The Problem with Atheism

Topic: The Problem with Atheism (Read 205193 times)

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #525 – 2014-07-21, 19:06:38

I'll just let you two work this out. I believe my concept of 'proper conduct' is too general for this anyway.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #526 – 2014-07-21, 19:26:12

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #527 – 2014-07-21, 19:53:49

Biggest problem with Atheism is that it it tends to be so boring and dull.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #528 – 2014-07-21, 19:56:24

Amen

Not enough

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #529 – 2014-07-21, 20:04:32

Can't argue with that!

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #530 – 2014-07-21, 23:10:16

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #531 – 2014-07-22, 02:16:45

Oh, don't get your panties in a twist, RJ… You'll recover from your feigned faint! Your religion is no more interesting! But you seem to like dressing up and marching! Have at it, so long as you don't block traffic…

BTW: Just in case you forgot (some others may not recall…), I'm on record as averring that you're "in over your head" from the git-go — even if your birth wasn't breech.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #532 – 2014-07-22, 02:40:40

Quote from: rjhowie on 2014-07-21, 19:53:49

Biggest problem with Atheism is that it it tends to be so boring and dull.

As opposed to antagonizing your Catholic brethren in N. Ireland?

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #533 – 2014-07-22, 03:51:40

@Oakdale and Ensbb
To me the difference of our definitions of morals - for you something like social norms and nothing more - is not just a difference of definitions. For me social norms is a secondary aspect of morality. I am not even interested in discussing social norms - this is how secondary it is. The primary aspect of morality is individual conscience. Individual conscience is there whether anyone else is there or not. Whether one is doing something by oneself or with others, individual conscience is always there and functioning, demanding its share.

Moreover, individual conscience is universal - everybody has it. You can deny you have it and, yes, this would mean you don't have morality, but this is like denying the eating or sleeping instinct. You can literally deny yourself food, you can deprive yourself of sleep, but this has its natural consequences.

Cultures don't agree universally what qualifies as food. Some say pork is a no-no, some have no place for rats and frogs, while for others those are great delikatessen. Does it follow from this that food doesn't objectively exist?

Those who deny moral objectivity or moral realism, they qualify as sociopaths. *Seeming normalcy* is part of what sociopaths are about. They feign normalcy, but it's an illness, and not a social one, but individual. Lack of conscience is an individual problem. It's irrational to argue about the value of morality with sociopaths. There's a reason why they are treated medically when their illness is detected. The reason is quite objective.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #534 – 2014-07-22, 04:24:34

Normality for sure is not Morality .

Normality is like illusion .

What's Normal for a Lion , is a Nightmare for a Deer .

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #535 – 2014-07-22, 07:10:09

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-21, 19:51:40

The primary aspect of morality is individual conscience. Individual conscience is there whether anyone else is there or not. Whether one is doing something by oneself or with others, individual conscience is always there and functioning, demanding its share.
Moreover, individual conscience is universal - everybody has it.

And yet individuals' consciences disagree… So, even if you consider individual conscience objective, it's a matter of taste; or appreciation, if you'd rather. Like Wittgenstein said: "One can't feel another's toothache…"

Congratulations, ersi, you've managed to put morality on the same level as a toothache! (Or did you mis-speak?) The sociopath is -you'd have to say- one who's conscience disagrees with yours. Perhaps that's what the sociopath says, too, about you and me…

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #536 – 2014-07-22, 07:20:41

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-22, 07:10:09

Congratulations, ersi, you've managed to put morality on the same level as a toothache! (Or did you mis-speak?)

No, on the same level as sleep.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #537 – 2014-07-22, 16:10:57

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-22, 03:51:40

Moreover, individual conscience is universal - everybody has it.

Along the lines of Oakdale: This is all fine and dandy, but not of much use to a discussion of morality unless or until consciences are on or can attain the same wavelength, i.e. feel each other's toothaches. (Which brings us back to physics--j/k).

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #538 – 2014-07-22, 16:32:56

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-22, 07:10:09

Congratulations, ersi, you've managed to put morality on the same level as a toothache! (Or did you mis-speak?)

Or did you misread as usual? You know what an analogy is, don't you? Analogy doesn't have to be on the same level with what is being referred to, there just needs to be some shared essential feature. In this case, the shared essential features are immanence, universality, social impact, etc. To some high school student this does not need to be explained, but you are of course "above" that (meaning: hell-bent to deny any realism to morality).

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-22, 07:10:09

The sociopath is -you'd have to say- one who's conscience disagrees with yours. Perhaps that's what the sociopath says, too, about you and me…

The sociopath can disagree all he wants, but there's a catch: He's a sociopath. Some junk food junkie may vocally disagree with the virtues of healthy eating, but he is a living example of why not to consume junk food. In case of morality, the example is equally tangible. Laws are made based on the universal sense of right and wrong. No matter where you find yourself, right and wrong exist and you have to take note of them or you will get into trouble. Real trouble, not the sort dismissible by hand-waving or ridicule. (And, in case you are puzzled here, laws were an analogy again, an approximation, not the real deal.)

