cnn: Teacher who was fired after fertility treatments sues diocese

[Jumbo]

I just wanted to jump in here and tell the two of you that this is possibly the worst analogy I have ever seen, and I'm not even sure what you guys are talking about any more.

As usual, people are talking chips and you're being the dip. :pfft:

I have to go.

<DanT. :ols:>

[alexey]

No, I haven't. I've stated your approach isn't better than believing God, just different. I've not claimed that believing in God is better.

I've said I don't claim to have answers, especially those that will satisfy others.

YOU have claimed that believing in God is a negative. YOU have claimed that believing in God hinders the discussion.

Then YOU make comments about pretending to have magic fritos as if YOU know that God doesn't exist.

My position is that approaches with claims of objective or authoritarian morality are not scalable.

I have no issues with your private belief in God. I will have issues if you start claiming that I cannot have proper morals without such a belief. Are you claiming that the belief in God is necessary for proper morality?

(Also note my word selection when describing an observation "tends to hinder discussion" vs making an assertion "hinders discussion")

[PeterMP]

My position is that approaches with claims of objective or authoritarian morality are not scalable.

I have no issues with your private belief in God. I will have issues if you start claiming that I cannot have proper morals without such a belief. Are you claiming that the belief in God is necessary for proper morality?

(Also note my word selection when describing an observation "tends to hinder discussion" vs making an assertion "hinders discussion")

I would assert the word "proper" describes a "direction" towards a "result", and if you (arbitrarly) pick a "result" (i.e. the human race should live in peaceful coexistance w/ one another), then it MIGHT be possible to start pick morals that would lead to that result.

I would further assert that having a result that is part of such a complex system makes it essentially impossible at this time to know if you are actually acting in a manner that is moving you towards the result. For example, I could completely imagine killing people would actually move us towards ther esult of peaceful coexistance (I'd argue that killing Osama bin Laden likely helped move us towards that result (though I also recognize that other people would make the other argument, and I could respect that argument though not really believe it).)

Given the fact the situation isn't likely to change in my or your life time, I'd suggest that if that's the course of action you are going to take, then it makes much more sense to make your result more "local".

i.e. I'm going to work hard to have a healthy and happy family. That "result" would be something that you as an individual could control and more realistically monitor your success/failure towards moving to that result, and we could talk about having proper morals in the context of you achieving your goal.

But realistically defining the result you are moving towards as "good" (or proper or whatever other word you want to use) is an untestable assumption and if you assert such a thing (beyond it is what is "good" for you), you are essentially asserting that your evolved systems are superior to others evolved system that don't think the same goal is "good".

Which has no basis in science or reason.

[techboy]

I have no issues with your private belief in God. I will have issues if you start claiming that I cannot have proper morals without such a belief. Are you claiming that the belief in God is necessary for proper morality?

I'm not PeterMP, but I'm going to jump in here so I can clear up a common misimpression that often arises in discussions like this, and he can answer for himself (and probably will have already done so by the time I'm finished. )

The argument that naturalism necessarily entails the rejection of objective morals and duties (and thus also one's ability to claim that one system is in any meaningful sense better than another) does imply that the existence of objective morals and duties argues for theism.

In that scenario, though, where objective morals and duties exist, it's not necessary for a person to believe that theism is true. If God exists, and objective morals and duties exist, even the most fervent atheist can follow those morals (and be a moral person), even if he doesn't believe in the source. That is, in point of fact, what the existence of a common moral intuition would seem to imply is happening.

As odd as it sounds, I'd argue that the only way an atheist can be moral in any meaningful sense is if God exists.

[alexey]

No, you're slightly off here, because the fallacy involves assessing the truth value of a proposition based on its consequences, i.e. we shouldn't believe in God because if He exists, it makes our discussion of morality more complicated, an assertion which doesn't in the slightest affect the reality of whether or not God actually exists, even if I agreed with it.

Your statement as written can not only be true (since it's not an argument for God's existence, just a statement of consequences), on a naturalistic worldview such as yours, it can actually be a good reason to convince others, at least, that God exists, because you and society would see a benefit. Philosophers call this the "Noble Lie".

The theistic version of the fallacy, for the record, is more like "Objective morality based on God is better for society, so objective morality must exist."

Arguing for morality in the context of religion has obvious logistical problems because religion is not something that we all have in common.

Here's the way I see it.

On naturalism, as I related in my last post, morality is necessarily subjective and lacking in force. Along with the reasons I laid out (and with which you seemed to agree), as Prosperity noted, it cannot provide a "should" or an "ought". An evolutionary biologist can tell me why I might have developed a sense of right and wrong as part of survival in a herd mentality, and a neuropsychologist can tell me that taking certain actions might release certain chemicals in my brain that make me feel good and reinforce certain behaviors, but these things cannot tell me why the action I took that make me feels good is "right", and they certainly can't tell me why I SHOULD act that way. I have no obligation to evolution or biochemistry, and that's not even getting into the issues that arise when actions we consider to be wrong make me feel good too.

