OT: INteresting Programme About Pride.
Therion Ware
Atheist and Christian perspectives on Pride!
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
Denis Loubet
"Therion Ware" <autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
news:thjoi05a96rj25b5s...@4ax.com...
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/rams/midweek.ram
>
> Atheist and Christian perspectives on Pride!
What the hell is a .ram file?
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
Kevin Anthoney
>
> "Therion Ware" <autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
> news:thjoi05a96rj25b5s...@4ax.com...
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/rams/midweek.ram
>>
>> Atheist and Christian perspectives on Pride!
>
> What the hell is a .ram file?
>
>
Real Audio Media, or something. Need a Real player.
--
Kevin Anthoney
kanthoney[a]dsl.pipex.com
Jez
> Denis Loubet wrote:
>
>
>>"Therion Ware" <autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
>>news:thjoi05a96rj25b5s...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/rams/midweek.ram
>>>
>>>Atheist and Christian perspectives on Pride!
>>
>>What the hell is a .ram file?
>>
>>
>
>
> Real Audio Media, or something. Need a Real player.
>
> http://www.real.com
>
Or Jet audio....if you don't like all the nosing around real audio does...
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
Jez
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/rams/midweek.ram
>
> Atheist and Christian perspectives on Pride!
Yeah with that useless lump of s*** Libby-fucking-Purves !
As shallow as a puddle on a pool-table.
Therion Ware
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 19:12:34 +0100 in
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Jez (Jez
<iced_...@NOSPAMdsl.pipex.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
>Therion Ware wrote:
>
>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/rams/midweek.ram
>>
>> Atheist and Christian perspectives on Pride!
>
>Yeah with that useless lump of s*** Libby-fucking-Purves !
>
>As shallow as a puddle on a pool-table.
Do I take it you're not a big fan of our Libby? For shame!!!
Denis Loubet
"Kevin Anthoney" <kevin_a...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bab82$412ccfb7$51569c09$40...@nf1.news-service-com...
> Denis Loubet wrote:
>
> >
> > "Therion Ware" <autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
> > news:thjoi05a96rj25b5s...@4ax.com...
> >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/rams/midweek.ram
> >>
> >> Atheist and Christian perspectives on Pride!
> >
> > What the hell is a .ram file?
> >
> >
>
> Real Audio Media, or something. Need a Real player.
DOH! Dammit, you're right. I should have guessed that.
And yes, there's also the internet where I could have researched it. Sigh.
Scott
>
> Atheist and Christian perspectives on Pride!
Therion, that entire audio assumes a belief in the existence of moral truth,
moral realism
To me, that comes across as very contradictory, by atheists, when
materialistic/naturalistic philosophy holds there is no such thing.
What's the point in arguing against religious moral ideas and for another
when your core philosophy denies all moral truths?
Moral disagreements based on whatever (pride) have no truth-conditions if
materialism is correct.
Humanism is moral cognitivistic. Materialism is moral non-cognativistic.
Those two ideologies are not congruous. Humanistic materialism/naturalism is
an oxymoron. A humanistic materialist is also oxymoronic.
Scott
Therion Ware
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:13:47 GMT in
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Scott ("Scott"
<sc...@nospam.net>) said, directing the reply to
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
>
Ok, I'm up for this, but I'm unsure what you mean by "materialism".
Would you care to define this for me; as you understand it, and while
I think it very unlikely you idea will accord with mine, it'd be a
good place to start. don't you think?
And why do you think that my "core philosophy denies all moral
truths"?
I find this assertion slightly odd in so much as I am not the one who
thinks it a wonderful things that some people should spend the rest of
eternity in a state of agony beyond any description and I am not the
one who *worships* the God who imposes this unending suffering.
Scott
>
>
> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:13:47 GMT in
> alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Scott ("Scott"
> <sc...@nospam.net>) said, directing the reply to
> alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
>
>
>
> >
> >"Therion Ware" <autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
> >news:thjoi05a96rj25b5s...@4ax.com...
> >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/rams/midweek.ram
> >>
> >> Atheist and Christian perspectives on Pride!
> >
> >Therion, that entire audio assumes a belief in the existence of moral
truth,
> >moral realism
> >
> >To me, that comes across as very contradictory, by atheists, when
> >materialistic/naturalistic philosophy holds there is no such thing.
> >
> >What's the point in arguing against religious moral ideas and for another
> >when your core philosophy denies all moral truths?
> >
> >Moral disagreements based on whatever (pride) have no truth-conditions if
> >materialism is correct.
> >
> >Humanism is moral cognitivistic. Materialism is moral non-cognativistic.
> >Those two ideologies are not congruous. Humanistic materialism/naturalism
is
> >an oxymoron. A humanistic materialist is also oxymoronic.
First, just to note, I deleted alt.atheism because I've had simialar
discussion in the month(s) in two other threads.
> Ok, I'm up for this, but I'm unsure what you mean by "materialism".
>
> Would you care to define this for me; as you understand it, and while
> I think it very unlikely you idea will accord with mine, it'd be a
> good place to start. don't you think?
Sure. I mean the standard text book philosophical definition. Materialism,
materialistic naturalism, physicalism, Naturalism (for the sake of this
debate) all mean the same thing to *most* athiests. Why "materialism"
instead of "atheism"? Because technically atheism is not opposed to dualism
where materialism is monism.
http://members.aol.com/NeoNoetics/Materialism.html
"Materialism is a set of related theories which hold that all entities and
processes are composed of - or are reducible to - matter, material forces or
physical processes. All events and facts are explainable, actually or in
principle, in terms of body, material objects or dynamic material changes or
movements. In general, the metaphysical theory of materialism entails the
denial of the reality of spiritual beings, consciousness and mental or
psychic states or processes, as ontologically distinct from, or independent
of material changes or processes. Since it denies the existence of spiritual
beings or forces, materialism typically is allied with atheism or
agnosticism."
>
> And why do you think that my "core philosophy denies all moral
> truths"?
