so limited.


Again I press the point: knowledge arrived at through rationality alone IS limited because it can offer us nothing in terms of “ought.” Our emotions and intuitions, with the aid of reason, are what drive us in that direction.

Quote:
I don't think it is necessary to appeal to any circular concept in order to justify logic and science. Without logic we cannot reason, so, pragmatically, it is a useful tool. Without science we form invalid beliefs, so it is a useful tool as well. If we prefer to die rather than to exist, we are not here in the next moment to continue talking about it so our conversations are necessarily only with people who have not taken that position.


It becomes circular when you try to justify the validy of logic. You cannot use logic to verify the validity of logic. You cannot use science to justify the validity of science.

Quote:
No, your first presumption must be to disregard the possibility that your senses are deceived and to accept the evidence of your senses and the principle of cause-and-effect. Logic only comes into play when you need to predict the outcomes of your own mind-state...it is contingent on evidence, not the other way around. If we found a square circle tomorrow we would all have to ditch our logical prohibition against such a thing.


Your “first presumption” is very seriously begging the question: why? This is perhaps my greatest contention with atheism: the persistent and circular assertion that evidence is required for belief. Evidence proves itself wrong all of the time, and can be interpreted in many different ways (read any mystery novel). Evidence is completely contingent upon experience, and experience is extremely finite. It is only when all relevant data has been acquired that we know what the particular piece of evidence really means. However it is impossible to know when all relevant data has been acquired. Thus all evidential “conclusions” are ultimately penultimate. Logic, however, is not contingent upon experience.

Also, keep in mind that it was exactly because Copernicus rejected what his senses told him (i.e., a Sun moving through the sky) that the Copernican revolution happened. Logic and the fabric of reality are related to each other, however, and that is exactly what people like Copernicus and Einstein have proven. Einstein logically asserted relativity before he knew anything of evidence for relativity. String Theorists work by necessity through logic without the ability to confirm their speculations through evidence. Logic thus helps to compensate for our experiential and evidential inadequacies. Logic can and does help us to find truth before we have hard evidence to back it up.

Quote:
This is why post-mortem consciousness and God fail as naturalistic concepts - they lack the first requirement: evidence. Sure, you can construct a logic ladder that is completely self-consistent that supports God, but you cannot connect that ladder to anything in the natural universe without evidence. Given that the foundations of reason are naturalistic in origin, I would contend that no such ladder can be called rational.


Again, (1) begging the question and (2) evidence can be interpreted any number of ways and is completely contingent upon our finite experience. Many people claim to have had experiences with the supernatural. Their senses garnered them subjective “evidence” to lead them to this conclusion. Other people have had those same experiences, but concluded that the supposed evidence was only imagined. Our experiences take us to presuppositions, and our presuppositions help us to understand and interpret our experiences. Those who presuppose that the natural is all that exists interpret everything according to that grid; those who presuppose that the natural and supernatural exist interpret experience according to that grid. In both cases you have presuppositions.

In my humble and honest opinion, what many people (atheists and Christians) often do not realize is that going from one worldview (Christian) to another (atheist) is simply exchanging one presupposition for another, often equally dubious and logically circular presupposition. Why trade one logically circular conclusion for another? It is not through logic alone. It is not through evidence alone. Perhaps I will change my mind later, but at the moment I am convinced it is a matter of intuition and emotion: we believe what we feel must be true. Our supra-rational epistemic tools or “ways of knowing” work together with our logic and experience to lead us to our conclusions. It is a subjective and personal matter. This does not mean that objective truth doesn’t exist; it simply means that we cannot arrive at this truth objectively. This is why Polanyi calls his book “Personal Knowledge.” (All of what I’m saying will make much more sense of you read that book. You can read it for free through the free trial on Questia.com, if you wish. Other than that, there is an excellent article on fallibilism here: http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallibil.htm.)

In this discussion about suicide and death, then, I am attempting to make the case that the system of logic which leads to the atheistic worldview is ultimately inadequate, and when drawn to its logical end it does not make sense of our intuitive nature and the desire to live, and is thus ultimately incapable of sustaining life; and this is why certain theistic worldviews are to be preferred. That is probably a huge task that I’m inadequate to perform myself, but I’ll try anyway! Haha. I’m actually very eager to be presented with an argument that proves this wrong. We’ll see.

Keep forcing me to think about this critically! Thanks!

 

 

Ockham's Razor is only as sharp as you are.


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
Thanks for the link to

Thanks for the link to this, flats. Yes, I am lazy...see my sig. 

flatlanderdox wrote:

Isn’t the foundation of democracy that the desires of the people are normative (i.e. “normative” in the sense that it is a standard that should be followed)?

I don't think there's a presumption in democracy to assign any moral value to the desires of the people - the system is designed to allow for the coexistence of varying moral beliefs in a pluralistic society. In fact, most democracies have seen fit to put certain authoritarian restraints on straight mob rule out of the understanding that people in the grip of groupthink can commit grevious moral errors.

flatlanderdox wrote:

Again I say: simply because some thing or behavior exists does not mean that it should exist.

And I don't see where the question of "should" would come from except from something that already exists. We can't assign value to things that don't exist, therefore asking if something should exist must follow our observation that it does. This is not a problem when you turn the question on a particular object that stands outside of ourselves. But when you ask if the questioner should exist you are naturally asking if the question should exist. If your answer is no, then the question refutes itself. This is even more true in the case of "existence" in general. If you state that the universe shouldn't exist, you are likewise saying that your question shouldn't exist, since it's inside the universe. I just don't think that line of thought goes anywhere except to nullity. I feel that the statement "everything should not exist" is the same as the statement "nothing should exist," which is a tautology, since nothing does not exist.

Ouch. 

flatlanderdox wrote:

Also, you would have to define what you mean by “mentally healthy humans.” And it does not follow that the way “mentally healthy humans” react to a certain idea makes something normative. If that is the case, then atheism would be out since the majority of “mentally healthy” humans throughout history have rejected atheism and the path of logic that leads there.

