TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- This website is so ass-backwards it's funny
Pages (14): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 »

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I do agree with you that Aquinas went further than the bible in his attempts to prove his theological concepts. But from reading his discussions it's pretty obvious that, whether consciously or not, a lot of his work was not really questioning the bible, but was instead aimed at proving the christian doctrine as a legitimate fact. In some of his discussions, like the one on angels I mentioned earlier, he often takes that doctrine for granted and builds up conclusions on that, which why I mentioned earlier that his writings are sometimes silly.

What kind of scholar or philosopher doesn't take at least something for granted? It was his belief system, and if he's doing work on angels why wouldn't he use his Christian beliefs?

He was one of the earliest apologists, so of course he will be trying to prove his doctrines... Have you ever read the Summa? Actually that's unfair, since it's a friggen library of sorts, but maybe bits and pieces? Perfect examples in there of both Biblical use and Non-Biblical use to reach conclusions.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex What kind of scholar or philosopher doesn't take at least something for granted? It was his belief system, and if he's doing work on angels why wouldn't he use his Christian beliefs? He was one of the earliest apologists, so of course he will be trying to prove his doctrines... Have you ever read the Summa? Actually that's unfair, since it's a friggen library of sorts, but maybe bits and pieces? Perfect examples in there of both Biblical use and Non-Biblical use to reach conclusions.

So you do admit that his work is biased in that he takes the bible as an unquestionable source of truth?

Given the context of the time he was living in, sure, he was a great philosopher. But since we no longer live in the middle ages, his work is not nearly as insightful and meaningful as it was at the time.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 his work is not nearly as insightful and meaningful as it was at the time.

It is to theists and we all know theist philosophy is very much alive and well.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 So you do admit that his work is biased in that he takes the bible as an unquestionable source of truth? Given the context of the time he was living in, sure, he was a great philosopher. But since we no longer live in the middle ages, his work is not nearly as insightful and meaningful as it was at the time.

Why isn't it relevant? A lot of modern greats in philosophy think it is.

And no I don't admit that he uses the bible as an unquestionable source of truth all the time. His arguments for the existence of God and the beginning of the universe are not rooted AT ALL in the bible, but in physics and philosophy like I said.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 So you do admit that his work is biased in that he takes the bible as an unquestionable source of truth?

Just because someone is Christian does not necessarily mean that the Bible is an unquestionable source of truth. In fact, I would argue that for most spiritual people, it is most definitely not.

quote:

Given the context of the time he was living in, sure, he was a great philosopher. But since we no longer live in the middle ages, his work is not nearly as insightful and meaningful as it was at the time.

Um. Wrong. Are you going to argue that Aristotelian Ethics no longer pertain to modern life because we've discovered gunpowder and jet engines? You need to read some Rawls or Veatch or MacIntyre or something to see how Aristotle, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas impact modern philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex I'll point out the obvious one, which is from a culture standpoint that is of course either directly or indirectly affected by religious beliefs worldwide: The fact that there is no notable society on Earth that looks favorably upon thieves, murderers, rapists, cheats etc is evidence enough that while religious practices worldwide may vary, there IS a strong correlation. So if humans simply came up with their own notions, obviously separated by miles and miles of land/seas/mountains etc, of morality then surely there would be more variation? Would we not be seeing to this day a society that freely allowed it's citizens to kill each other at will?

In the first place, we do find a great variation in the moral norms both within and between societies. Obviously any action which serves as a threat to the stability of a small society (random acts of murder, theft, sexual impropriety etc.) are more likely to be universally forbidden than more trivial moral norms (such as the tedious lists of laws that exist to this day in the Hebrew Pentateuch), but - historically at least - there is a great variation in the moral norms of discrete societies.

Actions that we can comfortably denounce today as the height of immorality - like murder, for instance - have historically been condoned within ritualised, religious settings. Even the ancient Judahists (the chosen people of Yahweh, no less) may have practiced ritual human sacrifices under certain conditions (hence the poignancy of the Abraham / Isaac story: animal sacrifice, in the context of the Covenant, is presented as an acceptable alternative to human sacrifice). The practice of infanticide has been common throughout Western history (as a Catholic, I'm sure you'd argue that this is still a problem in the West) and the implicit sanctioning of rape continues in certain Islamic societies to this very day. And this only pertains to actions within a given society: you'd be hard-pressed to find many examples of societies who have stuck hard and fast to the "no killing, theft or rape" rules when it comes to dealing with individuals from another society, particularly in the context of war. The scope or conviction of a society's religious beliefs seems to have no identifiable relationship with its capacity to treat other human beings in a moral manner (in fact I would argue that there is most likely an inverse relationship at work here, but I'm labouring the point).