On naturalism, therefore, there is absolutely nothing that could lead us to give preference to "science and reason" based morality over "ancient book" based morality or 'flip a coin" based morality or "do whatever I want" based morality or anything else. Your claim that religion makes morality "more" relative is silly. It's either objective or it's not, and on naturalism, it's not.

On the flip side, theism gives us a reason morality can be objective. There is a higher, consistent standard by which our actions can be judged, and we have an obligation not only to our fellow human beings, but to the Lawgiver.

This brings me to your distinction between theoretical and practical objectivity. You are correct that there is a difference between an objective standard existing and our knowing what it is. However, this, not naturalism, is the case where we can then employ science and reason in an attempt to unearth those standards.

Is it true, as we seem to agree, that most humans largely share the same moral intuition about most things? Not only does this seem to be more compatible with theism than naturalism, this is data that we can use to get closer to that objective standard, since we can take that scientific (okay, anthropology's a pretty soft science, but you get the point I hope ) finding and reason that should there be an objective moral code put in place by God, it seems likely that our common moral intuition would point to it. That seems like a good starting point, doesn't it? While it's completely useless on naturalism, because as we seem to agree evolution doesn't force accuracy, just survival, it's something we can reason from on theism.

When we allow for the possibility of theism, instead of eliminating it a priori by assumption, we can also (as you suggest later) evaluate the claims of various religions and see if any have evidence to support them. If there is an objective moral code, as our common moral intuition suggests, and God exists, wouldn't we expect that God would have interacted with humans at some point? Would He perhaps have told us something, as well as implanting that common moral intuition? We can now use evidence and reason to investigate the various religions, and see if any of them have something more to them. Maybe we find that there's no value at all in any of them, but it's an investigation we can't even begin on naturalism. Our reason is useless in that case.

As you can see, then, I'd argue that you've got it precisely backwards. It's not belief in God that makes using reason to discuss morality (in any real sense beyond "it's all relative") more difficult, it's excluding Him that short circuits the discussion and puts us in a place where, if we think honestly about it, we have to say that there is no objective way to weigh right and wrong, and no system, be it Taliban-style Islam or Secular Humanism or complete selfishness, can be said to be any better or worse than any other.

Arguing about it in that scenario is like arguing about ice cream flavors.

Theistic morality does have more force. Perfect Objectve Morality, as given to us by a Lawgiver, is clearly more powerful than a simple acknowledgement that we have to figure this out on our own. And therefore we should all commit ourselves to killing infidels. Oh wait, that's a different Perfect Objective Morality

How do you weight rights and wrongs of different theological claims?

Our evolutionary success is due to cooperation. We can study those mechanisms and use the knowledge that we get. Our common intuition is not suggestive of an objective moral code but of common evolutionary roots.

Just as an aside, the existence of reason that we can trust to give us correct answers is also more consistent with a theistic worldview than a naturalistic one.

We cannot trust our reason to give us correct answers.

I hold that many confusions we are discussing here will get automatically cleared up as scientific knowledge about the brain gets into the mainstream culture.

[stupidmorals]

Just as an aside, mostly for myself...

I am very much reminded of this thread from a few years ago.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?302781-Pat-Condell-God-Bless-Atheism

The really good discussion starts a few pages in (you know, when it stops being about the OP--just like this thread!). A lot of the topics are the same (especially regarding objective vs. relative morality).

But my favorite part is that almost all the same posters are involved, making mostly all the same points, in mostly the same way. I haven't re-read through all of it, yet, but the similarities are priceless! There are some posters, (not to name names) that are making virtually identical arguments and counter-arguments and it all really just makes me quite pleased to read.

[alexey]

I would assert the word "proper" describes a "direction" towards a "result", and if you (arbitrarly) pick a "result" (i.e. the human race should live in peaceful coexistance w/ one another), then it MIGHT be possible to start pick morals that would lead to that result.

I would further assert that having a result that is part of such a complex system makes it essentially impossible at this time to know if you are actually acting in a manner that is moving you towards the result. For example, I could completely imagine killing people would actually move us towards ther esult of peaceful coexistance (I'd argue that killing Osama bin Laden likely helped move us towards that result (though I also recognize that other people would make the other argument, and I could respect that argument though not really believe it).)

Given the fact the situation isn't likely to change in my or your life time, I'd suggest that if that's the course of action you are going to take, then it makes much more sense to make your result more "local".

i.e. I'm going to work hard to have a healthy and happy family. That "result" would be something that you as an individual could control and more realistically monitor your success/failure towards moving to that result, and we could talk about having proper morals in the context of you achieving your goal.

