|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
20th February 2019, 01:23 AM | #281 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
But that's not what I said. I said that unless he did that, then you have no business building him into some authority figure that lends value to some postulate. You're doing a textbook case of the appeal to false authority fallacy.
I thought we were. Pointing out flaws in some nonsense does qualify as discussing it, last I checked. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
20th February 2019, 01:34 AM | #282 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
Also, just to make one thing clear: several of Dostoevsky's claims actually trespass quite overtly on the domain of actual sciences, like sociology, psychology and neuroscience. So, yes, not only they CAN be discussed in terms of actual science, they ARE in the domain of actual sciences. And any figure of authority on the domain of those claims would, yes, have to be from those sciences.
You can't back into "oh, but it's not science" just because you can't deal with the actual science. Just like the truthers don't get to discuss their nonsense outside of actual physics just because they can't understand the actual physics, you don't get to do that about Dostoevsky's claims about human psychology either. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
20th February 2019, 02:01 AM | #283 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
You not keeping track isn't my problem. I pointed out what the evidence points pretty firmly to when it comes to the nature of morality and that very much applies here.
Let's dissect this more directly, though, to make things easier for you. This is misleading. Not all social conventions hold the same weight or have roots that are as widespread as others. What this does is lump together, say, a social convention of wearing a bow tie to a kid's 4th birthday, which we'll say was a superficial fad in a small town for a couple years for the sake of this example, and a social convention that one shouldn't throw other people's babies off a cliff, which has a much, much stronger basis and is likely to be effectively permanent and universal among humans (with exceptions for populations that genocides are being committed against). There can be a couple answers here depending on what specific meaning of "rational criterion" is being invoked. As it stands, though, there's a very important question that needs asked. "Which values and goals are actually being preferred and why?" This is little more than an emptily asserted answer to that question. What's worse is that this answer demands inconsistency or whimsical arbitrariness in the judging criteria. Game theory, for example, helps to show that the field is immensely wider. As an aside, this doesn't actually offer an alternative to the primary version of Abrahamic "objective morality." In that, it's "objective" exactly because "God/Allah" is enforcing it with violence and coercion. ETA: He overestimates Critias, then. Reminds me of "Tide goes in. Tide goes out. You can't explain that!" |
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
20th February 2019, 08:19 AM | #284 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
|
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
20th February 2019, 10:18 AM | #285 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 820
|
Glad to participate. I agree that the context of the perception of being loved will direct the outcome. When people experience this (particularly for the first time, or in contrast to what they are accustomed to) in a religious setting, it becomes, for them, a reason to believe. I also agree that the ends don't always justify the means, though I think there could be an interesting (and possibly endless) thread on the contextual nuances of that idea too
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Sounds good . I won't shy away from the occasional "tsk, tsk", but I'll try to check my own interpretive presumptions as well. I do try to do that in general, so I am curious now whether others (religious or non-religious) also interpreted the tone the same way I did, or if I need to re-evaluate my biases more carefully.
Quote:
|
20th February 2019, 10:35 AM | #286 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 820
|
Sounds like an agreement except in matter of degree I have no objection to your objection. I didn't intend to claim a single reason, just a contribution and only as a matter of my opinion. If you're willing, I'd be interested to know what you feel the more important factors are/were.
Quote:
Quote:
|
20th February 2019, 11:36 AM | #287 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
Just a little FYI. When I started this thread I only added two search Tag keyword phrases. They were something like "should I believe" and "why believe" (can't remember exactly). Anything else that was added was done so by Mods or the forum software. I see that the Tags now only say "None" so Mods must have removed them all (I didn't). Perhaps one of the Mods might like to explain on this thread why they did this, and who or what added additional Tags? (just curious)
I see some Tag boxes on other threads contain "!MOD BOX WARNING! ". Wonder what that means? |
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
20th February 2019, 01:45 PM | #288 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 820
|
That is interesting, but I meant to refer to the lines that follow your posts (sorry, I'm probably not using the correct term): "Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos." and "Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated." I think a theist seeing those following an invitation to share something personal about the reasoning behind their belief might get the impression they are being lead into a trap.
|
20th February 2019, 01:50 PM | #289 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
I don’t accept your caveat is valid (sorry about that ).
