Are you a secularist

Fudbucker said:
No, I'm asking "does good art exist?"

Someone claimed good art doesn't exist. That's absurd. Do you agree with that claim?
Click to expand...

No, some of it is very good for starting fires quickly, all those oils and old wood.
 
Fudbucker said:
Should the U.S. invade Mexico and enslave all its people?

There's really only three answers to that question: "Yes", "No", or "I don't understand the question".

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say "no", even though I haven't defined "should" in any way.

Do you agree that the answer to my question is "no", even though we haven't said one thing about the word "should"?
Click to expand...

That depends on your definition of "should".

It really isn't complicated. You have to define the system you are using to calculate moral value before you can demand an answer to it. You have done so, inside the confines of your own head. You have a definition of "should".
 
Nonpareil said:
Yes. Yes, you did.
Click to expand...


Running away again. Fail #6.

Here are the issues:

GDon said:
What about the morality of, say, late-term abortion of a healthy foetus? It is a life-style decision. Assume no health problems for mother or child, and no population problem generally. I'm curious how the morality of this is scientifically answerable, if indeed it is.
Click to expand...

angrysoba said:
Or murder? Is murder wrong? What does science say?
Click to expand...


Morality and murder

Resolve the issues exclusively using the epistemology of science.

If something isn’t defined…define it using the epistemology of science.

…or admit you can’t.

You’re embarrassing yourself mightily here Nonpareil. You claimed science is the only thing that works.

...now you never stop running away from the consequences of that claim.
 
Nonpareil said:
That depends on your definition of "should".

It really isn't complicated. You have to define the system you are using to calculate moral value before you can demand an answer to it. You have done so, inside the confines of your own head. You have a definition of "should".
Click to expand...

I agree. The answer is "no, the U.S. should not invade Mexico and enslave it's people". The question is easily understood and the answer is obvious. Nothing more needs to be said.

As a teacher, I'm asked "should" questions all the time. Not once have I ever had to define "should" to get my point across that No, Johnny, you shouldn't hit Billy because he called you fat.

In other words, people who demand that "should" be defined know perfectly well what it means, and no one ever tells the cop "define should" when he tells you you shouldn't have been driving 60 in a residential zone.
 
Fudbucker said:
I agree. The answer is "no, the U.S. should not invade Mexico and enslave it's people". The question is easily understood and the answer is obvious. Nothing more needs to be said.
Click to expand...

The question is easily understood in common conversation because you share the societal moral system.

The point is not that you cannot define "should". It is exactly the opposite. You do, so quickly and easily that you don't have to think about it. You are intimately familiar with your own system of morality.

Telling science to define that system for you, meanwhile, is nonsensical. Moral value is not objective. All moral codes are, at the most basic level, arbitrary, as are all statements of worth. No particle of goodness or beauty exists. The Mona Lisa is no more objectively beautiful than a snuff film, and Mother Theresa was no more objectively good than Hitler.

All of these things are opinions. The system you use to determine those opinions might be common in your society or unique to you, but it is still, at its most basic level, arbitrary; "murder is wrong" means nothing unless "wrong" has been defined, which requires that you operate within a moral system that defines it.

Once the system is in place, science can answer the question trivially easily, but you still have to define your terms. In the same way, you coukd ask "is the sun big?" and get the rejoinder "what's big?", because "big" is arbitrary. Is a cell big? Compared to an atom, certainly, but not to a building.

You want a scientific answer to "is murder wrong?" Then all you have to do is define "wrong".

Which, like I said, isn't hard.
 
Nonpareil said:
The question is easily understood in common conversation because you share the societal moral system.

The point is not that you cannot define "should". It is exactly the opposite. You do, so quickly and easily that you don't have to think about it. You are intimately familiar with your own system of morality.

Telling science to define that system for you, meanwhile, is nonsensical. Moral value is not objective. All moral codes are, at the most basic level, arbitrary, as are all statements of worth. No particle of goodness or beauty exists. The Mona Lisa is no more objectively beautiful than a snuff film, and Mother Theresa was no more objectively good than Hitler.

All of these things are opinions. The system you use to determine those opinions might be common in your society or unique to you, but it is still, at its most basic level, arbitrary; "murder is wrong" means nothing unless "wrong" has been defined, which requires that you operate within a moral system that defines it.

