Strong Atheism

[Guest Euthyphro]

Chef Wrote:

"For sure you don't know. It isn't a part of the experience that shaped your world view. They know, or they wouldn't do it. I read somewhere that ballet started among French knights as training to get coordinated in battle. Kind of a sissy war dance. Would they have done it if it didn't work?

 

Did you know that the military still teaches close order drill? Why? People don't go into battle lined up in rows anymore. They teach it because it makes a bunch of strangers into a cohesive unit willing to accomplish the same mission. I imagine group leg bouncing could have the same effect."

 

These that you speak of are just a few examples from those groups. They may have ways of doing things that work. They may have ways that also aren't really working and due to dogmatic thinking are holding on stubbornly to ways that don't work. Xians and thier stance on homosexuality is a good example of what I mean.. But their reasoning in how they got what works is what I'm talking about. Not all of our ways really work sometimes as you have pointed out but I would hazard a guess that that is because of people not valuing people or blindy placing value on a tradition. I think logical arguments can be made as to why being as liberal as is possible with eachother is valuable and can promote happiness more often than not.

 

I am starting to see that values are subjective and objectibe. Not everyone "feels" the same about human life, freedom, or by what degree we should be our brothers keeper ( charity, education ,rehabilitation and justice). But I think that in many cases that apathy, cruelty and unecassary control can be reduced if people understood what a human being really is as well as really understanding wether or not an action is really damaging. Dogmatic thinking is our enemy.We can know things. We can continualy develop clearer picture of reality that can be shown to be beneficial to ALL. Some of us sometimes have a clearer picture of realty than others and this can be demonstrated. The more we understand the more our values will change. Those that know why something is good will probably do that thing which is good more often than the lame ass heaven worshipers will. Doing something because an authority says so aint got the staying power that knowlege can provide.

 

Chef Wrote:

"Some of the benefits of Science: PCB's; Nuclear weapons; depleted uranium; mindless jobs; population explosion; cluster bombs; global warming; oil spills; DDT; Acid Rain; Deforestation; Multitudes of extinctions; poison gas; smog; rush hour; etc and so on."

 

Why blame science for these things when it is humans that are to blame. Science can give us better means to clean up our messes and prevent more in the future. I personaly would blame the fucking heaven worshipers for the attitudes of most Americans on environmental issues. I mean who really gives a shit about developing better methods for life/environment and freedom when God presumably is gonna fix this shit done by us filthy humans. I think the western world needs to change thier values. Its our own damn fault we have the politicians we have. Science is regulated by them and is used by companies, so they and us all can take the blame and not the scientific method. We need to tweek our values just a tad bit.

 

Chef Wrote:

"It is a common human trait to mark behavior that is strange as stupid, which is what you mean by superstitious."

 

Watch me backpeddle a bit on my stance. heh.

 

I may call the tribesmen primitives but that don't mean I especially like us either. I live in America and consider myself a citizen of planet earth. I think nationalism is for crackheads.

 

I don't really begrudge them thier ritual though. I can't see any harm in it and I would not want to butt in anyways if this was not just a story. In the hypothetical given us by Cerise it is ridiculous to state that a dance would give them psychic powers to accomplish those things. We were not given enough info to say much anyways.

 

I would, if I was qualified, enjoy studying primitive cultures and maybe stealing ideas that I think have merit. Don't mean I believe in magic though. Yes I do have a nasty bias whenever people pull out Taro Cards or want me to go see a psychic or faith healer. I was raised pentecostal and my relatives and community were mainly southern baptist so naturaly I hate EVERY ONES magical thinking if they are gonna try and solve problems that way. But rituals clothe actual methods that really work sometimes so point well taken Chef. Thanks.

 

Chef Wrote:

"I'm not sure what you mean by cost them. If it has been part of their survival strategy for 1000 years or even 100 it hasn't cost them."

 

A lot of unecassary pain, death, and unecassary restriction in freedom can go on for that long as well; due to blind traditions and superstitous reasoning. But in the case of primitives an anthropologist would be more qualified in the do's and dont's of interfereing. What do we do with people who are so different than us? Probably nothing. I don't really know. I would not want to make mistakes at thier expense. But their will come a day when thier culture and modern culture meet. This would be inevetable. Anthropology to the rescue....I hope.

 

Chef Wrote:

"I suppose it could cost them the chance to live anonymously in a modern high rise apartment complex and spend 2-3 hours a day in rush hour traffic on the way to a mindless job so they can afford to watch reruns of Cheers on the telly, instead of being part of a community in which everyone matters. Or it might cost them the chance to live in a cardboard and tin shack and work for 6cents an hour 12-14 hours a day making shoes for Americans."