But realistically defining the result you are moving towards as "good" (or proper or whatever other word you want to use) is an untestable assumption and if you assert such a thing (beyond it is what is "good" for you), you are essentially asserting that your evolved systems are superior to others evolved system that don't think the same goal is "good".

Which has no basis in science or reason.

I see you using reason here to outline a general skeleton of a moral framework. Yes there is uncertainty, tension between short term and long term, etc. That's not going away. Also, science can provide a lot of meat for specific decision making.

[PeterMP]

I see you using reason here to outline a general skeleton of a moral framework. Yes there is uncertainty, tension between short term and long term, etc. That's not going away. Also, science can provide a lot of meat for specific decision making.

Yes, where I've defined what morality is proper by picking an arbitrary goal that has no real basis as being proper or good in science as those terms have no real meaning as used in the context of this conversation.

I selected the outcomes I did based on our conversation.

I could have just as easily selected the goal as making as much money as possible or killing as many people as possible, and then we could define morals as being proper in the context of achieving those goals.

For a psycopath that gets pleasure out of killing people, he might set killing as many people as possible his goal.

And there is no reason to believe based on science/evolution the goals in the first post are "better" than his.

[COWBOY-KILLA-]

Shocker, the Church continues to bully from it's bully pulpit. Religion is a Prison for the Seekers of Wisdom is all I say....Jesus would have totally fired her, LOL. NOT.

[Jumbo]

Ok-- here's part of what as I was going to write (and did) before I made any of those other posts, and then just held it back until I could finish/refine the first aspect and then develop more of the matter further. But I'll throw it out in raw form and let it fly. The first few paragraphs reflect a little compassion for alexy's relief re: being a bit outgunned and definitely outnumbered.

I almost always stay out of these, because no matter who is doing it in here, it's all been said and done before, and much better than our best, with no change in even the finest of these arguments for either side. But every now and then I am prompted by one person or another's surety. Which, when it's a surety born of deep religious faith, believers inherently have a “hand” impossible to “beat” via "arguing them into agreement" no matter what.

A person is well-served to realize that if another person in sufficiently versed in the tenets of Christianity (to keep it in the specific case of that religion here) there is NO argument that can be made in any aspect to many of their primary religion-based contentions that they cannot counter by the tools at their disposal. And even despite the best of those who practice and claim they will do using only logic or reason, such will not usually be the case. If it is so with the stringent use of logic, however, it will always end in a "tie" with neither side able to prove or disprove the other (so far in our existence) at the fundamental level. In arguments far more polished than the best of ours in the tailgate, there has been none presented to date where a vast majority of highly intelligent people of "either side" could take them in and then arrive at some real agreement on what is being argued here and now. But that shouldn't get in the way of benign exercise. :pfft:

While true believers in Christianity should never "lose" such arguments, it is also true, as TB was saying, that equally devout non-believers--and I mean non-believer in Christianity (and other major religions) more than a "non-believer" in ANY sort of "supreme being" to use a phrase--find it almost equally impossible to grant the Christian their First Assumption with enough intellectual sincerity to fully "hear" some constructs truly objectively. They usually are immediately discarded with prejudice. They are also often so entrenched in "non-belief" that they misstep on simple logic argument when it's properly used against them by believers skilled in that process. Any fan of classical debate knows that it's as much about your skill arguing in many such venues, and what you can convince someone of (even when its actual judges scoring points in a competition) as opposed to being "right" or "wrong."

As Bum Phillips famously said about Tom Landry that also applies to the skills I refer to: "He can take his'n and beat your'n, and he can take your'n and beat his'n."

Just one example is for the non-believer to claim that people had developed common principles with wide-spread regard as being admirable within Christianity (to name a religion) in places and in times that well pre-dated that religion's appearance (even OT-wise) the typical response might be "God put those principles in mankind from the get-go, before the actual religion was formed." Then, the typical non-believer response might be to contend that all feelings/cognition/consequences (reward/punishment) that encourage such behavior were developed without any "god", evolving, and still are evolving. Now if both sides are sufficiently well-versed in their material, there are holes to pick in both and it will end in what I'd term a stalemate. If one is a "weaker" representative of their side, they will be "outscored."

But another reason I sometimes interject (as in this time) is I just like to see (and often appreciate seeing) how certain folks may answer certain questions regardless of what answers I accept or reject, or have already heard (don't remember the last time I came across anything really new), or developed myself, or what entire lines of argument are simply being already repeated in various degrees of fidelity to their origins.

