- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
18 Mar 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterI agree with what LemonJello has said above about the instantiation of concepts.
No I wouldn't object. If you claim that god is an idea, and I think ideas are real, then it logically follows that I think that god is real. If you want to claim that god is more than an idea, then you might face some problems backing up that claim.
----------shark---------------------
But I wouldn't have to claim he was "more than an idea" becaus ...[text shortened]... reality ? You must have some distinction otherwise you must believe God exists afterall.
But I'll try another analogy so you can triangulate.
Suppose I utter the words "there is a rabbit in my garden". The utterance is real, it can be physically measured as pressure waves. But suppose, when I say that, there is no rabbit there. So the term "rabbit" in my sentence has no referent.
Similarly, the patterns of activation in your brain that constitute your idea of god are real. Your idea of god is real. But it might well be that the term "god" has no referent.
I don't think you answered my question about money, did you?
18 Mar 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHTaking slavery as an example, we don't practice slavery any more because our moral position on that activity has changed. Has the existence or otherwise of God affected this change? I would say not. Although there were many Christian and religious figures in the Abolitionist movement, there were also many Christians on the pro-slavery side.
Hey, amannion.
Late, early, it's all the same thing. The ground's been covered so much, I don't see how we can really even know where it is sometimes. But your point is at least concise and, well, pointed. Thanks for the clarity.
Pragmatism is a tempting position to fall into, but it inevitably leads to destruction. Child sacrifice 'worked' for the ...[text shortened]... th that which is right.
If God-not-be, what case can be made for anything?
Yes, it once worked for many societies. It doesn't work any more however and we no longer practice it and abhor those who do.
I don't agree that an absolute position is needed to define 'good'. What was good 1000 years or 200 years or even 50 years ago is not going to be the same thing I call good now. That has changed, so I guess even good is a relative perspective.
I make the case for my perspective simply based on the fact that it seems to work.
19 Mar 10
Originally posted by amannionI am not sure that is the case. I think that what has changed has been our understanding of the status we grant to individuals and how.
Taking slavery as an example, we don't practice slavery any more because our moral position on that activity has changed.
For example, if we consider people of a different race to not be deserving of being fully 'human' or part of our 'group' then it affects our morals regarding them even though the basic moral rules do not change at all.
I think the modern rejection of slavery has more to do with respecting greater equality of people rather than an actual change in morals.
Yes, it once worked for many societies. It doesn't work any more however and we no longer practice it and abhor those who do.
It would still work perfectly well - or at least as well has it has in the past. The only difference is the way we view it.
I make the case for my perspective simply based on the fact that it seems to work.
I am not sure what you mean by 'work' here. In what way does it work? What function does your morality serve?
19 Mar 10
Originally posted by amannionTaking slavery as an example, we don't practice slavery any more because our moral position on that activity has changed.
Taking slavery as an example, we don't practice slavery any more because our moral position on that activity has changed. Has the existence or otherwise of God affected this change? I would say not. Although there were many Christian and religious figures in the Abolitionist movement, there were also many Christians on the pro-slavery side.
Yes, it once wo ...[text shortened]... tive.
I make the case for my perspective simply based on the fact that it seems to work.
I agree that we don't practice it in the same manner as characterized by early America's chains-and-plantations motif. But it is full swing today, nonetheless.
In those days, conscription wasn't always with beatings and chains. There were plenty of examples of freed slaves remaining or returning to the families from which they were 'freed' simply because they liked the set-up, and they enjoyed the benefits of the symbiotic relationship. Likewise these days, as noted, there is an entire industry which thrives on product-less propositions: we call it debt. Some people allow their willingness to take on debt to put themselves in positions where their lives become at stake.
Take me, for instance. Although I work for a public corporation that pays me far, far more than they should, I am really conscripted by my government to work for it. I can change jobs anytime I wish, but I cannot stop working for my government. Here in America, we have what's known as Tax Freedom Day. It's that day on the calendar that represents when, if ALL revenue generated by the tax payers went directly to the government, the government would be satisfied. Ostensibly, the rest of the year's income is considered 'free and clear.'
One hundred years ago, with a considerably lesser amount of people in the country, my government "only" needed 19 days of our work. The tax rate averaged 5%. The highest tax rate in the ensuing years was 2000, when it peaked at 33.6%, and took us until May 3 to pay the government off, leaving the rest of the year to us. The argument could be made that others have it worse and I would agree: Sweden and Norway require half of their year to make their masters happy.
The underlying point, though, was whether or not pragmatism really works. I submit that it does not, and use a simple example of the ever-increasing tax burden as proof. When my country's founders fought for their freedom, it was against oppressive government without adequate representation--- a two-parter, really. They essentially were saying to both the king and to the world, this doesn't work. What they established, they deemed, worked. The people here a hundred years ago may have groused about having to give 19 days of their labor to the government, but it worked. If they were faced with the tax rate as faced by the citizenry of 2000 (who are obviously saying it works), they would have revolted a second time under the declaration that it didn't work. Same country, same ideals, different results. By any stretch of the imagination, my country's founders would be more than appalled at what became of their sacrifice; they would raze Washington, D.C. faster than you can say Paul Revere.