Once the system is in place, science can answer the question trivially easily, but you still have to define your terms. In the same way, you coukd ask "is the sun big?" and get the rejoinder "what's big?", because "big" is arbitrary. Is a cell big? Compared to an atom, certainly, but not to a building.

You want a scientific answer to "is murder wrong?" Then all you have to do is define "wrong".

Which, like I said, isn't hard.
Click to expand...


...so use your ONE TRUE EPISTEMOLOGY and define it then!

Nothing else works. Remember. Your very words.

...we are at fail #6. All you have to do is prove that your claims are not a fraud and we'll avoid fail #7. Prove that the OTE can deal with something as insignificant as defining morality.

Cause if it can't...then it's not even close to being the one...true...epistemology.
 
Fudbucker said:
So the statement "a billion monkeys live on Venus" is valid? Each term in that statement is "well defined".
Click to expand...
The question Do a billion monkeys live on Venus? is valid, and the answer is No.

The statement A billion monkeys live on Venus is well-formed, but false.

Regardless of how you intended your remark, this is in fact what I was driving at: That sort of statement (or question) with properly defined terms, can be addressed scientifically.

Statements (or questions) with undefined terms can't be addressed at all.

And normative statements (or questions) have undefined terms by their very nature. Once they are properly defined, they can be addressed scientifically... And they're no longer normative.
 
Last edited:
Fudbucker said:
Should the U.S. invade Mexico and enslave all its people?
Click to expand...
Define "should".

There's really only three answers to that question: "Yes", "No", or "I don't understand the question".
Click to expand...
The question has no meaning. Your terms are undefined.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say "no", even though I haven't defined "should" in any way.
Click to expand...
Then you have no basis for your answer.

Do you agree that the answer to my question is "no", even though we haven't said one thing about the word "should"?
Click to expand...
Define "should".
 
Fudbucker said:
No, I'm asking "does good art exist?"
Click to expand...
Define "good". You may also want to define "art", though we can accept a common dictionary definition on that if you like.

Someone claimed good art doesn't exist. That's absurd. Do you agree with that claim?
Click to expand...
Define "good". Optionally, define "art". Your statement has no meaning.
 
annnnoid said:
...so use your ONE TRUE EPISTEMOLOGY and define it then!
Click to expand...
So, what you are asking from us is is not only to answer your question, but to formulate and ask it as well? And leave you out of the process entirely?

I'm fine with that. Everyone else? Show of hands?
 
PixyMisa said:
So, what you are asking from us is is not only to answer your question, but to formulate and ask it as well? And leave you out of the process entirely?

I'm fine with that. Everyone else? Show of hands?
Click to expand...

:clap:
 
Nonpareil said:
The question is easily understood in common conversation because you share the societal moral system.

The point is not that you cannot define "should". It is exactly the opposite. You do, so quickly and easily that you don't have to think about it. You are intimately familiar with your own system of morality.

Telling science to define that system for you, meanwhile, is nonsensical. Moral value is not objective. All moral codes are, at the most basic level, arbitrary, as are all statements of worth. No particle of goodness or beauty exists. The Mona Lisa is no more objectively beautiful than a snuff film, and Mother Theresa was no more objectively good than Hitler.

All of these things are opinions. The system you use to determine those opinions might be common in your society or unique to you, but it is still, at its most basic level, arbitrary; "murder is wrong" means nothing unless "wrong" has been defined, which requires that you operate within a moral system that defines it.

Once the system is in place, science can answer the question trivially easily, but you still have to define your terms. In the same way, you coukd ask "is the sun big?" and get the rejoinder "what's big?", because "big" is arbitrary. Is a cell big? Compared to an atom, certainly, but not to a building.

You want a scientific answer to "is murder wrong?" Then all you have to do is define "wrong".

Which, like I said, isn't hard.
Click to expand...

Take that up with those atheists, who claim that they can do objective morality/ethics and then figure out who are the woo-believers. Is subjective or objective morality/ethics woo?
 
Last edited:
I am slow. But now I get it.

How you define right and wrong can't be done using the scientific methodology, but once you subjectively and without the use of science has defined right and wrong, you can use it(science).

So how do you know how to define right and wrong, if you can't use science to do that?

Edit: Clarification - If you know how to define right and wrong but you don't use the scientific epistemology, you use another epistemology. Or if you don't know how to define right and wrong, you believe in right and wrong without evidence and thus you are irrational.
 
Last edited:
Tommy Jeppesen said:
I am slow. But now I get it.