I use the term the way I've heard psychiatrists use it in the sense of a person who's thoughts and emotions are basically under control and delivering results that the person is satisfied with. Since most atheists are happy enough with the way their minds work, I don't think atheism by itself qualifies as a mental illness. On the other hand, Christians seem to share this ubiquitous delusion that they are innately evil inside...

flatlanderdox wrote:

But which is the cart and which is the horse: logic or human nature? If the metaphysical reality of God, afterlife, etc. is rejected and it is affirmed that logic is the horse that pulls human nature along (which is what, I think, would necessarily be affirmed according to atheist logic) , then logic is what has evolved human nature into what it is (including the tendancy toward empathy, love, mercy, compassion, etc.). If atheist logic concludes that indeed death is arbitrary, then human nature will eventually evolve in that direction. And likewise the civic laws. Again, according to atheist logic it would seem to follow that our discomfort with the idea of death is shaped by the idea that seems to be as old as humanity itself: that there is some form of post-mortem consciousness (as noted from early-on burial customs).

No, human nature is indeed the horse and logic the cart. Remember logic is just a common standard for determining truth; it is very much an abstract concept that points to Reality only insofar as it helps us to manipulate the environment we can perceive. Our natures were evolved in response to a much deeper truth and more pressing imperative: succeed or cease to exist. It is this imperative that crafted all our feelings, both high and most base. Accordingly, we have an immovable loathing of nonexistence because our brains are evolved over eons to avoid it.

Now, we can decide that our feeling in this respect is an anachronism that we should overcome and ignore, but I don't think logic supports that position.

flatlanderdox wrote:


That’s exactly my point though: reason taken a la carte does not make sense of why death is a bad thing. It is our intuition that drives us in that direction.

I just don't see how a line of reasoning that leads to its own extinction can be said to be valid. It is arguing against itself! 

flatlanderdox wrote:


Again I press the point: knowledge arrived at through rationality alone IS limited because it can offer us nothing in terms of “ought.” Our emotions and intuitions, with the aid of reason, are what drive us in that direction.

Yes, I'll agree with that. It is our emotions and intuitions that drive us to seek moral values whereever we look.  And drives some of us to seek moral value in the universe itself. But does that mean there is some moral value to the universe? I don't think so. I certainly see no evidence of it. I don't see any moral message anywhere in the universe except between the ears of the people looking at it. We are fooling ourselves and aggrandizing our own thoughts when we assume that our moralizing might have relevance in the natural world. The natural world has the moral value, to us, that we assign to it, by whatever means we wish.  But that's the sum total of the moral value that is out there, unless you postulate God on no evidence.

flatlanderdox wrote:


It becomes circular when you try to justify the validy of logic. You cannot use logic to verify the validity of logic. You cannot use science to justify the validity of science.

 

Right. But you can observe that logic works and logically conclude that observation is our only source of knowlege about the world. So the two support each other.

 

flatlanderdox wrote:

Your “first presumption” is very seriously begging the question: why? This is perhaps my greatest contention with atheism: the persistent and circular assertion that evidence is required for belief. Evidence proves itself wrong all of the time, and can be interpreted in many different ways (read any mystery novel). Evidence is completely contingent upon experience, and experience is extremely finite. It is only when all relevant data has been acquired that we know what the particular piece of evidence really means. However it is impossible to know when all relevant data has been acquired. Thus all evidential “conclusions” are ultimately penultimate. Logic, however, is not contingent upon experience.

But logic cannot deliver new information to us, it can only test the validity of information that we already have. We have no route to discovery except evidence, no matter how flawed it may be. Even our experience of logic is dependant on evidence: the evidence that our subconscious pushes forward when it processes information. Without evidence, logic has nothing to work upon.

That said, I consider logical deductions and inductions based on evidence to be evidence themselves.  And obviously we must be able to tie raw data to a particular theory before it can be deemed "evidence" of anything. But there is always that need for actual information from the natural world before we can make statements about the natural world. Otherwise there is no line between fantasy and reality.

 

flatlanderdox wrote:
Also, keep in mind that it was exactly because Copernicus rejected what his senses told him (i.e., a Sun moving through the sky) that the Copernican revolution happened. Logic and the fabric of reality are related to each other, however, and that is exactly what people like Copernicus and Einstein have proven. Einstein logically asserted relativity before he knew anything of evidence for relativity. String Theorists work by necessity through logic without the ability to confirm their speculations through evidence. Logic thus helps to compensate for our experiential and evidential inadequacies. Logic can and does help us to find truth before we have hard evidence to back it up.

That is all fine. And when I see logical defences of God that actually refer to some evidence from nature (as all the above scientists did) I'll be ready to entertain a belief in God. Still waiting.

flatlanderdox wrote:


Again, (1) begging the question and (2) evidence can be interpreted any number of ways and is completely contingent upon our finite experience.

No, there are limited ways that evidence can be interpreted through logic. And Ockam's Razor (which I know you don't like) is a necessary tool for arriving at useful conclusions.

flatlanderdox wrote:

Many people claim to have had experiences with the supernatural. Their senses garnered them subjective “evidence” to lead them to this conclusion. Other people have had those same experiences, but concluded that the supposed evidence was only imagined. Our experiences take us to presuppositions, and our presuppositions help us to understand and interpret our experiences. Those who presuppose that the natural is all that exists interpret everything according to that grid; those who presuppose that the natural and supernatural exist interpret experience according to that grid. In both cases you have presuppositions.

Logic and reason themselves are part of the natural world. They can say things about the natural world only so long as they refer to the natural world. When they are applied to a purported supernatural phenomenon, they lose all facility because supernatural phenomena, by definition, do not play by natural world rules. 

Therefore I say that we can't say anything about anyone's experience with a supernatural phenomenon except to note that they claim to have had it. It's status in natural reality is entirely undetermined. Accordingly, if the person claims some status in natural reality for their supernatural phenomenon, we can reject it out of hand unless the claim is subjected to naturalistic tests and passes. At which point it would be a natural phenomenon and the science books would have to be rewritten. Happens all the time.

Since I've never had a supernatural experience, I apply Ockam's Razor to the competing theories and find it easy to determine that it is more likely that supernatural experiences come from naturalistic errors, hallucinations and hoaxes. I really hope I'm wrong, but I couldn't claim to be thinking seriously about the issue if I didn't apply at least the same intellectual rigor as I would use to, say, pick out a brand of laundry detergent. 