 

I think it would be cool if they could use any of our ways that strike thier fancy while they keep parts of thier culture that work for them. We could do the same. Values can be useful or can be oppresive. Why should anyone be chained by dogmatism?

 

Chef Wrote:

"How would science develope a theory of politeness? If that would be though how much more so a theory of moraity?"

 

I think morality is both objective and subjective. In anything, they both go hand in hand...I sense. I sense this somwhow. I know that there is nothing in our heads that our environment has not put there. If we had a clearer understanding of ourselves and our environment we should come to the same conclusions more often in solving problems and making rules. Because we are not perfect does not mean that we should give up.Yes, I still hold that the more we know about ourselves, others and our environment we will come to the same conclusions more often. I think that just blindly worshiping traditions is dangerous.

 

Chef Wrote:

"I think that if you study our justice system closely you will find that the accused seldom get a fair deal, unless they have money -- then they are likely to get a deal that is more than fair. Do you think that our war criminal thieves in the White House will even be brought to trial, let alone spend a minute in jail?. And our magic men (oops) lawyers use their heads to figure stuff out, keeping the people ignorant of their methods for what ever reason."

 

I blame values here. It really does not matter how good a system we come up with there will always be vampires and egomaniacs like lawyers, judges and politicians to piss all over a fairly decent system. What can ya do? They probably all "love" jesus too while they exploite "worthless" people for thier own gain. Why don't people realize that after getting thier politicians in office that they should turn around and treat them as if they are the low down scumbags that they most probably are? If your a republican/democrat/whatever you should really eyeball your guy and see if he is really working for the people and raise a fuss when he isn't. We'd get better republicans/democrats/whatevers that way. But politics is a religion to a lota folks and they don't want to talk bad about thier man..Intelligent people being dogmatic.

 

Chef Wrote:

"Change minds to what? Our way of thinking, or their way of thinking? If you find you don't want to give up your sacred world view, why would they? The beginning of modern war is this: Those people should be like us."

 

( Logic should be mandatory in highschool and college for starters.)

 

If objective morality is all that and a bag of chips then others will want it eventually. Especially young people. I am not so sure that these ideas should be ramrodded down peoples throats through politics but only through convincing individuals. But that is usualy my approach to everything anyways. I think a culture could be built around many kinds of ideas.. Would such a culture be generous, merciful, flexable in an intelligent way....consistantly. Or more so than any other culture? I dunno for sure but I would bet money on it. In the Western World there seems to be many different cultures in any given nation. I think theres room for one more culture in each nation.. A culture that everyone likes or at least respects because it earned that respect. Wishful thinking? Maybe not. Plenty of freethinkers in the world to form another minority culture. Stand up and be recognized.

 

Chef Wrote:

"However, I'm no fan of objective thinking either, since it gets people lost in the desert. Both sides of the issue think that there must be a moral equivalent of the "law of gravity". If there is it will turn out to be relative to the observer's experience."

 

Differences are due to not experiencing all of what the other person experiences. If that is true maybe we can help eachother expand our knowlege base and come closer to the same world view. Thats why I like you very much Chef. You are not an eletist snob. Average people like me can understand. We can know things if given the chance. I need to get out of the house and explore this a little. Take a girl I know out to a deepdish movie and talk with her about it and see how we differ.I know I'll really earn some points with her if anything else.

 

If differing is because we have not experienced all the same things that would explain why we can witness the same thing and come up with different feelings about it...because of our past experinces that we do not share. Some of what you are saying is sinking in I think. Still if what I have experienced in the past can be demonstrated..... I dunno. I'm gonna relieve my fridge of the burdon of one six pack of mountain dew and a pie. I love pie! I need to think more on this.

 

Chef Wrote:

"I'm not just a guy that thinks knowledge is relative to human understanding, I'm an anarchist as well. I'm bound to come to a bad end."

 

 

HAHAHAHA!!! But it will cost them dearly I'll bet before they take you out.Unless you are a pacifist also, in which case you are an extraordinary man.

 

Knowlege is relative to understanding which is contingient on knowlege that is relative to previous understanding.....AHHHHHH!!!! Were does understanding begin?

[Cerise]

So basically, Euthyphro, people just need to be smarter, stronger, and better then they ever have been before and then the world will have true peace?

