What could make morality objective?

[Peter Holmes]

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.

No. Atheists just reject belief in gods. Just as a-fairyists reject belief in fairies. But we can and usually do believe in all sorts of other things, because we're rational human beings. Your straw man was never even in the building.

And we all note your failure to cite any natural evidence - or to set out any argument - for the existence of your god. Are you ashamed to do so?

[uwot]

But there will always be Atheists, because there will always be people determined not to see any evidence AS evidence.

Ah yes; I forgot that one. Irrational, ignorant or bloody-minded. Mr Can, all your arguments with atheists are ad hominem. As far as you are concerned the reason people disagree with you is one of a variety of intellectual or emotional defects. If you want people to respect you, it would go a long way if you could show others some respect.

[RCSaunders]

No scientist believes evidence alone provides knowledge without the rational identification of that evidence and its nature.

That's my point. There's no such thing as a scientist who can do his work without reason. But reason is not a feature of the physical world.

I have not recently seen any non-physical human beings, and human beings are the only beings in the universe with minds and the faculty of reason. Life, consciousness, and human minds are not physical attributes, but they are attributes of physical entities--they are features of the natural, material, ontological existence--which is contingent on nothing else.

[Immanuel Can]

No. Atheists just reject belief in gods.

Are you claiming that only for yourself, or for all rational others? If it's the former, fine -- but it's trivial to anyone else. If the latter, you need warrant that you can't get.

And does Atheism "reject" based on evidence, or arbitrarily and gratuitously, on no evidence? If on evidence, what would that be? If gratuitously, they're being trivial again.

The problem is that there is simply no way to make Atheism both potent and rational. The kind that has a pretence to potency for others and for Theists is mere overreach; the kind that is merely personal may be rational, so far as it goes, but it's got no potency to argue with anybody at all.

Impotence and overreach are all Atheism has. Those are its alternative modes.

And we all note your failure to cite any natural evidence

Have you been inhabited by spirits, that you are now a "we" Peter?

Well, I suppose if you won't even look at what I've supplied, you're going to hold to that. Everybody else can see that I've pointed to the best arguments available -- cogent, academic, thoughtful and well-articulated. As I say, you won't find a better job done than the Blackwell Guide, I think...and if there's a better, let me know, because I want to read it too.

[Immanuel Can]

No scientist believes evidence alone provides knowledge without the rational identification of that evidence and its nature.

That's my point. There's no such thing as a scientist who can do his work without reason. But reason is not a feature of the physical world.

I have not recently seen any non-physical human beings,

You need to read the rest of my message.

I've agreed that human beings are necessary for reason based on empirical evidence, as in science; but they are not sufficient, since the references by which science is evaluated are in the external world.

It would not be enough to say, "A scientist has 'reasoned' that water freezes at 100 degrees." That won't make it true, even if he had "reasoned" his way to that conclusion. What will test him is the reasoning of others, based on tests and experimentation in the natural world...and that's not inside his head, but external to him.

[Peter Holmes]

No. Atheists just reject belief in gods.

Are you claiming that only for yourself, or for all rational others? If it's the former, fine -- but it's trivial to anyone else. If the latter, you need warrant that you can't get.

And does Atheism "reject" based on evidence, or arbitrarily and gratuitously, on no evidence? If on evidence, what would that be? If gratuitously, they're being trivial again.

The problem is that there is simply no way to make Atheism both potent and rational. The kind that has a pretence to potency for others and for Theists is mere overreach; the kind that is merely personal may be rational, so far as it goes, but it's got no potency to argue with anybody at all.

Impotence and overreach are all Atheism has. Those are its alternative modes.

And we all note your failure to cite any natural evidence

Have you been inhabited by spirits, that you are now a "we" Peter?

Well, I suppose if you won't even look at what I've supplied, you're going to hold to that. Everybody else can see that I've pointed to the best arguments available -- cogent, academic, thoughtful and well-articulated. As I say, you won't find a better job done than the Blackwell Guide, I think...and if there's a better, let me know, because I want to read it too.

Most atheists I've come across reject theism for the lack of evidence for any gods. And that's rational, just as it's rational to reject belief in fairies - which I assume you do.