 

flatlanderdox wrote:

In my humble and honest opinion, what many people (atheists and Christians) often do not realize is that going from one worldview (Christian) to another (atheist) is simply exchanging one presupposition for another, often equally dubious and logically circular presupposition. Why trade one logically circular conclusion for another? It is not through logic alone. It is not through evidence alone. Perhaps I will change my mind later, but at the moment I am convinced it is a matter of intuition and emotion: we believe what we feel must be true. Our supra-rational epistemic tools or “ways of knowing” work together with our logic and experience to lead us to our conclusions. It is a subjective and personal matter. This does not mean that objective truth doesn’t exist; it simply means that we cannot arrive at this truth objectively. This is why Polanyi calls his book “Personal Knowledge.” (All of what I’m saying will make much more sense of you read that book. You can read it for free through the free trial on Questia.com, if you wish. Other than that, there is an excellent article on fallibilism here: http://www.iep.utm.edu/f/fallibil.htm.)

But you aren't giving reason its due credit for something rather important that it has accomplished: the existence of all life. Reason and logic are simply extensions of the most basic use of our senses. there is no presupposition involved: organisms have been surviving through reason and the principles of evidence -> fact, cause -> effect since long before any presuppositions ever existed. Now, most of those organisms weren't conscious of their use of reason, but they followed its laws slavishly. Does that not give reason and logic at least some claim to a higher level of accordance with reality?

At any rate, we have no choice but to use reason. It is the fundamental rule of how our brains work. The most fanatical theist on the planet is a stringent rationalist when he makes change at the grocery store. People who use faith must overcome their reason to do so, not the other way around.

And I don't see that empirical principles are based on circular logic. Ultimately they point to the object observed and the data collected itself, which comes to us through our senses. The empiricist says "it's real because it seems to be real" and stops there.

Lastly, the fact that we cannot arrive at Truth objectively a) presupposes that there is a Truth to arrive at and b) does nothing to mitigate the power of objective thought to deliver useful results. If we tried to use the presupposition of God and faith to build a house, we'd probably kill ourselves in the process.

 

flatlanderdox wrote:

In this discussion about suicide and death, then, I am attempting to make the case that the system of logic which leads to the atheistic worldview is ultimately inadequate, and when drawn to its logical end it does not make sense of our intuitive nature and the desire to live, and is thus ultimately incapable of sustaining life; and this is why certain theistic worldviews are to be preferred. That is probably a huge task that I’m inadequate to perform myself, but I’ll try anyway! Haha. I’m actually very eager to be presented with an argument that proves this wrong. We’ll see.

Keep forcing me to think about this critically! Thanks!

In practice, in life, we don't need a logical defence for life. Most of us badly want to live. Most of those of us who don't are suffering from some identifiable illness and will regain their will to live if treated. The rare, rare few who are sane and have discovered a rational reason why they should die should be allowed to do so. Pragmatically, they will always be a small minority since once you're dead, you're gone.

Evolution contains a complete explanation for the will to live: those who had it, did, and those who didn't, died. The moral ramifications of living and dying are quite beside the point. 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


flatlanderdox
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I don't think

Quote:
I don't think there's a presumption in democracy to assign any moral value to the desires of the people - the system is designed to allow for the coexistence of varying moral beliefs in a pluralistic society. In fact, most democracies have seen fit to put certain authoritarian restraints on straight mob rule out of the understanding that people in the grip of groupthink can commit grevious moral errors.


Wouldn’t you say that’s in the general interests of the people?

Quote:
And I don't see where the question of "should" would come from except from something that already exists. We can't assign value to things that don't exist, therefore asking if something should exist must follow our observation that it does.


I would agree. Yes, the question of “should” comes after we realize it exists. But that does not validate your position that the desires of the people “should” be followed; only that it could be questioned whether or not the desires “should” befollowed.

Quote:
But when you ask if the questioner should exist you are naturally asking if the question should exist. If your answer is no, then the question refutes itself. This is even more true in the case of "existence" in general. If you state that the universe shouldn't exist, you are likewise saying that your question shouldn't exist, since it's inside the universe. I just don't think that line of thought goes anywhere except to nullity. I feel that the statement "everything should not exist" is the same as the statement "nothing should exist," which is a tautology, since nothing does not exist.


I would say this is a non sequitur: it does not follow. For a statement to be intrinsically false, it must contradict itself. If the answer to “Should I exist?” is “no,” then the answer to “Should my question exist?” would also be “No.” That is consistent, not contradictory. If the “should” would have been followed from the beginning, then indeed the question would not have existed; thus it is logically consistent. Here’s an analogy: say the Nazi party organized a committee to answer the question, “Should the Nazi party exist?” Following your logic, the answer would be, “Yes, because if the Nazi party should not exist, then this question should not exist. Tautology.”

Quote:
Since most atheists are happy enough with the way their minds work, I don't think atheism by itself qualifies as a mental illness. On the other hand, Christians seem to share this ubiquitous delusion that they are innately evil inside...


Well, that depends on your definition of evil. Christian theology says that we are innately good (created in the image of God), but no longer perfect.

Quote:
No, human nature is indeed the horse and logic the cart. Remember logic is just a common standard for determining truth; it is very much an abstract concept that points to Reality only insofar as it helps us to manipulate the environment we can perceive.


No, what science has proven (thank you, Einstein and relativity) is that logic/mathematics and Reality are inextricably related. Einstein discovered Relativity before there was any evidence for it.

Quote:
Now, we can decide that our feeling in this respect is an anachronism that we should overcome and ignore, but I don't think logic supports that position.


Nor does logic support the position that we should go on existing. That is my whole point: logic can only lead to the conclusion that existence is arbitrary. If you think otherwise, prove it.

Quote:
I just don't see how a line of reasoning that leads to its own extinction can be said to be valid. It is arguing against itself!


Again, that’s the exact point I am making to you. You are advocating the use of logic and evidence a la carte. I’m saying that by themselves, they are incompetent to say anything of “ought.” But if you put supra-rational factors into play like intuition and emotion, you bring your reasoning as a whole to a new dimension. Analogy. I suppose you could say that Logic and Science are like reasoning within 4 dimensions (length x width x height x time); when what some call “ecstatic reason” (etc. Tillich, Otto) is added, it takes the overall reasoning process to the new teleological dimension of purpose.

Quote:
Yes, I'll agree with that. It is our emotions and intuitions that drive us to seek moral values whereever we look. And drives some of us to seek moral value in the universe itself. But does that mean there is some moral value to the universe? I don't think so. I certainly see no evidence of it. I don't see any moral message anywhere in the universe except between the ears of the people looking at it.


If the moral value is “in” us and we are “in” the universe, it follows that there is moral value “in” the universe, no?

Quote:
But that's the sum total of the moral value that is out there, unless you postulate God on no evidence.