Sociopaths are not people who have some different sense of morals, as in a different culture. They are people without morals, without culture, and, in all cultures, they are dealt with accordingly. This is not based on disagreement, but based on real damage they cause to the society. Sociopaths don't have some superficially different conscience which can be ignored when most other aspects of the person are okay. Sociopaths have sick conscience or no conscience. Conscience is so central and essential to human personality that there are procedures in place to deal with the situation as soon as the problem is detected - and this is so in all cultures without exception. The measure of the problem is objective. In case of a subjective measure, the only way to determine a sociopath would be to ask the sociopath and decide on what the sociopath says, but in reality the issue can be figured out regardless if the sociopath cooperates or not, the same way as it goes with any criminal. Is crime objective or subjective?

And, re Wittgenstein, is toothache objective or subjective? When your teeth ache, will you think that your teeth are simply disagreeing with you this week but it's perfectly okay for them to have their own differing perspective? You wave your toothache off with a smile and go on with your ordinary life? These are rhetorical questions (must point this out so that you won't miss it like you missed the analogy).

Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-07-22, 16:10:57

Along the lines of Oakdale: This is all fine and dandy, but not of much use to a discussion of morality unless or until consciences are on or can attain the same wavelength, i.e. feel each other's toothaches.

Actually, shouldn't you rather make the effort to get a life without toothache? How is your toothache my problem?

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #539 – 2014-07-22, 19:35:04

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-22, 08:32:56

How is your toothache my problem?

How is your conscience my problem?

(Of course, when you would determine whose conscience matters -is a valid guide to behavior or worthy of respectful agreement or disagreement- your self-justifications become somewhat more important...) Perhaps you'd better understand, if you recognized that your individual conscience is, itself, but an analogy!

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-22, 08:32:56

You know what an analogy is, don't you?

Hm. A rhetorical device (as you describe it...). But too often an analogy becomes reified, a theory which adds too much to the object meant to be "explained". When such a theory becomes more dear than its object, all kinds of mischief portend...

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #540 – 2014-07-23, 02:51:28

Consider this:

Quote

[…] to claim that Gödel's incompleteness theorem is relevant for theories of everything (TOE) in theoretical physics [:] Gödel's theorem states that any theory that includes certain basic facts of number theory and is computably enumerable will be either incomplete or inconsistent. Since any 'theory of everything' must be consistent, it also must be incomplete.“

It is on the ultimate success of such a quest [for a TOE] that Gödel's theorem casts the shadow of judicious doubt. It seems on the strength of Gödel's theorem that the ultimate foundations of the bold symbolic constructions of mathematical physics will remain embedded forever in that deeper level of thinking characterized both by the wisdom and by the haziness of analogies and intuitions. For the speculative physicist this implies that there are limits to the precision of certainty, that even in the pure thinking of theoretical physics there is a boundary present, as in all other fields of speculations.”

— Jaki (1966). The Relevance of Physics. Chicago Press. p. 129.

What I think you lack -or greatly fear- my friend, ersi, is anything that functions as what I underlined above…

In another thread (since abandoned?), you wanted me to defend (or explain) nominalism to you: I did so above, but you might have missed it…

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-22, 19:35:04

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-22, 08:32:56
How is your toothache my problem?

How is your conscience my problem? (Of course, when you would determine whose conscience matters -is a valid guide to behavior or worthy of respectful agreement or disagreement- your self-justifications become somewhat more important...) Perhaps you'd better understand, if you recognized that your individual conscience is, itself, but an analogy! [proximate underlining added]
Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-22, 08:32:56
You know what an analogy is, don't you?

Hm. A rhetorical device (as you describe it...). But too often an analogy becomes reified, a theory which adds too much to the object meant to be "explained". When such a theory becomes more dear than its object, all kinds of mischief portend...

Why can't we agree to disagree?
We speak different languages, live on different continents, and -it sometimes seems to me- on different planets! And we have actual disagreements…?

You'd like to teach me, and I'd like to teach you. Can we agree on that?!
What is it that we'd each teach?
You'd teach a dogma that pleases… I'd teach an analytical technique that might teach us something.

Why must conscience be objectified? Are people too stupid to understand what we mean when we talk about moral issues? (Issues that evoke "moral" reactions…) Or are we (some of us) too insecure to say what we expect and require?

Nominalism is a good starting point…for such a discussion.

Making atheism but yet another religious persuasion doesn't help: Sects and violence always go together, if they don't put great geographical distances between themselves.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #541 – 2014-07-23, 03:53:42

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-23, 02:51:28

Consider this:

Quote

...casts the shadow of judicious doubt...
What I think you lack -or greatly fear- my friend, ersi, is anything that functions as what I underlined above…

Actually, you lack it - critical thinking -, and this is plain in the rest of your post.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-23, 02:51:28

In another thread (since abandoned?), you wanted me to defend (or explain) nominalism to you: I did so above, but you might have missed it…

Repost it then. I usually notice a full argument. I should particularly notice it when it comes from you, because it would be earth-shatteringly different from your usual behaviour. I believe at best you (thought you) showed the emptiness of some common-sense experience again - without further comment on why the experience persists anyway. This is what you do at your so-called best, and of course I don't agree with that.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-23, 02:51:28

Why can't we agree to disagree?
We speak different languages, live on different continents, and -it sometimes seems to me- on different planets! And we have actual disagreements…?