You don’t have to be a theist to be affected by religion. A “problem” the “God” religion uniquely creates and offers to “solve” is that all people are by default nasty sinners from birth, and that if they don't "solve" that problem by believing in and worshiping "God", their lives will end in eternal torture. This religion created slur-attack/threat on people’s self-image/esteem has an effect on many atheists that aren’t “hard-atheists” like myself. Rather than ”being loved by God“ I think it’s more likely “being saved by God”, and “being rewarded by God” are common motivators why some atheists become theists. From my perspective, more people seem to be scared/threatened and enticed/bribed into religion than any other reasons. I don’t expect any theist to agree, but some might. |
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
20th February 2019, 02:08 PM | #290 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
They're called "signatures".
My signatures are merely a shorthand version of what I (and other atheists) regularly express in more detail in posts. Theists that aren't going to respond because they don't like my signatures probably aren't going to respond anyway because they also wouldn't like my posts. I think my posts are "worse" than my signatures . I don't know if any other atheists give a toss what theists put in their signatures, but I certainly don't. If theists do give a toss as you suggest, then it highlights the emotional PC extent of their beliefs that they apparently want to impose on others. |
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
20th February 2019, 02:18 PM | #291 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 820
|
no problem. Makes the discussion more interesting
Quote:
Quote:
|
20th February 2019, 02:27 PM | #292 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,897
|
|
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
20th February 2019, 02:32 PM | #293 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 481
|
I see what you (and Thor2) mean, but to get into it requires theodicy (reconciling the existence of evil with a loving omnipotent God - not that I am calling atheists evil, I mean that if one believes God exists then not believing in God is a false belief which is therefore not good, it is the false belief that is bad not the person). Which is an interesting discussion including things like e.g. if someone is atheist in part because of how religious people have treated them (or in some cases abused them), it's not their choice, but it is influenced by the actions taken by others exercising their own free will and making wrong choices.
But re the atheism itself not being sinful, the way I've heard it expressed: Rejecting God = sinful because it's a choice. Not believing in (monotheistic) God = not rejecting but just not believing = not sinful because not a choice. Being wilfully blind/close-minded does have aspects of rejection, and therefore does have a moral dimension. But ignoring someone angrily shouting bible verses at you is not being close-minded! |
20th February 2019, 02:34 PM | #294 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 820
|
Ah. Thanks. Signatures.
I was with you up until the highlighted bit. I think the signatures suggest you have already made up your mind absolutely about theism and that you are prepared (and likely) to strongly refute anything anyone chooses to share. There's no problem doing that (one should expect it on a skeptics forum), but I expect many theist would decline the invitation. It feels a bit too much like "hey fishy, come swim in this nice barrel over here while I check the sights on my rifle" I'm not sure how declining to participate could be an imposition of beliefs on others. |
20th February 2019, 02:41 PM | #295 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
Surely testimony only happens after you are a theist. I don't see how you can have a a perception of a god's love without first having a belief that a loving god exists. From what I understand, religions have a constant "God is love, God loves you" mantra that any "new recruit" is bound to adopt, repeat and celebrate, regardless of what motivated them to believe in a god to begin with.
I'm suggesting that the victim mentality of accepting they have a problem merely because someone else says they do can cause poor self-image/esteem. That other non-religious things can also do this is irrelevant. Two wrongs don't make a right |
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
20th February 2019, 03:23 PM | #296 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
A theist voluntarily choosing to be an active member on a "Sceptics Forum" in which most members are obviously atheists (some strongly so) is a fish voluntarily jumping into the barrel don't you think?