*Your* philosophy might not deny moral truth *but* materialism denies the
reality of objective morality and with that moral realism - e.g. moral
truth. Atheists who think of themselves as materialists/naturalists and
believe in moral progress are factually not materialists but naive
pluralists/dualists, much like their theistic counterparts.
What is moral truth/progress? What materialistic means can anyone draw upon
to discribe it? None. *How* morality functions within a culture can be
explained by behavior observations. Sociology and anthropology are found
upon these observation. BUT although the social 'why' of morality can be
explained using the materialistic means of behaviorism, the *justification*
for claims of moral progress, that cultural moral codes aren't equivolent,
can not be explained by naturalistic means. To make such a claim is to
commit a naturalistic fallacy, the genetic fallacy. On Genetic fallacy as it
relates to this:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1gdduj4.10frun912jrsojN%25john_SPAM%40wilkins.id.au&output=gplain
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1g3ufbl.mr5y2n1kx8ceeN%25wilkins%40wehi.edu.au&output=gplain
If you believe in moral progress then you believe in moral realism and not
moral anti-realism. Meaning what exactly? Objective morality equates to
moral realism. Subjective morality equates to moral anti-realism. Cutting to
the chase, and knowing you, I'm sure you don't believe in objective morality
and could, like I could, recite all the problems associated with it. In
short, however, there is simply put no empirical evidence for objective
morality - e.g.none for moral realism.
Where does this materialistically leave us with regards to meta-ethical
theories about morality? Were are left with the *umbrella*, anti-realistic,
meta-ethical theory of Ethical Relativism. *All* (not limited to the
following two) materialistic theories for ethics comes *under* the umbrella
(subcategories) of Relativism. Cultural relativism is relative to the
morality of a culture while Subjectivism is relative to the morality of an
individual. Cultural relativism equates to intersubjectivism.
If materialism is true then ethical relativism is likely factual theory of
morality and with that goes any notion of moral progress. So to once again
cut to the chase, here are links that support my statments and give the
explanations for why this would be so. In short, scientific progress is
compatible with materialism because it has empirical evidence to support the
belief were moral truth, moral progress, moral realism has no equivolent
empirical, evidential support. Each one of the following makes statements to
"no moral progress" given relativism/subjectivsm
http://phil-www.tamu.edu/~b-everman/victor/moral/Relativism_handout.pdf
http://www.ou.edu/cas/ouphil/students/randy/final.html
http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~anderson/focus210lecture4.htm
http://www.cofc.edu/~portmord/99170L2.htm
Why can't there be moral progress with moral subjectivism? Hume's Law: You
can't get an *ought* from an *is*. "Oughts" have no truth-value, truth-apts,
truth-conditions. This is the whole point of Hume's Law. For moral
subjectivists, morality is bases on desire. Desires, and preferences,
contain no truth-value. People contain the truth-value but not their
desires/preference. To use an analogy: You might find a painting beautiful
but I might find it ugly or undesirable. It is a true/false (truth-valued)
statement that *you* and *I* have an aesthetic opinion about the the
painting but that is a statment about *us* and not a factual statement about
the painting. Question: Which of our opinions is the *better* (the more
'progressive') one? There is nothing in a materialistic objective reality
can be drawn upon to determine which of our opinions is the better one. A
painting is only paint and canvas while we mentally *imprint* a subjective
desire onto the painting.
The same holds true for ethical actions. How does one determine the correct
moral action to take assuming materialism and subjectivism? There is no
rational way (truth-valued way) to determine the correct action since
desires are not rational. It might be rational for *you* to have a desire
but desires aren't rational. (It might be rational to have faith but nobodys
claims faith is rational).
And some consiquences of this materialistic moral philosophy are? All moral
disagreements would be rationally pointless. Each and every one. For
example: Arguments between Pro-choice and Pro-life as to what *ought* to be
deemed a human life are pointless. Arguing all violations, what *ought* to
be violations, of human rights (as if human rights are somehow inherent)
would likewise be pointless.
For materialism, humans are only one more specie on the planet acting out of
its own natural behaviorism, and any ethical meaning imprinted on human
actions as being moral or immoral are *ultimately* arbitrary. All moral
codes, no matter how contradictory or what they are based upon, are
ultimately equivalent. It makes no difference if those codes are based on
what may seem to you like religious fanaticism (Islamic or Christian
fundamentalists) or secular fanaticism (North Korean). We don't say a male
lion is committing an evil act (a moral realism) when it takes over a pride
and then genocides the concurred male's cubs. The lion does not violate any
moral truth because no such facts exist *in* the natural world.
> I find this assertion slightly odd in so much as I am not the one who
> thinks it a wonderful things that some people should spend the rest of
> eternity in a state of agony beyond any description and I am not the
> one who *worships* the God who imposes this unending suffering.
This comment of yours is mostly irrelevant to the discussion except for
pointing out that arguing for moral truth/progress (leading to, implied or
not inherent, human rights) is synonymous with arguing for a god or any
other metaphysical reality. I find it an interesting curiosity that a
so-called, self-proclaimed materialists will denounce the metaphysics of a
god but then inadvertently (unknowingly) argue for the existence of a
metaphysical reality that is (and must be) inherent for the existence of a
moral truth. I think there are very few *true* materialists. Atheists who
refuse to argue for the equivalency of moral codes have lost credibility in
arguing to theists against gods. Both are dualists. Think of any statement
you've seen arguing for or against a god and you could delete "god" and sub
in "moral progress". Icaurs and I just spent weeks arguing with Evil Ed, and
Gödel's (?) on the non-existence of objective morality (moral realism) and
their arguments had a ringing similarity of fundamentalists' arguments for a
god. Their arguments were complete with similar false analogies.
If materialism is true then a belief in moral progress is a naive mythical
fantasy. But if dualism is true then belief in moral progress must come by
way of a mystical knowledge. Take your pick. It seem very contradictory, to
me, to see so-called materialistic atheist deriding theists for believing in
any *mythological fantasy* while they (the atheists) in turn argue for their
own moral mythology.
