What could make morality objective?

[uwot]

That may be true, but not because of our paradigms. All models are wrong.

Well there you go. As far as I am concerned, they are underdetermined.

Atheists are trashing religion while offering no alternatives.

Again, in my view atheists are not trashing anything, they simply don't believe in god.

[TimeSeeker]

Again, in my view atheists are not trashing anything, they simply don't believe in god.

The very notion of 'belief' is not scientific/empirical. It is an error resulting from the philosophical illusion that one has privileged access to all their thoughts, and how they affect their day-to-day behavior. Neuroscience tells us that is itself a bullshit idea.

I have posed the challenge to many. As far as you-the-observer are concerned my god-belief is in superposition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle

I am either a theist or an atheist. If there is a difference between theism and atheism then that is necessarily a causal claim about reality. A claim that beliefs have causal effect on behavior. Then you should be able to determine my (a)theism empirically. In the words of WIlliam James:

There can be no difference anywhere that doesn't make a difference elsewhere—no difference in abstract truth that doesn't express itself in a difference in concrete fact and in conduct consequent upon that fact, imposed on somebody, somehow, somewhere and some-when. The whole function of philosophy ought to be to find out what definite difference it will make to you and me, at definite instants of our life, if this world-formula or that world-formula be the true one.

So why is it that nobody can determine my (a)theism empiricaly?

Because it is all just a silly game of metaphysical and psychological equivocation. Language games...
The phenomenology of human experience hasn't changed very much in 3000 years.

[TimeSeeker]

Well there you go. As far as I am concerned, they are underdetermined.

That is the fallacy of gray ( https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dLJv2Co ... cy-of-gray )

I think it is possible to measure/optimise self and assess progress. There is an objective standard for knowledge. Precision of prediction.I know I am getting better at it because I track my own progress. And I know those around me are benefitting because I track progress metrics on that too. If you can measure it - you can improve it.

Is it enough? Not up to me Entropy can kill me on my way home tonight.
There is a statistical distinction between time and ensamble averages. There is a lot of luck involved, but there is a lot of skill too.

[Peter Holmes]

TimeSeeker wrote:

Atheists are trashing religion while offering no alternatives. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater etc.

To repeat ad nauseam, atheists don't trash anything - we just reject belief in a god or gods. And we have no obligation to offer any alternative to anything. If we reject belief in green unicorns, what 'alternative' are we supposed to offer? What is the alternative to belief in green unicorns?

You've been suckered by Mr Can's fallacious identification of (Christian) theism with (Christian) religion and (Christian) morality - so that we can't have morality without theistic religion - and, of course, Christianity is the right one. Whither your skepticism?

[TimeSeeker]

TimeSeeker wrote:

Atheists are trashing religion while offering no alternatives. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater etc.

To repeat ad nauseam, atheists don't trash anything - we just reject belief in a god or gods. And we have no obligation to offer any alternative to anything. If we reject belief in green unicorns, what 'alternative' are we supposed to offer? What is the alternative to belief in green unicorns?

You've been suckered by Mr Can's fallacious identification of (Christian) theism with (Christian) religion and (Christian) morality - so that we can't have morality without theistic religion - and, of course, Christianity is the right one.

Copy paste for your own benefit.

The very notion of 'belief' is not scientific/empirical. It is an error in reasoning resulting from the philosophical illusion that one has privileged access to all their thoughts and the taxonomy of their mind, and how they affect their day-to-day behavior. Neuroscience tells us that is itself a bullshit idea. The only tools you have to conceptualise your own mind are Platonic forms! Models. Is my mind a computer? I don't know but it is USEFUL to conceptualize it that way. Because then we can all talk the same metaphysical language!

I have posed the challenge to many. As far as you-the-observer are concerned my god-belief is in superposition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle

I am either a theist or an atheist. If there is a difference between theism and atheism then that is necessarily a causal claim about reality. A claim that beliefs have causal effect on behavior. Then you should be able to determine my (a)theism empirically. In the words of WIlliam James:

There can be no difference anywhere that doesn't make a difference elsewhere—no difference in abstract truth that doesn't express itself in a difference in concrete fact and in conduct consequent upon that fact, imposed on somebody, somehow, somewhere and some-when. The whole function of philosophy ought to be to find out what definite difference it will make to you and me, at definite instants of our life, if this world-formula or that world-formula be the true one.

So why is it that nobody can determine my (a)theism empiricaly?

Because it is all just a silly game of metaphysical and psychological equivocation. Language games...
The phenomenology of human experience hasn't changed very much in 3000 years.

If you were to reject your belief in Entropy or uncertainty - nothing happens! Because you are still subjected to those phenomena! Irrespective of whether you call them God or Allah.

[Peter Holmes]

TimeSeeker wrote:

I am either a theist or an atheist. If there is a difference between theism and atheism then that is necessarily a causal claim about reality. A claim that beliefs have causal effect on behavior.

This is false. An existence-claim is not a causal claim. The claim that there are or aren't green unicorns has absolutely no causal entailment or implication.

[TimeSeeker]

TimeSeeker wrote:

I am either a theist or an atheist. If there is a difference between theism and atheism then that is necessarily a causal claim about reality. A claim that beliefs have causal effect on behavior.

This is false. An existence-claim is not a causal claim. The claim that there are or aren't green unicorns has absolutely no causal entailment or implication.

Lol what?!?

Then why does it matter what people believe if it has no effect on their behavior OR decision-making, and if it has no effect on YOU? What business is it of yours what goes on in people's minds?

And please don’t say “because it is true”, because you then need to justify why you value truth.

You are effectively saying that you reject counting in binary in favor of the decimal system. Even though they produce the exact same result!
And yes I am rooting for the coherence theory of truth.

Non-consequentialists are all batshit crazy!

[Peter Holmes]

TimeSeeker wrote:

I am either a theist or an atheist. If there is a difference between theism and atheism then that is necessarily a causal claim about reality. A claim that beliefs have causal effect on behavior.

This is false. An existence-claim is not a causal claim. The claim that there are or aren't green unicorns has absolutely no causal entailment or implication.

Then why does it matter what people believe if it has no effect on their behavior OR decision-making, and if it has no effect on YOU? What business is it of yours what goes on in people's minds?

You are effectively saying that counting in decimal is better than counting in binary. Even though they produce the exact same result!
And yes I am rooting for the coherence theory of truth.

Non-consequentialists are all batshit crazy!

Think it through again. You said: 'If there is a difference between theism and atheism then that is necessarily a causal claim about reality.' And that's false. Belief or disbelief in the existence of a god or gods need have no causal (such as behavioural) consequences whatsoever.

And, sure, 'we' sometimes need to worry about people's delusions, but only if and when they lead to actions 'we' consider harmful - such as flying planes into buildings, murdering abortion practitioners, or denying contraception to HIV-vulnerable people.

[TimeSeeker]

Think it through again. You said: 'If there is a difference between theism and atheism then that is necessarily a causal claim about reality.' And that's false. Belief or disbelief in the existence of a god or gods need have no causal (such as behavioural) consequences whatsoever.

No. Really - you think it through. If there is a construct in your head that sits idle and doesn't feature as input into your decision-making or actions and if there is no BEHAVIORAL difference between theists and atheists - then there is NO difference except in language!

Equivocation!

And, sure, 'we' sometimes need to worry about people's delusions, but only if and when they lead to actions 'we' consider harmful - such as flying planes into buildings, murdering abortion practitioners, or denying contraception to HIV-vulnerable people.

Ok. THAT is a causal claim! For every religious person who flew a plane into a building millions didn't. You need to count your hits AND misses in science, remember?
And then you also need to count all the people who commit atrocities NOT in the name of a deity, but any other ideology.
If you kill in the name of Truth - you are no less religious!

THAT is the only time you need to worry about people's delusions. When they cause harm!
In fact that is the time you need to worry about people's true beliefs too. Because you can't use statistical truths to make any inferences about individuals. That is what stereotypes are - harmful!

So when YOU use people's religiosity to discriminate against them - YOU are the one acting immorally!

[uwot]

Again, in my view atheists are not trashing anything, they simply don't believe in god.

The very notion of 'belief' is not scientific/empirical.

That is only true if you equate science and empiricism. Essentially that was the project of logical positivism, inspired partly by Wittgenstein's adage "Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent." It is a crude equation that few people hold these days, for the simple reason that empirical investigation of science in practice quite clearly shows that science doesn't work like that. You can get round that by invoking 'no true Scotsman', but that would just demonstrate the incommensurability I was on about.

It is an error resulting from the philosophical illusion that one has privileged access to all their thoughts, and how they affect their day-to-day behavior. Neuroscience tells us that is itself a bullshit idea.

Well yes, there's all sorts of stuff going on that we are not conscious of, but the idea that that we are not conscious of our conscious beliefs is, as you say, bullshit.

I have posed the challenge to many. As far as you-the-observer are concerned my god-belief is in superposition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superposition_principle

Had a quick look. Could you cite the part that you think is relevant?

I am either a theist or an atheist. If there is a difference between theism and atheism then that is necessarily a causal claim about reality.

Only insofar as you are really a theist or an atheist.

A claim that beliefs have causal effect on behavior. Then you should be able to determine my (a)theism empirically. In the words of WIlliam James:

There can be no difference anywhere that doesn't make a difference elsewhere—no difference in abstract truth that doesn't express itself in a difference in concrete fact and in conduct consequent upon that fact, imposed on somebody, somehow, somewhere and some-when. The whole function of philosophy ought to be to find out what definite difference it will make to you and me, at definite instants of our life, if this world-formula or that world-formula be the true one.

So why is it that nobody can determine my (a)theism empirical?

Do you believe in some god?

Because it is all just a silly game of metaphysical and psychological equivocation. Language games...
The phenomenology of human experience hasn't changed very much in 3000 years.

Telescope.

[uwot]

Well there you go. As far as I am concerned, they are underdetermined.

That is the fallacy of gray ( https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/dLJv2Co ... cy-of-gray )

I disagree.

I think it is possible to measure/optimise self and assess progress. There is an objective standard for knowledge. Precision of prediction.

Fine as an instrumentalist, but knowledge of what?

[TimeSeeker]

That is only true if you equate science and empiricism. Essentially that was the project of logical positivism, inspired partly by Wittgenstein's adage "Whereof we cannot speak, thereof we must remain silent." It is a crude equation that few people hold these days, for the simple reason that empirical investigation of science in practice quite clearly shows that science doesn't work like that. You can get round that by invoking 'no true Scotsman', but that would just demonstrate the incommensurability I was on about.

Drop the language and think like a scientist. Cause and effect. If a belief is something tangible then it has real-world consequences.

Therefore the consequences can be measured - if not the belief itself. Therefore a distinction can be drawn.

Had a quick look. Could you cite the part that you think is relevant?

One's behavior is a complex function of multiple variables. We are speculating whether belief features as a significant variable to one's behavior.

It is exactly the same experiment as Schrödinger's cat, but with beliefs. The cat is both dead AND alive. Until you take a measurement.
I am both an atheist and a theist.

What measurement would you take to collapse your uncertainty?

Only insofar as you are really a theist or an atheist.

Only insofar as YOU can draw a meaningful distinction between the two!

Do you believe in some god?

1. Are you using the very definition of 'belief' I am currently busy dismantling? I have NO idea what it means to "believe in X".
2. Can you give me YOUR testable/falsifiable definition for your conception for the ontology of a god?

[TimeSeeker]

Fine as an instrumentalist, but knowledge of what?

Of self and my (and our!) ability to predict and control our environment.

[Peter Holmes]

Think it through again. You said: 'If there is a difference between theism and atheism then that is necessarily a causal claim about reality.' And that's false. Belief or disbelief in the existence of a god or gods need have no causal (such as behavioural) consequences whatsoever.

No. Really - you think it through. If there is a construct in your head that sits idle and doesn't feature as input into your decision-making or actions and if there is no BEHAVIORAL difference between theists and atheists - then there is NO difference except in language!

Equivocation!

And, sure, 'we' sometimes need to worry about people's delusions, but only if and when they lead to actions 'we' consider harmful - such as flying planes into buildings, murdering abortion practitioners, or denying contraception to HIV-vulnerable people.

Ok. THAT is a causal claim! For every religious person who flew a plane into a building millions didn't. You need to count your hits AND misses in science, remember?
And then you also need to count all the people who commit atrocities NOT in the name of a deity, but any other ideology.
If you kill in the name of Truth - you are no less religious!

THAT is the only time you need to worry about people's delusions. When they cause harm!
In fact that is the time you need to worry about people's true beliefs too. Because you can't use statistical truths to make any inferences about individuals. That is what stereotypes are - harmful!

So when YOU use people's religiosity to discriminate against them - YOU are the one acting immorally!

I don't see why you're getting the vapours. I've never proposed discriminating against people on the grounds of their religiosity. That's a great big straw man. Care to retract that charge?

I've simply pointed out that an existence-claim is NOT a causal claim. Instead of getting all peacock about it, why not just agree you're wrong and move on? Would that be so hard or shameful?

[TimeSeeker]

I don't see why you're getting the vapours. I've never proposed discriminating against people on the grounds of their religiosity. That's a great big straw man. Care to retract that charge?

I've simply pointed out that an existence-claim is NOT a causal claim. Instead of getting all peacock about it, why not just agree you're wrong and move on? Would that be so hard or shameful?

1. Because in the absence of an objective standard for morality I am not 'wrong'
2. Because you have drawn a distinction without a difference between theists and atheists. And so I shall hold you to account until you provide some empirical evidence for your claim

An existence OR non-existence clam that it not a causal claim is an inconsequential claim. By the doctrine of verificationism (to which I subscribe) - it is meaningless.