Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

You really don't understand Descartes.

Meditations is right here on my desk, if you want to debate him.

Fire away.

I have nothing to "fire." I was simply pointing out that the allegation I had gotten Descartes wrong can be contested abundantly at any point at which it is alleged, and I have the means available to do that, if you do. That's all.

But what happened to Descartes after that is famous: he aimed to build up certain knowledge from that foundation of absolute doubt.

Well, Descartes developed analytic geometry and the Cartesian coordinate system that bears his name. As a gifted mathematician, he hoped to apply the same axiomatic reasoning to philosophy.

Ummm...no, not really. His methodology in the "Meditations" is what's called "radical doubt," meaning "the doubting of everything that can even potentially be doubted, even a little, in hopes of arriving at a foundation that can no longer be doubted."

That's not how mathematics works: mathematics works on our acceptance of a closed system of symbols, which is a kind of trust in the integrity of that closed system. It's not empirical, though: one does not prove that 2X + 5Y = 100 by lining up sheep and counting them, or by designing a physical experiment of some kind. One does it by manipulating the symbol system itself. And the application discovered will be universal, not particular, and will require a step of personal hope in order to decide to what it should be applied in each case. So that's a very different matter.

In particular, he aimed at eventually proving the existence of God, (His original title was, "Meditations on First Philosophy, in which the existence of God and the immortality of the soul are demonstrated": you can look that up, if you wish)

Well there's the evidence and your interpretation of it.

It's his title. There's really no interpretation required, beyond reading his words. He makes his intention quite clear, I would say.

So anyone who translates that into I doubt, therefore I am, as you suggest, doesn't speak French.

Je parle Francais. Mais ce n'est pas le point, a ce moment. The interpolation of "think" into "doubt" is by way of implication, not translation. What critics have pointed out is that it is not so much the fact of "thinking" that backs Descartes theory, but the specific kind of thinking that is the action of doubting. And I am not original at all in pointing this out: it's not a misinterpretation, but a subsequent correcting of Descartes misspeaking, really. (You can check that out, merely by googling "I doubt therefore I am." You'll see that many, many critics have made that point before I ever repeated their critique to you.)

Another option is that it was simply marketing. 'Meditations on First Philosophy' isn't going to fly off the shelves, but demonstrating God and immortality is going to peak the interest.

Well, that's possible, but unlikely. More likely is what so many of Descartes biographers actually say: that Descartes, far from being some kind of secret skeptic or Atheist, was actually a dedicated Catholic, working on a Catholic apologetics project that he hoped would get him the firm foundation of faith he sought, and maybe endear him to the Pope. Only Descartes knew the truth of that, of course.

Either way, he failed. On that much we can surely agree. The technique of "radical doubt" is effective for the reduction of certainty all the way down to the point where we only know our existence as a "doubting" thing, or a "thinking" thing...but not every kind of "thinking," even. So we know very little, if anything, for certain. However, it's impossible to use the same method, "radical doubt," to build back up anything positive by way of knowledge. That, too is generally recognized as a critique of Descartes.

The problem is in Descartes method itself. In deciding only to believe what CANNOT EVER be doubted, we strip away far too much. And we end up not really knowing anything. Radical doubt is ultimately nihilistic and paralyzing, if we will not relinquish it.

What does this mean? It means that without some exercise of personal faith, we don't know what we are, we don't know we have a body, we don't know if we can trust our senses, and we don't know at all if an external world even exists, or just a realm of illusion presided over by some kind of malevolent deceiver.

Yep, and you can live with that or apply your personal faith to any number of philosophies or religions.[/quote]
Well, what Descartes showed is that it's utterly impossible to live by merely "accepting" that. One is going to have to take something on faith. The Atheist, just as much as any Theist, is going to have to take for granted his existence as a distinct person, the real existence of his body, the existence of an external universe, the existence of real other people, and so on...all of which he is powerless to do if he clings to the "radical doubt" methodology. So Atheism, like everything else, is an exercise of faith.

But since Atheism is non-evidentiary, declaring proudly its lack of evidence (and often its total freedom from having to provide such, at all) for its worldview, it's always been apparent that people are only Atheists on faith.

We're all in the same boat here: we're choosing an explanation that seems to us the best explanation of evidence held probabilistically, not with certainty. That's the enduring lesson from Descartes' failure, I think. And that's a species of "faith," call it what we will.

[Peter Holmes]

The burden of proof (test) has to be with the claimant. So atheism isn't 'non-evidentiary'. Atheists don't have to provide evidence that no god exists. Or no devil, angel or fairy. The rejection of a claim is not a claim.

That we may have to take some claims on trust - or 'faith' - doesn't mean that any claim can be taken on trust. The nature of the claim is critical.

[Iwannaplato]

The burden of proof (test) has to be with the claimant. So atheism isn't 'non-evidentiary'.

Well, that would depend on the atheist and what she's said or claimed.

Sure, some guy who doesn't believe in God and if questioned says I don't believe in God and that's about the extent of his communication about the topic', he's got very little onus. (if he keeps going to church and appears to be praying with great passion, we might challenge him a tad, but generally we accept, if only for practical reasons, what people say they don't believe in)

Atheists don't have to provide evidence that no god exists. Or no devil, angel or fairy. The rejection of a claim is not a claim.