 

Here is an excerpt you might find interesting. It's from My Ishmael, and it talks about this very problem.

 

"All of this world would work beautifully, Julie, if people would just be better than people have ever been.  You'd be just one big happy family, if only you would be better than people have ever been.  The warring factions in the Balkans would hug and make up.  Saddam Hussein would dismantle his war machine and enter a monastery.  Crime would disappear overnight.  No one would break any law.  You could dispense with courts, police, prisons.  Everyone would abandon self-interest and work together to improve the lot of the poor and to rid the world of hunger, racism, hatred, and injustice.  I could spend hours listing all the wonderful things that would happen ...if only people would just be better than people have ever been."

"Yeah, I'm sure of that."

"This was such a tremndous strength of the tribal way, that its success didn't depend on people being better.  It worked for people the way they are--unimproved, unenlightened, troublesome, disruptive, selfish, mean, greedy, and violent.  And that triumph the Takers have never come close to matching.  In fact, they never even made the attempt.  Instead, they counted on being able to improve people, as if they were badly designed products.  They counted on being able to punish them into being better, on being able to inspire them into being better, on being able to educate them into being better.  And after ten thousand years of trying to improve people--without a trace of success--they wouldn't dream of turning their attention elsewhere."

"No, that's true.  I'm pretty sure that most people, hearing what I've heard here would still say, 'Yes, well, that's all well and good, but we really do have an obligation to go on trying to make people better.  They can be made better.  We just haven't quite figured out how to do it yet.' Or they'd say, 'It's still something to work for.  Just think how much worse people would be if we weren't constantly trying to make them better.'"

[Guest Euthyphro]

So basically, Euthyphro, people just need to be smarter, stronger, and better then they ever have been before and then the world will have true peace?

 

Here is an excerpt you might find interesting.  It's from My Ishmael, and it talks about this very problem.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks for the book Cerise! But I got some mad money and I'll read this book and tell you what I think. I aint to sure how to answer you yet. I am kinda stubborn.

 

I used to get into all sorts of trouble, drug and alcohol related, and religion was not what made me change my world view about my responsiblities towards society. My sponsor was a freethinker. She turned me on to history, philosophy, and ethics. Sometimes it was a pain to hear her ramble on but sometimes I was actualy interested. My world view slowly changed. Now I don't use anymore but even if I did I would never drive under the influence again. I would not spend rent money on meth either. I would not break the law by stealing or working under the table. I am proud to be a tax payer...er before Bush was elected that is.

 

I am in college now. I am not exactly sure what it was that changed my world view but I think she played a big part. I am more so in the habit of trying to anticipate what effects my actions will have on my future as well as how actions can effect other people. I will never be perfect. But I am reaping the benefits of the improvements I have made. I may have layed things on a bit thick but I still believe that folks can benefit from becoming more aware. Being grounded in a practical reality.

[- AUB -]

I'm glad you have slowed down a bit.

 

I wish, I'm in the middle of a major research binge. An in-depth exploration of the sources used by the writers of the Gospels, and I hope to post details of my discoveries here, they will surprise you, they sure as hell gobsmacked me. As a result I have not been able to respond to any of the posts here, though I have been browsing through them, and I'm glad others have chosen to get involved on this thread, though it does appear to be de-railing slightly. As soon as I have gone through all my mammoth reading material, I'll dissect your posts, and respond to others here. But I have more on my plate than I ever had. And it does appear to be the breakthrough I've been looking for.

 

I'm a bit confused as to how morals have an emotional base and then loose that base when reason shows up.

Certainly reason analyzes the reaction to see if it was appropriate, but even then it does not do so dispassionately.

My question is how do you turn off your obvious passion to dispassionately explore the facts and then turn it back on again to react to the truth?

 

As my mind is on a totally different field at the moment, I cannot be as thorough as usual, however I will say that emotion may well be involved in every stage of cognitive and rational appraisal, however it still can be objectively recognised as emotion, and thusly, bearing in mind it's tendency to bias, be taken into account when searching for the truth. You can be reasonably sure you have achieved the objective reality, simply by means other than emotion, through empiricism, acknowledgement of logical and rational reality, and you will find you are far closer to the truth than those who do not take care to limit their emotional use. This is not idealism, as even though the degree of emotion involved in mental activity may not always be removed, the facts speak for themselves, and the results of empiricism are un-matched by any other methods of human achievement, as it is the least emotional and subjective technique, clearly this is a factor in its success. To be objective is the ideal, because reality has shown it to work, the precise details are not really relevant, as regardless Objectivism is self-evidently the way to go.