Just add: Is materialism true? There is no way to prove it since Gödel's
Incompleteness theorem defeats any such proof. Materialism is propositional.
To say materialism uses materialistic means to prove materialism true would
be circular. Same holds for human rights. To say human have human rights by
virtue of being humans is also circular.
Scott
keith
I am jumping in, thanks for the invite.
"Scott" <sc...@nospam.net> wrote in message news:<QmKXc.5886$in1....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.com>...
> "Therion Ware" <autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
> news:ahaui0pdplijc9d6e...@4ax.com...
> >
> >
>(snip)
(snip)
> >
> > And why do you think that my "core philosophy denies all moral
> > truths"?
>
> *Your* philosophy might not deny moral truth *but* materialism denies the
> reality of objective morality and with that moral realism - e.g. moral
> truth. Atheists who think of themselves as materialists/naturalists and
> believe in moral progress are factually not materialists but naive
> pluralists/dualists, much like their theistic counterparts.
>
> What is moral truth/progress? What materialistic means can anyone draw upon
> to discribe it? None.
I agree. The idea of progress logically requires a goal that is the
proper end of the changes to some state of affairs. On materialism,
things just are; there *is* no proper goal.
> *How* morality functions within a culture can be
> explained by behavior observations. Sociology and anthropology are found
> upon these observation. BUT although the social 'why' of morality can be
> explained using the materialistic means of behaviorism, the *justification*
> for claims of moral progress, that cultural moral codes aren't equivolent,
> can not be explained by naturalistic means.
In other words: societies develop rules and they coerce their members
to follow those rules. But if morality is *defined* as the set of
rules for a given society, then logically changes of the rules don't
constitute improving the morality of the society. The idea of a less
moral socity or a more moral society makes no sense when the society
is itself the yardstick.
(snip)
> If you believe in moral progress then you believe in moral realism and not
> moral anti-realism. Meaning what exactly? Objective morality equates to
> moral realism. Subjective morality equates to moral anti-realism. Cutting to
> the chase, and knowing you, I'm sure you don't believe in objective morality
> and could, like I could, recite all the problems associated with it. In
> short, however, there is simply put no empirical evidence for objective
> morality - e.g.none for moral realism.
I would disagree. I would say that our own experience of conscience is
experiential evidence for moral realism. It is thus also evidence
against materialism.
> (snip)
> Why can't there be moral progress with moral subjectivism? Hume's Law: You
> can't get an *ought* from an *is*. "Oughts" have no truth-value, truth-apts,
> truth-conditions. This is the whole point of Hume's Law.
I would not agree that "oughts" have no truth value. I do agree that
oughts can't be *derived* from *is*.
> For moral
> subjectivists, morality is bases on desire. Desires, and preferences,
> contain no truth-value. People contain the truth-value but not their
> desires/preference. To use an analogy: You might find a painting beautiful
> but I might find it ugly or undesirable. It is a true/false (truth-valued)
> statement that *you* and *I* have an aesthetic opinion about the the
> painting but that is a statment about *us* and not a factual statement about
> the painting.
Here you suggest that the truth-value of moral statements is "person
relative". This is a complex issue. I would say that morality *is*
indeed relative...to SOMETHING. But that the moral truth of
well-formed moral statements is not person-relative. We can get into
this if anyone likes.
> Question: Which of our opinions is the *better* (the more
> 'progressive') one? There is nothing in a materialistic objective reality
> can be drawn upon to determine which of our opinions is the better one. A
> painting is only paint and canvas while we mentally *imprint* a subjective
> desire onto the painting.
>
> The same holds true for ethical actions. How does one determine the correct
> moral action to take assuming materialism and subjectivism? There is no
> rational way (truth-valued way) to determine the correct action since
> desires are not rational. It might be rational for *you* to have a desire
> but desires aren't rational. (It might be rational to have faith but nobodys
> claims faith is rational).
If by rational, you mean we cannot reason from non-moral facts the
truth-value of a moral claim, I'd agree. But I would not agree we
can't know what's objectively moral.
>
> And some consiquences of this materialistic moral philosophy are? All moral
> disagreements would be rationally pointless. Each and every one. For
> example: Arguments between Pro-choice and Pro-life as to what *ought* to be
> deemed a human life are pointless. Arguing all violations, what *ought* to
> be violations, of human rights (as if human rights are somehow inherent)
> would likewise be pointless.
I'd say there *is* a point to arguing about such moral questions,
actually several points. But I'll only mention one. The argument could
cause you or your opponent to see things differently, and when you
apply your own moral intuitions to your new POV you might change your
mind. I *was* vehemently pro-abortion. I thought that a woman had no
right to impose fatherhood on a man who didn't want to *be* a father.
The father had a responsibility (I thought) tp pay for an abortion,
but if the woman didn't want to abort the man had no responsibility at
all. But I after discussions with my wife I came to be pro-choice. I
now believe that whether or not the pregnancy is carried to term is
entirely up to the mother, the father has no right to insist the woman
carry thechild or to insist she abort. But if she chooses to carry the
child, the father then has a moral responsibility to the child. My
wife didn't change my moral intuitions, she just made me see the facts
I was morally judging differently.
(snip)
Interesting comments above:-)
keith
Scott
"keith" <keit...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba696799.04082...@posting.google.com...
Hmmm. Ok. My perspective on objective morality when arguing with atheists is
that of objective equals materialistically real. I do so simply to stay
within a common set of terms. Since, like atheists, I believe in a material
reality (but unlike atheists) in addition to a spiritual reality (dualism)
I've found it easier to assume an argument from a proposition of materialism
and draw the moral consequences from that POV.
It sure seems to me that there are very few true materialists out there.
Some of them can get really twisted off when I give the 'no moral progress'
and the 'no inherent human rights' facts if their materialism were true.
>
>
> > Why can't there be moral progress with moral subjectivism? Hume's Law:
You
> > can't get an *ought* from an *is*. "Oughts" have no truth-value,
truth-apts,
> > truth-conditions. This is the whole point of Hume's Law.
