Is morality objective or subjective?

[FlashDangerpants]

Well, an Atheist's going to be in a bit of a pickle, if he thinks he need certain knowledge to bolster his Atheism. He'd actually be safer sticking with probabilistic claims. But the reason that's hard for an Atheist to accept is that he wants desperately to say that other people shouldn't believe in God either...he doesn't want to stop at saying merely "I don't believe;" yet as soon as he implies he has any certainty, he becomes vulnerable to an asking of evidence...which he doesn't want to have to provide.

This ideal atheist you've cooked up is very helpfully stupid at key moments, you are lucky indeed that he is your foe.

Maybe you should explain to him why he's stupid. I've been trying, but he's not listening.

All he ever needed was whatever reasons he has for not believing in any god on his own part, and then to commend those reasons to others. Assuming he really is all that desperate. I don't know why he's so desperate, but you made him up so you can worry about that. Either way, this desperation to make up a better reason for other people to disbelieve than he has for himself makes him behave in a very stupid way that's conveniently easy for you to counter.

[iambiguous]

Yo, IC! You're up!!

No, I don't dance to your tune. I deal with what's worth dealing with, and my time is my own. Sorry.

Note to others:

Not to worry. He'll be back.

[Atla]

We can't prove a negative so there's always the possibility of God existing, but to most weak atheists, it's probably less than 5% or even less than 1%. Not much different from other possibilities like computer simulation, brain-in-a-vat, solipsism, evil demon deceiving you, hologram, dream etc.

So it's in the "negligible possibility" category with other random stuff

[Harbal]

When you are told something wildly implausible, you just tend not to believe it; end on story.

But it's only a "tend." That's probabilistic, not certain.

And "implausiblity" depends on evidence, because unless you know what evidence you should expect to find, it's impossible to say that it's missing. What evidence for God would an Atheist have good reason to expect, that he fails to find and thus judges the existence of God "implausible"?

I don't believe in anything supernatural, I'm not just singling God out.

Besides, what evidence could you possibly produce for the nonexistence of something.

Ah, now you've got the problem! And Atheist can NEVER show he's right.

You are determined to convince me I have a problem, aren't you?

Not being able to show I am right not to believe in God hasn't thus far presented me with a problem.

By contrast, how many things would a Theist have to show, in order to prove himself right? How many (genuine, of course -- we would have to reject any ersatz ones) epiphanies would he have to produce, or how many incarnations, how many Creations, or how many partings of the Red Sea, how many Messiahs, or how many genuine revelations, how many voices from the heavens, how many genuinely answered prayers, how many healings, how many divine interventions in situations, how many resurrections, or how many miracles, how many genuine objective moral values...or how many solid evidences of any kind?

False claims don't increase in persuasiveness by increasing in number.

If a Theist produces one solid bit of evidence of any kind that was reasonable for a reasoning person to accept, he wins; because any God, any God at all, anytime, disproves Atheism utterly. Just one.

If you say so, but one bit of solid evidence has never been produced, so perhaps we should review the situation when one has been produced.

But the Atheist can never win. He needs to show that there is not, and never was a Supreme Being, not here or in any corner of the universe, or outside of it and time itself, or in any persons or things, or in any culture's history, or in science or logic or anything at all.

I suppose there are different kinds of atheists, and I'm the kind that isn't trying to win anything; I can't speak for the ones who are. Like I said, I don't have a problem with anyone believing in God; it's what they do with that believe that often becomes a matter of concern.

That's why the Atheist cannot prove his negative claim. And an honest Atheist has to do what you are doing, and admit his argument is based on a weak probability calculation that convinces only himself...and slide over to agnosticism, where he belongs. Unless he wishes to remain irrational.

It is my understand that it isn't possible to prove a negative, so it seems unfair that an atheist's inability to do it should count against him. I don't think of myself as an honest atheist; just as an honest person. Atheism isn't a part of my identity, just as all the other things I don't happen to believe don't form part of it. I know a lot of people believe in God, or claim to believe, but I just don't happen to be one of them, and it actually seems absurd to me that being in that position is something that has its own special name; "atheist". You can call me an agnostic if you like; it doesn't make any difference to anything.

Well, one can believe rather easily in a thing if one's chosen standards of evidence are zero, of course. But the minute the Atheist claims his view is rational, evidentiary, logical or obligatory for anybody else, he's in trouble, rationally speaking.

No one is born believing in God. God is something most of us hear about when we are too young to apply reason to such things, and we just accept it as being the case, just like we accept everything else we are told when we are children. When I reached the age of being able to think about things with some degree of rationality, believing there was such a thing as God was just one of many beliefs I left behind. I don't think it is rational to believe in God; you think it is irrational not to believe. I don't really have a problem with that, but you certainly seem to.