How you define right and wrong can't be done using the scientific methodology, but once you subjectively and without the use of science has defined right and wrong, you can use it(science).
Click to expand...
Science can of course be used to define words. But you have to actually decide to use science for that.

So how do you know how to define right and wrong, if you can't use science to do that?
Click to expand...
It's very simple: If you don't know what a word means, don't use it.
 
There's some confusion in this discussion.

What I think PixyMisa is saying is that some moral questions aren't objectively meaningful. I do think they're meaningful, but they're subjective and not descriptive.

I can work on a definition of "wrong", but it would rely on a set of personal opinions and maybe heuristics on how to solve my conflicts and my interaction with the rest of the society, all of which ultimately depends on my preferences. To sum up, wrongness doesn't exist independently of our brains. I only can be meaningful with "right" or "wrong" when I confine it within myself as an individual.

Of course science can't answer rightness and wrongness, or "shoulds", as if they were meaningful. Not all the words we use have to be objectively useful. People like Sam Harris are too obsessed with this triviality and rush to claim victory for science in one of the most inane endeavors I remember from a public intellectual. No, thanks. Science works precisely because it has some restrictions: it's about the objective reality.
 
Dani said:
There's some confusion in this discussion.

What I think PixyMisa is saying is that some moral questions aren't objectively meaningful. I do think they're meaningful, but they're subjective and not descriptive.

I can work on a definition of "wrong", but it would rely on a set of personal opinions and maybe heuristics on how to solve my conflicts and my interaction with the rest of the society, all of which ultimately depends on my preferences. To sum up, wrongness doesn't exist independently of our brains. I only can be meaningful with "right" or "wrong" when I confine it within myself as an individual.

Of course science can't answer rightness and wrongness, or "shoulds", as if they were meaningful. Not all the words we use have to be objectively useful. People like Sam Harris are too obsessed with this triviality and rush to claim victory for science in one of the most inane endeavors I remember from a public intellectual. No, thanks. Science works precisely because it has some restrictions: it's about the objective reality.
Click to expand...


...no...what Pixy has repeatedly argued is that if it is not objectively meaningful...it is simply not meaningful. If it can't be scientifically adjudicated, it is simply not valid.

...as absurd a position as can be taken in this internet obsessed world (where subjective expression runs rampant). You can take it up with him. I have other things to do today.
 
Nonpareil said:
Yes, annnnoid, we know that you don't understand what an epistemology is or what it's for. You don't have to keep repeating yourself.
Click to expand...


...no definition for morality. Not even an attempt.

Fail #7.

Your one-true-epistemology is sure making a fool of itself here Nonpareil.
 
Dani said:
There's some confusion in this discussion.

What I think PixyMisa is saying is that some moral questions aren't objectively meaningful.
Click to expand...
No, I'm really saying that normative questions have no meaning.

I do think they're meaningful, but they're subjective and not descriptive.

I can work on a definition of "wrong", but it would rely on a set of personal opinions and maybe heuristics on how to solve my conflicts and my interaction with the rest of the society, all of which ultimately depends on my preferences. To sum up, wrongness doesn't exist independently of our brains. I only can be meaningful with "right" or "wrong" when I confine it within myself as an individual.
Click to expand...
If you can explicitly state your personal opinions and heuristics, that works too. But if you don't know what they are, then asking whether something is "wrong" isn't meaningful - you don't know what the question means, and you can't understand the answer.
 
Dani said:
There's some confusion in this discussion.

What I think PixyMisa is saying is that some moral questions aren't objectively meaningful. I do think they're meaningful, but they're subjective and not descriptive.

I can work on a definition of "wrong", but it would rely on a set of personal opinions and maybe heuristics on how to solve my conflicts and my interaction with the rest of the society, all of which ultimately depends on my preferences. To sum up, wrongness doesn't exist independently of our brains. I only can be meaningful with "right" or "wrong" when I confine it within myself as an individual.

Of course science can't answer rightness and wrongness, or "shoulds", as if they were meaningful. Not all the words we use have to be objectively useful. People like Sam Harris are too obsessed with this triviality and rush to claim victory for science in one of the most inane endeavors I remember from a public intellectual. No, thanks. Science works precisely because it has some restrictions: it's about the objective reality.
Click to expand...

Well, yes.