 

I'm just saying, that it is impossible to turn of human sensibility and be left with just reason to arrive at some universal moral absolute.

 

We do not have enough data to answer this conclusively. However I would add that we are not after a moral absolute, I have already detailed why moral absolutes are completely wrong. An understanding of humanity and the desired results would be better than any absolutes or codified principles It is more an attitude or state of mind that needs to be achieved, an inherent rational and objective mind set, capable of reacting to each situation as it individually demands, with the best moral outcome. I'm not after a series of moral commandments, but a way of training the mind to be objectively moral. A moral person, not a moral rule is the goal.

 

Even if I fashioned the greatest and most accurate set of moral standards in the universe it would serve no good if people were unprepared to follow them, or incapable of comprehending why my rules are better than all others. Morality is by humanity for humanity, and we must focus on the human being, not ethics in the abstract. Many people do harm not because they lack morals but because their morals are either corrupted or based on false ideas, we need to educate and clear people's minds of false perceptions, reliance on emotion, and subjective perspectives. We need to give humanity the ability to stop and enter into an objective state, to purge itself of individual bias, of desires and greed, of biases derived from environment, upbringing, religion, or the current emotional situation. When a guy knifes another guy in a bar, it is due to the heat, the alcohol, the emotional aggravated state, but if that person could shunt their mind into an objective state, they would realise that knifing this other person was in every conceivable sense wrong.

 

Put simply it would help humanity be more moral towards each other if we have the capacity to be more objective. The first stage is to explain why morals are better when arrived at objectively, the second is to train people's minds so they can achieve this state. When we are no longer ruled by emotion and lies, then the principal cause of a great deal of immorality will disappear. Emotion is not in itself a bad thing, but it can be used by manipulating liers to control others and get them to act in defiance of reality and the better, deeper and moral emotions such as Empathy. Without emotion you cannot be manipulated either by the idealogue or the theologian, you can see through the lies and perceive the moral truths, rather than what they would have you believe. As only those with something to hide tell you what to believe.

 

Fear of death drives you to belief in god, fear of god drives you to throw away your life, (and others). The Epicureans taught that you needed to be free of fear, both of God and death, only then could you be autonomous, and capable of perceiving reality for yourself, and not have it dictated to you. Truths can always be reached by the individual, lies need to be believed by as many as possible, minds linked, a collective, designed to prevent a mind from interfacing with reality on it's own. Those with reality on their side encouraged the individual to search for themselves. As they know the facts support their position, hence my continual encouragement for others to do research themselves. An objective world is one without liars and manipulators, controlling the masses through the propagation of ignorance and falsehood. Everything is open, and all are free. Without truth there can be no morality, and truth comes through objectivity, when the mind is free of outside influence and the tools they use to control you. Emotion is sadly one of them, people use it to deceive us, and sometimes we use it to deceive ourselves.

 

Now if you excuse me I've a lot of reading to do.

[chefranden]

I'm sorry I can't for the life of me figure out where I made the formating error. 45 minutes is enough time to spend on it.

 

These that you speak of are just a few examples from those groups. They may have ways of doing things that work. They may have ways that also aren't really working and due to dogmatic thinking are holding on stubbornly to ways that don't work. Xians and thier stance on homosexuality is a good example of what I mean.. But their reasoning in how they got what works is what I'm talking about. Not all of our ways really work sometimes as you have pointed out but I would hazard a guess that that is because of people not valuing people or blindy placing value on a tradition. I think logical arguments can be made as to why being as liberal as is possible with eachother is valuable and can promote happiness more often than not.

I have no doubt that they have some dogma. Everyone does, they just don't recognize it as such, and neither do we. What you see plainly as dogma about homosexuals, for example, a Christian sees as the life giving word of God. Certainly we can rant about how un-objective that is, but the rant will change few Christian minds. You can bet that we have some dogma too, that we don't see as such. Perhaps we could paraphrase the alleged Jesus, "Get the dogpoo out of your own eye before you worry about the dogma in your brother's eye." I have become aware of some dogma that I cherished up until a couple of months ago: "Institutional schools are the best way to educate children." And of course almost everybody cherishes the dogma that "the world belongs to humans".

 

I'm sure that if science studied unified movement as a way to get consensus that it would find some physiological change that made people more willing to cooperate. Rhythm helps people get in sync. People can use processes to their advantage before they know what the process entails. People sailed for millennia before they knew about lift and high and low atmospheric pressure cells.