So even given what I have already stated, I'll ask one question for now would be for anyone: One can obviously hold and follow an effective and admirable (by a large majority of folks of our culture) personal morality and ethical lifestyle socially without belief in the Christian concept of God. To even refine that a bit, I'll just pick two non-religious demographics here and leave other non-Christian/Islamic/Judaic "spiritual belief" options out of it for now: How would you explain the fact that many agnostics and atheists choose to live such lives throughout their lifespan? There's obviously reasons they choose to do that and actually do so without the belief in Christianity or another religion. How does that work in your view? (and I think TB does the best for “his side” in the tailgate of arguing for a “need of God’ and I have seen his answers and those of his favorite sources a number of times). But I still ask the question, how does it work for the non-believer to do what I described? If there's no dependable non-belief-in-God reason for them to be that way and they could "just as easily" go "bad", why didn't they? Why not figure a whole society might be like them someday? Maybe they are just more blessed by God with such powerful inherent goodness than anyone. I know/expect the answer I often get from either side (even hinted at them earlier in the post), but will ask anyway.

More later, maybe.

Crap, now I really am late---I'm obviously stalling. Just ignore me anyway, I always consider that a very reasonable and even suggested choice when I use this forum as a certain kind of distraction at times and ramble off like this while my head's busy on other complicated matters.

[alexey]

I'm not PeterMP, but I'm going to jump in here so I can clear up a common misimpression that often arises in discussions like this, and he can answer for himself (and probably will have already done so by the time I'm finished. )

The argument that naturalism necessarily entails the rejection of objective morals and duties (and thus also one's ability to claim that one system is in any meaningful sense better than another) does imply that the existence of objective morals and duties argues for theism.

In that scenario, though, where objective morals and duties exist, it's not necessary for a person to believe that theism is true. If God exists, and objective morals and duties exist, even the most fervent atheist can follow those morals (and be a moral person), even if he doesn't believe in the source. That is, in point of fact, what the existence of a common moral intuition would seem to imply is happening.

As odd as it sounds, I'd argue that the only way an atheist can be moral in any meaningful sense is if God exists.

Are there things which are objectively funny?

Your point appears to depend on defining "objective" as "grounded in God".

The last sentence has the "any meaningful sense" qualification which strikes me as an "anything goes" type of statement. If God gives things meaning, then the statement is right by definition.

[Prosperity]

Ok-- here's part of what as I was going to write (and did) before I made any of those other posts, and then just held it back until I could finish/refine the first aspect and then develop more of the matter further. But I'll throw it out in raw form and let it fly. The first few paragraphs reflect a little compassion for alexy's relief re: being a bit outgunned and definitely outnumbered.

As far as your question:

One obviously doesn't have to believe in God to be a good person, maybe not perfect but definitely not bad. I would say that belief in God facilitates individual progress, but that's besides the point. Just because God is at the inner most core (or at least a logical necessity) of an objective ethical system that does not mean that people couldn't lead good lives without that knowledge. You can be an honest, hard working, courageous, etc. person without ever actually knowing what those concepts are, and why they are good to live by. The knowing is good, but it is not necessary to lead a relatively virtuous life. At the end of the day, this argument is more of an abstract peripheral argument in the larger conversation about theology. As far as why people do good w/o faith in God, a number of sources: imitation, reflection, experience, and a God given intuition.

[PeterMP]

Ok-- here's part of what as I was going to write (and did) before I made any of those other posts, and then just held it back until I could finish/refine the first aspect and then develop more of the matter further. But I'll throw it out in raw form and let it fly. The first few paragraphs reflect a little compassion for alexy's relief re: being a bit outgunned and definitely outnumbered.

Crap, now I really am late---I'm obviously stalling. Just ignore me anyway, I always consider that a very reasonable and even suggested choice when I use this forum as a certain kind of distraction at times and ramble off like this while my head's busy on other complicated matters.

I suspect that we will discover that some of us are more biologically (through genetics and other factors) prone to believe in a god than others.

And who "wins" and "loses" these debates is based largely on the biological predisposition of the "judge".

I think w/o a doubt there is evolutionary incentive to cooperate and behave "good" (and that is partly driven by violence through genetic and evolutionary incentives to not be "good") and that along with other social pressures (i.e. Dawkins memes) cause such behavior.

In terms of why not figure a whole society might be like them some day, I'd ask why? Or why not figure that whole societ won't be like them some day?

At some level, I'd argue I'm agnostic about the "final" out come of human evolution (whatever or whenever that is and means). In the short term (since the advent of dependable female contraceptives), I'd argue it is likely the fervernt believers are winning as they generally don't use contraceptives, they generally seem to have more kids, and generally in 1st world nations there isn't a whole lot of difference in terms of the ability of kids to turn into reproductive adults and who is leaving more reproductive adults is generally related to who is willing to have kids.