Yet slowly and nearly imperceptibly, the citizenry here continue to tell themselves, 'well, it works.' Why? The standard/ideal of freedom has been replaced by pragmatism.
19 Mar 10
Originally posted by Lord SharkI understand completely your argument and agree with it. I can triangulate fine with what you said. (I will come to the money thing later if you like)
I agree with what LemonJello has said above about the instantiation of concepts.
But I'll try another analogy so you can triangulate.
Suppose I utter the words "there is a rabbit in my garden". The utterance is real, it can be physically measured as pressure waves. But suppose, when I say that, there is no rabbit there. So the term "rabbit" in my se ...[text shortened]... m "god" has no referent.
I don't think you answered my question about money, did you?
Ideas are real (as in brain activity) in one sense but some ideas have external referents and some don't.
This is the whole point I am arguing. Morality , in the Christian sense , is an idea but not just an idea , it also has an external referent. Morality is also an objective moral fact(OMF). Namely God exists.
Logically then , if I say X is wrong , I don't just mean that I have an idea that X is wrong but also that there is an external referent that proves and shows objectively
that X is wrong.
In Atheism , I just don't see what the OMF or external referent is.
There may not be one. If there is I would like to hear about it. Strangely Atheists still talk as if there is one.
So , I kill people for fun , although you may have an idea that this is wrong , it's still just an idea with no external referent. Therefore , you cannot absolutely say that I am wrong in my actions because there is no OMF or external referent.
Of course , I know that you are probably utterly convinced that killing people for fun is wrong , and I would also guess that you think I should join you in thinking it is wrong and if I don't then I am out of touch with reality. But even so you cannot claim that this is objectively true on that basis (conviction) alone and leave it there.
Why? Because that would leave me free to claim that God is an OMF because I am convinced he is real.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
19 Mar 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterGood, we seem to be making progress.
I understand completely your argument and agree with it. I can triangulate fine with what you said. (I will come to the money thing later if you like)
Ideas are real (as in brain activity) in one sense but some ideas have external referents and some don't.
This is the whole point I am arguing. Morality , in the Christian sense , is an idea but ...[text shortened]... use that would leave me free to claim that God is an OMF because I am convinced he is real.
Now, as I'm sure you know, some atheists don't believe in OMF's. They then face the problem, that you have posed, of what moral talk means and what 'right' and 'wrong' consist in. There are quite a few different ways they can do this and each could be a thread in itself. We might come back to that if necessary.
Some atheists do think that there are OMF's. Clearly if you are of the view that the only candidate for an OMF is something like that the OMF corresponds with an aspect of god's nature, then you would be curious as to what candidate an atheist can offer for an OMF.
Do you agree so far?
19 Mar 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI can see your point only as an ideological attack against taxation.
[b]Taking slavery as an example, we don't practice slavery any more because our moral position on that activity has changed.
I agree that we don't practice it in the same manner as characterized by early America's chains-and-plantations motif. But it is full swing today, nonetheless.
In those days, conscription wasn't always with beatings and chai ...[text shortened]... works.' Why? The standard/ideal of freedom has been replaced by pragmatism.[/b]
I can't see how taxation amounts to slavery.
I pay taxes and am more than happy to because I know that this money is used to provide the services that I expect in my society - roads and other infrastructure, health care, welfare (should I need it), security and defence, and so on.
I certainly don't begrudge paying taxes and I certainly don't view it as slavery.
Perhaps the difference for us is that Australia was never founded on high ideals - it just sort of came together haphazardly and eventually became a nation. Maybe that's the source of my 'it works' morality.
Actually, on a mostly unrelated area, I was listening to ABC's Counterpoint (that'sthe Australian Broadcasting Commission) program the other day and they were talking with an American academic (forget the name) who has linked violent crime in the US with the distrust Americans show for their government. He's made some really close correlations to show how from the Civil War era onwards, American murder rates closely match the feeling of trust or otherwise in the government.
This dsitrust of government - and you raise it in your taxation ideas - is not common here.
20 Mar 10
Originally posted by amannionI can see your point only as an ideological attack against taxation.
I can see your point only as an ideological attack against taxation.
I can't see how taxation amounts to slavery.
I pay taxes and am more than happy to because I know that this money is used to provide the services that I expect in my society - roads and other infrastructure, health care, welfare (should I need it), security and defence, and so on.
I cer ...[text shortened]... dsitrust of government - and you raise it in your taxation ideas - is not common here.
I know my soap box tells another story, but I really was merely using it as an illustration for that ailment of degradation which afflicts the minds of man. Using what works as our standard--- no matter what or when the starting point--- always yields results far afield from original intents.