Evidence, Schmevidence. I know I’m a broken record, but I’ll keep saying it until you show me my error: evidence can be interpreted any number of ways. It is not finally conclusive until all relevant material is in, and a finite creature will never know when it is all in. Realize that when you say this, all you’re really saying is “…postulate God without the criteria of evidence I made up or I believe is accurate.”

Quote:
Right. But you can observe that logic works and logically conclude that observation is our only source of knowlege about the world. So the two support each other.


Using the same line of reasoning you can say that believing in God “works” and logically conclude that his revelation is the only source of knowledge about the eternal framework of reality. The two support each other. And they support logic and science as well.

Quote:
But you aren't giving reason its due credit for something rather important that it has accomplished: the existence of all life. Reason and logic are simply extensions of the most basic use of our senses. there is no presupposition involved: organisms have been surviving through reason and the principles of evidence -> fact, cause -> effect since long before any presuppositions ever existed. Now, most of those organisms weren't conscious of their use of reason, but they followed its laws slavishly. Does that not give reason and logic at least some claim to a higher level of accordance with reality?


But Tilberian, reason and logic have never been by themselves: they have always had intuition and emotion as their companions. It has only been in the last few hundred years that it has become popular to TRY to compartmentalize them and separate them into “valid” and “invalid” categories. And you seem to forget that the same minds that used reason to accomplish “the existence of all life” have used those same faculties to arrive at God. Please stop and consider this reality and the meaning that your own argument asserts: the human epistemological process over the ages has done a pretty remarkable thing. But neither is it perfect.

Quote:
And I don't see that empirical principles are based on circular logic. Ultimately they point to the object observed and the data collected itself, which comes to us through our senses. The empiricist says "it's real because it seems to be real" and stops there.


You may not be able to see that it is circular, but it is. I know it is a very difficult thing to wrap the mind around; it was challenging to me too when I first began wrestling with it, but it is true nonetheless. Polanyi does a good job of explaining it. What you say the empiricists says is still circular. “Its real because it seems to be real.” Well, how do you know that what seems to be real is real? You can ask questions like this in an infinite regress. This is why it is circular.

Quote:
Lastly, the fact that we cannot arrive at Truth objectively a) presupposes that there is a Truth to arrive at and b) does nothing to mitigate the power of objective thought to deliver useful results. If we tried to use the presupposition of God and faith to build a house, we'd probably kill ourselves in the process.


But you don’t understand: the presupposition of God is the foundation of all other presuppositions (logic, science, rules of housebuilding, etc.). They are not contradictory at all.

Quote:
The moral ramifications of living and dying are quite beside the point.


Bro, I know what you’re trying to say, but it just doesn’t work in reality. You just see how much “moral ramifications of living and dying” are beside the point when someone rapes and murders your daughter and leaves her on your doorstep. Our conscience cannot accept that conclusion.

Ockham's Razor is only as sharp as you are.


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
flatlanderdox

flatlanderdox wrote:
Quote:
I don't think there's a presumption in democracy to assign any moral value to the desires of the people - the system is designed to allow for the coexistence of varying moral beliefs in a pluralistic society. In fact, most democracies have seen fit to put certain authoritarian restraints on straight mob rule out of the understanding that people in the grip of groupthink can commit grevious moral errors.


Wouldn’t you say that’s in the general interests of the people?
 

Yes. But nothing in democracy holds that those interests are "good" in a moral sense, just that they are the only legitimate basis for power.

flatlanderdox wrote:

I would say this is a non sequitur: it does not follow. For a statement to be intrinsically false, it must contradict itself. If the answer to “Should I exist?” is “no,” then the answer to “Should my question exist?” would also be “No.” That is consistent, not contradictory. If the “should” would have been followed from the beginning, then indeed the question would not have existed; thus it is logically consistent. Here’s an analogy: say the Nazi party organized a committee to answer the question, “Should the Nazi party exist?” Following your logic, the answer would be, “Yes, because if the Nazi party should not exist, then this question should not exist. Tautology.”

That would be an appropriate response if there were no outside context for the Nazi party. Of course you and I know that the Nazi party should not exist, based on a shared value judgement that comes from outside. But the only way the Nazi committee could reasonably come to this conclusion is if it also drew from this larger context. It would never makes sense for a Nazi committee to recommend the end of Nazis given only Nazi principles.

I'm saying the analogy is flawed because the Nazi party is not the same as an individual or existence itself. It can be terminated and some outside frame of reference remains from which to at least confirm that the termination happened. If a person answers the question "should I exist?" in the negative, they are assigning a null value to the sum total of their existence, since we only experience things through our sense of self. The very context in which the question is answered is taken away. The problem is only magnified when it's expanded to the universe as a whole.

People can and do draw from contexts outside themselves to justify their own non-existence, and if they die in a cause we can agree with, are lauded for it. Luckily, I guess, there are rarely good reasons to die. 

flatlanderdox wrote:

Well, that depends on your definition of evil. Christian theology says that we are innately good (created in the image of God), but no longer perfect.

And I guess that interpretation depends on how serious you consider Original Sin to be. 

 

flatlanderdox wrote:

No, what science has proven (thank you, Einstein and relativity) is that logic/mathematics and Reality are inextricably related. Einstein discovered Relativity before there was any evidence for it.

I agree. But this doesn't mean we should reify our thoughts into the universe itself. 2+2=4 isn't floating around out there - it's the consistent conclusion that our brains arrive at when we attempt to make sense of our environment. There is no ontology for these abstractions. Relativistic effects existed just fine long before they were discovered. And for every theory of relativity, there were 100 theories of the Ether and the like that held logically but did not meet the test of experiment. This is why we must always refer to some empirical observation, evidence, before we can confirm a correct link between our thoughts and reality.

flatlanderdox wrote:

Nor does logic support the position that we should go on existing. That is my whole point: logic can only lead to the conclusion that existence is arbitrary. If you think otherwise, prove it.

1. I should not exist.

2. Anything that I do is a consquence of my existence.

3. I hold that that 1. is true.

If 3. is true, then 1. and 2. require that 3. should not be true. Perhaps it's not self-refuting, but it should not be true to the exact extent that 1. is true. Therefore an individual can't reasonably hold the position that they should not exist. 

 

flatlanderdox wrote:

Again, that’s the exact point I am making to you. You are advocating the use of logic and evidence a la carte. I’m saying that by themselves, they are incompetent to say anything of “ought.” But if you put supra-rational factors into play like intuition and emotion, you bring your reasoning as a whole to a new dimension. Analogy. I suppose you could say that Logic and Science are like reasoning within 4 dimensions (length x width x height x time); when what some call “ecstatic reason” (etc. Tillich, Otto) is added, it takes the overall reasoning process to the new teleological dimension of purpose.