Though that's on the short term and assuming there is genetic component to believing in a god.

Longer term, who knows? Maybe they'll squabble so much over little things related to faith that they'll end up creating a religious war that focuses on small differences and killing each other, while the "good" atheists will survive and flourish.

It is an untestable hypothesis either way.

[techboy]

Are there things which are objectively funny?

Cute, but you're actually making my point for me, you know.

Obviously, funny is a matter of personal opinion. There is no objective standard for "funny" which we can compare my statements to (and boy am I glad, because my jokes can be pretty bad ).

In the same way, on naturalism, there is no objective standard for "morality" to compare things to. It's just opinion. As PeterMP was suggesting, your standard for morality might be to maximize happiness and minimize suffering for humanity as a whole, but for the psychopath, it might be to maximize happiness and minimize suffering just for himself (which might involve torturing infants for fun or killing as many people as he can without getting caught), and without some kind of standard to compare things to, there's no real way to say one is "better".

Your point appears to depend on defining "objective" as "grounded in God".

Actually, my point is that on naturalism, the existence of objective morals and duties is impossible. It's possible of course that God could exist but not ground an objective morality.

The last sentence has the "any meaningful sense" qualification which strikes me as an "anything goes" type of statement.

Allow me to be more precise, then.

As odd as it sounds, I'd argue that the only way an atheist can be objectively moral is if God exists.

[alexey]

Yes, where I've defined what morality is proper by picking an arbitrary goal that has no real basis as being proper or good in science as those terms have no real meaning as used in the context of this conversation.

I selected the outcomes I did based on our conversation.

I could have just as easily selected the goal as making as much money as possible or killing as many people as possible, and then we could define morals as being proper in the context of achieving those goals.

For a psycopath that gets pleasure out of killing people, he might set killing as many people as possible his goal.

And there is no reason to believe based on science/evolution the goals in the first post are "better" than his.

That psychopath will find that most other members of humanity, religious and secular alike, will find his actions immoral and likely illegal. Science can help explain why that is the case.

---------- Post added May-2nd-2012 at 02:31 PM ----------

Cute, but you're actually making my point for me, you know.

Obviously, funny is a matter of personal opinion. There is no objective standard for "funny" which we can compare my statements to (and boy am I glad, because my jokes can be pretty bad ).

In the same way, on naturalism, there is no objective standard for "morality" to compare things to. It's just opinion. As PeterMP was suggesting, your standard for morality might be to maximize happiness and minimize suffering for humanity as a whole, but for the psychopath, it might be to maximize happiness and minimize suffering just for himself (which might involve torturing infants for fun or killing as many people as he can without getting caught), and without some kind of standard to compare things to, there's no real way to say one is "better".

Actually, my point is that on naturalism, the existence of objective morals and duties is impossible. It's possible of course that God could exist but not ground an objective morality.

Allow me to be more precise, then.

As odd as it sounds, I'd argue that the only way an atheist can be objectively moral is if God exists.

You keep defining "objective" in relation to God. What happens if you define "objective" as something that can be measured by instruments, and introduce brain imaging?

[PeterMP]

That psychopath will find that most other members of humanity, religious and secular alike, will find his actions immoral and likely illegal. Science can help explain why that is the case

Are you saying science can explain why others find it immoral?

So?

Science can also explain why the psycopath doesn't find it immoral.

That doesn't make one side actually immoral and the other not.

No more than science can explain why some fault caused a deadly earthquake and another had a series of small, but not damaging earthquakes doesn't make one fault immoral and the other not.

Look, I'm done. As stupidmorals pointed out, we've essentially had the same discussion before.

Your not saying anything new and my responses aren't new.

You just don't seem to get that picking an arbitrary goal isn't moving you towards anything other than an arbitrary goal, and based on evolution and science, you have no reason to pick a particular goal over any other (other than it is what seems right to YOU).

If you actually want to argue you aren't picking a goal without any real reason (there is no science or reason behind your selelction other than it seems right to YOU), I'd love to see you do it, but you always step away from that argument and go in a different direction.

You can see here already, we're already going back to the same place. techboy and are both mking the point to you that you are picking something w/o any real reason for picking it other than you want to.

If you want to actually assert, my goal is X and science says that is the right goal by Z reasons or even I would use was science to figure out if that was the right goal by Z process, then let me know. Otherwise I'm done.

Look at how many times in this thread I've posed a simple question, and sometimes you've even started to act like you had answers, and then changed the subject.

And note because the majority of the human race currently has a certain response to a certain situation doesn't mean that long term that is or should be the evolutionary out come for the human race. Evolution doesn't work through a democratic system. Heck, it doesn't even mean that RIGHT NOW that is the most fit state.