 

I am starting to see that values are subjective and objectibe. Not everyone "feels" the same about human life, freedom, or by what degree we should be our brothers keeper ( charity, education ,rehabilitation and justice).

Not only don't they feel the same, they cannot feel the same.

 

But I think that in many cases that apathy, cruelty and unecassary control can be reduced if people understood what a human being really is as well as really understanding wether or not an action is really damaging. Dogmatic thinking is our enemy.We can know things.

But here's the rub: How will you get every one to understand what a human being really is, and what definition will you use?

 

It will be argued here, of course, that the most objective definition should be used. However, I already hear the contention over "most objective" don't you?

 

We can continualy develop clearer picture of reality that can be shown to be beneficial to ALL. Some of us sometimes have a clearer picture of realty than others and this can be demonstrated. The more we understand the more our values will change. Those that know why something is good will probably do that thing which is good more often than the lame ass heaven worshipers will. Doing something because an authority says so aint got the staying power that knowlege can provide.

Cerise has already spoken to this via her quote from Quinn. I can't improve on that.

 

As for authority you may want to check out Charlotte and Harriet Childress Clueless at the Top

 

Why blame science for these things when it is humans that are to blame. Science can give us better means to clean up our messes and prevent more in the future. I personaly would blame the fucking heaven worshipers for the attitudes of most Americans on environmental issues. I mean who really gives a shit about developing better methods for life/environment and freedom when God presumably is gonna fix this shit done by us filthy humans. I think the western world needs to change thier values. Its our own damn fault we have the politicians we have. Science is regulated by them and is used by companies, so they and us all can take the blame and not the scientific method. We need to tweek our values just a tad bit.

This sounds a tad bit religious doesn't it? Why blame science God for these things when it is humans that are to blame.

 

 

I don't really begrudge them thier ritual though. I can't see any harm in it and I would not want to butt in anyways if this was not just a story. In the hypothetical given us by Cerise it is ridiculous to state that a dance would give them psychic powers to accomplish those things. We were not given enough info to say much anyways.

If you asked, the tribe may explain what happens in terms of magic. However, that does not mean nothing real is happening. Just because people cannot explain a process scientifically does not mean it is not useful. My 76 year old mom hasn't a clue what makes a computer work, but she can still send me e-mail. Drug companies are now paying attention to rainforest shamans. They give it a scientific name, ethnobotony.

 

... But rituals clothe actual methods that really work sometimes so point well taken Chef. Thanks.

I see I didn't need to make the above points. Sorry.

 

...But their will come a day when thier culture and modern culture meet. This would be inevetable. Anthropology to the rescue....I hope.

Yes, mores the pity. Modern culture must have everything. That is what makes it modern.

 

I think it would be cool if they could use any of our ways that strike thier fancy while they keep parts of thier culture that work for them. We could do the same. Values can be useful or can be oppresive. Why should anyone be chained by dogmatism?

Not to be gross or any thing, but this is the sort of thing that happens to them when they try to keep their culture.

 

Because we are not perfect does not mean that we should give up. Yes, I still hold that the more we know about ourselves, others and our environment we will come to the same conclusions more often. I think that just blindly worshiping traditions is dangerous.

I know this is mean, but I thought you said you didn't believe in magic.

 

Give up what? Becoming perfect? I hope we do give it up. It hasn't worked in 10,000 years. I'm of the opinion that 10,000 years is enough of a trial. "Magic doesn't work, of course, but no one in the whole history of the world ever quit magic just because it didn't work." Quinn

 

 

I blame values here. It really does not matter how good a system we come up with there will always be vampires and egomaniacs like lawyers, judges and politicians to piss all over a fairly decent system. What can ya do? They probably all "love" jesus too while they exploite "worthless" people for thier own gain. Why don't people realize that after getting thier politicians in office that they should turn around and treat them as if they are the low down scumbags that they most probably are? If your a republican/democrat/whatever you should really eyeball your guy and see if he is really working for the people and raise a fuss when he isn't. We'd get better republicans/democrats/whatevers that way. But politics is a religion to a lota folks and they don't want to talk bad about thier man..Intelligent people being dogmatic.

"Politics doesn't work, of course, but no one in the whole history of the world ever quit politics just because it didn't work." With apologies to Quinn

 

Question: Do you know of any law that ever eradicated an undesirable (by someone) behavior?

 

( Logic should be mandatory in highschool and college for starters.)

How would you say that this is different than, "everyone should be like us"?