Now within
  • Metaphysical materialism
  • Logic, but no over-reductive logic (and math)
  • Epistemology; empiricism, skepticism, no rationalism and no foundationalism
there are still 3 related, but separate kinds of computation as processes in a brain and <beep> the mind/consciousness because that leads to nothing but woo ;)
  • Observation or rather sensation through the senses.
  • Objective thinking (logic, math and rational descriptions).
  • Subjective evaluation of right/good/useful and wrong/bad/useless.

Now they are all material and requires a brain/body, but they can't be reduced down to only one kind of right or wrong.

That is it and all this jazz about objective, rational, logic, observation and objective evidence overlooks the 3rd kind of right or wrong.

If we are to be honest, we can't avoid subjective evaluation. We can avoid God and all the rest of the woo, but we can't reduce all down to logic, rational and objective observation and evidence.
You are irrational if you think that is possible.

So for the claim - You are wrong - depends of what kind of wrong, we are dealing with. And yes, people can be in a sense wrong about observation, logic, being rational and all that. But people can never be wrong about morality and ethics, because that is not something they are or do. That is something you think/feel!!!

I am looking at you, PixyMisa and your "we know, that you are wrong". You can't know that another human is wrong or right in a moral/ethical sense, because you can't know this through observation, logic and/or rationality. You only know moral/ethical right and wrong based on how you think/feel. It is subjective and can't be made purely objective. If and only if you believe that you can do morality/ethics purely objectively, you are irrational.
You can learn to do morality/ethics differently through indirect means based on science, philosophy and all that; i.e. it can inform you differently than if you don't use it, but the Holy Grail of purely objective methodology is not possible for all of reality. :)
 
Last edited:
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Logic, but no over-reductive logic (and math)
Click to expand...
What is this "over-reductive logic"?

I am looking at you, PixyMisa and your "we know, that you are wrong". You can't know that another human is wrong or right in a moral/ethical sense, because you can't know this through observation, logic and/or rationality.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Of course you can. You just have to define your terms.
 
Tommy Jeppesen said:
Take that up with those atheists, who claim that they can do objective morality/ethics
Click to expand...

No, they don't.

Tommy Jeppesen said:
Is subjective or objective morality/ethics woo?
Click to expand...

No, but it is arbitrary.

EDIT: Slight misread on my part, as I just woke up. Subjective morality is arbitrary but not woo. Claims of an objective morality - such as would have to exist if you wanted a universal definition - are woo.

Which is why science isn't going to get you a definition. Because you're making it up.
 
Last edited:
PixyMisa said:
What is this "over-reductive logic"?


Wrong. Of course you can. You just have to define your terms.
Click to expand...

Now in a purely objective sense how do you define your terms? You can't because the very act of the definition of right and wrong is subjective as something you do.

As to over-reductive logic it is logic with exclusion of time and space.
E.g.:
You define for a given context including you and I something right as to morality/ethics.
I define for the same context including you and I something wrong as to morality/ethics.
Now this context is not one in the strong sense, because it includes you and I as separate in time/space and your definition of right doesn't take place at the same time/space as my definition of wrong.
Remember we are in the same general area of time/space and thus included as parts of the same context, but it is no literally one context.

So how do you with knowledge know that your definition of that it is right is right and my definition of that it is wrong is wrong? You don't, because you can't know that I am wrong, unless you reduce away time/space and declare that both definitions is at the same time/space and in the same sense. But that is what they are not. Your definitions of right and wrong as to morality/ethics can never be at the same time/space as mine.

You see we are both a part of reality but we are not the same. So you can't use logic on 2 or more peoples definitions of right and wrong.
More later
 
Last edited:
Dani said:
There's some confusion in this discussion.

What I think PixyMisa is saying is that some moral questions aren't objectively meaningful. I do think they're meaningful, but they're subjective and not descriptive.
Click to expand...

Of course they're meaningful. They occupy our mind more than any other questions.

Should we send troops to fight ISIS is a lot more of an issue than the study of the mating habits of some newly discovered species.

Any framework that asserts that "should" statements are meaningless has already failed the first test- we know they have meaning. The question is, what kind of meaning do they have? How can we best arrive at the right answers?
 
PixyMisa said:
Define "good". You may also want to define "art", though we can accept a common dictionary definition on that if you like.


Define "good". Optionally, define "art". Your statement has no meaning.
Click to expand...

Pixy, you must wander through life in a haze of ill defined terms and concepts. How have you survived this long? After all, "you shouldn't play in traffic" is a meaningless statement.
 