But let's examine my signatures . . . "Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos." Many theists I know don't accept that god beliefs are paranormal beliefs, so doesn't have to be taken as relating to god beliefs at all. Doesn't mention god beliefs. "Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated" An attempt at a humorous parody of the well known "Rumours of my death . . . " quote. It's not like it's overtly saying "God doesn't exist" or "God beliefs are crap". My posts by far more overtly represent my response to religion than my comparatively benign forum signatures do. How many people even read forum signatures? Is Thor 2's "Thinking is a faith hazard" signature any better or worse than mine? |
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
20th February 2019, 03:27 PM | #297 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Tiny town west of Brisbane.
Posts: 7,174
|
Can't follow this sorry.
Quote:
I struggle with the idea that someone can believe in God but reject him. Do you really think it's true that some folk can believe God exists, (God being an all powerful being, who has the final say about salvation or damnation), and thumb their noses at him? |
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard. |
|
20th February 2019, 03:35 PM | #298 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
|
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
20th February 2019, 04:01 PM | #299 |
Philosopher
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Tiny town west of Brisbane.
Posts: 7,174
|
Well some do decide to show their lot in with The Devil we hear. Perhaps they think a reward awaits them as chosen folk, when they make it down to the fiery place. Get to be a stoker rather than the fuel perhaps, or maybe get promoted to the ranks of Demons. I imagine this may hold some allure if you get to flit around from one tormented soul to another. Sure beats harp playing and grovelling for eternity. Oh rats! I've answered the thorny question I asked epeeist myself. |
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard. |
|
20th February 2019, 04:44 PM | #300 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
He thinks not believing in god is a faith or belief. There are a surprising number of theists that think this. I think it's origin as an idea comes from the presuppositionalists who think that we all without exception really believe in their particular god but are in denial/misguided/evil/possessed. The thought is (or seems to be from epeeist's version of it) that we all as humans have a faith compenent intrinsic to our very beings. No exceptions. From that perspective, atheists have simply substituted something else in which to have faith because that faith component must be filled by something, even egotism or hedonism or my personal favourite, the love of sinning, which is all kinds of messed up.
These types of arguments are rather easy to pick apart with the exception of the hard presups. They are so convinced that you or I believe in their god that when you tell them you don't believe in any god or gods, they will call you a blatant liar to your face. They know you believe in their god. In their souls (like that is going to sway anyone). It is at that point that I go way off script and come up with a steady stream of escalating bizarre claims that I know are true. The throbbing veins on their temples and bulging eyes are a treat. In fairness, be under no illusion. I am not claiming epeeist is one of those wingnuts at all. Nevertheless, it is the line of thinking that originates such claims/beliefs. Regardless that epeeist is likely unaware where he glommed onto such a notion, the claim falls into a couple of joint claims. 1. We have a soul. 2. All souls have a faith shaped jigsaw puzzle piece in them 3. You must fill in that empty faith shaped jigsaw puzzle piece with something even if it is the wrong piece 4. Atheists have filled in the jigsaw puzzle hole with the wrong piece 5. If only the atheist could be persuaded to swap his piece for a carbon copy of my piece he/she would be saved 6. It is not possible to not fill that hole with something nor to not have a hole in the first place nor to have an empty hole (scuse unintentional FNAR) And the real kicker. This leads to an inevitable consequence. 7. Those having an empty hole, or no hole at all are by definition sub-human. Those who think this way usually go along with 1 to 6 but balk at the cliff edge of 7. Presups don't even hesitate at 7. I don't. I fully expect that if and when I die, there will be nothing at all. I wont even know about it because there will be no me to know anything. So suppose I die and there is some god resplendent in glory to my astonishment. I would reject him/her/it/housecat immediately and I would have a single statement to make. You could have made things better, perfect even. You chose to do nothing. That makes me your moral superior and you know it. |
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
20th February 2019, 04:48 PM | #301 |
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,360
|
Another perspective:
My wife is a theist, former Catholic but now believes in a nebulous idea of a God that watches over her and guides her through life. She has no use for man-made religion. Her reasons for believing are idiosyncratic and she isn’t asking anyone to believe what she believes. Doesn’t, in fact, care if anyone else accepts her beliefs. So tell me, why shouldn’t she believe in her idea of a God? You may say, “Because it isn’t real, obvs.” And her response would be along the lines of, “Says who? You? Ha. Are you the ultimate arbiter of reality? Didn’t think so.” Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk |
__________________
Hello. |
|
20th February 2019, 05:33 PM | #302 |
Observer of Phenomena
Pronouns: he/him Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Ngunnawal Country
Posts: 87,214
|
I apologise if I gave you the impression that I included you among their number. I am aware of and respect your extensive knowledge. Most of my comments have been directed to others.