[techboy]

Arguing for morality in the context of religion has obvious logistical problems because religion is not something that we all have in common.

This is not a logistical problem in the slightest.

If naturalism is true, there is no objective standard by which we can separate the worth of one proposed system of morality from another, and we might as well use religion as not.

If naturalism is not correct, then we've got some work to do, but we can start from our common moral intuition, reason, and whatever evidence might exist for the competing religious claims, and there's at least the theoretical possibility of getting the right answer.

We cannot trust our reason to give us correct answers.

This is what you say, but this is not how you behave.

That psychopath will find that most other members of humanity, religious and secular alike, will find his actions immoral and likely illegal. Science can help explain why that is the case.

Science can provide a theory as to why other people think of his actions as wrong. Science cannot tell us why his actions are wrong, or why he ought not do them.

You keep defining "objective" in relation to God. What happens if you define "objective" as something that can be measured by instruments, and introduce brain imaging?

Now you're back to "proving" that strawberry ice cream is the "best" flavor by pointing to brain scans that show that people eating strawberry ice cream have more pleasure centers engaged than those eating chocolate, and that strawberry uses more taste buds, and that polls indicate more people choose strawberry.

You can measure the brain activity of people that are doing something society considers "good", and you can find, for example, that the brain releases oxycontin in those scenarios, but there is no instrument science has yet devised that tells us what someone ought to do.

To be precise, though, I am not exactly defining objective in relation to God. I am asserting that absent God (or at least some form of theism), objective morals and duties cannot exist.

This is an especially relevant point in this discussion, because it was you that initially made the claim that secular morality is superior to religious morality, which puts the burden of proof on you.

It is not up to PeterMP or me or Prosperity to prove that religion is right, or even that objective morals and duties exist. It is up to you to demonstrate that your assertion is true, and that your proposed system of morality is better than Catholicism, for example.

The ironic thing is that in order for you to prove your point, you'd have to establish objective morals and duties exist (which is the only way to get "better" as more than an opinion like ice cream flavor preference), and this would pretty much defeat the naturalism you seem to hold to.

---------- Post added May-2nd-2012 at 02:50 PM ----------

Look, I'm done. As stupidmorals pointed out, we've essentially had the same discussion before.

Largely, yes, but look at this one...

Our friend Prosperity has changed more than his username.

[alexey]

Are you saying science can explain why others find it immoral?

So?

Science can also explain why the psycopath doesn't find it immoral.

That doesn't make one side actually immoral and the other not.

No more than science can explain why some fault caused a deadly earthquake and another had a series of small, but not damaging earthquakes doesn't make one fault immoral and the other not.

Look, I'm done. As stupidmorals pointed out, we've essentially had the same discussion before.

Your not saying anything new and my responses aren't new.

You just don't seem to get that picking an arbitrary goal isn't moving you towards anything other than an arbitrary goal, and based on evolution and science, you have no reason to pick a particular goal over any other (other than it is what seems right to YOU).

If you actually want to argue you aren't picking a goal without any real reason (there is no science or reason behind your selelction other than it seems right to YOU), I'd love to see you do it, but you always step away from that argument and go in a different direction.

You can see here already, we're already going back to the same place. techboy and are both mking the point to you that you are picking something w/o any real reason for picking it other than you want to.

If you want to actually assert, my goal is X and science says that is the right goal by Z reasons or even I would use was science to figure out if that was the right goal by Z process, then let me know. Otherwise I'm done.

Look at how many times in this thread I've posed a simple question, and sometimes you've even started to act like you had answers, and then changed the subject.

And note because the majority of the human race currently has a certain response to a certain situation doesn't mean that long term that is or should be the evolutionary out come for the human race. Evolution doesn't work through a democratic system. Heck, it doesn't even mean that RIGHT NOW that is the most fit state.

I thought that we were getting somewhere when we reached some form of agreement about uncertainty here and our inability to know for sure that decisions that we make are good.

Let me ask you a question in an honest attempt to understand your approach to morality. As you may have read there was recently a tragic accident in MD where a drunk adolescent caused an accident in which some of his friends were killed. Tell me what is a moral thing for us to do in this case?

[PeterMP]

I thought that we were getting somewhere when we reached some form of agreement about uncertainty here and our inability to know for sure that decisions that we make are good.

Let me ask you a question in an honest attempt to understand your approach to morality. As you may have read there was recently a tragic accident in MD where a drunk adolescent caused an accident in which some of his friends were killed. Tell me what is a moral thing for us to do in this case?

My approach to morality in most cases, including this one from what you've described, is I don't know.

I don't claim to have answers that are very satisfying, especially not to others.