You'd like to teach me, and I'd like to teach you. Can we agree on that?!

Sure, we can agree that we both want to teach each other a lesson, but there's this thing: One of us actually has something to teach, while the other has nothing. This is why we can hardly agree on anything else.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-23, 02:51:28

Why must conscience be objectified? Are people too stupid to understand what we mean when we talk about moral issues? (Issues that evoke "moral" reactions…) Or are we (some of us) too insecure to say what we expect and require?

What is at issue is precisely if conscience is a real object or merely objectified but inherently nothing. I have demonstrated my case. You have demonstrated nothing.

This is a methodical failure with you - you never give a full argument. As you know, plain assertions cannot touch a full argument. If you have a different case to make, make it. Obviously I would give a critical review of your case, but if you are afraid of that, then you have really absolutely nothing to teach me. You only serve as an example to avoid.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-23, 02:51:28

Nominalism is a good starting point…for such a discussion.

Maybe, if you demonstrated it. Just for once really demonstrate something. Anything. Considering morality, you do your usual thing again: I set forth a theory, you ridicule it without offering any alternative (a plain assertion that conscience is merely objectified is not a full moral theory - surely we can agree on that), thus leaving the inevitable impression that you ridicule all morality full stop.

I am ready to believe that it's your personal problem, not a problem with nominalism itself, but as soon as you mention nominalism here and keep on demonstrating nothing, then it becomes also the problem for nominalism as you represent it. You represent it as a secret tacit dogma behind everything you say. It is an esoteric religion that should not be revealed overtly to the unworthy, such as the members of DnD...

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-23, 02:51:28

Making atheism but yet another religious persuasion doesn't help:...

It would help if you behaved open-mindedly with your dogmas, if you demonstrated a modicum of rational examination of them. Prove that atheism is not yet another religious persuasion. You like to simply say things, but what is needed is definite proof.

It's not my problem that you accepted all your dogmas uncritically and now cannot back them up with anything. It would be my problem if I went about things the same way. You want to teach, but you teach as a warning example.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #542 – 2014-07-23, 03:59:30

it is always easy to find another people mistakes .

but to fix it , is not an easy task .

and fix every people , is not your Job .

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #543 – 2014-07-23, 05:59:51

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-22, 19:53:42

what is needed is definite proof

Oh, I definitely disagree! Unless God spoke -personally!- to you, you don't have "definite proof" and, unless you have convincing arguments, you don't have convincing proofs. What are you, then, left with? Those few words that you'd repeat endlessly, as mantra, to occupy your time. If you were a mystic (and hermit, as most mystics are) or a guru (as most charlatans are) I'd attack your assault on everyday life… But you claim to be something else: A philosopher!
You want (both senses!) definite proof… Why?
Is life, for you, so dull, drab and delimiting that you have to have more?

I've long restrained myself from the obvious comment about Plotinus's "philosophy": Is it more than a bad reaction to a traumatic potty-training?

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #544 – 2014-07-23, 06:06:34

Perhaps we should start bailing now? This boat is going down.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #545 – 2014-07-23, 06:14:03

No need: Much of the briny deep and what lies on the ocean's bottom is prosaic. If we spent less time confusing ourselves we'd not be so confounded!

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #546 – 2014-07-23, 06:52:41

I said something to you very similar to that once.

You both are more alike than either one of you are prepared to admit. Maybe not in ideas, but in other ways... Like tendencies to be grandiose in an either/or kind of style.

What's funny, and I don't mean to direct this at anyone, as a general rule debates over morality always end leaning toward amoral behavior. I was building toward a point regarding our basic instincts... Suddenly there's no need. (But hey, my simpler style of building to a point over the course of many posts never gets too much merit from either of y'all... Too much more in common and y'all will have to be friends. No?

)

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #547 – 2014-07-23, 08:45:49

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-07-23, 05:59:51

Is life, for you, so dull, drab and delimiting that you have to have more?

There's no enough more, there's no more-o-meter...
Different people have different levels of contentment and/or intellectual satisfaction and I suppose there's nothing wrong with that.
That's why people are not born equal.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #548 – 2014-07-23, 10:42:53

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-23, 03:53:42

Prove that atheism is not yet another religious persuasion.

Shouldn't it be the other way around? Prove that it is another religious persuasion.
But it goes down to the exact definition of that atheism.
I'm an atheist, and I don't want to persuade anyone. It proves that atheism is not yet another religious persuasion. Or else it proves that I'm not related to your kind of atheism. "No true scotsman" comes into the scene, and that is quite easy.

Re: The Problem with Atheism

Reply #549 – 2014-07-23, 17:56:43

Quote from: ersi on 2014-07-22, 16:32:56

Actually, shouldn't you rather make the effort to get a life without toothache? How is your toothache my problem?

Oh sure, and then you follow with a definition of analogy, but you can't follow through the analogy that understanding the moral consciences (toothaches), of others is relevant. That's like saying "I have no moral opinion on the genitalia of young women getting sliced off because that's not my problem".