[Harbal]

First you objected because you thought enhancing empathy fixes values, now you object because it doesn't?

I said no such thing as "empathy fixes values." You'll have to show me where you think that comes from.

Empathy is merely an emotion. It can be directed toward good objects and people, or toward bad ones. Look at how many love letters mass murderers have received from admirers: empathetic, no doubt...but stupid, for sure, and very plausibly evil as well. There are some things that are not deserving of our empathy, and toward which, in fact, if we have empathy, then we ourselves become evil.

It is the aspect of empathy that allows us to see something happening to someone else and be able to comprehend how that would feel if it were to happen to us that is relevant and necessary to morality. I don't see what there is about that to corrupt anybody. If that ability causes us to feel a buzz when we imagine what it must be like to be a mass murderer, there was obviously something very wrong with us to start with.

[Immanuel Can]

Empathy is generally a good thing and lack of it is generally a form of evil.

It's an untrustworthy thing. It can be good, it can be bad; absolutely everything depends on the object toward which it is being directed. So morality consists in things that are prior to empathy: the fact of somebody having empathetic feelings does not mean she is being moral.

Btw I did say that humans also need a 20-30 points IQ raise.

You did. But intelligence is not morality. If it were, then the more intelligent a person was, the more moral he or she would automatically become. That that is not the case is quite evident, from many examples.

[Immanuel Can]

This ideal atheist you've cooked up is very helpfully stupid at key moments, you are lucky indeed that he is your foe.

Maybe you should explain to him why he's stupid. I've been trying, but he's not listening.

All he ever needed was whatever reasons he has for not believing in any god on his own part, and then to commend those reasons to others.

Great. Let's hear his reasons, and see if we share them.

Go ahead: list them.

[FlashDangerpants]

Maybe you should explain to him why he's stupid. I've been trying, but he's not listening.

All he ever needed was whatever reasons he has for not believing in any god on his own part, and then to commend those reasons to others.

Great. Let's hear his reasons, and see if we share them.

Go ahead: list them.

They don't matter. He considers them a good reason for him not to believe in any combination of gods, goblins, wizards, unicorns and dragons. All that matters is that they conform to your definition of probablistic reasoning and don't amount to any attempt at impossible reasoning. They wouldn't convince you, I don't care about that.

[Immanuel Can]

When you are told something wildly implausible, you just tend not to believe it; end on story.

But it's only a "tend." That's probabilistic, not certain.

And "implausiblity" depends on evidence, because unless you know what evidence you should expect to find, it's impossible to say that it's missing. What evidence for God would an Atheist have good reason to expect, that he fails to find and thus judges the existence of God "implausible"?

You are determined to convince me I have a problem, aren't you?

I don't know...are you one of those Atheists?

Call me "Dr. IC." All I do is diagnose the disease the patient brings in with him. I don't give him the disease.

False claims don't increase in persuasiveness by increasing in number.

He only needs one true one. That's a pretty small number.

There is an infinite number the Atheist would need...if he had any at all, beyond his own preferences.

...one bit of solid evidence has never been produced,

I would say that was obviously not so. But I suspect the Atheist would simply refuse to accept anything offered to him as evidence. One cannot beat that sort of strategy.

For example, just look around at the world...that's the very first and most obvious place to start to gather data.

Like I said, I don't have a problem with anyone believing in God; it's what they do with that believe that often becomes a matter of concern.

It will entirely depend on what kind of God they believe in. But put them all together, and none of the religionists of any stripe whatsoever have done anything near the damage done by Atheists...in terms of sheer corpses, if by no other metric.

It is my understand that it isn't possible to prove a negative, so it seems unfair that an atheist's inability to do it should count against him.

Well, an inability can be one's own fault, as it is in the case of the Atheist. And nobody needs to "count anything against him," unless he starts pretending to know what he very obviously does not. In such a case, it's fair game to ask him for his evidence.

...it actually seems absurd to me that being in that position is something that has its own special name; "atheist". You can call me an agnostic if you like; it doesn't make any difference to anything.

It's a fairer and more accurate label, if nothing else. And if one needs to know what he believes, it gives him a more accurate, concise way for telling people. So that's something.

No one is born believing in God.

Actually, sociologically, you might well suspect that they are. Otherwise it would be hard to explain why 100% of human civilizations have always been some form of theistic. If it's not inborn, how do they do it?

When I reached the age of being able to think about things with some degree of rationality, believing there was such a thing as God was just one of many beliefs I left behind.

Well, then, presumably you did it for rational reasons.