If a different example is necessary, simply consider Hitler's Germany, and specifically the complicity of its citizens.
I can't see how taxation amounts to slavery.
Taxation, per se, doesn't. Oppressive tax, however, is another story.
I certainly don't begrudge paying taxes and I certainly don't view it as slavery.
I'm with you to a point.
Aussies are close to us in taxation, needing only a few more days than us to pay for their government. I am of the opinion that the best government is one which allows for the greatest freedom and ease of movement. The charters which have launched countless tax campaigns invariably speak to security issues, and yet the results have--- without exception--- merely slowed (or halted) those who follow the new rules.
...who has linked violent crime in the US with the distrust Americans show for their government.
I could agree, if I chose to ignore the other factors, as well as the obvious: the crime hasn't been leveled at the government in any large measure. The violence has been toward each other on various levels, and I would suggest that most of it is a result of generalized anger coupled with the knowledge that the judicial system certainly offers little or no determent for any action of violence.
There is no denying the fact that we have a distrust of government--- not just ours, but any form of the same. Why? Because we understand a basic concept, namely, man's corrupt nature. Government has an inherent anonymity which lends a sense of security to those within it similar to the immunity those on internet chat sites enjoy. A key difference, of course, is that those in the government are in pursuit of power and/or approbation while they amass their fortunes, whereas the latter are merely looking for mostly harmless jollies.
Most people here don't cotton to getting screwed by faceless/nameless out-of-reach elitists.
20 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterThis is the whole point I am arguing. Morality , in the Christian sense , is an idea but not just an idea , it also has an external referent. Morality is also an objective moral fact(OMF). Namely God exists.
I understand completely your argument and agree with it. I can triangulate fine with what you said. (I will come to the money thing later if you like)
Ideas are real (as in brain activity) in one sense but some ideas have external referents and some don't.
This is the whole point I am arguing. Morality , in the Christian sense , is an idea but use that would leave me free to claim that God is an OMF because I am convinced he is real.
It needn't be...One could suppose a god exists (your "God" no less) yet you need not assume an external referent for "morality"
It should be argued that your God's morals need also be measured against this external referent. (unless of course one defines (as you and others do) God as this external referent. But then this serves only to cheapen the notion of "external referent" )
20 Mar 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNo the rise in violent crime wasn't crime against the government, it simply correlated with a mistrust in government. I think the academic suggested that the rise in crime came about when people felt that there was less protection offered by their government.
[b]I can see your point only as an ideological attack against taxation.
I know my soap box tells another story, but I really was merely using it as an illustration for that ailment of degradation which afflicts the minds of man. Using what works as our standard--- no matter what or when the starting point--- always yields results far afield from orig ...[text shortened]... people here don't cotton to getting screwed by faceless/nameless out-of-reach elitists.[/b]
20 Mar 10
Originally posted by Lord SharkPretty much agree.
Good, we seem to be making progress.
Now, as I'm sure you know, some atheists don't believe in OMF's. They then face the problem, that you have posed, of what moral talk means and what 'right' and 'wrong' consist in. There are quite a few different ways they can do this and each could be a thread in itself. We might come back to that if necessary.
S ...[text shortened]... e curious as to what candidate an atheist can offer for an OMF.
Do you agree so far?
I'm curious about what an OMF would be but also why Atheists still cling to the idea that morality is more than just an idea.
21 Mar 10
Morality , in the Christian sense , is an idea but not just an idea , it also has an external referent. Morality is also an objective moral fact(OMF). Namely God exists.
Morality means God exists? That doesn't help us determine if an act is moral or not. No matter the act, God's existence is completely independent of the morality of that act.
Baby torture isn't moral just because God exists, for example.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
21 Mar 10
Originally posted by knightmeisterGood.
Pretty much agree.
I'm curious about what an OMF would be but also why Atheists still cling to the idea that morality is more than just an idea.
I'm curious about your OMF too. By the way, I don't think that the atheists who believe in OMFs are 'clinging' to anything, that's just the way they see the world.
Now I don't want to get into any of the standard Euthyphro lines, but in order to think about what might work as an OMF for atheists, I think we need to look at the special case of your OMF and try to understand what makes it special.
So let's take the example of killing people for fun. Can you give any detail on what it is about the facts about god as you see them that makes this act objectively wrong? For example, has god done anything to the fine detail of the universe to instantiate this OMF, or is the fact that killing people for fun is not in accordance with god's nature enough?
22 Mar 10
Originally posted by Lord Sharkis the fact that killing people for fun is not in accordance with god's nature enough?
Good.
I'm curious about your OMF too. By the way, I don't think that the atheists who believe in OMFs are 'clinging' to anything, that's just the way they see the world.
Now I don't want to get into any of the standard Euthyphro lines, but in order to think about what might work as an OMF for atheists, I think we need to look at the special case of ...[text shortened]... r is the fact that killing people for fun is not in accordance with god's nature enough?
========shark--------------------
Yes.