That is indeed the basis behind religious Satanism (as opposed to atheistic LaVeyan Satanism). |
20th February 2019, 06:52 PM | #303 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 820
|
Right. I don't disagree with anything you've said there. What I'm saying though is that these testimonies are frequently from people who already feel quite badly about themselves before having any theistic beliefs or involvement in any religious community. This is certainly not true in every case, but these cases are pertinent to the OP I think. As such, the "all have sinned and fallen short" part of the Christian message is encouraging in a "it's okay, none of us is perfect and God doesn't expect us to be" kind of way. The further encouragement that I think often leads to belief is the sense of love and inclusion and hope for change that I mentioned earlier.
Such a theist would likely carefully consider in which threads to participate and on which to take a pass.
Quote:
|
20th February 2019, 09:09 PM | #304 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Present
Posts: 9,278
|
|
__________________
Paranormal/supernatural beliefs are knowledge placebos. Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated. Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths. |
|
20th February 2019, 10:58 PM | #305 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
You're wrong about Dostoevsky's argument. This one has two parts:
First: It tries to show that the atheist has no argument to refute cynic's arguments. Second: It tries to show that only true Christian can do it. You don't need the second part to discuss the first. Until you get to the second part, what Christians do is irrelevant. I never presented Dostoevsky as an authority. I am speaking of a theist argument. It doesn't matter whether it is said by Dostoevsky or his barber. Can you quote any scientific work that contradicts what Dostoevsky's first point says? Can you quote it here or can't you? It is obvious that if you cannot quote a single one you do not know what you are talking about. Or perhaps I am not aware of this scientific study. That's why I ask you. I advise you to read "The Karamazov Brothers" again. The Great Inquisitor is the example that Ivan uses to speak of someone who calls himself a Christian but does not love Christ. He is really a nihilist (cynic). I already told you that Dostoevsky suspects of (some kinds of) the official religion. What evidence exactly are we talking about? You proclaim that there's evidence against Dostoevsky's argument. This claim is of little use to me. I need to see it to know what you are talking about. Killing the children of others seems to be a widespread custom from Yahweh's recommendations till Hiroshima bombing. But the fact that a conventional standard is very widespread does not mean that it is based on a rational demonstration of any kind or that it is enforceable without exception. A pacifist can refuse to kill children. Or a terrorist (military or not) may believe himself authorized to kill other people's children. How do you measure the "weight" of different social values? There is a check-weighing for this? When we talk about an objective system of rules we are talking about a system of rules that cannot be rationally broken and that is valid for any type of community or individual. (Crazy people aside). “If rules of community are conventional all is permitted (violence and coercion included)” is empty? Critias implemented it with remarkable efficacy. I don't know what theory of games has to do with Critias' politics. Can you explain it? Please, explain also the youtube you linked. Too short for me. |
20th February 2019, 11:29 PM | #306 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
David, let's look at it from another angle. Which incidentally is actually the most on topic for this thread: so how do you convince Critias to convert? Do you even HAVE a plan there?