What were they?

[FlashDangerpants]

When I reached the age of being able to think about things with some degree of rationality, believing there was such a thing as God was just one of many beliefs I left behind.

Well, then, presumably you did it for rational reasons.

What were they?

This is the ethics sub.

Perhaps it's time to take the arguments about whether there is a God to the religion sub where the people who care about that shit hang out.

[Atla]

It's an untrustworthy thing. It can be good, it can be bad; absolutely everything depends on the object toward which it is being directed. So morality consists in things that are prior to empathy: the fact of somebody having empathetic feelings does not mean she is being moral.

Hunger can also be an untrustworthy thing, some food is edible some food isn't. So people shouldn't eat anything.

You did. But intelligence is not morality. If it were, then the more intelligent a person was, the more moral he or she would automatically become. That that is not the case is quite evident, from many examples.

Of course intelligence isn't morality. But more intelligent people can more often than not use their morality more wisely.

This is getting sad..

[Immanuel Can]

It is the aspect of empathy that allows us to see something happening to someone else and be able to comprehend how that would feel if it were to happen to us that is relevant and necessary to morality. I don't see what there is about that to corrupt anybody.

If that ability causes us to feel a buzz when we imagine what it must be like to be a mass murderer, there was obviously something very wrong with us to start with.

"Obviously," you say...and "something wrong..." Interesting language for a subjectivist to resort to.

But in a subjectivist world, there's nothing "obvious" or "wrong" about that, so long as they feel the empathy. Let it be with a sick puppy, or Adolph Hitler, it's just a feeling...unless we have objective grounds for knowing beforehand that one kind of "empathy" is good, and the other is...what's your wording?..."something wrong."

[Immanuel Can]

It's an untrustworthy thing. It can be good, it can be bad; absolutely everything depends on the object toward which it is being directed. So morality consists in things that are prior to empathy: the fact of somebody having empathetic feelings does not mean she is being moral.

Food can also be an untrustworthy thing, some of it is edible some of it isn't. So people shouldn't eat anything.

That doesn't logically follow, actually.

What follows from that realization is not that people shouldn't eat, but that they should watch what they eat. And whether what they eat poisons them or not will not be some function of their eating itself, but rather of the quality of the thing they ingest.

Likewise, to use your analogy, some empathy is sweet. Some is rat poison. One has to know the difference. But only objective criteria would allow one to do that, because my subjective feeling that the rat poison isn't rat poison won't save me from death.

You did. But intelligence is not morality. If it were, then the more intelligent a person was, the more moral he or she would automatically become. That that is not the case is quite evident, from many examples.

Of course intelligence isn't morality. But more intelligent people can more often than not use their morality more wisely.

That, too, turns out not to be true. Often, what intelligent people use their intelligence for is merely being more devious or more direct about fulfilling their own desires, rather than for doing good. Serial killers, drug dealers or human traffickers are sometimes so intelligent they keep law enforcement off balance and unable to beat them for years...or even permanently. One might say that what is lacking in them is not intelligence, but...morality.

But this is very obvious, surely.

[Immanuel Can]

When I reached the age of being able to think about things with some degree of rationality, believing there was such a thing as God was just one of many beliefs I left behind.

Well, then, presumably you did it for rational reasons.

What were they?

This is the ethics sub.

Perhaps it's time to take the arguments about whether there is a God to the religion sub where the people who care about that shit hang out.

Can't do it, right?

We're in the right sub, alright. I'm just waiting for your subjectivist moral syllogism. I note it is yet to appear...I shall not forget.

[Atla]

That doesn't logically follow, actually.

What follows from that realization is not that people shouldn't eat, but that they should watch what they eat. And whether what they eat poisons them or not will not be some function of their eating itself, but rather of the quality of the thing they ingest.

Likewise, to use your analogy, some empathy is sweet. Some is rat poison. One has to know the difference. But only objective criteria would allow one to do that, because my subjective feeling that the rat poison isn't rat poison won't save me from death.

Maybe the apple was poisoned. It's best to never trust our best judgment about who to empathize with, and it's best to never eat anything ever again.

That, too, turns out not to be true. Often, what intelligent people use their intelligence for is merely being more devious or more direct about fulfilling their own desires, rather than for doing good. Serial killers, drug dealers or human traffickers are sometimes so intelligent they keep law enforcement off balance and unable to beat them for years...or even permanently. One might say that what is lacking in them is not intelligence, but...morality.

But this is very obvious, surely.

That's why I said that we need to enhance both IQ and empathy, so that fewer people will turn to criminalism to begin with. And in a smarter world the ones who do, will get caught more often.