But the whole idea of "ought" is that there is a moral position that stands outside the universe. I locate "ought" in our heads where it belongs - a consequence of the basic fundamentals of reason (and emotion, and intuition) which we have drawn from our long association with the universe itself. Therefore talking about "ought" is pointless without reference to what "is," since "is" generates "ought" and not the other way around.

Unless, of course, you take God as an a priori to everything, in which case we have to ask if that theory really reflects the facts we see. 

 

flatlanderdox wrote:

If the moral value is “in” us and we are “in” the universe, it follows that there is moral value “in” the universe, no?

Of course. But not that there is any moral value in the parts of the universe that stand outside ourselves.

 

flatlanderdox wrote:

Evidence, Schmevidence. I know I’m a broken record, but I’ll keep saying it until you show me my error: evidence can be interpreted any number of ways. It is not finally conclusive until all relevant material is in, and a finite creature will never know when it is all in. Realize that when you say this, all you’re really saying is “…postulate God without the criteria of evidence I made up or I believe is accurate.”

No, I'm pointing to the standard of evidence that you and every single sentient entity on earth uses. I'm asking that you and other theists apply the same standard you use when evaluating a car salesman's claims. And, I'll say it again, there are not many different ways to interpret raw evidence and stay within the bounds of reason.

I know you feel free to discard the concept of evidence because you've rejected Ockam's Razor. But I don't think you know what a big part of your own rational processes you've thrown out. When you wake up in the morning and feel hungry, do you compile a long list of ever-more fantastic theories for where you might find something to eat and start to investigate each, or do you just head for the kitchen because that's where you found food before?  

My grounds for evidence for God are simple: show me some empirical phenomenon for which the simplest explanation is God. I'm not being unfair. I'm not asking theists to do anything that I wouldn't feel bound to do myself when I make a claim that something exists.

This thing about not being able to know something unless you know everything is silly, Flats, and below you. We Know nothing, in the absolute sense. We might all be in the Matrix. Our only choice, besides laying down and dying is to pragmatically accept our sensory input and build an edifice of knowledge on it.  

 

flatlanderdox wrote:

Using the same line of reasoning you can say that believing in God “works” and logically conclude that his revelation is the only source of knowledge about the eternal framework of reality. The two support each other. And they support logic and science as well.

No. Using faith as a source of belief does not "work" unless you apply it only to things that can never be tested naturalistically. Let's say I want to use faith to decide what I'm going to eat today. I know, I'll generate the faithful belief that I'm having chicken. There, now I hold it on principle that lunch today will be chicken, and my entire being is invested in this glorious fact.

Oops. I went upstairs and there was no chicken in the fridge. But I cannot change my belief in what I'm having for lunch - that would be losing faith! What to do...

I know! I'll form a new belief that I had chicken for lunch! Phew, that was a real epistemological crisis there. What a yummy chicken sandwich for lunch. Wonder why I'm still so hungry.

flatlanderdox wrote:


But Tilberian, reason and logic have never been by themselves: they have always had intuition and emotion as their companions. It has only been in the last few hundred years that it has become popular to TRY to compartmentalize them and separate them into “valid” and “invalid” categories. And you seem to forget that the same minds that used reason to accomplish “the existence of all life” have used those same faculties to arrive at God. Please stop and consider this reality and the meaning that your own argument asserts: the human epistemological process over the ages has done a pretty remarkable thing. But neither is it perfect.

No, the fundamental precedents of reason, cause -> effect, observation -> theory...those did precede emotion and intuition and gave rise to them. Emotions are just pre-programmed reactions that  allow us to act without thinking. They are like a macro in your word processor that automatically corrects a misspelled word without you having to go back and check it. They have a very real function in our behaviours that has given us a cold, hard, rational, evolutionary advantage - otherwise we wouldn't have them.

When we use emotion and intuition to make naturalistic conclusions, we merely subscribe to anthropomorphism and error, because we are using tools that were never meant for this purpose. I guess that's my complaint about the "should we exist" question: we are applying moralistic, emotional, intuitive terms and frames of reference to something that is a bald empirical fact: we exist, and if we don't exist we don't.

All this is not to say that we don't refer to our emotions and intuitions when deciding moral questions. That would be irrational, since we have ample empirical evidence that emotions and intuitions exist. But I think they should be given their proper weight: pointers to our internal mental states and nothing else.

flatlanderdox wrote:


You may not be able to see that it is circular, but it is. I know it is a very difficult thing to wrap the mind around; it was challenging to me too when I first began wrestling with it, but it is true nonetheless. Polanyi does a good job of explaining it. What you say the empiricists says is still circular. “Its real because it seems to be real.” Well, how do you know that what seems to be real is real? You can ask questions like this in an infinite regress. This is why it is circular.

Only if you assign yourself the task of seeing through the Matrix and insisting on an arbitrary and fake level of certainty in your deliberations. You are right, there is an infinite regression problem - for people who claim there is an Ultimate Truth to know. The empiricist sidesteps this problem by confining himself to the evidence of his senses and using those mental tools that seem to work. he is unconcerned with the fact that he is almost certainly wrong about everything, and content in the knowledge that everyone who claims to know better is, too.

flatlanderdox wrote:


But you don’t understand: the presupposition of God is the foundation of all other presuppositions (logic, science, rules of housebuilding, etc.). They are not contradictory at all.

But why subscribe to a presupposition that has no explanatory value? If God is merely the moral imperative hiding behind all things, why not simply locate that moral imperative where it seems, empirically, to reside (in our heads) and go forward? What is the sense of applying God to an rock or a star? These things are, to all appearance, perfectly outside our moral context. Can't we just call God what he is: our desire for security and meaning in the universe?  

flatlanderdox wrote:


Bro, I know what you’re trying to say, but it just doesn’t work in reality. You just see how much “moral ramifications of living and dying” are beside the point when someone rapes and murders your daughter and leaves her on your doorstep. Our conscience cannot accept that conclusion.

But it must! It is real! It doesn't matter how much we want the universe to conform to our expectations, we must observe and understand that it does not. How does attaching a moral parable to the murder and rape of a daughter change the fact of what has happened? It is an emotional sop, a retreat from reality and nothing less.