>
>
> I would not agree that "oughts" have no truth value. I do agree that
> oughts can't be *derived* from *is*.
>
> > For moral
> > subjectivists, morality is bases on desire. Desires, and preferences,
> > contain no truth-value. People contain the truth-value but not their
> > desires/preference. To use an analogy: You might find a painting
beautiful
> > but I might find it ugly or undesirable. It is a true/false
(truth-valued)
> > statement that *you* and *I* have an aesthetic opinion about the the
> > painting but that is a statment about *us* and not a factual statement
about
> > the painting.
>
> Here you suggest that the truth-value of moral statements is "person
> relative".
I'm a moral realist. Again, my argument is assuming materialism and bring it
to its conclusion for Therion.
This is a complex issue. I would say that morality *is*
> indeed relative...to SOMETHING. But that the moral truth of
> well-formed moral statements is not person-relative. We can get into
> this if anyone likes.
Yep, morality is relative to something. And that is the big problem for
materialism and so-called materialists. Materialism denies that something,
that moral realism.
I accept the arguments against moral relativism as sound arguments. I've
argued with atheists who likewise accept those same philosophical arguments
against moral relativism. Those arguments are based upon an acknowledgement
of moral truth. In doing so, without expressing it, those arguments move
*out* of materialism and into an implied dualism. What I find interesting is
that when I point out this common sense to the atheist, he steadfastly
refused to admit it. So I simply ask him to give his empirical evidence for
moral progress acceptable to materialism.
>
>
>
> > Question: Which of our opinions is the *better* (the more
> > 'progressive') one? There is nothing in a materialistic objective
reality
> > can be drawn upon to determine which of our opinions is the better one.
A
> > painting is only paint and canvas while we mentally *imprint* a
subjective
> > desire onto the painting.
> >
> > The same holds true for ethical actions. How does one determine the
correct
> > moral action to take assuming materialism and subjectivism? There is no
> > rational way (truth-valued way) to determine the correct action since
> > desires are not rational. It might be rational for *you* to have a
desire
> > but desires aren't rational. (It might be rational to have faith but
nobodys
> > claims faith is rational).
>
>
> If by rational, you mean we cannot reason from non-moral facts the
> truth-value of a moral claim, I'd agree. But I would not agree we
> can't know what's objectively moral.
I agree. I know that Japanese soldiers bayoneting Chinese babies was an
objectively evil act even if they, at the time, thought it was *good* fun
and got a laugh from it.
A true materialist would have to reject that as being knowable but I find
many can't bring themselves to make such a statement; I don't think I had
any that did admit that as being unknowable. So IMO there are very few true
materialists.
> >
> > And some consiquences of this materialistic moral philosophy are? All
moral
> > disagreements would be rationally pointless. Each and every one. For
> > example: Arguments between Pro-choice and Pro-life as to what *ought* to
be
> > deemed a human life are pointless. Arguing all violations, what *ought*
to
> > be violations, of human rights (as if human rights are somehow inherent)
> > would likewise be pointless.
>
> I'd say there *is* a point to arguing about such moral questions,
> actually several points.
Exactly
But I'll only mention one. The argument could
> cause you or your opponent to see things differently, and when you
> apply your own moral intuitions to your new POV you might change your
> mind. I *was* vehemently pro-abortion. I thought that a woman had no
> right to impose fatherhood on a man who didn't want to *be* a father.
> The father had a responsibility (I thought) tp pay for an abortion,
> but if the woman didn't want to abort the man had no responsibility at
> all. But I after discussions with my wife I came to be pro-choice. I
> now believe that whether or not the pregnancy is carried to term is
> entirely up to the mother, the father has no right to insist the woman
> carry thechild or to insist she abort. But if she chooses to carry the
> child, the father then has a moral responsibility to the child. My
> wife didn't change my moral intuitions, she just made me see the facts
> I was morally judging differently.
But all that is based upon what is defined as having personhood status and
the ordering of human rights.
I take the side of the argument that there is an objective ordering to human
rights. Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness necessarily follow in
that order.
But they don't just apply to the individual subject, they also apply as
being intersubjective between individuals.
For example: Does someones right to libetery trump my right to life?
Assuming I've commited no crimes (haven't given up any rights), is there
justification for my being killed if my being alive hampers someone elses
pursuit liberty? I think the obvious answer is "no". What if we haver a
severely retarded (non-functional) who has to be cared for? This human is a
burdon to somebody's pursuit of liberty and happiness. He/she is a cross
somebody must bare. Even if the retarded is instituionalized, he/she is a
fincacial burdon on the tax payers who must pay for my care. Do they still
have a right to life at other's expience to liberty and happiness?
Here's a book that address these issue from this objective ordering POV
http://www.lifeprinciples.net/HCBook.html Robert J. Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D. is
Ph.D. in philosophy.
Thank you
Scott
Therion Ware
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:41:04 GMT in
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Scott ("Scott"
<sc...@nospam.net>) said, directing the reply to
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
Sorry for the delay in responding. It was a bank holiday weekend here
which typically involves trips to Ikea, assembling flat-pack
furniture, bookshelves, gardening and so forth, possibly as a form of
post-religious observance....
>"Therion Ware" <autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
>news:ahaui0pdplijc9d6e...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 15:13:47 GMT in
>> alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Scott ("Scott"
>> <sc...@nospam.net>) said, directing the reply to
>> alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
>>
>>
>>
>> >
>> >"Therion Ware" <autod...@city-of-dis.com> wrote in message
>> >news:thjoi05a96rj25b5s...@4ax.com...
>> >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/factual/rams/midweek.ram
>> >>
>> >> Atheist and Christian perspectives on Pride!
>> >
>> >Therion, that entire audio assumes a belief in the existence of moral truth,
>> >moral realism
>> >
>> >To me, that comes across as very contradictory, by atheists, when
>> >materialistic/naturalistic philosophy holds there is no such thing.
