What could make morality objective?

[Immanuel Can]

I don't have to cite research at this point.

No, you don't have to...nobody here has to do anything; but you do have to provide your citations, if you want to give anybody reason to believe you.

Nah, what is critical is whether I have provided sound arguments which I have given.

Well, you're free to say what evidence you will provide, and you're free as to whether or not you present any. But you're not in a position to say what others choose to receive as evidence, since they decide that for themselves.

For me, a claim without evidence is suspect. And this claim, that DNA accounts for existential crises, is, to my present knowledge, unscientific. And before I believe otherwise, I will need to see scientific evidence to support it -- and I suspect most others are probably the same.

"Nah" won't work there.

But in addition to its failure as science, the claim also falls into the error of the Genetic Fallacy -- that is, the idea that you can reject an idea because of where it came from, rather than on the basis of whether or not it is, itself, true. So even in terms of logic, the claim fails, even were you to have such scientific evidence as is appropriate.

I don't see a way for that argument to end up sound.

[henry quirk]

Okay, then I guess I'm all in on the empiricism...

[Veritas Aequitas]

No, you don't have to...nobody here has to do anything; but you do have to provide your citations, if you want to give anybody reason to believe you.

Nah, what is critical is whether I have provided sound arguments which I have given.

Well, you're free to say what evidence you will provide, and you're free as to whether or not you present any. But you're not in a position to say what others choose to receive as evidence, since they decide that for themselves.

For me, a claim without evidence is suspect. And this claim, that DNA accounts for existential crises, is, to my present knowledge, unscientific. And before I believe otherwise, I will need to see scientific evidence to support it -- and I suspect most others are probably the same.

"Nah" won't work there.

But in addition to its failure as science, the claim also falls into the error of the Genetic Fallacy -- that is, the idea that you can reject an idea because of where it came from, rather than on the basis of whether or not it is, itself, true. So even in terms of logic, the claim fails, even were you to have such scientific evidence as is appropriate.

I don't see a way for that argument to end up sound.

I don't expect you to agree to my arguments immediately but at least review the premises I have provided.

In any case, the existential crisis generate a very strong defense mechanism to protect and secure one's current beliefs [in your case theism] that is providing relief to the existential crisis.
As such, whatever arguments I put forward, you will likely deny and dispute it via the most irrational basis.

Here is my argument again [we have gone tru this before];

• 1. All humans are "programmed" [no God involved] to survive at all costs.
  2. To ensure survival, any awareness of a threat of death is triggered with terrible fears to ensure the individual find solutions to avoid premature death.
  3. All humans are "programmed" with self-awareness.
  4. Mortality [death] is a "certainty" [99.999999..999%].
  5. Self-awareness [3] make one aware of mortality [death] [4].
  6. Premise 5 triggers 2 but there is no possibility of solutions [2].
  7. No possibility of a direct solution [6] pose a dilemma which cannot be resolved, thus the existential crisis exuding subliminally.

Now show me which of the above premise is false thus my conclusion 7 will be false.

[Belinda]

As for the OT injunctions, they have to do with the legal system of the nation of Israel.

You know, IC, this is why people do not believe Christians are honest. As soon as there is something about the absolute law of God one doesn't like, like the scribes and Pharisees, they rationalize the laws out of existence. I don't personally care, but if you want people to believe the Bible is authoritative, they aren't going to if you are going to keep insisting, "well that's what it says in plain English (Hebrew or Greek in the original) but that's not what it means.

... authorities are to be respected and obeyed -- save when their demands come into conflict with one's relationship with God, which is always primary.

Well that justifies just about anything. Who decides what is in conflict with one's relationship with God? Do anything you like, so long as you believe it is God's will for you.

That is why reason and knowledge are our best way to approach objective truth. Not that we will ever attain the objective! Reason and knowledge applied to Biblical interpretation proceed by way of historical and anthropological evidence.Biblical scholarship is a large field of study however a worthy starting point is the understanding the Christ of faith is not the same as the Jesus of history. The Christ of faith is a man made myth. The Jesus of history is a shadowy character but a lot is known about Palestine during the time when Jesus lived.

People who believe the Bible is texts revealed by God are superstitious people. If Immanuel Can were to claim Christianity is good because it makes believers kinder or more peaceable then IC would perhaps make a worthy point. But IC is not even a pragmatist. He supports authority : the Bible as the handbook of political status quo of power and might for the few.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't expect you to agree to my arguments immediately...

Then I'm glad not to disappoint you. I really don't agree, because you've provided no evidence for your DNA theory, and DNA is far, far too complicated a thing to make wild assumptions about.