You could (doubtless, will) argue that this is because these societies haven't properly followed the tennets of true (i.e. 21st century Catholic) religious morality, or that they have followed a false version of it, or make any other argument to this effect. Even if I were to accept such an argument, the fact remains that the historical efficacy of religious adherence in promoting moral virtues within or between societies is - at best - extremely poor. If the propensity towards religious adherence cannot explain or predict common universal (more properly, objective) moral norms between societies, then something else must be responsible.

quote:

I'm sorry but to try and claim that if religion of any kind had not been part of humanity's progression that people would have simply come up with their own morality system is foolish. What would it have been based on?

Most human societies actually haven't developed moral systems, either in the more rigid philosophical sense (i.e. made an attempt to justify moral norms in the context of some exogenous or overarching moral schemata) or in the looser sense of simply codifying existing moral norms into a set of literally defined laws. Even in societies where this has been the case, we find that the content of these moral systems tend to shift quite rapidly anyway (e.g. compare the moral philosophies and laws of the West today to those of the West 200 years ago). Whatever it is you mean when you suggest that the idea of societies "simply com[ing] up with their own morality system is foolish", it is quite clear that societies do come up with their own moral systems, even when preceding, contradictory moral systems (be they secular or religious) are explicitly set out. (For instance, it was once Decretal Catholic law that the killing of an excommunicated person did not constitute murder: the Decretal laws were not canonically displaced until the 20th century. At least one of these systems - both of which claim to be derived from religious injunctions - is wrong: what was the origin of the incorrect one, then, if it did not come from religion?)

That it not to suggest that moral norms are created on an arbitrary or ad hoc basis either; that clearly isn't true. But what is clearly true is that moral norms exhibit enough variation to preclude any absolute origin and so we must turn towards explanations of a more contingent, earthly nature. I can see in your response that the answer has already crossed your mind, but you seem to reject it purely because it offends your religious sensibilities.

quote:

If you want to return to the animal example, fine, but as a well read person you must understand that humans do not have animal instincts surely?

Given that we are animals, we most assuredly do. There is not a cognitive psychologist on the planet who would subscribe to the tabula rasa view of human nature that you seem to be proffering here. Even in the pejorative sense of the term, we do universally exhibit many animalian "instincts" (i.e. instincts common to all humans, also commonly found in the greater animal kingdom), including (off the top of my head) our sexual instinct, our territorial instinct, our maternal instinct, our instinctive aversion to somatic trauma and so on. There are somewhat uniquely "human" instincts to be sure (which I will shortly get into) but they are not so unique as to be inexplicable via the tennets of Darwinian adaption.

quote:

And to claim that a worldwide invention of morality is somehow our animal minds triggering a survival mechanism is beyond foolish.

No it isn't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection

quote:

You have to look no further than the example of a child and his/her parents: A child needs to be taught EVERYTHING

No it doesn't. A child (even a newborn) possesses certain mental capacities that cannot be explicitly taught, but that are rather inexorably tied to the very constitution of his or her being (i.e. "instinctive"). We've been familiar with the instinctive mental capacities of children since Piaget (link) and the parent of any autistic child will be able to tell you that things such as recongising a smile or recognising a tone of voice just simply cannot be taught. I'm going to PM Lira so he can discuss his generativist theory of universal grammar with you, just in case you need any further proof that even the most "human" of capacities (in this case, the capacity for language) is almost entirely instinctive in nature. (If he disagrees with me then ignore him: he's obviously let his anti-Chomskyism get the best of him.)

quote:

Morality is tradition

No it isn't. (I'm beginning to enjoy starting my replies like that.)

Morality is derived from our capacity to sympathise with the mental states of others. The gratuitous suffering of another causes me to suffer and this is wired into our very being (I mentioned it before, but read up on mirror neurons). When I say that morality is instinctive (or objective - the suffering of another is not likely to be any more or less apparent to another human being than it is to me, for this very reason) this is what I mean.

quote:

and all tradition begins somewhere, I argue that it begins with God and that it has been passed down.