 

If objective morality is all that and a bag of chips then others will want it eventually. Especially young people. I am not so sure that these ideas should be ramrodded down peoples throats through politics but only through convincing individuals. But that is usualy my approach to everything anyways.

Did you give up Christianity only to think evangelism will save the world? One of Christianity biggest travesties was to try to create a one world culture. I can't see that the antidote is to emulate them.

 

I think a culture could be built around many kinds of ideas.. Would such a culture be generous, merciful, flexable in an intelligent way....consistantly.

From what I've read about Bushmen or Pygmies already have this sort of a culture.

 

Differences are due to not experiencing all of what the other person experiences. If that is true maybe we can help eachother expand our knowlege base and come closer to the same world view.

Absolutely we can learn from each other, and we do. However, that will never produce the same world view even if all 6 billions of us were all clones of the same guy. IMHO The Same World View = The Holy Grail.

 

Thats why I like you very much Chef. You are not an eletist snob. Average people like me can understand. We can know things if given the chance. I need to get out of the house and explore this a little. Take a girl I know out to a deepdish movie and talk with her about it and see how we differ.I know I'll really earn some points with her if anything else... HAHAHAHA!!! But it will cost them dearly I'll bet before they take you out.Unless you are a pacifist also, in which case you are an extraordinary man.

Thanks for the kind words. I should maybe get my wife to write a rebuttal, but then you may be disillusioned, so I'll leave it like this.

[NorthenSun]

Emotion is not in itself a bad thing, but it can be used by manipulating liers to control others and get them to act in defiance of reality and the better, deeper and moral emotions such as Empathy.  Without emotion you cannot be manipulated either by the idealogue or the theologian, you can see through the lies and perceive the moral truths, rather than what they would have you believe. As only those with something to hide tell you what to believe. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

AUB, So true. Its really too bad people are swept away by their emotions:

 

From CNN:

Monday, May 16, 2005 Posted: 8:04 AM EDT (1204 GMT)

KABUL, Afghanistan (CNN) -- A day after Newsweek magazine backed away from a story that U.S. interrogators had desecrated copies of the Quran, the U.S. military said it must reach out to angry Afghans to ease tensions.

 

At least 15 people were killed and dozens injured last week when thousands of demonstrators marched in Afghanistan and other parts of the Muslim world in reaction to Newsweek's May 9 issue, officials and eyewitnesses said.

 

The Pentagon said last week it was unable to corroborate any case in which interrogators at the U.S. Naval Station in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, defiled the Muslim holy book, as Newsweek reported.

 

[chefranden]

As my mind is on a totally different field at the moment, I cannot be as thorough as usual, however I will say that emotion may well be involved in every stage of cognitive and rational appraisal, however it still can be objectively recognised as emotion, and thusly, bearing in mind it's tendency to bias, be taken into account when searching for the truth.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You can be reasonably sure you have achieved the objective reality, simply by means other than emotion, through empiricism, acknowledgement of logical and rational reality, and you will find you are far closer to the truth than those who do not take care to limit their emotional use.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is not idealism, as even though the degree of emotion involved in mental activity may not always be removed, the facts speak for themselves, and the results of empiricism are un-matched by any other methods of human achievement, as it is the least emotional and subjective technique, clearly this is a factor in its success. To be objective is the ideal, because reality has shown it to work, the precise details are not really relevant, as regardless Objectivism is self-evidently the way to go.

 

 

Yes a person can learn to recognize emotion. I’ve had to learn to do it in order to sort out those that come from my PTSD triggers, thus making myself more cuddly. I’m at a bit of a loss concerning getting your definition of objective from the context. I may be arguing against something you don’t mean.

 

The first idea may be that all you mean is that the emotion recognized is an object that is recognizable. However, it seems to me you mean that the emotion can be recognized unemotionally, or in other words without the subjectivity inherent in each human.

 

I have learned to recognize an emotion shortly after it happens and analyze its trigger to see if the emotion is actually appropriate to the situation, and if it isn’t to do something to defuse the emotion, go for a walk, deep breathing, clean the house, whatever. I’m good enough at it now to stop the reaction in a few minutes, but sometimes it can take as much as a day to so. The part of me that recognizes the trigger seems disinterested in that I cannot assign a feeling to it, but of course it is not disinterested or it wouldn’t pay attention to the problem. Whatever that is, it acts as if it stands aside from the whole, but it cannot actually stand aside. It has to made up of the same sort of physical organization of cells that is passing chemical and electrical messages around the body. I just don’t see any way to set aside that process except perhaps by self delusion. It is not like taking off a pair of spectacles.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Following the dispassionate dictates of realpolitik I may reasonably conclude that sanctions against Iraq that are likely to cause the deaths of thousands of young and old is the best objective course of action. It is my emotion that tells me that this is not the moral course of action. If my gut doesn’t do its twisty thing how do I know that my action is immoral? I understand that the gas chamber showers and the ovens were invented to help overcome the emotional reluctance of German soldiers to just shoot the Jews. A read of On Killing : The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman, will tell you about how the military has learned to train out of the soldier the human’s natural emotional reluctance to kill.