And anyway you're at it again - deflecting attention away from your failure to justify theism by accusing atheism of 'impotence and overreach'. You did the same with morality: you can't show it's objective, so you have to caricture and beat up on subjectivism.

And you haven't cited any evidence or set out any argument.

In my opinion, you're not worth bothering with any more. WOT.

[Immanuel Can]

No. Atheists just reject belief in gods.

Are you claiming that only for yourself, or for all rational others? If it's the former, fine -- but it's trivial to anyone else. If the latter, you need warrant that you can't get.

And does Atheism "reject" based on evidence, or arbitrarily and gratuitously, on no evidence? If on evidence, what would that be? If gratuitously, they're being trivial again.

The problem is that there is simply no way to make Atheism both potent and rational. The kind that has a pretence to potency for others and for Theists is mere overreach; the kind that is merely personal may be rational, so far as it goes, but it's got no potency to argue with anybody at all.

Impotence and overreach are all Atheism has. Those are its alternative modes.

And we all note your failure to cite any natural evidence

Have you been inhabited by spirits, that you are now a "we" Peter?

Well, I suppose if you won't even look at what I've supplied, you're going to hold to that. Everybody else can see that I've pointed to the best arguments available -- cogent, academic, thoughtful and well-articulated. As I say, you won't find a better job done than the Blackwell Guide, I think...and if there's a better, let me know, because I want to read it too.

Most atheists I've come across reject theism for the lack of evidence for any gods.

Then that's an argument from ignorance. "I don't know...therefore, there's none, and nobody else can know either." There's not a single discipline in which that kind of reasoning would pass muster.

And that's rational, just as it's rational to reject belief in fairies

Do I have to point out how utterly inapt that analogy is?

Are you supposing that people like Francis Bacon, or Thomas Aquinas, or Isaac Newton, or Albert Einstein, or Blaise Pascal...etc. were all impressed with various Theistic arguments that amounted to no more than fairies? Or when Nietzsche wrote, "God is dead," he thought it added up to no more than "Fairies are dead?" Or Marx meant, "Fairies are the opium of the masses." That's what you suppose?

All these great thinkers, giving their attention to something you "saw through" at a glance, and with no more profound thought than, "This must be fairies"?

Really?

Or is it just possible you haven't really understood the arguments at all, because you refuse to look at them?

You haven't cited any evidence or set out any argument.

Haven't "cited"? Well, I'll do it now: W.L. Craig and J.P. Moreland, eds. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Oxford: Blackwell, 2009). Now it's cited. It's even in good ol' Chicago Style.

As for setting out an argument, one cannot argue with someone who has no standard of evidence. You've do not identify one. What can anyone do with that?

[Peter Holmes]

Are you claiming that only for yourself, or for all rational others? If it's the former, fine -- but it's trivial to anyone else. If the latter, you need warrant that you can't get.

And does Atheism "reject" based on evidence, or arbitrarily and gratuitously, on no evidence? If on evidence, what would that be? If gratuitously, they're being trivial again.

The problem is that there is simply no way to make Atheism both potent and rational. The kind that has a pretence to potency for others and for Theists is mere overreach; the kind that is merely personal may be rational, so far as it goes, but it's got no potency to argue with anybody at all.

Impotence and overreach are all Atheism has. Those are its alternative modes.


Have you been inhabited by spirits, that you are now a "we" Peter?

Well, I suppose if you won't even look at what I've supplied, you're going to hold to that. Everybody else can see that I've pointed to the best arguments available -- cogent, academic, thoughtful and well-articulated. As I say, you won't find a better job done than the Blackwell Guide, I think...and if there's a better, let me know, because I want to read it too.

Most atheists I've come across reject theism for the lack of evidence for any gods.

Then that's an argument from ignorance. "I don't know...therefore, there's none, and nobody else can know either." There's not a single discipline in which that kind of reasoning would pass muster.

And that's rational, just as it's rational to reject belief in fairies

Do I have to point out how utterly inapt that analogy is?

Are you supposing that people like Francis Bacon, or Thomas Aquinas, or Isaac Newton, or Albert Einstein, or Blaise Pascal...etc. were all impressed with various Theistic arguments that amounted to no more than fairies? Or when Nietzsche wrote, "God is dead," he thought it added up to no more than "Fairies are dead?" Or Marx meant, "Fairies are the opium of the masses." That's what you suppose?

All these great thinkers, giving their attention to something you "saw through" at a glance, and with no more profound thought than, "This must be fairies"?

Really?

Or is it just possible you haven't really understood the arguments at all, because you refuse to look at them?

You haven't cited any evidence or set out any argument.

Haven't "cited"? Well, I'll do it now: W.L. Craig and J.P. Moreland, eds. The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (Oxford: Blackwell, 2009). Now it's cited. It's even in good ol' Chicago Style.

As for setting out an argument, one cannot argue with someone who has no standard of evidence. You've do not identify one. What can anyone do with that?

WOT

[Immanuel Can]

WOT

As you wish. You have said it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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'.

You are messing things up when there is no need to for this philosophical discussion and contention.

• What is Reality?
  Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent within a system, as opposed to that which is only imaginary.
  The term is also used to refer to the ontological status of things, indicating their existence.[1] In physical terms, reality is the totality of a system, known and unknown.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

There should be no issue with my assertion, "Reality = all there is."

Your deflection of "substance-dualism" is Metaphysics which you scorned below.

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.

I qualify "empirical" because I want to exclude anything illusory which cannot be justified by empirical facts.

Per current philosophy, "Empirical" [more to Science] has nothing to do with Metaphysics;

Prior to the modern history of science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of natural philosophy. Originally, the term "science" (Latin scientia) simply meant "knowledge".
The scientific method, however, transformed natural philosophy into an empirical activity deriving from experiment, unlike the rest of philosophy.
By the end of the 18th century, it had begun to be called "science" to distinguish it from other branches of philosophy. Science and philosophy have been considered separated disciplines ever since.
Thereafter, metaphysics denoted philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysi ... nd_science

Having explained what is reality above, I'll ask again;

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.

I would add the above is followed with and "backed by critical philosophical reasoning."

The detailed of the above question is raised here;
You and ALL are Part and Parcel of Reality.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=29272

[Veritas Aequitas]

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.

Nah! what you have sounded is you have read Hume's Treatise of Human Nature. That is irrelevant to the above.

What I have linked are the various interpretations of Hume's is-ought contention which exposed your narrow mindedness in sticking to the wrong interpretation. So what you have to say about this exposure and how would you counters the other different interpretations of the is-ought issue, especially the moral-sense view?

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.

You are too superficial with Hume's Moral Principles.

It is not say-so, rather Hume relied on the Law of Non-Contradiction, i.e.
What is empirical [is] and non-empirical [ought] cannot be the same.
There is no way one can conflate and equivocate the above p and non-p directly.

Hume is not totally against the Natural Law Theory.
You have to read Hume's work to understand this point.

What Hume is against is the use of Reason-Alone to infer moral distinctions without any consideration for the primary role of the passions. [the rationalists' position].

What Hume contended was Morality is an inherent impulse dominated by the human passions-sentiments [Hume's empiricism] and merely supported secondarily by reasons.

Thus the task is to investigate empirically into these passion-sentiments and understand how it works.
From how it works and verified to empirical evidence and supported by reasonings, moral objectives can be established like how Science produce its relative objective truths.

I quoted this from SEP;

SEP wrote:
His method in that work differs from that of the Treatise: instead of explicating the nature of virtue and vice and our knowledge of them in terms of underlying features of the human mind,
he proposes to collect all the traits we know from common sense to be virtues and vices,
observe what those in each group have in common,
and from that observation discover the “foundation of ethics.”
(EPM 1.10).

Thus Hume's establishment of the "foundation of ethics" [moral objectives] are inferred [reasoned] on empirical observations.

Most interpreters recognized "utility" as a basis for Hume's moral evaluation, but utility [one man's meat another's poison] is so subjective to individuals and groups, thus cannot be a solid ground for morality.

You definitely do not understand Hume's Principles of Morality fully and thoroughly but merely following the herd's say-so.
Suggest you read Hume's Treatise and Enquiry fully and thoroughly to understand [not necessary agree with] Hume's actual position.

[Veritas Aequitas]

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...

My computer is down, if I am not mistaken I downloaded the book if not I have surveyed the "contents" and noted the various articles by different authors.

I stated we require "DIRECT" empirical evidences like the empirical evidences to support e.g. the Eiffel Tower exists as a real thing. You provided no direct empirical evidences.

Note ALL the arguments for God has the following inherent equivocation fallacy;

• 1. P1 - Natural - empirical
  2. P2 - Natural + Transcendental
  3. C1 - Natural + Transcendent

The above premises do not follow.
Kant explained in detailed in the CPR how theists invoke magic to slip in the transcendental 'transcendent' into the natural.

This is what Hume complained about the is-ought fallacy, i.e.
how the hell did the "transcendental" slipped in from the natural.

Circumstances??
You stated, you do not rely merely on one argument, but taking note of all the arguments as in the book together as a whole [circumstances], you are convince God exists as real.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Well, I suppose if you won't even look at what I've supplied, you're going to hold to that. Everybody else can see that I've pointed to the best arguments available -- cogent, academic, thoughtful and well-articulated. As I say, you won't find a better job done than the Blackwell Guide, I think...and if there's a better, let me know, because I want to read it too.

You keep harping on that Blackwell Guide which is only convincing to you, thus confirmation bias and very subjective.

As I had stated;

Note as per Kant, ALL the arguments for God has the following inherent equivocation fallacy;
1. P1 - Natural - empirical
2. P2 - Natural + Transcendental
3. C1 - Natural + Transcendent

In addition I have put the final nail in the coffin for any argument for the existence of God, i.e. It is impossible for God to exists as real empirically and philosophically, thus the question of whether God exists is a non-starter.

Why people belief in illusory things is due to psychological drives, madness, etc. which are all happening within the human brain.

[Peter Holmes]

WOT

As you wish. You have said it.

Yes. I think you're intellectually dishonest. It hasn't been a pleasure. Again.

[Peter Holmes]

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'.

You are messing things up when there is no need to for this philosophical discussion and contention.

• What is Reality?
  Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent within a system, as opposed to that which is only imaginary.
  The term is also used to refer to the ontological status of things, indicating their existence.[1] In physical terms, reality is the totality of a system, known and unknown.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality

There should be no issue with my assertion, "Reality = all there is."

Your deflection of "substance-dualism" is Metaphysics which you scorned below.

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.

I qualify "empirical" because I want to exclude anything illusory which cannot be justified by empirical facts.

Per current philosophy, "Empirical" [more to Science] has nothing to do with Metaphysics;

Prior to the modern history of science, scientific questions were addressed as a part of natural philosophy. Originally, the term "science" (Latin scientia) simply meant "knowledge".
The scientific method, however, transformed natural philosophy into an empirical activity deriving from experiment, unlike the rest of philosophy.
By the end of the 18th century, it had begun to be called "science" to distinguish it from other branches of philosophy. Science and philosophy have been considered separated disciplines ever since.
Thereafter, metaphysics denoted philosophical enquiry of a non-empirical character into the nature of existence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysi ... nd_science

Having explained what is reality above, I'll ask again;

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.

I would add the above is followed with and "backed by critical philosophical reasoning."

The detailed of the above question is raised here;
You and ALL are Part and Parcel of Reality.
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=29272

1 What we call a fact is either a state-of-affairs or a true description of a state-of-affairs. And both of those are real things, not unreal or imaginary things. So if by 'empirical' you just mean 'real', the expression 'empirical fact' is a tautology. What other kind of fact could there be?

2 Anything chosen can't be objective, by definition. If we choose moral goals and rules, those goals and rules aren't and can't be objective, by definition. The only fact of the matter would be that we have chosen those goals and rules. So your claim that morality can be objective if we choose goals and rules is patently false.

3 Yes. Reality is all there is. So we are part of reality. Now, please get to your point.