So if morality "begins with God" and "has been passed down" wouldn't it be fair to say that the original interpretations have a greater chance of being correct than the latter ones? If morality began with god and has been passed down from generation to generation, on what grounds can we say that the injunction to stone an adulterer to death is immoral (or that the murder of an excommunicated Catholic is unlawful) without resorting to non-theistic (dare I say, humanistic) rationalisations?

You can't have it both ways. You can either denounce the morality of generations past who claimed to derive their morality from God, or you can claim that your generation of Catholics has inherited - to the exclusion of all previous generations - the one true morality. In either case, your claim that moral systems can only be derived from God appears to have no basis in reality (I'll say it again: where did the "wrong" moral system come from?).

...and I just realised that I'm still on the first part of your reply. I'll finish this thought tomorrow.

Now I could write another wall of text refuting what you've just written, I could point out that you nitpicked the instincts argument instead of conceding that humans don't have any where NEAR the instinctual capacity as every other animal or insect... And I still might...

But for now I want to ask one simple question:

Do you believe morality is objective? Because you mentioned that in the last few lines of your post, so if you were to agree that morality is in fact objective then I don't see how anything you type from that point on can be valid in disproving the existence of God. Objective morality, if you agree exists, logically leads to the conclusion that God exists.

no worries james, i've got it

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Alright, I'm impressed that you dare travel into more theological waters here, and you seem to have a very basic understanding of Protestant beliefs. I am not a Protestant, however I do understand their theology quite well, so I'll try to clear this up as best I can. Stealing a TV probably would land you in hell if you simply didn't think it was wrong to do so, despite having been taught otherwise. However, as a Catholic I believe that through a GENUINE (emphasis on Genuine) repentance you would be able to return to God's favor. That being said, it isn't an easy task and because I do not believe in faith alone that person would have to work towards their salvation and not just steal more TVs and ask for more forgiveness. Now, an Evangelical (which could mean any number of Protestant denominations by the way) believes that Scripture alone and Faith alone will earn him salvation. This is an idea of the Calvinist train of thought which was actually originated with Luther. I believe that it's a bunch of nonsense and goes against scripture, and there is endless evidence in my favor. The fact that the protestant bible simply omits section after section of things they found were contrary to their new belief system is evidence enough that Faith alone and Scripture alone are concepts that have grown out of an original misconception. So you brought up some ok points, but when you claimed there was no threat of punitive retribution I sort of went "huh?" I don't see how your train of thought lead you there at all.

as i emphasized in the above quote, it is you who believes the above. not every christian, and not necessarily every catholic even (nevermind other religions, who similarly claim "their" god/s are the ones who govern morality), so while people who think like you might have the incentive in question, there are plenty of christians who don't share your views (some of them you've mentioned yourself). what is their incentive on the basis of self-interest to act morally?

or maybe they're just wrong, as you seem to suggest, in which case it would seem you are the one who believes christians (except those sharing your denomination) don't respect the moral laws of your god, or in other words, don't have an incentive to act morally as far as it pertains divine morality.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Do you believe that Christians don't respect the laws of THIS world and are only concerned about what the higher power thinks? God always taught that following the law was extremely important in the long run and there is evidence of that in every single book of the bible, you need only open to any page and see that. Additionally though, Christians DO answer to a higher power and of course that is their primary concern when making moral choices. In the Christian mindset, our lives here are merely a test and that our true lives begin upon our deaths, therefore I return to my first point: If I believe in an all knowing, all powerful God that can read me like a book and see through every lie I tell others or to myself, it requires a truly GENUINE act of repentance to return to his good favor, and true repentance requires a complete 180 so to speak in how I go about making moral decisions from that point on, it's not an open system like ours on earth. IE: You break the law, you go to jail. You lie to the parole board and say you're different, 6 months later you're back in jail, you get out, a year later you're back in... Etc etc. When dealing with God's favor, it is not finite while on earth, but upon our deaths it becomes a 100% finite decision as to whether or not you truly lead a good life or whether you truly were sorry for the horrible things you did and asked forgiveness for.

why would you think renegade believes that christians don't respect the laws of this world? you guys were talking about the divine morality context alone at that point. human laws are irrelevant in that micro-discussion.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Now are we really going to just sit here and assume that the people who instigated the 9/11 attacks were doing so based purely on religion? What a bunch of bollocks. It was a political attack, not a religious one, and any one with any common sense can see that. Now as for the people in the planes, the actual hijackers, I imagine some of them knew as well that the attack was POLITICAL in nature and not simply a matter of Islam vs The USA.