They have observed explosions in space, probably from colliding black holes, that produce gamma ray bursts so powerful that they can affect our atmosphere from twenty light years away. If one occured anywhere in our vicinity, it would be lights out for the entire solar system - painlessly, instantaneously, total obliteration. We have no way of knowing when or where one of these events could occur, but we know they are fairly common. This means that at any instant, the earth could cease to exist. Pointlessly, irrelevantly wiped away with all its history amounting to nothing more than a subatomic blip. 

Can you really hold that any of our moral values have larger relevance in a universe where such a thing is possible?

I think the question of should we exist is the most useless intellectual wank imaginable. We should just get about feeling lucky that we do.

I guess that makes me a wanker, considering the amoung of time I've spent responding!!  LOL!!! 

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


flatlanderdox
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I guess that makes

Quote:
I guess that makes me a wanker, considering the amoung of time I've spent responding!!  LOL!!!


And I appreciate the time you’ve spent responding!  Haha, it takes me forever too.   I’m going to try to break down our differences to its most simplest form, and try to work from there, and perhaps that will save us some time.

1.  My challenge for you and atheist logic is that it is ultimately circular and begs the question (i.e., concerning evidence, the interpretation of evidence, what qualifies as evidence, where emotions and intuition comes from, etc.).

2.  You admit that your logic is ultimately circular, and that the empiricists is forced to close himself into a set of presuppositions in order for this to make sense.  (KEY STATEMENT: “You are right, there is an infinite regression problem - for people who claim there is an Ultimate Truth to know. The empiricist sidesteps this problem by confining himself to the evidence of his senses and using those mental tools that seem to work. he is unconcerned with the fact that he is almost certainly wrong about everything, and content in the knowledge that everyone who claims to know better is, too.”

3.  The whole point I’m trying to make is that it is the exact same scenario with belief in God, but that this circular logic is okay since it is apparently the only thing we have to work with.

4.  If the choice of presuppositions is objectively arbitrary but subjectively meaningful, it would make sense that (given no truly objective standard to appeal to) one believe what is the most “meaningful” presupposition to them, as far as they can tell.  And don’t say that the empiricist’s presuppositions are not “meaningful” to him.  We only believe and do things because they make sense to us in some fashion.  If “meaninglessness” is taken as a belief, it is because that “meaningless” belief makes the most sense to them. It is of course absurd for meaninglessness to “make sense,” but there you go.  

The implications of this means that the entire premise of this website (“Fighting to free humanity from the mind disorder known as theism”) is, ironically, an intrinsically faulty and irrational one.  
     --If, as you have said, atheist logic necessarily leads to the conclusion that there is no true “moral value,” then there is really no point behind the imperative to this website.   
     --If the premise of this website is truly as arbitrary as you’re saying atheist logic demands, then why the forceful, heated, and belaboringly condescending rhetoric prevalent throughout (not from you, but the tone of the website)?  That is not only irrational from the theist’s standpoint, but it is actually, ironically, irrational from inside the atheist logic as well because it simply does not follow.

Ockham's Razor is only as sharp as you are.


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
I have a houseful of inlaws,

I have a houseful of inlaws, Flats...I'll try to get time to respond Monday.


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
flatlanderdox wrote:

flatlanderdox wrote:
1. My challenge for you and atheist logic is that it is ultimately circular and begs the question (i.e., concerning evidence, the interpretation of evidence, what qualifies as evidence, where emotions and intuition comes from, etc.).

2. You admit that your logic is ultimately circular, and that the empiricists is forced to close himself into a set of presuppositions in order for this to make sense.

Hi. I'm going to put forward a position that is contrary to both of you.
As I see it, the root of reason should be seen from our purpose of using it in practice. We use it to persuade, critcise, hypothesise...
These are all linguistic activities so the foundations of reasoning is language we are communicating in. This gives us the most basic common ground between two opponents in a debate as it is a necessary condition that they share language in common in order to communicate and debate at all.
This can give us a non-circular foundation to the following:

The laws of logic and deduction.
The law of non-contradiction is the most obvious one.
"A & not A" cannot be true.
This follows from the rules of our language.
If the following conversation occured:

"You're an idiot."

"No I'm not."

"I know you're not,
but you're still an idiot"

It seems clear that the name-caller doesn't understand the meaning of the word 'not'. Allowing contradictions makes the word 'not' useless and negates it's purpose in being present. As our language does have the word 'not' as it is, the law of non-contradiction holds.
The laws of identity and excluded middle are similar and the rules of logical deduction are built using these laws. So the rules of logic are non-circular in this sense, that if we are communicating in this language then they must apply.

Empiricism
Many of our linguistic concepts are of empirical objects, their relations and behaviours. Any knowledge of objects of these concepts would then surely depend on our empirical experience of them. To put it in a common sense way, anyone who knows what "There is a can on the table" means, recognise 'can' and 'table' as empirical objects and recognise that this is a statement about the world and whether it is true or false depends on whether it matches up with experience.

Normativity
Our normative concepts are different to our empirical concepts. They are centered around our concepts of 'ought' and decision making. I've not really studied practical reason, but I'd imagine that as we experience desires, satisfactions and disappointments, we gradually come to distinguish between what we want and what we don't. The most basic carnal desires would be the most obvious forms of normativity; "I desire x so actions that achieve this are what I 'ought' to do"
It becomes more complex with conflicting desires, and how we can carnally desire something that is bad for a long term interests, but the basic idea behind normativity is how we naturally aim for things in our human nature and normativity is how we go about achieving these aims.

Together, these combine to justify scientific knowledge.
We start with normativity, what we aim for in knowledge.
Then we have our rules of logic for handling propositions and our empiricism for handling such knowledge.

Reading back on this post, it's not very coherent as a whole.
It's nearly 5 am in the morning so must be having an effect on me...
But it gives you a basic idea of how starting with our language in common, and the necessary conditions that we must have to share this language, we can give a non-circular vindication of the naturalistic worldview, and the grounds to reject theism.
I'll try give a better explanation after your objections! Smiling


flatlanderdox
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
In laws, eh Tilberian??? 

In laws, eh Tilberian???  Yikes!  Haha… Good luck with that!