>> >
>> >What's the point in arguing against religious moral ideas and for another
>> >when your core philosophy denies all moral truths?
>> >
>> >Moral disagreements based on whatever (pride) have no truth-conditions if
>> >materialism is correct.
>> >
>> >Humanism is moral cognitivistic. Materialism is moral non-cognativistic.
>> >Those two ideologies are not congruous. Humanistic materialism/naturalism is
>> >an oxymoron. A humanistic materialist is also oxymoronic.
>
>First, just to note, I deleted alt.atheism because I've had simialar
>discussion in the month(s) in two other threads.
So it seems.
>> Ok, I'm up for this, but I'm unsure what you mean by "materialism".
>>
>> Would you care to define this for me; as you understand it, and while
>> I think it very unlikely you idea will accord with mine, it'd be a
>> good place to start. don't you think?
>
>Sure. I mean the standard text book philosophical definition. Materialism,
>materialistic naturalism, physicalism, Naturalism (for the sake of this
>debate) all mean the same thing to *most* athiests. Why "materialism"
>instead of "atheism"? Because technically atheism is not opposed to dualism
>where materialism is monism.
>
>http://members.aol.com/NeoNoetics/Materialism.html
>"Materialism is a set of related theories which hold that all entities and
>processes are composed of - or are reducible to - matter, material forces or
>physical processes. All events and facts are explainable, actually or in
>principle, in terms of body, material objects or dynamic material changes or
>movements. In general, the metaphysical theory of materialism entails the
>denial of the reality of spiritual beings, consciousness and mental or
>psychic states or processes, as ontologically distinct from, or independent
>of material changes or processes. Since it denies the existence of spiritual
>beings or forces, materialism typically is allied with atheism or
>agnosticism."
Hummm..... Seems a little dated to me
>> And why do you think that my "core philosophy denies all moral
>> truths"?
>
>*Your* philosophy might not deny moral truth *but* materialism denies the
>reality of objective morality and with that moral realism - e.g. moral
>truth. Atheists who think of themselves as materialists/naturalists and
>believe in moral progress are factually not materialists but naive
>pluralists/dualists, much like their theistic counterparts.
Well, while in general I think that in essence materialism is correct,
i.e. everything has its ultimate basis in the physical, I'd be more
inclined to the physicalist/supervenience position than classical
materialism. Classical materialism while IMO basically true is
reductive and so of limited use: a chair might be a collection of
various kinds of atoms, but to deal with it on that basis is, erm,
cumbersome.
>What is moral truth/progress? What materialistic means can anyone draw upon
>to discribe it? None.
While thinking about that, I'd be interested to know how moral
progress can occur under an objective/absolutist moral position. If
you know the absolute objective moral truth ipso facto no moral
progress is possible.
Still, that said, and off the cuff - personally I would have thought
that "moral truth" is imaginary, which is to say that the basis of
morality is rooted in our ability to imagine what it's like for the
other guy: empathy. Moral progress occurs as our ability to imagine
and care about what it's like for the other guy improves. Immorality
is then at root a failure of empathic imagination with respect to
other people.
>*How* morality functions within a culture can be
>explained by behavior observations. Sociology and anthropology are found
>upon these observation. BUT although the social 'why' of morality can be
>explained using the materialistic means of behaviorism, the *justification*
>for claims of moral progress, that cultural moral codes aren't equivolent,
>can not be explained by naturalistic means. To make such a claim is to
>commit a naturalistic fallacy, the genetic fallacy. On Genetic fallacy as it
>relates to this:
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1gdduj4.10frun912jrsojN%25john_SPAM%40wilkins.id.au&output=gplain
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1g3ufbl.mr5y2n1kx8ceeN%25wilkins%40wehi.edu.au&output=gplain
Well, I'd be inclined to think that some cultures are morally superior
to others. For example the societal morality of the peoples of the EU
as expressed in law is in many respects, IMO, superior to that of the
USA as expressed in law. universal health care free at the point of
delivery, the death penalty (with particular respect to legal children
and the mentally incompetent), and so forth.
So am I saying that the people of the USA have less "moral
imagination" that the people of the EU? No, but it seems to me that
societal issues are capable of supervening over empathy and that the
reasons why this can be so are complex.
>If you believe in moral progress then you believe in moral realism and not
>moral anti-realism. Meaning what exactly? Objective morality equates to
>moral realism. Subjective morality equates to moral anti-realism. Cutting to
>the chase, and knowing you, I'm sure you don't believe in objective morality
>and could, like I could, recite all the problems associated with it. In
>short, however, there is simply put no empirical evidence for objective
>morality - e.g.none for moral realism.
I think it's more complicated than that. I'd say that there is an
objective morality but one that's rooted in our ability to imagine:
it's rooted in us as humans - in what we are and in our capacities. As
Protagoras said, "man is the measure of all things".
>Where does this materialistically leave us with regards to meta-ethical
>theories about morality? Were are left with the *umbrella*, anti-realistic,
>meta-ethical theory of Ethical Relativism. *All* (not limited to the
>following two) materialistic theories for ethics comes *under* the umbrella
>(subcategories) of Relativism. Cultural relativism is relative to the
>morality of a culture while Subjectivism is relative to the morality of an
>individual. Cultural relativism equates to intersubjectivism.
Well, I think not for the reasons above.
>If materialism is true then ethical relativism is likely factual theory of
>morality and with that goes any notion of moral progress. So to once again
>cut to the chase, here are links that support my statments and give the
>explanations for why this would be so. In short, scientific progress is
>compatible with materialism because it has empirical evidence to support the
>belief were moral truth, moral progress, moral realism has no equivolent
>empirical, evidential support. Each one of the following makes statements to
>"no moral progress" given relativism/subjectivsm
Erm, I'm mostly going to stop it there. I can see what you're saying
but at this point you're not arguing to my position, and so ....
?
>All moral
>codes, no matter how contradictory or what they are based upon, are
>ultimately equivalent. It makes no difference if those codes are based on
>what may seem to you like religious fanaticism (Islamic or Christian
>fundamentalists) or secular fanaticism (North Korean). We don't say a male
>lion is committing an evil act (a moral realism) when it takes over a pride
>and then genocides the concurred male's cubs. The lion does not violate any
>moral truth because no such facts exist *in* the natural world.
>
>
>> I find this assertion slightly odd in so much as I am not the one who
>> thinks it a wonderful things that some people should spend the rest of
>> eternity in a state of agony beyond any description and I am not the
>> one who *worships* the God who imposes this unending suffering.
>
>This comment of yours is mostly irrelevant to the discussion except for
>pointing out that arguing for moral truth/progress (leading to, implied or
>not inherent, human rights) is synonymous with arguing for a god or any
>other metaphysical reality. I find it an interesting curiosity that a
>so-called, self-proclaimed materialists will denounce the metaphysics of a
>god
I think you've missed the point I made. It's about personal moral
consent to the implementation of a morality one by definition *cannot*
understand and how this is or is not justifiable in terms of "moral
imagination" as sketched above.
>but then inadvertently (unknowingly) argue for the existence of a
>metaphysical reality that is (and must be) inherent for the existence of a
>moral truth. I think there are very few *true* materialists. Atheists who
>refuse to argue for the equivalency of moral codes have lost credibility in
>arguing to theists against gods. Both are dualists. Think of any statement
>you've seen arguing for or against a god and you could delete "god" and sub
>in "moral progress". Icaurs and I just spent weeks arguing with Evil Ed, and
>Gödel's (?) on the non-existence of objective morality (moral realism) and
>their arguments had a ringing similarity of fundamentalists' arguments for a
>god. Their arguments were complete with similar false analogies.
>
>If materialism is true then a belief in moral progress is a naive mythical
>fantasy. But if dualism is true then belief in moral progress must come by
>way of a mystical knowledge. Take your pick. It seem very contradictory, to
>me, to see so-called materialistic atheist deriding theists for believing in
>any *mythological fantasy* while they (the atheists) in turn argue for their
>own moral mythology.
>
>Just add: Is materialism true? There is no way to prove it since Gödel's
>Incompleteness theorem defeats any such proof. Materialism is propositional.
>To say materialism uses materialistic means to prove materialism true would
>be circular. Same holds for human rights. To say human have human rights by
>virtue of being humans is also circular.
Which is presumably why for the believer in a theistic "objective
morality" not only do humans have no rights but *cannot* have rights?
Scott
>
>
> On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:41:04 GMT in
> alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, Scott ("Scott"
> <sc...@nospam.net>) said, directing the reply to
> alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
>
>
> Sorry for the delay in responding. It was a bank holiday weekend here
> which typically involves trips to Ikea, assembling flat-pack
> furniture, bookshelves, gardening and so forth, possibly as a form of
> post-religious observance....
That's ok by me, Therion.
They're getting long
Makes no difference if you believe it's truth
>
> >> And why do you think that my "core philosophy denies all moral
> >> truths"?
> >
> >*Your* philosophy might not deny moral truth *but* materialism denies the
> >reality of objective morality and with that moral realism - e.g. moral
> >truth. Atheists who think of themselves as materialists/naturalists and
> >believe in moral progress are factually not materialists but naive
> >pluralists/dualists, much like their theistic counterparts.
>
> Well, while in general I think that in essence materialism is correct,
> i.e. everything has its ultimate basis in the physical, I'd be more
> inclined to the physicalist/supervenience position than classical
> materialism. Classical materialism while IMO basically true is
> reductive and so of limited use: a chair might be a collection of
> various kinds of atoms, but to deal with it on that basis is, erm,
> cumbersome.
Either way, there is no justification moral realism within materialism
>
> >What is moral truth/progress? What materialistic means can anyone draw
upon
> >to discribe it? None.
>
> While thinking about that, I'd be interested to know how moral
> progress can occur under an objective/absolutist moral position. If
> you know the absolute objective moral truth ipso facto no moral
> progress is possible.
I'm not an absolutist. Moral realists are not ipso facto absolutist while
the reverse must be so.
>
> Still, that said, and off the cuff - personally I would have thought
> that "moral truth" is imaginary, which is to say that the basis of
> morality is rooted in our ability to imagine what it's like for the
> other guy: empathy.
Genetic fallacy. While evolutionary empathy might explain why people have
morals it lends no justification to *any* moral code.
John Wilkins whose opinion, I think, we both
respect:http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1gdduj4.10frun912jrsojN%25john_
SPAM%40wilkins.id.au&output=gplain
Moral progress occurs as our ability to imagine
> and care about what it's like for the other guy improves. Immorality
> is then at root a failure of empathic imagination with respect to
> other people.
And so that imagination can only be one more mythology contributed to human
behaviorisms....given materialism.
>
> >*How* morality functions within a culture can be
> >explained by behavior observations. Sociology and anthropology are found
> >upon these observation. BUT although the social 'why' of morality can be
> >explained using the materialistic means of behaviorism, the
*justification*
> >for claims of moral progress, that cultural moral codes aren't
equivolent,
> >can not be explained by naturalistic means. To make such a claim is to
> >commit a naturalistic fallacy, the genetic fallacy. On Genetic fallacy as
it
> >relates to this:
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1gdduj4.10frun912jrsojN%25john_SPAM%40
wilkins.id.au&output=gplain
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=1g3ufbl.mr5y2n1kx8ceeN%25wilkins%40weh
i.edu.au&output=gplain
>
> Well, I'd be inclined to think that some cultures are morally superior
> to others.
You'd need an objective moral principle to make it factual rather than an
illusion you hold, a superstition.
For example the societal morality of the peoples of the EU
> as expressed in law is in many respects, IMO, superior to that of the
> USA as expressed in law. universal health care free at the point of
> delivery, the death penalty (with particular respect to legal children
> and the mentally incompetent), and so forth.
You'd be in error by any and all materialisms. Why? Because your belief is
one of moral cogitivism. Whereas, materialisms are moral non-cognitivism. If
your cognitivism isn't an illusion, it must come to you by way not germane
to materialism but by some kind of gnosis *outside* of material means.
>
> So am I saying that the people of the USA have less "moral
> imagination" that the people of the EU? No, but it seems to me that
> societal issues are capable of supervening over empathy and that the
> reasons why this can be so are complex.
"Supervening"??? Careful, you're liable to become a catholic if you keep
this up ;-)
How is "moral imagination" different than mythologizing, creating a myth to
live by?
> >If you believe in moral progress then you believe in moral realism and
not
> >moral anti-realism. Meaning what exactly? Objective morality equates to
> >moral realism. Subjective morality equates to moral anti-realism. Cutting
to
> >the chase, and knowing you, I'm sure you don't believe in objective
morality
> >and could, like I could, recite all the problems associated with it. In
> >short, however, there is simply put no empirical evidence for objective
> >morality - e.g.none for moral realism.
>
> I think it's more complicated than that. I'd say that there is an
> objective morality but one that's rooted in our ability to imagine:
> it's rooted in us as humans - in what we are and in our capacities.
I would agree with this being that I am Catholic. But I'm not sure how you
get there being a materialist. Because...
As
> Protagoras said, "man is the measure of all things".
.....because this, Protagoras, will not get you any true moral progress. For
materialism, what only exists in the imagination of man is all subjective,
not objective. And that leads back to the seeming absurdities inherent in
Ethical Relativism/Subjectivism.
Your saying "I'd say that there is an objective morality but one that's
rooted in our ability to imagine: it's rooted in us as humans - in what we
are and in our capacities" is all too rooted in simple spirtiual
experiences. If true, it is in fact a knowledge of the spiritual, a gnosis.
>
> >Where does this materialistically leave us with regards to meta-ethical
> >theories about morality? Were are left with the *umbrella*,
anti-realistic,
> >meta-ethical theory of Ethical Relativism. *All* (not limited to the
> >following two) materialistic theories for ethics comes *under* the
umbrella
> >(subcategories) of Relativism. Cultural relativism is relative to the
> >morality of a culture while Subjectivism is relative to the morality of
an
> >individual. Cultural relativism equates to intersubjectivism.
>
> Well, I think not for the reasons above.
Your argument doesn't work because Materialism requires an *objective*
morality to be expressable by materialistic means, physics for example.
Behavioral means can describe subjective and culturally relative morality
but that's all. Materialism is a monism holding that all objective things
are mind-independent having a materialistic existence. Whereas, a dualism,
holds that there are objective turths knowable to the mind but have no
material existence. Beliefs in moral progress, moral realism, objective
morality....are all synonomous to those who have a belief in a god.
>
> >If materialism is true then ethical relativism is likely factual theory
of
> >morality and with that goes any notion of moral progress. So to once
again
> >cut to the chase, here are links that support my statments and give the
> >explanations for why this would be so. In short, scientific progress is
> >compatible with materialism because it has empirical evidence to support
the
> >belief were moral truth, moral progress, moral realism has no equivolent
> >empirical, evidential support. Each one of the following makes statements
to
> >"no moral progress" given relativism/subjectivsm
>
> Erm, I'm mostly going to stop it there. I can see what you're saying
> but at this point you're not arguing to my position, and so ....
You've made it very clear to me that you are not arguing for anything in
morality compatible with materialism, Therion.
A naturalistic comparison:
Male lions who take over a pride will genocide the previous male's cubs. Is
this act an objective evil?
In WWII Japanese soldiers tossed Chinese babies into the air and bayoneted
them on the way down. There is film footage of these soldiers laughing while
they did so. Is this act an objective evil or where these soldiers simply
acting out of their human behaviorism? Where they committing an un-natural
act - violating a Natural Law so-to-speak?
What does your *imagination* tell you that materialistic naturalism cannot?
How do you know you aren't arguing to your own myth?
Total off the mark. You, Therion, believe in the *realism* of human rights
but you have no way to justify your belief in that realism by referring to
any materialistic means. That belief is the same as any Catholic belief and
one of a gnosis. For materialism there are no natural rights of man.
Scott
keith
There might be a bit of talking past each other then (or maybe I
mistook things for disagreements:). I think I mostly agree with you
and my comments are aimed at making the words agree with the thoughts.
So here goes:
(snip)
> >
> > > If you believe in moral progress then you believe in moral realism and
> not
> > > moral anti-realism. Meaning what exactly? Objective morality equates to
> > > moral realism. Subjective morality equates to moral anti-realism.
> Cutting to
> > > the chase, and knowing you, I'm sure you don't believe in objective
> morality
> > > and could, like I could, recite all the problems associated with it. In
> > > short, however, there is simply put no empirical evidence for objective
> > > morality - e.g.none for moral realism.
> >
> >
> > I would disagree. I would say that our own experience of conscience is
> > experiential evidence for moral realism. It is thus also evidence
> > against materialism.
> > > (snip)
>
> Hmmm. Ok. My perspective on objective morality when arguing with atheists is
> that of objective equals materialistically real. I do so simply to stay
> within a common set of terms. Since, like atheists, I believe in a material
> reality (but unlike atheists) in addition to a spiritual reality (dualism)
> I've found it easier to assume an argument from a proposition of materialism
> and draw the moral consequences from that POV.
I think that sounds right. If it's all matter following the laws of
physics there *isn't* any right or wrong. The laws of physics tell us
what *will* happen, but there's no such thing as being "obligated" wrt
the laws of nature.
>
>
> It sure seems to me that there are very few true materialists out there.
> Some of them can get really twisted off when I give the 'no moral progress'
> and the 'no inherent human rights' facts if their materialism were true.
Exactly. Tyranny and oppression happen, so they are consistent with
the laws of nature. Nature (as thought of by materialists) cannot tell
us what *ought* to happen.