this isn't a question of what was the actual motivation for it on a global scale, rather of the religious justification used by the extremists.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex The hijackers WERE mistaken, and just because you add the word "merely" before your point about them being mistaken in their exegesis doesn't make that claim at all wrong.

no-one pretended it did.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Both the Bible and the Qu'ran have been used to justify heinous deeds, and that is because both books suffer from the same condition Jesus Christ did. They are both divine and human. The Bible and the Qu'ran are works inspired by the word of God, an insight into his plan that we can only begin to understand, and they are also written by human beings like ourselves.

being that the bible (and perhaps the qu'ran aswell, i wouldn't know since i haven't read it) simply reiterates stories that were passed down orally before being written - what's so divine about it?

quote:

Originally posted by Alex So I refer you to the point of all this again, a person can interpret the Bible incorrectly and it's moral teachings and do something that the vast majority of Christians think is wrong. Just like a regular member of society can stand up in court and justify why he killed his wife, but the jury, the judge, the media and all those following that said case can reject his reasoning and condemn him anyway. Now, how can we say he is wrong? After all, according to Atheists laws are a man made invention open to the authority of mankind only, so while we all believe he is wrong and we interpret our law in such a way that says he is wrong, he still thinks he's right. That is where the authority of a higher power ultimately comes into play that will, in the end, decide whether the action of our wife killer or those of the 9/11 instigators and hijackers were wrong.

according to atheists? huh? like, being a theist, you don't believe laws are man made, open to the authority of mankind only?

anyways, no, these two cases are not alike in the sense discussed. in the divine morality context, there is no arbiter other than god, and we've already touched on how some denominations (and religions) believe god can be appeased without much effort, as well as be pleased with the action itself to begin with, and as renegade stated, "given the absense of any possibility of knowing the mind of God - we have no objective metric upon which to denounce the lunacy of religious fundamentalists."
in the 'atheistic' morality context, the judge and the jury are the arbiters for most intents and purposes, and in many cases, we have an objective metric to work with, it's all over our law books.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Your point Does not make any sense. Of course it can, and I disproved this notion in my comparison of the misinterpretation of the bible vs the misinterpretation of the legal system.

see above.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex The vast majority of Christians adhere to a Bible that is more or less the same on the most important issues, yes Sola Scriptura and Faith Alone are issues that have put a wedge in common Christianity but ultimately they do not affect the Christian man or woman's interpretation of the most basic of concepts in the Bible. IE: The 10 commandments, and the commandment Jesus taught "Love thy neighbor as you love yourself". The supporters of the 9/11 attacks used the argument of a "Just war" to defend the actions of the hijackers, saying it was merely an act of war that resulted in the atrocity that was 9/11 and therefore God would not frown upon it. I can argue until I'm blue in the face about this, but both me and countless devout Muslim friends of mine have poured over hundreds of pages of both the Old and New Testament as well as the Qu'ran in search of anything that would indicate that their position was justified and we haven't been able to find anything that (from a religious standpoint) could POSSIBLY have lead them to genuinely believe what they were doing was right.

this is all quite irrelevant misdirection, but whatever, i'll go with it - let's go on a hypothetical for a moment here: let's suppose all terrorists can't read, and have all been taught 'their religion' by proxy, or more accurately, a corrupt proxy. as far as they are concerned, they are acting in the name of their god, in a manner their god will favor.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex In regards to your statement about moderates acting as a gateway to fundamentalists without there being any sort of standard to discern whether one is right or wrong is kind of funny to me. The standard is there, and like I said the vast majority of religious people abide by it, just like the vast majority of people abide by the law.

i doubt the standard is the most, erm, devout way of handling your faith. so long as god is the only authority on what is moral or immoral, the interpretation of god's words you believe to be true outweighs any such standard.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex To damn all religion because the actions of a few people who claim to be doing what they are doing for God is silly, you would not apply the same standard to ANYTHING else in life and therefore it is unfair and not logical to do so when it comes to religion.

what else could i apply such a standard on?
also, keep in mind extremism isn't the only reason to damn religion.
also, at what number of people (who claim to be doing what they are doing for god) is it no longer silly?

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Do you believe morality is objective? Because you mentioned that in the last few lines of your post, so if you were to agree that morality is in fact objective then I don't see how anything you type from that point on can be valid in disproving the existence of God. Objective morality, if you agree exists, logically leads to the conclusion that God exists.

firstly, i somewhat doubt renegade would be wasting his time trying to disprove the existence of god.
secondly, how so? how does objective morality lead to the conclusion that god exists?

The idea that religion is the basis for all morality is demonstrably incorrect, and not to mention a little silly. Alex, we would all appreciate you giving renegade's posts the time that they deserve (like you did mine).

quote:

quote: Originally posted by Alex You have to look no further than the example of a child and his/her parents: A child needs to be taught EVERYTHING quote: Originally posted by Renegade No it doesn't. A child (even a newborn) possesses certain mental capacities that cannot be explicitly taught, but that are rather inexorably tied to the very constitution of his or her being (i.e. "instinctive"). We've been familiar with the instinctive mental capacities of children since Piaget (link) and the parent of any autistic child will be able to tell you that things such as recongising a smile or recognising a tone of voice just simply cannot be taught. I'm going to PM Lira so he can discuss his generativist theory of universal grammar with you, just in case you need any further proof that even the most "human" of capacities (in this case, the capacity for language) is almost entirely instinctive in nature. (If he disagrees with me then ignore him: he's obviously let his anti-Chomskyism get the best of him.) quote: Originally posted by Alex Now I could write another wall of text refuting what you've just written, I could point out that you nitpicked the instincts argument instead of conceding that humans don't have any where NEAR the instinctual capacity as every other animal or insect... And I still might...

Well, since you said a child needs to be taught everything, and humans don't have any where near the instinctual capacity as every other animal or insect, despite James' post, I'd like to hear your opinion on the innateness of language in humans, given the fact that it is something exclusively human. Here's some delicious copy pasta explaining what Chomsky's nativism is based on:

In a review of Skinner's Verbal Behavior, Chomsky ((1959) rejected the behaviourist view that mastery of a language, or
'linguistic competence', consists in complexes of 'dispositions to verbal behaviour' instilled in our minds by 'operant conditioning' during childhood. First, children neither need nor receive the careful linguistic training that the behaviourist acquisition-theory requires. Second, our use of language is both stimulus-independent (not determined by the inputs we receive) and productive (we can utter and understand indefinitely many novel sentences). Hence competence must be more than a congeries of 'verbal habits'. Both language acquisition and linguistic competence involve complex systems of psychological states and processes.

(...)

Chomsky argues that children's acquisition of grammar is explicable only on the assumption that a substantial portion of the knowledge eventually attained is innate. On his view, a 'Universal Grammar' (UG), which specifies information about 'linguistic universals' (features common to all natural languages), is embodied in the language-learning mechanism itself. Thus, children need not learn, for instance, that declarative sentences must have a noun phrase as their subject: that fact they bring with them to the learning task. All they need do during learning is determine those facts (such as that, in English, the subject precedes the verb) that are specific to their language.

Chomsky is notable in that he does not rest content with the claim that we have innate knowledge of UG. Unlike his nativist predecessors, such as Plato, Descartes and Leibniz, he has offered two concrete proposals as to how that knowledge is realized.

Up to the late 1970s, he defended a 'hypothesis-testing' model of learning according to which children unconsciously project hypotheses about the grammar of their language, testing them against the data provided by experience. Their innate knowledge of UG, on this view, takes the form of constraints on the kinds of hypotheses they can entertain: they must be formulated in a particular language; they must have a certain form; and, in cases where the evidence is insufficient to arbitrate between two competing hypotheses, the language-learning mechanism itself will supply a decision.

More recently, Chomsky has embraced a picture of language learning as involving 'parameter-setting'. On this view, which is as yet only partially developed, the principles of UG are encoded in the mind of the neonate, each principle containing one or more variables or 'parameters'. A parameter's possible values are extremely limited and are fixed by experience, different parameter-settings resulting in competencies in different languages. The 'null subject parameter', for example, governs whether one may omit the grammatical subject of a spoken sentence. Exposure to a language, like Spanish, where subjects may be omitted, sets the parameter one way; exposure to a language, like English, where subjects must be phonologically realised, will cause it to be set differently. Thus, children's linguistic experience does not function as evidence for or against their grammatical hypotheses. Rather, and in much the same way as their hormones trigger the bodily changes that take place at puberty, exposure to the language of their community 'triggers' the mental changes that eventually result in linguistic competence.

Alex:

I don't have time now, but in addition to what Psy-T has already written, I still want to respond to some of what you said earlier about the Bible and the Koran, but that might have to wait until after the weekend.