In short:

For one context as to moral/ethical right/wrong-
Person X defines A is right and not wrong
Person Y defines A is wrong and not right

Is that a contradiction?
 
Fudbucker said:
Should the U.S. invade Mexico and enslave all its people?

There's really only three answers to that question: "Yes", "No", or "I don't understand the question".

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say "no", even though I haven't defined "should" in any way.
Click to expand...
You haven't defined "enslave", "all", "its" and "people" either. Get to it!
 
Craig B said:
You haven't defined "enslave", "all", "its" and "people" either. Get to it!
Click to expand...

[dark irony/reductio ad absurdum]You haven't defined, explained, described and given valid objective evidence for the objective fact, that your usage of define is not woo, idealism/dualism, religious, pseudo-science and so on. In short you don't think like us therefore you are wrong and if you claim this is an invalid deduction, you are nitpicking words. We don't like that and it is irrelevant that it is a subjective feeling/emotion, because we are rational, logical, scientific, objective and experts for all matter for all fields for all aspects of reality.
You don't understand how reality works, if you are not exactly like us. And that is not ingroup-psychology, because psychology is not relevant for us. We are rational!!![/dark irony/reductio ad absurdum]

Irrational rationalists are such fun :D ;) ;)
 
Last edited:
Some of this stuff reminds me of Logical Positivism, where the proponents insisted that everything had to be defined exhaustively and that only scientifically verifiable propositions were meaningful.

Unfortunately the project had to be abandoned when they realized they could not verify anything or define simple terms such as cause or many other terms.
 
angrysoba said:
Some of this stuff reminds me of Logical Positivism, where the proponents insisted that everything had to be defined exhaustively and that only scientifically verifiable propositions were meaningful.

Unfortunately the project had to be abandoned when they realized they could not verify anything or define simple terms such as cause or many other terms.
Click to expand...

Only scientifically verifiable propositions are meaningful.

The problem is that the proposition "Only scientifically verifiable propositions are meaningful" is not meaningful according to itself as this proposition is not scientifically verifiable :D

It happens every time we play one and only one methodology. Here is an Internet example:
Someone: I only accept non-subjective evidence.
The problem is that the acceptance is subjective and there can be no non-subjective evidence for it :D

A constructed example:
Someone: I only accept logic claims.
Me: Is that logical?

Any variant of the "Holy Grail" of one and only one methodology for all of reality breaks down in contact with everyday reality the moment someone can think/feel differently. It has a name, it is cognitive relativism and is related to moral/ethical relativism/subjectivism.

Someone: I don't like subjectivity.
Me: That is subjective :D
And off to la-la land we go...
 
Fudbucker said:
Of course they're meaningful. They occupy our mind more than any other questions.

Should we send troops to fight ISIS is a lot more of an issue than the study of the mating habits of some newly discovered species.
Click to expand...
That doesn't imply that the question is meaningful.

Any framework that asserts that "should" statements are meaningless has already failed the first test- we know they have meaning.
Click to expand...
So then: What does your example mean?

The question is, what kind of meaning do they have? How can we best arrive at the right answers?
Click to expand...
Define "right".
 
PixyMisa said:
An internally consistent finite set of symbolic references.
Click to expand...


The gospel according to the One-True-Epistemology!!!!

...no doubt that is precisely what everyone means when they describe another person as being very 'meaningful' to them.

Why don't you enlighten us Pixy...do you have anyone in your life who is 'meaningful' to you?

...if so...do you actually understand a meaningful relationship in those insane terms! I'd be happy to acknowledge you as the high-priest of the church of the One-True-Epistemology...but are you actually going to suggest you explicitly function according to that variety of meaning (ooops, sorry, internally consistent set of finite references)?

...y'see Pixy. You can either acknowledge the beyond-utter-stupidity of that conclusion (because it is, quite simply, beyond utterly stupid)...that someone is NOT 'meaningful' to you...they ARE "An internally consistent finite set of symbolic references"

...or you can acknowledge that you...like every other human being on the planet...utilizes an alternate epistemology...

...and...therefore...the One-True-Epitemology is not the One...True...Epistemology.

Case...closed.

But I'm betting you'll just run away from this one as well.
 
PixyMisa said:
You set your straw man on fire. Well done, I guess.
Click to expand...

So you are an expert for all terms for all fields. And as can be seen you know that it is my straw man and not a part of the history of philosophy. You have just rewritten history by thinking it is my straw man.
So now I like evidence since you know philosophy that it is my straw man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom