What could make morality objective?

[Veritas Aequitas]

If the counter arguments are convincing, I would have accepted them.

Well, it seems apparent to the rest of us that several lines of argument have been good enough to show that your "solution" to the is-ought problem isn't a solution at all. For some reason, none of these seem as compelling to you as they do to us. I'm not sure there's a next step, therefore.

Note the SEP's article listed various readings [interpretation] of Hume's 'is-ought' point.
See and Read this;
Various Readings of Hume's "Is-Ought" Principle.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29252
What are your comments on the above?

Most of those who do not agree with me rely on the common interpretation [1] in the above link, which is not in alignment with Hume's actual views in his Treatise and Enquiry.

I have explained why therein that OP.

Here is a comment from SEP re Hume's latest view on theistic morality;

In the moral Enquiry Hume is more explicit about what he takes to be the errors of Christian (or, more cautiously, Roman Catholic) moralists.

This isn't entirely incorrect. Roman Catholic moralizing also has some significant vulnerabilities, founded as it is on a presumed continuity between "pagan" and "Christian" morality. But Roman Catholic theory departs significantly from Protestant understanding on morality, and Hume never even attempted to address the very substantial differences.

Your quote further relates to the RC claim that pagan "virtues" are, to use their term, "glittering vices." Again, this shows how "vices" and "virtues" are on a single plane, for Catholicism. This is not the supposition of the majority of Christian ethical thought, however. As for "monkish" virtues, only the RC's have "monks" at all. So it's clear that Hume had the Catholics squarely in mind -- which explains why he went after the Natural Law theory of ethics so specifically. About genuine Christian ethics, he neither thought nor had anything to say.

As the point stated, Hume critiqued Roman Catholic in particular.

However in general, Hume also condemned the 'God' factor in relation to the is-ought issue.

Hume is general anti-theistic;
Note this point from Hume where he mentioned God in general;

In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not.

This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence.

For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.

But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.
Book III, part I, section I - A Treatise of Human Nature (1739)

The above point re God covered the RC and Protestant theistic God grounded moral oughts from the vulgar morality.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Peter,

Note this OP which is relevant to the points raised above re relative objective for moral objectives;

You and ALL are Part and Parcel of Reality.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=29272

[Peter Holmes]

Peter,

Note this OP which is relevant to the points raised above re relative objective for moral objectives;

You and ALL are Part and Parcel of Reality.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=29272

As often, I don't understand what you mean. And I almost never click on links offered as substitutes for clear, concise argument.

But I assume we're part of a real universe of which there can be objective knowledge, and about which we can produce true factual assertions. It's possible to challenge each of those claims, but they're my starting point.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Peter,

Note this OP which is relevant to the points raised above re relative objective for moral objectives;

You and ALL are Part and Parcel of Reality.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=29272

As often, I don't understand what you mean. And I almost never click on links offered as substitutes for clear, concise argument.

But I assume we're part of a real universe of which there can be objective knowledge, and about which we can produce true factual assertions. It's possible to challenge each of those claims, but they're my starting point.

You are always using rhetorics to deflect.
"Assume" is out of point.

I asked, it is an empirical fact that,
"You and ALL are Part and Parcel of Reality [all there is]"?

The real universe is a part of that overall encompassing reality.

Your answer to the above fact?

Note the links are not substitutes, rather they are the detailed investigation into the various specific parts of the whole arguments.

[Veritas Aequitas]

But ... what do you think is the strongest natural evidence for the existence of a god? (No worries if you don't want to answer.)

No, no...I'm happy to answer.

Well, it works this way: Atheists often look at something like the Argument For a First Cause, and say, "Well, even if it's right, it doesn't tell us enough to know what kind of 'God' we're talking about, so it doesn't help much." Or they look at the Moral Argument and say, "Well, it doesn't prove there IS a God in the first place, only that He's necessary for morality, so it doesn't do enough, and begs the existence question." And actually, all of that would be fair enough, if one only considered a single one of the arguments in isolation. But the Atheist critics are rejoicing too soon: they've overlooked that no argument all by itself was every intended to prove the case for God: rather, each one addresses one aspect of the necessary set-of-arguments to establish not only the existence of God, but a fair bit about His nature and about His moral identity as well.

The Atheist critic wants the Theistic case to be a table standing on one leg: it's not. It rests on several pillars, each of which addresses a substantial concern Atheists have raised about Theism. So they need to be regarded as a cumulative composite, not simply a disparate collocation of unrelated arguments. Each builds upon the last.

The Blackwell Guide does an excellent job of reflection this. I highly recommend the introduction, which places all the subsequent arguments in their right relation to each other.