Just to quickly respond to your last post:

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Now I could write another wall of text refuting what you've just written, I could point out that you nitpicked the instincts argument instead of conceding that humans don't have any where NEAR the instinctual capacity as every other animal or insect... And I still might...

Nitpick all you like; you're wrong.

I think the problem is that you've got a slightly skewed understanding of what an "instinct" is. An instinct is just neural impulse towards (or capacity for) a certain type of behaviour given a certain stimulus. This applies as much to the "high" facets of human cognition (our language instinct, our emotional instinct, our social instinct etc.) as it does to the more "primitive" ones (the sexual instinct, the "fight or flee" instinct etc.).

In addition to what Lira wrote, I'd recommend this video to you to understand (in simple terms) how it is that we know that much of human cognition is founded on inherent, inexorable instincts:

quote:

But for now I want to ask one simple question: Do you believe morality is objective? Because you mentioned that in the last few lines of your post, so if you were to agree that morality is in fact objective then I don't see how anything you type from that point on can be valid in disproving the existence of God. Objective morality, if you agree exists, logically leads to the conclusion that God exists.

I don't have time for a thorough response now, so I'll just repost my thoughts from earlier in the thread and ask you how it is that you find this argument for the existence of objective morality must somehow "logically lead to the conclusion that God exists":

quote:

The truth value of a moral claim lies in the objective consequences of the actions it gives rise to. If the acting out of a moral belief can be objectively demonstrated to cause suffering, for instance, then we have to reject its claim to being a "moral" belief in the first place. Consequentially, beliefs and actions cannot in themselves be moral or immoral, but must rather be judged entirely by the consequences they arrive upon other human beings. [...] Let's say I believe (as I happen to) that my getting poked in the eye is likely to lead to suffering on my part. I don't disagree that such an assertion is entirely subjective: no-one else can make such a judgement for me, and that judgement is therefore inherently subjective in construction. However, the second you poke me in the eye and I start crying like a little girl, my suffering is no longer subjective: it is an objective fact, apprehensible to anyone who happens to possess functioning mirror-neurons. Given the universality of the human anatomy, I can therefore project my suffering onto others and argue that - as an objective rule of thumb - poking people in the eye leads to suffering and is therefore something we should seek to avoid during the natural course of daily affairs.

(More here if you're interested - link)

See this is why things can get a bit hectic, but no matter when I get the chance I will respond to each in turn... Except Psy-T because I don't really understand what you were trying to accomplish in your post, it seems you made a bunch of statements saying what I was saying was irrelevant to the discussion. If Renegade had thought so, he would not have responded to the things I'd said, but he did.

Perhaps my views on instincts are too broad but my points are still valid, despite Lira's explanation of language (which is not what we were discussing) humans do not posses the same capacity for instinct as animals who have inferior intellect and rely on it to survive. Humankind's superior intellect is what makes up for our lack of instilled instinct.

And I thought I was responding to Renegade's posts I didn't think I was short changing him really, in contrast to my first posts though I was not quoting as much from apologists or anything because I thought I'd have a crack at it without relying on the usual method of googling what one guy said and finding an article that is in opposition to it and posting it. As for his post today, I said I would respond to it properly in time but like Renegade I can't devote all my time to this debate, and I'm going to need even more time if I'm going to debate 4 people at once

For now though, I will explain my point about objective morality a bit better because it appears it isn't so obvious a solution for some as I thought it would be. (PS Renegade this is from Kant, it's just a summary of the arguments but it shows the train of thought that I was trying to lay down):

In reference to the normativity of morality:

1. It appears to human beings that moral normativity exists.
2. The best explanation of moral normativity is that it is grounded in God.
3. Therefore God exists.
4. Moral normativity is best explained through the existence of authoritative moral rules.
5. Authoritative moral rules must be promulgated and enforced by an appropriate moral authority.
6. The only appropriate moral authority is God.
7. Thus, given that there is moral normativity, there is a God.

Arguing that there is no God based on objective morality would be a tricky case and it would be difficult to prove how human beings would all be instilled with the knowledge of an act being wrong if there was no "guiding morality" behind it that set the standard in the first place, otherwise there would simply be nothing to compare our moral or immoral actions to. There simply would be no standard.


That's all from me for now, I will try to respond better to Renegade's posts if you feel I short changed him a bit, it's not that I don't want to give them the time they deserve but I am rather busy these days and I sort of feel the debate has morphed into something quite different than what we were originally discussing.



PS: Psy-T

Are you really asking how the Bible could be considered divine? Really? Come on now

Your understanding of the Bible is extremely primitive and I think you either need to look a little deeper or actually read it before making the statements you did about it merely being a bunch of stories passed down. A big portion of the Bible are stories and parables, there is also an enormous portion devoted to straight forward teachings that involve absolutely no stories. There are letters from Saint Paul to Churches all over the known (at the time) world that were not stories at all, and there is apocalyptic literature there... Some of which relies on mythology and parables and a lot of which does not.

The Bible is considered divine because it is a record of the word of God, it is not written by him, this we know. But it is written by a number of Prophets and witnesses to his actions and teachings. The Bible is divine in the same way that Jesus is considered divine, it combines the human element AND the divine one, just as Jesus combined both being a man and God.


PPS

I also don't want you guys to think I think my views are superior or that yours are inferior or anything of that sort. I'm trying for a healthy debate and I don't want to come across as an asshole or anything like that, so if I do please point it out because that is most certainly not my intention.

Anyway, peace for now, I'll check back as often as I can.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Perhaps my views on instincts are too broad but my points are still valid, despite Lira's explanation of language (which is not what we were discussing) humans do not posses the same capacity for instinct as animals who have inferior intellect and rely on it to survive. Humankind's superior intellect is what makes up for our lack of instilled instinct.

Well, it's an exclusively human instinct: Kids start babbling quite early in life. And, the most awesome of all things is that deaf kids whose parents speak sign languages DO "babble" just as much with their hands.

Also, think about kids being born, and imagine how pathetic it would be if "humans did not posses the same capacity for instinct as other animals". Try to picture little Johnny, who has just been expelled from the womb, looking around and seeing this weird new world outside his mother's body. He then sees a strange beige (or brown) creature, with fur in his head and white cloth covering its body, shouting things like "Come on, Johnny, breathe! Suck that air, boy!". No superior intellect would be able to save the poor child

But, I understand from your post that it's a bit hard to be outnumbered when everyone else writes gigantic posts (like me ), so I'm going to retreat from this discussion for a while and let Renegade continue this argument. Besides, I too am somewhat short of time

quote:

Originally posted by Alex 2. The best explanation of moral normativity is that it is grounded in God.

im sorry, but at no stage have you come even close to validating this statement.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN im sorry, but at no stage have you come even close to validating this statement.

quote:

For this reason also the question is asked, whether happiness is to be acquired by learning or by habituation or some other sort of training, or comes in virtue of some divine providence or again by chance. Now if there is any gift of the gods to men, it is reasonable that happiness should be god-given, and most surely god-given of all human things inasmuch as it is the best. But this question would perhaps be more appropriate to another inquiry; happiness seems, however, even if it is not god-sent but comes as a result of virtue and some process of learning or training, to be among the most godlike things; for that which is the prize and end of virtue seems to be the best thing in the world, and something godlike and blessed. It will also on this view be very generally shared; for all who are not maimed as regards their potentiality for virtue may win it by a certain kind of study and care. But if it is better to be happy thus than by chance, it is reasonable that the facts should be so, since everything that depends on the action of nature is by nature as good as it can be, and similarly everything that depends on art or any rational cause, and especially if it depends on the best of all causes. To entrust to chance what is greatest and most noble would be a very defective arrangement. The answer to the question we are asking is plain also from the definition of happiness; for it has been said to be a virtuous activity of soul, of a certain kind. Of the remaining goods, some must necessarily pre-exist as conditions of happiness, and others are naturally co-operative and useful as instruments. And this will be found to agree with what we said at the outset; for we stated the end of political science to be the best end, and political science spends most of its pains on making the citizens to be of a certain character, viz. good and capable of noble acts. It is natural, then, that we call neither ox nor horse nor any other of the animals happy; for none of them is capable of sharing in such activity. For this reason also a boy is not happy; for he is not yet capable of such acts, owing to his age; and boys who are called happy are being congratulated by reason of the hopes we have for them. For there is required, as we said, not only complete virtue but also a complete life, since many changes occur in life, and all manner of chances, and the most prosperous may fall into great misfortunes in old age, as is told of Priam in the Trojan Cycle; and one who has experienced such chances and has ended wretchedly no one calls happy.

Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, Book I, Section IX

Here Aristotle seems to argue that morality (ethics/virtue) is grounded in man's desire to attain god's gift of happiness. To be moral is to be rewarded with that which only God could have created.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN im sorry, but at no stage have you come even close to validating this statement.

Just think about it: Intrinsically-valuable, thinking persons do not come from impersonal, non-conscious, unguided, valueless processes over time. A personal, self-aware, purposeful, good God provides the natural and necessary context for the existence of valuable, rights-bearing, morally-responsible human persons. That is, personhood and morality are necessarily connected; moral values are rooted in personhood. Without God (a personal Being), no persons - and thus no moral values - would exist at all: no personhood, no moral values. Only if God exists can moral properties be realized.

In reference to naturalistic or the evolutionary theory of ethics/morals based on survival:

quote:

Ethical awareness has only biological worth. Such an approach leaves us with the following problems: First, can we even trust our minds if we are nothing more than the products of naturalistic evolution, trying to fight, feed, flee, and reproduce? Charles Darwin had a "horrid doubt" that since the human mind has developed from lower animals, why would anyone trust it? Why trust the convictions of a monkey's mind? The naturalistic evolutionary process is interested in fitness/survival-not in true belief; so not only is objective morality undermined so is rational thought. Our beliefs-including moral ones-may help us survive, but there is no reason to think they are true. Belief in objective morality or human dignity may help us survive, but it may be completely false. The problem with skepticism (including moral skepticism) is that I am assuming a trustworthy reasoning process to arrive at the conclusion that I cannot trust my reasoning! If we trust our rational and moral faculties, we will assume a theistic outlook: Being made in the image of a truthful, rational, good Being makes sense of why we trust our senses/moral intuitions.

To reinforce further the point about the God-morality connection, a number of atheists and skeptics have noted it. The late atheist philosopher J. L. Mackie said that moral properties are "queer" given naturalism:

quote:

if there are objective values, they make the existence of a god more probable than it would have been without them. Thus we have a defensible argument from morality to the existence of a god

Agnostic Paul Draper says:

quote:

A moral world is very probable on theism.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, Book I, Section IX Here Aristotle seems to argue that morality (ethics/virtue) is grounded in man's desire to attain god's gift of happiness. To be moral is to be rewarded with that which only God could have created.

Aww you bastid, I was going to save Aristotle for later!

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Aww you bastid, I was going to save Aristotle for later!

Haha, I'm sure you understand him much better than I, but I thought you could use some moral support.

Pun intended.

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov Haha, I'm sure you understand him much better than I, but I thought you could use a moral support. Pun intended.

Nah Renegade is more of the philosopher I have to admit, I wish I was as knowledgeable about philosophy as he was, it would make my task easier!

But I appreciate the help mate.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Just think about it: Intrinsically-valuable, thinking persons do not come from impersonal, non-conscious, unguided, valueless processes over time. A personal, self-aware, purposeful, good God provides the natural and necessary context for the existence of valuable, rights-bearing, morally-responsible human persons. That is, personhood and morality are necessarily connected; moral values are rooted in personhood. Without God (a personal Being), no persons - and thus no moral values - would exist at all: no personhood, no moral values. Only if God exists can moral properties be realized.

im totally hammered and quite unable to debate these points right now, i just wanted to say that you're totally full of shit

What the fuck is with TA? There are supposed to be quotes around that bit too, aargh.

Oh well, whatever.

What the hell time is it in wherever the hell you are anyway?

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Nah Renegade is more of the philosopher I have to admit, I wish I was as knowledgeable about philosophy as he was, it would make my task easier! But I appreciate the help mate.

not to gush here or anything, but renegade is the owner of the keenest intellect i have ever come across. what's really crazy is that he hasn't studied any of this shit. his uni involves something quite separate if i remember correctly.

he's definitely a freak!

quote:

Originally posted by Alex What the fuck is with TA? There are supposed to be quotes around that bit too, aargh. Oh well, whatever. What the hell time is it in wherever the hell you are anyway?

4.03am. about to smoke some weed and listen to some trance

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN im totally hammered and quite unable to debate these points right now, i just wanted to say that you're totally full of shit

It's actually not at all dissimilar from Plato's world of forms. Plato was obviously not a Christian theologian, but he laid the base for Christian dogma quite well by arguing that every object and being on Earth must exist in pure form in another realm. Mankind's "form" has been usurped by the concept of God - various doctrines may get the details wrong (i.e. creation), but Plato's formulation serves quite well when pondering whether or not "God" can evolve as well.

I can't remember which dialogue it appeared in, but Plato had a whole discussion about forms and the divine.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.