Because the statement "if we consider Critias to be the main enemy, we will have to renounce atheism" is actually stonking stupid, if only you renounce atheism, but Critias doesn't. Because he's the problem in your screwed up world view, not you. If you renounce atheism, but Critias didn't, you didn't even solve the right problem. That is, even assuming that religion can "defeat" Critias there, which you haven't actually supported with more than ipse-dixit postulates. But let's allow that assumption for the scope of this mental exercise. And ESPECIALLY after you went No True Scotsman with it, you need Critias to actually believe and love Jesus, not just to fake it. You can't just create a Grand Inquisitor again and make sure Critias better fake it convincingly. (Never mind what Dostoevsky would think about THAT.) If your premises are that only belief and the love of Jesus can keep Critias from doing bad stuff, then you actually need to get him to believe. So, go on, do just that. I'll play Critias. I have been, in fact. You give me a convincing reason why I should believe and love Jesus. The current argument obviously hasn't done the trick. In fact, when you retreat into "well, it wouldn't convince an atheist" you outright concede defeat there. So HOW do you do that? Do you even have a plan? Because if you assert that abandoning atheism would defeat Critias, but don't show how that all connects from premises to conclusion, then all you have is a bunch of stupid magical thinking. Not a logical argument. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
20th February 2019, 11:33 PM | #307 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
|
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
21st February 2019, 02:01 AM | #308 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
Convincing Critias is a rhetorical image. I don't think a ruthless tyrant like Critias could be convinced with rational arguments. I am sorry for Plato. What I mean -- or rather, what Dostoevsky meant -- is that an atheist has no rational arguments against cynicism.
(Normally in a discussion with an opponent one does not convince him, but the listeners who have a certain predisposition in the best of cases. But this is another matter). In my opinion, the flaw in Dostoevsky's reasoning is that he is looking for an absolute truth in morals, which does not exist. That is why his second step is even more irrational: to force himself to believe in Christ as a guarantee of morality. If the first step has a flaw, the second is a flaw in itself. You cannot fight moral utilitarianism, as he does, and defend religious utilitarianism. If I can force myself to believe in something irrational, I can force myself to believe anything else, and Christ or Cosmic Soul or any other nonsense is good for me as long as it makes me stupidly happy and good. I don't think that's what we mean by moral good. I think what Dostoevsky was really trying to do was convince himself. All these mystical and passionate Christians either fall into a parallel universe or spend their lives in constant stress at the threat of their faith being false. |
21st February 2019, 02:11 AM | #309 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 24,897
|
|
__________________
Experience is an excellent teacher, but she sends large bills. |
|
21st February 2019, 02:27 AM | #310 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
Fair warning, this first paragraph is entirely skippable, but addresses the thought process at work and gives a bit of background. With that said, I was actually hoping that you wouldn't ask, because it's a little annoying to articulate, even while I expected that you would. To start with, I tend to view tendencies to be self-critical and desire self-improvement to fundamentally be emergent behaviors that arise from the directly salient factors and motivations, rather than much in the way of being important factors themselves. The annoying to articulate part then comes from nature of such emergent behaviors and the distinct incompleteness of taking any of it in isolation. Some of those parts, of course, being more directly relevant to the specific issue, but still notably incomplete. Enough of this for now, though.
I would cite 'Empathy' and the 'desire for suffering to have a greater meaning, rather than just being something senseless that happened in a uncaring reality' as being far more important factors at the root of what's in play. The inherent empathy that (a large majority of) people have will cause discomfort when harm is being done to others. Hence, there a base for the concept of 'sin' to grasp onto easily. This especially applies to criminals, but those with "less" are more motivated to at least seriously contemplate doing harm to make their lot in life better, especially those who may feel driven to do so to survive. As for the second, again, those who suffer more have more reason to want to find something good to try to make it all "worthwhile." You can actually call that something of a trait that is evolutionarily favored for survival. |
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
21st February 2019, 02:56 AM | #311 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
Maybe. I've seen nothing about the real Critias to suggest that he was some illogical crazy dude. But that's perhaps a discussion for another thread.
But before you can worry about his rejecting a rational argument for religion, you kinda first have to have one. Bearing in mind that the real Critias wasn't even an anti-theist, and wouldn't, in fact, even be hostile to Dostoevsky's argument. In fact, he is (disputedly) credited with the first written faith-in-faith argument in recorded history: "a shrewd and clever-minded man invented for mortals a fear of the gods, so that there might be a deterrent for the wicked." So you want to give OTHER people religion, to keep them in line? Critias might even agree there. Hell, he might even take notes for tweaking his reign of terror. The only problem is that so far you haven't given him any good reason why he too should start believing. Maybe. But my point all along was that neither does religion. In fact, we can see even in Athens that religion-based morals (their notions of crime and impiety were fundamentally the same originally; see, Euthyphro) couldn't even defend their established position from logical attacks, much less go against some entrenched cynicism and win. So it's kind of moot to keep harping on how that that guy over there is weak because he can't do X (say, lift a truck with one hand), when nobody else can either. The problem is that what you just described is sophistry, not logic. Yep. That's the fundamental problem: if I can convince myself that some illogical religious doctrine is true, just because it's convenient for me to believe that, then I'll have no problem convincing myself that any other religious doctrine is true, when it becomes even more convenient. Hell, even without abandoning Xianity entirely, I can then convince myself that whatever fringe or even ad-hoc interpretation of it is true, if it's what I'd like to believe. E.g., that Jesus actually wants me to go out and beat up gays. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
21st February 2019, 03:35 AM | #312 |
Crazy Little Green Dragon
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Coast, US
Posts: 10,678
|
What I had pointed out before had quite demonstrated that there's no need or even good reason to accept that subjective morality is arbitrary or whimsical, regardless of whether it can be loosely classified as invoking conventions. That fact fundamentally and directly refutes the version of Critias' argument presented. And, given the timeline here, it did so preemptively.
There are two very important questions that you need to answer after this. First, define exactly what you mean by "rational demonstration." Second, why did you bring up the fact that a conventional standard being widespread does not mean that it is based on a rational demonstration of any kind or that it is enforceable without exception as if it was contrary to what I said? After all, for you to state that means that you pointedly weren't paying attention to what was actually said. Not only was there was no such claim advanced, what was said inherently refutes such an interpretation of what I said. Simple advice. Look at the actual reasons why each "convention" exists, first and foremost. Similarly, look at the actual reasons why each social value is held, for that matter. Once that's actually done, you'll largely have the information you need to answer that and your answer. Okay. Now what does that have to do with points that repeatedly and specifically state that they're dealing with subjective morality? Do you realize that you just altered what you had stated was the argument quite dramatically? Other than that, rather than empty, I would call it an "appeal to extremes". "Conventional" is taken to an extreme that's not particularly reflective of the range of actual positions in play, after all, and then abused. Examples of what you're referring to specifically? Either way, I didn't call it useless. I called it wrong. The two are not mutually exclusive. I could, but... it would take a fair bit of effort and I'm not at all convinced that you would understand, given your demonstrated grasp of English. A very, very short version is that game theory can very much be applied to evolution and the resultant behavioral trends and values held. Coercion and violence are very often NOT favored ways to make things change or happen on examination, though they are in some scenarios. This effectively refutes again the "The only reason is violence and coercion" statement made. The movement of the tides has long had rational and scientific explanations. In the clip, the speaker is denying that there is any rational or scientific explanation for the movement of the tides and using it as an argument. Critias' argument, as you presented it, especially if it's being cited in present day, is no different. There's long been good answers available and simply denying their existence only makes the argument ridiculous, not good. |
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon. |
|
21st February 2019, 07:13 AM | #313 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 820
|
|
21st February 2019, 07:34 AM | #314 |
Maledictorian
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 22,557
|
|
__________________
“Don’t blame me. I voted for Kodos.” |
|
21st February 2019, 07:42 AM | #315 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 820
|
Thanks for taking the time to express your thoughts. For sure, it's a complex topic; impossible to cover the breadth of it in a forum post. I appreciate your summary of what you feel are some of the key factors though.