 

So, I am not sure that moral reality is reasonably assured by means other than human feeling especially that one we label compassion. And compassion means to suffer with. And suffering is a motivation to action. Dispassion is to be without suffering or without motivation to action.

 

Now don’t accuse me of throwing out reason. Moral reason is there to help balance the system so that I’m able to see that my compassion for the Jews, doesn’t cause me to hate the Germans too much. Objective empiricism cannot be the basis for morals simply because it can’t be done, that is to say the subjective for a human is never eliminated, and suppression of it causes trouble.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The very existence of the scientific method, shows the impossibility of removing the subjective from decision making. Never the less it is the best method of achieving certain ends. If I had to go to the moon I would consult with the scientists and engineers. If I had to live off the land in a rainforest I would consult a Yanomami. Somehow I don’t think that scientists and engineers would be the best consultants on moral matters either.

[spamandham]

Ah...Strong Atheism....how I love saying that.

 

Any others who feel the same as moi?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ok, I know there have been 11 intervening pages. I got to about page 4 before I gave up for now. Does that prove I'm lazy and unworthy of your consideration? Of course it does, but I'd like to address a point that I'm not sure has been made in pages 4-11.

 

I've debated with myself about strong atheism, and have concluded that the question "god exists" can not be asserted or refuted simply because it is a meaningless statement.

 

To assert "god does not exist" presupposes that the term "god" is coherently defined and that the property of "existence" can coherently be applied to it. Neither of these are the case.

 

Am I missing something?

[- AUB -]

Spamandham

 

Damn I’d forgotten what this thread was about to start with.

 

I've debated with myself about strong atheism, and have concluded that the question "god exists" can not be asserted or refuted simply because it is a meaningless statement.

That position is known as noncognativism, and is correct as far as it goes; however it still leaves room for strong atheism, as follows.

 

1. A meaningless word can arguably signify the logical non-existence of the concept it tries to convey.

 

2. The concept or being meant by those who use the term can, when sufficiently defined outside the term, can still be logicaly and empirically disproven.

 

3. Strong atheism is usually a disbelief in a specific deity, the god of the bible, such a being is defined within those pages, and such characteristics can be subjected to analysis for logical consistency, and the deeds subject to empiricism. The more specific the deity the more specific the means used to debunk it.

 

To assert "god does not exist" presupposes that the term "god" is coherently defined and that the property of "existence" can coherently be applied to it. Neither of these are the case.

 

The vaguer and more abstract the definition or understanding of the term of “god” i.e. deism, pantheism or a “creator” the more abstract the methods used to rule it out, logic etc. When we say, “god does not exist,” we mean whichever comprehension of the term accepted by the specific group of believers we are dealing with. We know the term is meaningless, but not to those who believe, and we need to go deeper into debunking the concept, impossible to do if the debate is stopped short by us refusing to recognise the validity of the term. It is the subjective view of the term we debunk, not the objective meaninglessness of it. We sometimes say “ god has not been defined” they then go on about Jesus, all loving, died for our sins, destroyed Sodom and Gamora, etc. and we just refute all those characteristics. We take out the details, not the term “god” itself, as noncognativism has already done that, we are just being thorough.

[spamandham]

Ok, I guess I see what you're saying, but I've never thought of strong atheism as the refutation of a specific god, but rather the whole class of gods, to include yet to be defined critters.

 

If I ask you, "does oliuyghjhkg rterte?" you can not legitimately claim "no" unless you first know what it means. To make a claim that oliuyghjhkg does not rterte implies that these are meaningfull to you.

[NorthenSun]

  Somehow I don’t think that scientists and engineers would be the best consultants on moral matters either.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But AUB is saying that the worst people to consult on matters of morality are the religious, expecially if they are Christians. A person of the Christian Scientist sect must truly be a foul beast.