>
>
> >
> >
> > > Why can't there be moral progress with moral subjectivism? Hume's Law:
> You
> > > can't get an *ought* from an *is*. "Oughts" have no truth-value,
> truth-apts,
> > > truth-conditions. This is the whole point of Hume's Law.
> >
> >
> > I would not agree that "oughts" have no truth value. I do agree that
> > oughts can't be *derived* from *is*.
> >
> > > For moral
> > > subjectivists, morality is bases on desire. Desires, and preferences,
> > > contain no truth-value. People contain the truth-value but not their
> > > desires/preference. To use an analogy: You might find a painting
> beautiful
> > > but I might find it ugly or undesirable. It is a true/false
> (truth-valued)
> > > statement that *you* and *I* have an aesthetic opinion about the the
> > > painting but that is a statment about *us* and not a factual statement
> about
> > > the painting.
> >
> > Here you suggest that the truth-value of moral statements is "person
> > relative".
>
> I'm a moral realist. Again, my argument is assuming materialism and bring it
> to its conclusion for Therion.
I stand corrected then:-)
>
>
> This is a complex issue. I would say that morality *is*
> > indeed relative...to SOMETHING. But that the moral truth of
> > well-formed moral statements is not person-relative. We can get into
> > this if anyone likes.
>
> Yep, morality is relative to something. And that is the big problem for
> materialism and so-called materialists. Materialism denies that something,
> that moral realism.
yes!
>
> I accept the arguments against moral relativism as sound arguments. I've
> argued with atheists who likewise accept those same philosophical arguments
> against moral relativism. Those arguments are based upon an acknowledgement
> of moral truth. In doing so, without expressing it, those arguments move
> *out* of materialism and into an implied dualism. What I find interesting is
> that when I point out this common sense to the atheist, he steadfastly
> refused to admit it. So I simply ask him to give his empirical evidence for
> moral progress acceptable to materialism.
I don't know if you are a Christian theist or not, but Christianity
makes a claim about the phenomenon you have encountered. From John
3:19,20:
"This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved
darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who
does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear
that his deeds will be exposed"
Now I don't want to enter a debate right now about Chrristianity vs.
other religions, and I do want to emphasize that Christianity teaches
that *all* of us are sinners, and that not one of us has any grounds
for self-righteously judging the moral state of our neighbors--all of
us are prone to the evil mentioned in the above passage. But I think
something like the above explains what you have experienced when
discussing things with materialists. materialists know in their heart
that morality is objective real, but they are also committed to the
belief that there's no God, that we know matter exists and that's all
that exists. But the light of reason shows that materialism and
objective morality contradict each other logically. For logical
consistency they'd have to reject one or the other, but they cannot
reject moral realism and they *will* not reject materialism.
see you later
Keith
Scott
right.
The laws of physics tell us
> what *will* happen, but there's no such thing as being "obligated" wrt
> the laws of nature.
> >
> >
> > It sure seems to me that there are very few true materialists out there.
> > Some of them can get really twisted off when I give the 'no moral
progress'
> > and the 'no inherent human rights' facts if their materialism were true.
>
> Exactly. Tyranny and oppression happen, so they are consistent with
> the laws of nature. Nature (as thought of by materialists) cannot tell
> us what *ought* to happen.
right.
Just to restate it: I am a moral realists but that by necessity requires me
to also reject materialism. If I stay within an assumption of materialism,
for atheists, I have to point out to them that there is no one way of doing
morality...hmm. properly. Materialists by necessity must default to cultural
relativism and subjectivism.
> >
> >
> > This is a complex issue. I would say that morality *is*
> > > indeed relative...to SOMETHING. But that the moral truth of
> > > well-formed moral statements is not person-relative. We can get into
> > > this if anyone likes.
> >
> > Yep, morality is relative to something. And that is the big problem for
> > materialism and so-called materialists. Materialism denies that
something,
> > that moral realism.
>
> yes!
Thank you, Keith.
Therion, you reading this? I thought you would reject objective morality but
you in fact did not. As a materialist, on what *grounding* is your knowing
objective right from wrong? Materialism denies you that ground.
> >
> > I accept the arguments against moral relativism as sound arguments. I've
> > argued with atheists who likewise accept those same philosophical
arguments
> > against moral relativism. Those arguments are based upon an
acknowledgement
> > of moral truth. In doing so, without expressing it, those arguments move
> > *out* of materialism and into an implied dualism. What I find
interesting is
> > that when I point out this common sense to the atheist, he steadfastly
> > refused to admit it. So I simply ask him to give his empirical evidence
for
> > moral progress acceptable to materialism.
>
> I don't know if you are a Christian theist or not, but Christianity
> makes a claim about the phenomenon you have encountered. From John
> 3:19,20:
Actually, I'm Catholic.
>
> "This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved
> darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who
> does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear
> that his deeds will be exposed"
>
> Now I don't want to enter a debate right now about Chrristianity vs.
> other religions, and I do want to emphasize that Christianity teaches
> that *all* of us are sinners, and that not one of us has any grounds
> for self-righteously judging the moral state of our neighbors--all of
> us are prone to the evil mentioned in the above passage. But I think
> something like the above explains what you have experienced when
> discussing things with materialists. materialists know in their heart
> that morality is objective real,
as Therion stated. And he is far from the only one to do so with me.
but they are also committed to the
> belief that there's no God, that we know matter exists and that's all
> that exists. But the light of reason shows that materialism and
> objective morality contradict each other logically.
Yep.
For logical
> consistency they'd have to reject one or the other, but they cannot
> reject moral realism and they *will* not reject materialism.
I have found this to be a fasinatingly true statement.
Arguments for Human Rights (true morality) rest upon synonymous arguments to
those for the existence of a God. Materialism cannot give an empirical
account of either. In fact, if somebody could give such an account of either
moral truth and God, they would cease being non-material reality. So
factually, the atheist who believes humans have (inherent) Rights is not a
true materialist.
>
> see you later
> Keith
You to, Keith
Scott