Quote:
Strafio Says:

Hi. I'm going to put forward a position that is contrary to both of you.
As I see it, the root of reason should be seen from our purpose of using it in practice. We use it to persuade, critcise, hypothesise...
These are all linguistic activities so the foundations of reasoning is language we are communicating in. This gives us the most basic common ground between two opponents in a debate as it is a necessary condition that they share language in common in order to communicate and debate at all.
This can give us a non-circular foundation to the following:

The laws of logic and deduction.
The law of non-contradiction is the most obvious one.
"A & not A" cannot be true.
This follows from the rules of our language.
If the following conversation occured:

"You're an idiot."
[right]"No I'm not."
"I know you're not, but you're still an idiot"

It seems clear that the name-caller doesn't understand the meaning of the word 'not'. Allowing contradictions makes the word 'not' useless and negates it's purpose in being present. As our language does have the word 'not' as it is, the law of non-contradiction holds.
The laws of identity and excluded middle are similar and the rules of logical deduction are built using these laws. So the rules of logic are non-circular in this sense, that if we are communicating in this language then they must apply.


Thanks for the post, Strafio!  Interesting stuff.  I’m not sure I follow you completely.  I do think I understand what you mean about linguistics being non-circular.  However I am not sure I understand how linquistics can be a foundation.  It would seem that linguistics—in the sense that you put forth—should be seen as a medium rather than a foundation.  Now, I am not well read in linguistic philosophy, but I think I would presuppose a signifer/signified distiniction.  If this distinction holds, then the linguistic element would not have an intrinsically ontic nature, but would only be pointing to ontological reality (i.e. what we know empirically, intuitively, emotionally, logically, etc.).

In this way then, language is contingent upon an ontic reality; if that reality didn’t exist, nor would the language.  However, reality can exist apart from language.  Therefore, reality is the foundation of language, not vice versa.  

If reality is the foundation, then we are still back to the questions on how best to interpret it.  What is the signified?  Is the signified (e.g. seeing a ghost, ‘feeling’ the presense of God, etc.) real?  And perhaps the most important, most debatable, and most circular question: how do we constitute what is real?  Even if it was possible to appeal to language as an ultimate foundation, you would still have to answer the question: By what criteria do you justify language as the ultimate measure of reality?

I was reading some Dallas Willard (Professor of Philosophy @ USC) today, and he put it more bluntly than I could have imagined: “what explains everything else…must be, in an important sense, unexplainable….”  To measure the validity of something requires a “measuring stick” that is other than the thing itself; if it measures itself, it is circularly justified.  Polanyi goes into this in detail when he speaks of “tacit knowledge.”  The ultimate measure has to be tacit and unmeasurable in itself.  It is the ultimate presupposition.  

I’ll stop now… it’s getting late for me too!  Where are you writing from?  Your “5am” is my “11pm”.  Somewhere in the British Isles, eh?  UK?  Ireland?  

Cheers mate!

Ockham's Razor is only as sharp as you are.


flatlanderdox
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Ha!  YAY!!! I finally got a

Ha!  YAY!!! I finally got a "Theist" badge!!!  haha


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
  flatlanderdox wrote: 1.

 

flatlanderdox wrote:

1. My challenge for you and atheist logic is that it is ultimately circular and begs the question (i.e., concerning evidence, the interpretation of evidence, what qualifies as evidence, where emotions and intuition comes from, etc.).

OK, so it looks like my mission here is to defend empiricism as being a necessary (rather than arbitrary) component of rationality.

First of all, I would say that this is true only when making conclusions about the natural world. Metaphysics deals with constructing a philosphical framework for the universe, and therefore only needs to hang together logically since the only place where metaphysics is "real" is inside our heads. Discussions of the supernatural likewise don't resort to evidence, since the whole paradigm of "supernaturalism" is incoherent and doesn't conform to rationality, much less empiricism. 

The question "does God exist" is, however, such a naturalistic question as long as by "exist" we mean in this universe and is he real in the same sense as other things that we consider real.

A rational conclusion must conform to logic, and logic gives us the law of identity in that once a thing is deemed to be something, it is considered to be that thing. For instance a chair is a chair and not also not a chair. This is how we construct the category of "chair." But we have not, yet, referred to any natural object. In fact, it is perfectly common to construct categories that don't refer to any natural object. There is no such thing as a square, for instance.

Now we move to wanting to describe natural objects. But on what basis will we attach identity to an object outside ourselves? If we admit non-empirical means, then one person could look at an object and place it in the category "chair" and another could look at it and place it in the category "telephone." We know we have a logical violation, since the same object cannot be both a chair and a telephone. 

Now what? We could throw up our hands and declare that the object has no reality outside our minds, and that it is a chair to the first person and a telephone to the other person and both are valid and everyone should learn to live together. But the purpose of rationality is give everyone a common standard for determining truth, and thereby admit the possibility of discourse. If our shared reality admits logical violations in which one object can have two identities, then either our logical rules must change or we must admit that reason is a useless waste of time. 

But our purpose here is to determine whether empiricism is needed in our present model of rationality, so solutions involving rewriting the law of identity or rejecting rationality altogether would seem to be failures.

The only way we know of to arrive at a common identity for a natural object is to agree on a theory of "chair" that breaks down the idea of chair into fundamental concepts, then to compare the sense data each observer collects from the disputed object to our theorectical model. We call it empirical observation and we know of no other way to establish the identity of natural objects and to hold that identity as a rational fact. Therefore, empiricism is necessary to rationality when describing objects in this universe.

 
flatlanderdox wrote:

2. You admit that your logic is ultimately circular, and that the empiricists is forced to close himself into a set of presuppositions in order for this to make sense. (KEY STATEMENT: “You are right, there is an infinite regression problem - for people who claim there is an Ultimate Truth to know. The empiricist sidesteps this problem by confining himself to the evidence of his senses and using those mental tools that seem to work. he is unconcerned with the fact that he is almost certainly wrong about everything, and content in the knowledge that everyone who claims to know better is, too.”

The empiricist position only becomes circular if he claims to be discovering the Ultimate Truth through his observations (ie seeing through the Matrix). But there is no need for the empiricist to make that claim, in fact, to stay true to his principles, the empiricist would merely note that he has no evidence of any larger Truth to be discovered. The empiricist's only claim to superior method is that his method is in coherent agreement with reason and logic, as I've demonstrated above, and that, when using this method the empiricist continues to exist and can therefore claim to have established some level of control over his environment.

 

flatlanderdox wrote:

3. The whole point I’m trying to make is that it is the exact same scenario with belief in God, but that this circular logic is okay since it is apparently the only thing we have to work with.