[chefranden]

But AUB is saying that the worst people to consult on matters of morality are the religious, expecially if they are Christians.  A person of the Christian Scientist sect must truly be a foul beast. 

 

Yes I know he is saying that. And I used to agree with that 100%. Now I'm not so sure that's the case. Just because a person is religious doesn't mean he's an absolutist. though I suppose one should suspect him of it. The problem as I see it is that absolute morality whether objectively achieved or given by revelation is impossible.

 

AUB doesn't seem to think that the absolute can be determined through objective empiricism, but he supposes that objective empiricism will get one closer to absolute morality. I'm saying that there is no such animal and that the understanding of morality is achieved through human experience, which naturally includes human sensibilities. I guess I'm saying that it's just a silly to look for objective morality as it is to look for God. Even if the absolute existed, it has to be understood via human sensibility. And that understanding will be relative to other human understandings. That means no one is going to agree upon the "one right way".

[- AUB -]

Chef

 

I'm too busy to continue for now but I think we can leave it with this... There is instinctive morality (emotional) and rational morality (Epicurean etc) I prefer one, you prefer the other, I way have issues with your brand of ethics as I am weary of emotional judgement but it is certainly better than absolute of religious morality, and maybe I can best defend empirical ethics later, but for now we'll leave it there.

[chefranden]

Chef

 

I'm too busy to continue for now but I think we can leave it with this... There is instinctive morality (emotional) and rational morality (Epicurean etc) I prefer one, you prefer the other, I way have issues with your brand of ethics as I am weary of emotional judgement but it is certainly better than absolute of religious morality, and maybe I can best defend empirical ethics later, but for now we'll leave it there.

 

 

I know you are busy. It's ok.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Ah...Strong Atheism....how I love saying that.

 

Any others who feel the same as moi?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Merci oui da demander. L'atheisme fort rend me la sensation sexy!

[- AUB -]

I think I should re-state my argument, I'm not necessarily saying that morality is objective but that it should be. Xtians like to make out that without their “absolute” morals there will be anarchy, via relativism, now they are wrong, but worse committing a false dichotomy. There is a third way, a common ethic based on reason, I you were an xtian I could show you, (I’ve just done this in person recently) why absolute morality is the greatest evil.

 

Even the Nazis had ethical pretensions, shallow in general, and with regard to their atrocities based on pseudo science and dogma. Reason shows that its all wrong, the moment ideology/theology is placed before ethics, you don’t have any. All religions do this, which is why ethics has to be free of all constraints, but must come first. By studying what goes wrong with “ethical” regimes, we can see what not to do, and by trial and error arrive at not just ethics that work, but how a world view incorporates them into itself, (or visa versa), morality should derive form the objective, it never is in religion or ideology. That’s all I’m really saying.

[chefranden]

I think I should re-state my argument, I'm not necessarily saying that morality is objective but that it should be.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Xtians like to make out that without their “absolute” morals there will be anarchy, via relativism, now they are wrong, but worse committing a false dichotomy. There is a third way, a common ethic based on reason, I you were an xtian I could show you, (I’ve just done this in person recently) why absolute morality is the greatest evil.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Even the Nazis had ethical pretensions, shallow in general, and with regard to their atrocities based on pseudo science and dogma. Reason shows that its all wrong, the moment ideology/theology is placed before ethics, you don’t have any. All religions do this, which is why ethics has to be free of all constraints, but must come first.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By studying what goes wrong with “ethical”  regimes, we can see what not to do, and by trial and error arrive at not just ethics that work, but how a world view incorporates them into itself, (or visa versa), morality should derive form the objective, it never is in religion or ideology. That’s all I’m really saying.

Morality is a study that deals with subjective behavior. That is behavior conducted by individual subjects among collectives of subjects. As such it is always relative to the physical and cultrual circumstances of individuals and collectives of indiviuals. There will be commonalities of values that come from the simularities of human circumstances. There will be disparity of values that come from the disimularities of human circumstances. I see no reason to hope that Morals will be objective, since they will always be about subjective behavior.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anarchy is the greatest fear of Archs, that is the chiefs -- the princes. Anarchy is not about living without rules it is about living without rulers.

 

Reason tells me that there already is commonality of values based on commonalities of human circumstances. Reason also tells me that there will continue to be disparity of values based on differences. It seems a pipe dream to me that the latter will ever become the former.

 

As an aside: I think it is only under anarchy that real morality can take place.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agreed as long as objectivity is recognized as a constrant if by objectivity one means scientific search for "the one right way".

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This sounds like a search for "the one right way" is it?