I know what works for me and that's largely through going through the process and even then I frequently don't come up w/ a satisfying answer, and that's it, and I've never had such a car accident or really been involved in such a car accident in any sort of manner, and I'm happy that I haven't because I don't know what my response would be.

I'm very happy about the moral diliemas I have been lucky to avoid in my life.

You really seem to have me confused w/ somebody that has claimed I have answers.

[stupidmorals]

Now you're back to "proving" that strawberry ice cream is the "best" flavor by pointing to brain scans that show that people eating strawberry ice cream have more pleasure centers engaged than those eating chocolate, and that strawberry uses more taste buds, and that polls indicate more people choose strawberry.

BULL****! Nothing is better than chocolate! You Strawberry-believing idiots and your brain freeze addled concepts of objective-flavor dependent upon dairy dessert evolution! What utter nonsense! Clearly, chocolate : black :: vanilla : white :: strawberry : indians :: rocky road : mole people. And as we all know from the Great Flavor Pamphlet of Baskin Robbins: once you go black, you never go back. This obviously means that chocolate is the far superior ice cream flavor and we should eliminate all of these false prophets from the menu. Especially anything with peanut butter in it, that's ****ing gross. Unless it's Reese's peanut butter cups, those are cool. And Rocky Road can stay, because we can't afford to displease either the mole people or Weird Al. I get that song stuck in my head, like, all the time, and the world wouldn't make any sense if the flavor ceased to exist. But all of those other charlatan flavors can go melt in the comfortable room temperatures of ice cream Hell!

Oh, wait, I think I may have missed your initial point...

Largely, yes, but look at this one...

Our friend Prosperity has changed more than his username.

Oh, sweet, I can extend my procrastination even more by reading this thread?! I'm on it!

[RVAbrendan]

On morality - apologies for not reading the entire thread. Why is morality being tied into religion?

All you need is the 'Golden Rule'.

Perhaps I'm oversimplifying, but it's honestly how I live my life, and is a concept that existed before monotheism.

[alexey]

My approach to morality in most cases, including this one from what you've described, is I don't know.

I don't claim to have answers that are very satisfying, especially not to others.

I know what works for me and that's largely through going through the process and even then I frequently don't come up w/ a satisfying answer, and that's it, and I've never had such a car accident or really been involved in such a car accident in any sort of manner, and I'm happy that I haven't because I don't know what my response would be.

I'm very happy about the moral diliemas I have been lucky to avoid in my life.

You really seem to have me confused w/ somebody that has claimed I have answers.

I think my response would be very close to that.

Let's pick a moral question on which you may be in position to provide some thoughts. How should we treat criminals?

---------- Post added May-2nd-2012 at 04:03 PM ----------

On morality - apologies for not reading the entire thread. Why is morality being tied into religion?

All you need is the 'Golden Rule'.

Perhaps I'm oversimplifying, but it's honestly how I live my life, and is a concept that existed before monotheism.

Watch out for people saying that the Golden Rule fails with those who are into S&M :evilg:

[Prosperity]

Largely, yes, but look at this one...

Our friend Prosperity has changed more than his username.

I remember that one, it was an epic thread

[alexey]

This is not a logistical problem in the slightest.

If naturalism is true, there is no objective standard by which we can separate the worth of one proposed system of morality from another, and we might as well use religion as not.

If naturalism is not correct, then we've got some work to do, but we can start from our common moral intuition, reason, and whatever evidence might exist for the competing religious claims, and there's at least the theoretical possibility of getting the right answer.

This is what you say, but this is not how you behave.

Science can provide a theory as to why other people think of his actions as wrong. Science cannot tell us why his actions are wrong, or why he ought not do them.

Now you're back to "proving" that strawberry ice cream is the "best" flavor by pointing to brain scans that show that people eating strawberry ice cream have more pleasure centers engaged than those eating chocolate, and that strawberry uses more taste buds, and that polls indicate more people choose strawberry.

You can measure the brain activity of people that are doing something society considers "good", and you can find, for example, that the brain releases oxycontin in those scenarios, but there is no instrument science has yet devised that tells us what someone ought to do.

To be precise, though, I am not exactly defining objective in relation to God. I am asserting that absent God (or at least some form of theism), objective morals and duties cannot exist.

This is an especially relevant point in this discussion, because it was you that initially made the claim that secular morality is superior to religious morality, which puts the burden of proof on you.

It is not up to PeterMP or me or Prosperity to prove that religion is right, or even that objective morals and duties exist. It is up to you to demonstrate that your assertion is true, and that your proposed system of morality is better than Catholicism, for example.

The ironic thing is that in order for you to prove your point, you'd have to establish objective morals and duties exist (which is the only way to get "better" as more than an opinion like ice cream flavor preference), and this would pretty much defeat the naturalism you seem to hold to.

I understand how a model which relies on God stops working when you remove God from it.

The model has objective morals grounded in God - no God, no objective morals.

The model has right/wrong defined by God - no God, no right/wrong.

The model has standards of proof that only God can meet - no God, no ability to prove anything.

I am proposing a different model. You will not be able to make sense of this God-free model unless you internalize all of its aspects and try to understand how it works.

Interestingly enough, I think that I am the one fighting against moral relativism here. I am the one highlighting the danger of disagreements between people who think that they have a divine mandate.

---------- Post added May-2nd-2012 at 04:46 PM ----------

I'd like to get your opinion on this:

[Jumbo]

I agree with much of what (not all) Peter has said in his recent posts, especially about the over-view of the matter as it stands right now (and Peter, the "why/why not" questions you asked were not ones I think are any less valid to address just because I focused on another one---and Prosperity, you sort of just re-stated the existence of what I had already observed in my question without really addressing the actual question itself, and that's cool) I decided to make this my last post in this thread (I hear you, you wiseasses).

There's a few reasons, including the repetition of past times (I have said much in friendly appreciative exchanges with TB in his first couple years on the board about having had these discussions so often at such depth in such fine company over so many years that I just often read more than not), the mix of statements that aren't sound products of formal logical that get presented among those that are, and which I hate to pull out and address one by one depending on who's doing them and their tone and my mood ), and the fact that some things I feel would be appropriate to say as an argument but would likely be more negative in overall result than positive (in such a matter as this and with people I respect) so I try to avoid that if I can't think (or just don't have the will/energy/motivation) of a way to do it to my satisfaction. Because I care. :pfft:

So my last comments will include sort of a version of the religious theme of "We can't always understand God" or "a being like God has abilities and a nature so beyond ours" and part of those comments intent embrace the nature of moral relativism and challenging questions of the strengths/weaknesses (in argument) in models or constructs of "moral living" that validly exist for both sides, and has, despite some claims to the contrary of those who think they objectively or logically "settled it" one way or the other, past or present, for centuries.

While the core tenets of Christianity may represent a "closed system" in many ways, intellectually capable Christians' abilities to cognitively elaborate arguments, applying their credibility in the face of skepticism whether science-driven or other agenda-driven, in increasing complexity, remains an active matter that has yet to hit a brick wall--even if there are such bottom lines they hold that don't allow for refutation via any argument. Dismissing them however for any " religious origin" is neither fair in principle or intellectually valid in any form of serious discussion. Those origins merit the most serious respect and consideration in almost all such discussions and it has been earned.

That underlined part is important. Now what I stated a bit ago about some of my comments being similar to the old "God's ways are mysterious" theme refers to the idea that just as science (to use alexy's chosen institution v Christianity) can explain many things to much more of an accepted extent than it could just 200 years ago, so to is it true that we will likely be able to explain even much, much more 2000 years from now. Paralleling what I think Peter inferred, that personal "belief" aside, I don't think we are anywhere near to "settling" this argument (or many similar arguments) either way with either logical (in the formal sense) or complete intellectual integrity (even if there are those for whom it is settled belief-wise and/or spiritually) among the many intelligent and fair-minded people in the differing camps to this point.

I do contend there certainly exists a strong enough case right now to argue a secular claim for the current state of "moral realities" in every way that matches any level of validity to any religious claim and of course, to my reading/listening/watching such has been done many times in many venues over many years--a stalemate more or less. Neither side yet has a clear win here except in the minds of some of either side's more entrenched adherents.

I have a leaning based on it all to date and my never-ending examinations of the matter, and it is to the secular. Never would I rule out the "other" at this time, and though I will diagree that either side has "proven" anything, and I see formal logic and more general arguments abused regularly by both sides in the process (nor do I think formal argumentative /philosophical logic is the be-all end-all on it--it is just a very useful and valid tool in examination). I am also "guilty" at times of doing most everything I am noting here, though I have decades of practice in striving to do otherwise, both professionally involving two careers that demand it for best results, and personally valuing objectivity/fairness/critical thinking/ and having accurate information as powerfully desired qualities that should be exercised as vigorously as the body since I was a fairly young man.

In the end, I find another serious personal limitation in this venue to be my keyboard skills---they suck beyond belief, and typing is an ordeal for me (I sometimes suspect TB has many of his repeated and lengthy dissertations saved in doc form out of experiecne, updated and filed under some system so he can go to it and pull one out for the proper occasion :pfft:). One major reason my posts (and my professional writings when using a keyboard) are often either quite brief or very lengthy is I hate typing so much that I either don't get into it, or once committed I want to get everything out at one time. :pfft:

Some subjects of course, exacerbate my shortcomings (in every way) more than others.