Here is my argument again [we have gone tru this before];

• 1. All humans are "programmed" [no God involved] to survive at all costs.
  2. To ensure survival, any awareness of a threat of death is triggered with terrible fears to ensure the individual find solutions to avoid premature death.
  3. All humans are "programmed" with self-awareness.
  4. Mortality [death] is a "certainty" [99.999999..999%].
  5. Self-awareness [3] make one aware of mortality [death] [4].
  6. Premise 5 triggers 2 but there is no possibility of solutions [2].
  7. No possibility of a direct solution [6] pose a dilemma which cannot be resolved, thus the existential crisis exuding subliminally.

Now show me which of the above premise is false thus my conclusion 7 will be false.

Well, first of all, you don't form any of them into syllogisms, so they aren't really "premises." That's the formal logical problem there. But 1 and 3 are devoid of evidence, 2 and 6 are contentious but unproven, 4 is just trite and obvious (except for the phony number, which is merely bizarre), 5 and 7 are ungrammatical and thus uninterpretable.

And the rational connection between any two of the premises is not indicated, and their relevance to the conclusion is not specified, because the whole thing isn't formed into a syllogism with middle terms. To put it metaphorically, the "connective tissue" of the "body of argument" here is entirely absent.

So I'd say there isn't a reason in any of the "premises" as worded for a rational interlocutor to think the conclusion is anything but arbitrary and imaginary.

And I don't say that to be cantankerous: I say it because you asked, and that's what it genuinely looks like from where I sit.

[RCSaunders]

People who believe the Bible is texts revealed by God are superstitious people.

Yes! Unfortunately it's not the only superstition you find around here. The amount of superstition and gullibility I find on this site is breathtaking.

[Skepdick]

Yes! Unfortunately it's not the only superstition you find around here. The amount of superstition and gullibility I find on this site is breathtaking.

Agreed. The superstition of certainty/determinism is stupefying!

[RCSaunders]

Yes! Unfortunately it's not the only superstition you find around here. The amount of superstition and gullibility I find on this site is breathtaking.

Agreed. The superstition of certainty/determinism is stupefying!

That would certainly be superstition.

[Skepdick]

That would certainly be superstition.

Indeed. The Certain Knowledge crowd fits the bill.

[Belinda]

Yes! Unfortunately it's not the only superstition you find around here. The amount of superstition and gullibility I find on this site is breathtaking.

Agreed. The superstition of certainty/determinism is stupefying!

Superstitious people are probably given to certainty however certainty bedevils others besides the superstitious. Some self proclaimed 'atheists' are certain they know what's ontologically and epistemologically what.

As for determinism, I wish you would make a distinction between naive billiard ball causal chains on the one hand, and necessary order on the other. Necessary order is not inevitably a personal monogod but is perhaps nature. And maybe even nature revealed by 'laws of science' despite we cannot know it for certain.

[Skepdick]

Superstitious people are probably given to certainty however certainty bedevils others besides the superstitious. Some self proclaimed 'atheists' are certain they know what's ontologically and epistemologically what.

Can it really be any other way though? The limits of our epistemology cannot be overcome with thinking, only new evidence.

If you don't know what you don't know - you can't self-correct.
And if you know what you don't know, but you don't know how to fill your knowledge gap - you still can't self-correct.

Inevitably, all of our actions are based on incomplete knowledge, and much like all human dilemmas: acting on incomplete knowledge can be just as catastrophic as not acting at all.

Reality has made us all gamblers whether we like it or not. The wise thing to do is to figure out how to navigate reality despite the shortcomings of our knowledge.

As for determinism, I wish you would make a distinction between naive billiard ball causal chains on the one hand, and necessary order on the other.
Necessary order is not inevitably a personal monogod but is perhaps nature. And maybe even nature revealed by 'laws of science' despite we cannot know it for certain.

Ontologically, I don't see a difference. If causality is fundamental, then well-ordering is a thing to be considered. And even in the dry and formal Mathematical conception you have to deal with the least element - the first cause. I won't call it "God" because it's an emotional landmine, but conceptually.... it's the first cause. In 2020 it's more fashionable to call it "The Big Bang".

When I speak of determinism and non-determinism I am strictly speaking from the epistemic perspective.

I am saying that causality cannot be determined/isolated precisely (if at all) for certain, complex phenomena.
Not to mention the complexity in distinguishing upward and downward causality. The billiard ball's causal chain is an example of downward causality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downward_causation

[Belinda]

Superstitious people are probably given to certainty however certainty bedevils others besides the superstitious. Some self proclaimed 'atheists' are certain they know what's ontologically and epistemologically what.

Can it really be any other way though? The limits of our epistemology cannot be overcome with thinking, only new evidence.

If you don't know what you don't know - you can't self-correct.
And if you know what you don't know, but you don't know how to fill your knowledge gap - you still can't self-correct.

Inevitably, all of our actions are based on incomplete knowledge, and much like all human dilemmas: acting on incomplete knowledge can be just as catastrophic as not acting at all.

Reality has made us all gamblers whether we like it or not. The wise thing to do is to figure out how to navigate reality despite the shortcomings of our knowledge.

As for determinism, I wish you would make a distinction between naive billiard ball causal chains on the one hand, and necessary order on the other.
Necessary order is not inevitably a personal monogod but is perhaps nature. And maybe even nature revealed by 'laws of science' despite we cannot know it for certain.

Ontologically, I don't see a difference. If causality is fundamental, then well-ordering is a thing to be considered. And even in the dry and formal Mathematical conception you have to deal with the least element - the first cause. I won't call it "God" because it's an emotional landmine, but conceptually.... it's the first cause. In 2020 it's more fashionable to call it "The Big Bang".

When I speak of determinism and non-determinism I am strictly speaking from the epistemic perspective.

I am saying that causality cannot be determined/isolated precisely (if at all) for certain, complex phenomena.
Not to mention the complexity in distinguishing upward and downward causality. The billiard ball's causal chain is an example of downward causality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downward_causation

Reality has made us all gamblers whether we like it or not. The wise thing to do is to figure out how to navigate reality despite the shortcomings of our knowledge.

Navigating to reality is what education including arts and science ideally is for, despite political pressures.

I looked at the well-ordering URL you recommended. Sets theory is entirely new to me and from what I can understand a well ordered set contains no subsets or items that are not necessary subsets or other items. In Biblical terms, if you will, He knows when the sparrow falls. My bias is towards nature as the well ordered set of well ordered sets. I hope I am making sense despite sets theory is new to me. I know my bias is no more than blind faith however I am emotionally prepared to change my mind.

I also looked at the URL about downward causation. It's news to me and thanks for the introduction. I thought downward causation is the same as every event being a necessary event within the set of sets and due to the integrity of the set of sets i.e. nature (existence itself) . Please bear with me as I am a novice.

[Skepdick]

Navigating to reality is what education including arts and science ideally is for, despite political pressures.

Yea, but that's only in spirit. The reality of the matter is that the problem of induction is an erudite way of saying "we are all blind to the future".

With or without political pressures, we all have to eat tomorrow. And then there's all other complex human needs...

I looked at the well-ordering URL you recommended. Sets theory is entirely new to me and from what I can understand a well ordered set contains no subsets or items that are not necessary subsets or other items.

Don't read too much into the mathematics - it can get pretty abstract pretty quickly. Time is a well-ordered set. There's a beginning, an end and you can tell the difference between "before" and "after".

If you comprehend that conceptually, then the English phrase "the beginning of time" translates so the sentence "The First Cause". Add your own theistic undertones if you will.

Structurally and when reduced to the extreme, all beliefs-systems have that element. Difference being that no crusades/wars have happened because of the least elements of well ordered sets.

In Biblical terms, if you will, He knows when the sparrow falls. My bias is towards nature as the well ordered set of well ordered sets. I hope I am making sense despite sets theory is new to me.

I understand exactly what you mean - a timeline outside of our timeline.

Abstract mathematics goes there too (without the theism).

If you imagine the number line starting at 0 as a well-ordered set, then the numbers look a lot like time.
And if the numbers are like time, then second order arithmetic is like the timeline outside of our timeline.

I know my bias is no more than blind faith however I am emotionally prepared to change my mind.

Emotionally, your bias is exactly right. Mathematicians/scientists just work really hard towards expressing those intuitions in formal language.

I also looked at the URL about downward causation. It's news to me and thanks for the introduction. I thought downward causation is the same as every event being a necessary event within the set of sets and due to the integrity of the set of sets i.e. nature (existence itself)

Yes, conceptually you have this figured out, except for the issue of free will. If every event was a necessary event, then there's nothing different to billiards balls. We made them - we knock them around tables.

But our choice to make them and knock them around was necessary, and part of the well-ordered set that is nature itself. So is that downward or upward causation?

The answer depends on whether you are a monist or a dualist, I guess...

. Please bear with me as I am a novice.

We all are! Language is just a fancy way of organizing our ignorance.

[uwot]

Did I miss your response to this Skepdick?

The derivative of the mathematical function which represents the historical murder rate over centuries of data is a certain value.

That value is not positive (murder is not increasing), and it's not zero (murder is not steady).

Murder is decreasing.

That's 2:1 unlikely, or just above 3 decibels of evidence.

What exactly have I misunderstood?

[RCSaunders]

The Certain Knowledge crowd fits the bill.

What, "certain knowledge crowd," would that be? Since Hume and Kant destroyed epistemology, there is not a single philosopher I know who holds the view of certain knowledge. Can you name any?