So, for example, if you want an argument for the existence of God conceptually, then the Kalaam is a very compelling one, when rightly articulated. But it's function starts and stops with establishing the rational necessity of the concept of some kind of God, without specifying further. The evidence from Design, I also think is overwhelming to any fair-minded observer; but its function is to supplement the Kalaam and similar arguments, by filling out the picture of what kind of God we're talking about. The Moral Argument does even more, in that regard; and I think it might well be the hardest for secularism to answer -- because secularism has no explication of evil at all. But all these do not fill in all the details we need.

However, as I said earlier (perhaps to someone else in this thread), "natural" arguments of this type, I think, generally do not turn out to convince people who decide they simply want an opportunity to justify their unbelief, rather than considering the arguments dispassionately. You can't convince a man who doesn't want to be convinced under any circumstances. It would take a miracle to do that.

However, of all the arguments the Guide lists, I think the one that's key to actually knowing something about God is not, per se, a "natural" argument at all: it's the Argument from Revelation, the specific fact that God has spoken.

So again, we get back to the question, "Has God spoken?" If He has, it changes everything: but if He had not, we'd all -- Theists and Atheists alike -- be thrashing around in the dark, speculating on insufficient evidence and not knowing WHAT to conclude, except that if there is a God he doesn't care enough about us to tell us anything.

The upshot: unless God speaks, no set of natural-style arguments is going to give up more than a sort of argument-to-the-best-explanation type of confidence about God even existing, let alone about His nature and purposes.

You are pulling a fast one in the above loads of excuses.

I believe natural-style arguments meant producing natural empirical evidence to justify the claim, God exists as real.
For example if I claim the Eiffel Tower exists as real, then I should be able to produce direct natural empirical evidence to justify to the Eiffel Tower exists within the most rigorous verification methods available.
Thus if you claim God exists are real, then you have to produce direct natural empirical evidences like that required for the Eiffel Tower [and the likes] to justify your claim.

The Atheist critic wants the Theistic case to be a table standing on one leg: it's not. It rests on several pillars, each of which addresses a substantial concern Atheists have raised about Theism. So they need to be regarded as a cumulative composite, not simply a disparate collocation of unrelated arguments. Each builds upon the last.

Because you are unable to produce direct natural empirical evidence to justify your God exists as real, you are shifty, thus diverting to evidence based on circumstances.

• Note even for a murder charge without a body based on circumstantial evidence, each of the evidences themselves must be supported by empirical evidences and critical reasoning.
  If any of the evidences are not justifiable to be real, then the whole conclusion [proof of murder] is rejected.

Even if one of the arguments to justify the circumstantial proof is false, the conclusion is a false - a sham.

In the case of the book, all the arguments - which are available all over the internet separately and in groups- are countered by various anti-theists to be irrational and do not support the claim God exists as real.
In this case, whatever circumstantial proof you claim God exists as real is thus false - illusory and delusional if insisted.

Actually the theists argument for God is related to the is-ought dichotomy and Hume's basis for this is-ought is very relevant against the argument for God.
In this case theists equivocate "is" empirical with "ought" of transcendence based on crude primordial reasoning.

I have offered the alternative why the majority believed in a God, i.e. the basis is purely desperate psychological drives as a crutch to deal with an inherent unavoidable existential crisis.

As I have often quoted [mine];

Kant in CPR wrote:
They [idealization and reification of God ] are sophistications not of men but of Pure Reason itself.
Even the wisest of men cannot free himself from them.
After long effort he perhaps succeeds in guarding himself against actual error; but he will never be able to free himself from the Illusion [of an illusory God], which unceasingly mocks and torments him.
B397 -CPR

[Peter Holmes]

Peter,

Note this OP which is relevant to the points raised above re relative objective for moral objectives;

You and ALL are Part and Parcel of Reality.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=29272

As often, I don't understand what you mean. And I almost never click on links offered as substitutes for clear, concise argument.

But I assume we're part of a real universe of which there can be objective knowledge, and about which we can produce true factual assertions. It's possible to challenge each of those claims, but they're my starting point.

You are always using rhetorics to deflect.
"Assume" is out of point.

I asked, it is an empirical fact that,
"You and ALL are Part and Parcel of Reality [all there is]"?

The real universe is a part of that overall encompassing reality.

Your answer to the above fact?

Note the links are not substitutes, rather they are the detailed investigation into the various specific parts of the whole arguments.

How does one answer a fact or a factual assertion? What question are you asking?

And what are you shouting about?

I'm a physicalist, so I believe that there's only one substance - energy and the form of it we call matter. So I reject substance-dualism. Is that what you're after?

[Veritas Aequitas]

As often, I don't understand what you mean. And I almost never click on links offered as substitutes for clear, concise argument.

But I assume we're part of a real universe of which there can be objective knowledge, and about which we can produce true factual assertions. It's possible to challenge each of those claims, but they're my starting point.

You are always using rhetorics to deflect.
"Assume" is out of point.

I asked, it is an empirical fact that,
"You and ALL are Part and Parcel of Reality [all there is]"?

The real universe is a part of that overall encompassing reality.

Your answer to the above fact?

Note the links are not substitutes, rather they are the detailed investigation into the various specific parts of the whole arguments.

How does one answer a fact or a factual assertion? What question are you asking?

And what are you shouting about?

I'm a physicalist, so I believe that there's only one substance - energy and the form of it we call matter. So I reject substance-dualism. Is that what you're after?

I stated it is an empirical fact,
"You and ALL are Part and Parcel of Reality [all there is]"?

It is possible you may not agree with my above claim.

So my question is, do you agree with my claim, i.e.

"You and ALL are Part and Parcel of Reality [all there is]"
is an empirical fact.

The above has nothing to do with physicalism nor dualism at this point of the question.
We can get to them after you have answer the above question.

[Peter Holmes]

I'm a physicalist, so I believe that there's only one substance - energy and the form of it we call matter. So I reject substance-dualism. Is that what you're after?

I stated it is an empirical fact,
"You and ALL are Part and Parcel of Reality [all there is]"?

It is possible you may not agree with my above claim.

So my question is, do you agree with my claim, i.e.

"You and ALL are Part and Parcel of Reality [all there is]"
is an empirical fact.

The above has nothing to do with physicalism nor dualism at this point of the question.
We can get to them after you have answer the above question.

But you're making two separate claims:

1 What we call reality is all there is.

And that seems worth saying only if there could be something apart from what we call reality. And that requires a definition of the word 'reality' - an explanation of how we use or could use the word. So substance-dualism is very much on the table: what is or what we count as 'real'.

2 We are (so I am) part of that reality, because, if it's all there is, we (I) must be.

That's trivially true. And if by the word 'fact' you mean 'true factual assertion', then yes, I agree. The use of 'empirical' here is unecessary and confusing, because it's better to keep metaphysics out of it.

Now, please cut to the chase and make your point.

[Skepdick]

1 What we call reality is all there is.

And that seems worth saying only if there could be something apart from what we call reality. And that requires a definition of the word 'reality' - an explanation of how we use or could use the word. So substance-dualism is very much on the table: what is or what we count as 'real'.

Spot the metaphysical sleight-of-hand by the very person who rejects metaphysics.

Why does "reality" require a definition but "substance" doesn't?

I'm a physicalist, so I believe that there's only one substance - energy and the form of it we call matter. So I reject substance-dualism. Is that what you're after?

How can you claim that you "reject substance dualism" when you are dualising "substance" into "energy" and "matter" before our very own eyes?

Do you not see that you are dualising it? We do.

[Immanuel Can]

Okay. You offer no natural evidence for the existence of your god.

??? I've offered a ton. It seems you haven't looked at any of it, if you can still think that.

Rather, what I say is that I have not found that there is any quantity of natural evidence that pleases the determined skeptic. I haven't said there IS none. That would obviously be untrue.

Verify it for yourself. There is no end of websites that cover the "nature" arguments for God, even informally. And the most significant and academic versions are in that book I have recommended, as you can see. If you get a copy, I'll discuss any of them with you, if I have knowledge of the particulars.

This is why atheism is the rational position.

Non-sequitur. It does not follow.

Even supposing you had reason to think Theism was "irrational," that would not conduce to the view that Atheism was rational. Equally plausibly, you could be dealing with TWO irrational views. So Atheism owes us to prove that it is rational in its own right, not merely that it discounts Theism.

And clearly, that's something Atheism cannot do.

If we believe that Atheism's just the claim, "I haven't seen a God," it is only a claim of personal ignorance. As a claim of "There is no God," it's obviously a wild overreach. Both ways, it has no grounds for anyone else to believe it or take it seriously. And, as pure negation, it has no knowledge-offering content, implies a meaningless universe, and provides no grounds for morality. So whichever form one takes to be genuine "Atheism," it's a dud.

Atheism's just an ideology nobody needs. Even an actual delusion would offer something, like a guide for some kind of quasi-moral framework, an explanation of existence, reason for people to organize their lives, or an incentive to get out of bed in the morning; but Atheism's just a cognitive eunuch...in it is no fruitfulness at all.

[Immanuel Can]

Various Readings of Hume's "Is-Ought" Principle.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=29252
What are your comments on the above?

I've made them to you earlier, several times. You seem uninterested: I can't beat that.

As the point stated, Hume critiqued Roman Catholic in particular.

Yeah. I'm not an RC, myself. I actually agree with some of his objections to Natural Law arguments. Such evidences are at best indicative, and Natural Law theory, in itself, does not provide the bridge over Hume's Is-Ought gap. It's not a conclusive way to argue, even if at the end of the day it turns out to be partly right. It depends too heavily on clerical say-so, which I think we have reason to reject.

[Immanuel Can]

You are pulling a fast one in the above loads of excuses.

Heh.

I've given the best source one can find, and I'm "making excuses"? That's pretty funny.

Because you are unable to produce direct natural empirical evidence to justify your God exists as real, you are shifty, thus diverting to evidence based on circumstances.

Not a bit.

If you read the Blackwell Guide, you'll see plenty of 'natural' evidences. Heck, if you just surf the web you'll find a plethora of sites on apologetics from a "natural" perspective. And I haven't even invoked any "circumstances."

Sometimes I have to wonder where you get your ideas...

[Peter Holmes]

Okay. You offer no natural evidence for the existence of your god.

??? I've offered a ton. It seems you haven't looked at any of it, if you can still think that.

Rather, what I say is that I have not found that there is any quantity of natural evidence that pleases the determined skeptic. I haven't said there IS none. That would obviously be untrue.

Verify it for yourself. There is no end of websites that cover the "nature" arguments for God, even informally. And the most significant and academic versions are in that book I have recommended, as you can see. If you get a copy, I'll discuss any of them with you, if I have knowledge of the particulars.

This is why atheism is the rational position.

Non-sequitur. It does not follow.

Even supposing you had reason to think Theism was "irrational," that would not conduce to the view that Atheism was rational. Equally plausibly, you could be dealing with TWO irrational views. So Atheism owes us to prove that it is rational in its own right, not merely that it discounts Theism.

And clearly, that's something Atheism cannot do.

If we believe that Atheism's just the claim, "I haven't seen a God," it is only a claim of personal ignorance. As a claim of "There is no God," it's obviously a wild overreach. Both ways, it has no grounds for anyone else to believe it or take it seriously. And, as pure negation, it has no knowledge-offering content, implies a meaningless universe, and provides no grounds for morality. So whichever form one takes to be genuine "Atheism," it's a dud.

Atheism's just an ideology nobody needs. Even an actual delusion would offer something, like a guide for some kind of quasi-moral framework, an explanation of existence, reason for people to organize their lives, or an incentive to get out of bed in the morning; but Atheism's just a cognitive eunuch...in it is no fruitfulness at all.

Since atheism is the rejection of god-claims, for lack of evidence, atheism is the rational position. It isn't an ideology like a religion - a set of ideas and beliefs.

You may think you've cited natural evidence for the existence of your god by referring to a book and online information - but you haven't. And do you really think that, if the supposed evidence is credible, it would or could be ignored by rational non-believers and agnostics?

Just cite one example of the loads of evidence that convinces you - and perhaps the killer argument, set out syllogistically. How hard can that be? You think there's evidence in abundance and arguments a-plenty.

Or, afraid of being shot down as usual, you can carry on deflecting. But you're not fooling anyone.

[uwot]

So Atheism owes us to prove that it is rational in its own right, not merely that it discounts Theism.

Mr Can, your entire argument that atheism is irrational is based on your assumption that atheists insist that there is no god. The majority of atheists would not be so 'irrational' to try and defend that position. There is the occasional glimmer that it has finally sunk in:

If we believe that Atheism's just the claim, "I haven't seen a God," it is only a claim of personal ignorance.

What a charmer you are, Mr Can. Since there is nothing irrational about not believing in something for which there is only circumstantial evidence, we must in your view be ignorant. So we are either ignorant or irrational, well fuck you and your god with a crusty toilet brush.*

...Atheism's just a cognitive eunuch...in it is no fruitfulness at all.

Nobody looks to atheism to provide meaning or morality, we atheists have to look to our own wonder and empathy, and some of us think a good starting point is not gratuitously calling our peers and neighbours irrational or ignorant.

*Dear reader, some of you will not be aware that Mr Can claims the reason he doesn't respond directly to some posters is because they have said something nasty about his god. He further claims that this will result in our being tortured forever by his supremely good god, something for which he feels personal responsibility, so refuses to acknowledge us for our own good. Coincidentally, everyone he has favoured in this way can make mincemeat of the silly sub William Lane Craig drivel he peddles.

[Immanuel Can]

Since atheism is the rejection of god-claims, for lack of evidence, atheism is the rational position. It isn't an ideology like a religion - a set of ideas and beliefs.

Which is it? No belief in anything? Then it's a eunuch. A belief there's no God? An overreach. Either way, as I said, it's a dud. There's nothing rational about it...and nothing useful either.

You may think you've cited natural evidence for the existence of your god by referring to a book and online information - but you haven't.

Well, as I said...even the very best available "natural" evidence is insufficient for one whose mind is already made up.

And do you really think that, if the supposed evidence is credible, it would or could be ignored by rational non-believers and agnostics?

It's not by all. People change their minds, sometimes. But there will always be Atheists, because there will always be people determined not to see any evidence AS evidence.

Nothing can beat that.