I see you emphasize the third person perspective (e.g. observing harm being done to others), which is a good point. I'm also highlighting the first person perspective (recognizing I have done harm to others or harm has been done to me) as being a factor for identifying with the concept of "sin". I appreciate the need to consider both though. Cheers! |
21st February 2019, 07:49 AM | #316 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
I can translate it for you. It comes from H.P.Lovecraft's "Call Of Cthulhu" and means, "In his house at R'lyeh, dead Cthulhu waits dreaming." R'lyeh being the sunken (and thoroughly non-euclidean) city where Cthulhu rests.
Edit: just to put into context why that's important: the cultists of Cthulhu await his return, the blessed day when R'lyeh will rise and Cthulhu will return to us. But in the meantime he communicates with his chosen few only via dreams. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
21st February 2019, 08:01 AM | #317 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
"Critias" was the name I chose for the Cynic. True Critias was a sophist (relativist) who was a brutal tyrant of Athens. He is the main figure of a Plato's dialogue. I imagined an unreal situation in which a moralist is debating with him. Religion was a possible moralist issue. The cynical man that use of religion only to scare people is challenged by Dostoevsky's true belief in Christ as source of Love. Of course, this dialogue is fictitious.
Of course. Therefore Dostoevsky is against a purely formal religion. For him religion is Love and only Love. (He didn’t ever be coherent in this, but I am not speaking of flesh and blood Dostoevsky). |
21st February 2019, 08:16 AM | #318 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 22,331
|
Well, sure. Of course, even. My point is just that any kind of defeating Critias (yours or the real one) by religion -- again, assuming that would actually work at all as Dostoevsky imagines -- involves getting him to truly belive in Christ. If he's just faking it and, as you put it, making cynical use of religion for his own purposes, as you note, that hasn't solved anything at all.
So what I'm getting at is simply that until you find a way to persuade Critias to start really believing, religion can't do anything to sort him out either. |
__________________
Springfield Heights Institute of Technology poster child |
|
21st February 2019, 08:28 AM | #319 |
Muse
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Canada
Posts: 820
|
|
21st February 2019, 08:47 AM | #320 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 5,036
|
Asking an infinite number of questions is a way of doing that they cannot be answered. Especially if you answer a question with another question. Excuse me but I don't have time to follow that path. I will stick to some of them.
I asked you what evidence you have against Dostoevsky and you tell me that your opinions are evidence. That is an assertion not supported any more than by your own opinions. I thought you were talking about verifiable evidence. I see it was not so. My command of English is enough to realize that you have no interest in discussing but in slipping as an eel. This "you say I said what I didn't say but now I say what I didn't say before" is one way of wasting others' time. No game theory is needed to say that "Coercion and violence are very often NOT favored ways to make things change". This is obvious. But you attribute it to Critias and this is not what Critias says or what I said he said. For what it's worth, what Critias said is that the law of the nomos (social) is conventional and that only the law of the strongest is natural. And Critias was not talking about changing anything, but about justifying his absolute power, which was based on force. Critias' argument is not just to deny that the law of nomos is conventional in 19'', but that no one has been able to prove that it is natural (i.e. objective). Of course he states this after discarding the reasons given by others. This has nothing to do with a 19'' video in which an individual says that tides cannot be explained. I suppose he has given reasons before such a surprising statement and they will be as surprising as his statement. Since I don't know them, I can't discuss them and I'm not interested in them. (This is a correct way to explain a misunderstanding and not what you do. I hope you realize the differences. I start to get a little tired. You will forgive me if I abandon you for a while). |
Thread Tools | |
|
|