Belief in God is not necessary to the operation of reason in making conclusions about the natural world - the use of empirical observation is. So empiricism and God are not on the same footing in terms of rationally justified belief. Belief in God is subsequent to and dependant on rational thought, and therefore should be subject to examination under the basic tenets of rational thought, like empiricism.

God comes in handy if you want to say that you know something about Truth, that is, the Big Truth that (purportedly) lies behind the curtain that we can't penetrate with our senses. But when I apply reason, and the Razor, to this theory of a Big Truth I hit the following problems:

1. If reason and our senses can reveal Truth, then empirical observation should suffice. If they can't, then theists have no more way of knowing Truth than I have, and God is not distinguishable from pure fantasy.

2. I have a coherent worldview that works in all circumstances using only reason and empiricism. A larger Truth is an unnecessary added element, and therefore Razored out of my theory.

3. Since the use of my reason requires empiricism before I ever get to the point of theorizing about larger Truths, I would first employ my rational, empirical principle and look for evidence for such a Truth before I admit of it. Seeing none, the only reasonable approach would be to discard the theory.

 

flatlanderdox wrote:

4. If the choice of presuppositions is objectively arbitrary but subjectively meaningful, it would make sense that (given no truly objective standard to appeal to) one believe what is the most “meaningful” presupposition to them, as far as they can tell. And don’t say that the empiricist’s presuppositions are not “meaningful” to him. We only believe and do things because they make sense to us in some fashion. If “meaninglessness” is taken as a belief, it is because that “meaningless” belief makes the most sense to them. It is of course absurd for meaninglessness to “make sense,” but there you go.

I think I've shown that empiricism is connected to the very foundations of reasoned discourse. Any attempt to discover meaning through rational means will rely on it. 

 

flatlanderdox wrote:

The implications of this means that the entire premise of this website (“Fighting to free humanity from the mind disorder known as theism”) is, ironically, an intrinsically faulty and irrational one.
--If, as you have said, atheist logic necessarily leads to the conclusion that there is no true “moral value,” then there is really no point behind the imperative to this website.
--If the premise of this website is truly as arbitrary as you’re saying atheist logic demands, then why the forceful, heated, and belaboringly condescending rhetoric prevalent throughout (not from you, but the tone of the website)? That is not only irrational from the theist’s standpoint, but it is actually, ironically, irrational from inside the atheist logic as well because it simply does not follow.

Belief in God (as an real entity in the natural world) can only be held on an irrational basis because our only tool of identification - empirical observation - has yeilded no data. Natural phenomena always have a better explanation through science - always. 

Belief in God and belief in the findings of science do NOT rest on the same rational plane. Theories that rest on empirical evidence are superior because they are in coherent alignment with reason. A theist cannot get to God without almost immediately abandoning the same central tenets of reason that he uses and finds indispensible in his everyday life. It is far easier to believe in your toaster than in the supposed omnipotent creator of the universe.

There are probably reasoned arguments for the existence of God in metaphysics. There are also reasoned arguments against the existence of God. But metaphysics, floating free from any need to associate its conclusions to the real world, demonstrates the need for rationality and reference to evidence in this one. The metaphysical wrangles will probably go on for all time, unsolved, as there are nothing but different configurations of human brain tissue informing them. We can't afford that sort of deadlock in this world. Pragmatically, we need reason in order to allow discourse, discovery and action. If we wish our actions to be informed by the real world and to be effective in the real world, we need to tie our beliefs to the real world through evidence.

So many of us atheists think that the world would quite literally be a better place if our beliefs were aligned with reality all the way down to their fundamental beginnings. That's why there can be some passion and rhetoric and intermperant talk on this site.   

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Tilberian
Moderator
Tilberian's picture
Posts: 1118
Joined: 2006-11-27
User is offlineOffline
flatlanderdox wrote: Ha!

flatlanderdox wrote:
Ha! YAY!!! I finally got a "Theist" badge!!! haha

LOL! I wish they'd just save those badges for theists who try to oretend to be atheists. 

Wear it with pride, Flats. Tongue out

Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
flatlanderdox

flatlanderdox wrote:
However I am not sure I understand how linquistics can be a foundation. It would seem that linguistics—in the sense that you put forth—should be seen as a medium rather than a foundation. Now, I am not well read in linguistic philosophy, but I think I would presuppose a signifer/signified distiniction. If this distinction holds, then the linguistic element would not have an intrinsically ontic nature, but would only be pointing to ontological reality (i.e. what we know empirically, intuitively, emotionally, logically, etc.).

Our language would be the foundation of our reason, reason would be how we discover reality, and reality would explain our language/reason.
It's not quite circular because there's two different 'becauses' going on.
Our reason justifies our belief in reality while our belief of reality explains our reason. Our linguistic capabilities are at the root of our justification, which I think that this topic is all about.

So our knowledge starts with our language and reason, and from that we can infer what conditions are necessary for language and reason, and the result would be reality.
(something I should note is that I haven't fully studied linguistic philosophy in detail, but think that it will have some important results when I do)

Quote:
In this way then, language is contingent upon an ontic reality; if that reality didn’t exist, nor would the language. However, reality can exist apart from language. Therefore, reality is the foundation of language, not vice versa.

This is what my justification/explanation distinction is for.
Reality is nomologically necessary for language, but language is the epistemic foundation that we use to justify this belief.
"I think therefore I am."
"I speak therefore reality must be!" Eye-wink

Quote:
By what criteria do you justify language as the ultimate measure of reality?

When I reason with someone, I start with the assumption that they understand the same language and are therefore bound by the same rules. So anything we communicate will be bound by these rules.
As all of our discourse is linguistic, none of it will be outside the bounds of these rules either.

It's basically recognising reason as the linguistic activity that it is.

Quote:
I was reading some Dallas Willard (Professor of Philosophy @ USC) today, and he put it more bluntly than I could have imagined: “what explains everything else…must be, in an important sense, unexplainable….” To measure the validity of something requires a “measuring stick” that is other than the thing itself; if it measures itself, it is circularly justified.

Here's another place where I apply the distinction between justification and explanation. Language is the root of all justification but can still be explained physically. Sometimes you might justify the odd word, and why you come to use it, but when I talk about language I'm not talking about individual words, I'm talking about our overall skill and practice of language as a whole. That's where the justificatory foundations of reason are held.

Quote:
Where are you writing from? Your “5am” is my “11pm”. Somewhere in the British Isles, eh? UK? Ireland?

Cheers mate!

Spot on. Middle of England.
Interesting debate.