That we may have to take some claims on trust - or 'faith' - doesn't mean that any claim can be taken on trust. The nature of the claim is critical.

I tend to agree, but
1) let's make a list of a spectrum of beliefs, those requiring justification and those that do not. Like 'there is some accuracy in memory' might be one.
2) then we can see how we can come to neutral ground to evaluate which ones are, well, just useful working assumptions that really don't need any justification and those that are leaps. Can we have a non-metaphysically laden vantage point to determine this?

I'm not saying we can't, just find the issue interesting.

[Peter Holmes]

The burden of proof (test) has to be with the claimant. So atheism isn't 'non-evidentiary'.

Well, that would depend on the atheist and what she's said or claimed.

Okay. But 'I reject this claim' isn't a claim. If you add a 'because...', that may well be to make a claim which, in turn, may incur a burden of proof. But '...I see no evidence to support this claim' doesn't - it seems to me - incur a burden. 'Prove there's no invisible goblin in my kitchen.'

Sure, some guy who doesn't believe in God and if questioned says I don't believe in God and that's about the extent of his communication about the topic', he's got very little onus. (if he keeps going to church and appears to be praying with great passion, we might challenge him a tad, but generally we accept, if only for practical reasons, what people say they don't believe in)

Atheists don't have to provide evidence that no god exists. Or no devil, angel or fairy. The rejection of a claim is not a claim.

That we may have to take some claims on trust - or 'faith' - doesn't mean that any claim can be taken on trust. The nature of the claim is critical.

I tend to agree, but
1) let's make a list of a spectrum of beliefs, those requiring justification and those that do not. Like 'there is some accuracy in memory' might be one.
2) then we can see how we can come to neutral ground to evaluate which ones are, well, just useful working assumptions that really don't need any justification and those that are leaps. Can we have a non-metaphysically laden vantage point to determine this?

Fair enough. I agree with Wittgenstein that doubt can exist only against a background of certainty, which is why radical doubt - such as in empiricist skepticism and talk of 'the external world' - is so misleading.

I'm not saying we can't, just find the issue interesting.

Again, fair enough.

[Skepdick]

The burden of proof (test) has to be with the claimant. So atheism isn't 'non-evidentiary'. Atheists don't have to provide evidence that no god exists. Or no devil, angel or fairy. The rejection of a claim is not a claim.

Very well then. I reject the claim that London exists.

Irony aside, philosophers are fucking idiots.

[Iwannaplato]

Okay. But 'I reject this claim' isn't a claim. If you add a 'because...', that may well be to make a claim which, in turn, may incur a burden of proof. But '...I see no evidence to support this claim' doesn't - it seems to me - incur a burden. 'Prove there's no invisible goblin in my kitchen.'

Sure, sure.

It was the vast possible ways this could be interpreted and might cover

So atheism isn't 'non-evidentiary'.

that I was responding to. Atheism covers a lot of positions (some not merely a lack of being convinced or lack of belief) and actions. It need not, but IRL it does.

[Immanuel Can]

The burden of proof (test) has to be with the claimant.

Yes. And Atheism claims, "There is no God." If there's any kind of gods, then Atheism is, by definition false. So it has to include that claim, implicitly even if the Atheist is reluctant to make it overt.

Moreover, the Atheist has to decide if he wants to claim, "I believe there are no gods," or "There are no gods, and other people should believe the same." If it's the former, it's merely trivial: it amounts to, "I, the Atheist, do not happen to have any experience of what gods there may be." But if it's the latter, it's overly-ambitious: it tells people, "You have to disbelieve in the way I disbelieve, because you can't possibly have any evidence to which I'm not already privy."

So Atheism is not protected by that defense. It's on the hook for what its claim is. And it's certainly not flattering to Atheism to suggest it claims nothing at all. Any position that claims nothing can safely be dismissed without further thought.

Atheists don't have to provide evidence that no god exists.

They do, if they want anybody else to believe them, or if they think their disbelief is rational. If they want to maintain it's only irrational and a personal statement of ignorance, they can do that. But then, they can't speak to anybody else about what they should believe, and they can't be proud of their own basis for refusal to believe.

That we may have to take some claims on trust - or 'faith' - doesn't mean that any claim can be taken on trust.

Of course not.

It's empirical claims we're talking about. Analytic claims wouldn't need it. But science is empirical.

[Peter Holmes]

The burden of proof (test) has to be with the claimant.

Yes. And Atheism claims, "There is no God." If there's any kind of gods, then Atheism is, by definition false. So it has to include that claim, implicitly even if the Atheist is reluctant to make it overt.

Not so. This is a straw man. To reject all god claims is not to claim there is no god. To reject the claim that there's an odd number of stars is not to claim there's an even number.

Moreover, the Atheist has to decide if he wants to claim, "I believe there are no gods," or "There are no gods, and other people should believe the same." If it's the former, it's merely trivial: it amounts to, "I, the Atheist, do not happen to have any experience of what gods there may be." But if it's the latter, it's overly-ambitious: it tells people, "You have to disbelieve in the way I disbelieve, because you can't possibly have any evidence to which I'm not already privy."

Again, not so. Your 'amounts to' gloss on 'I believe there are no gods' is incorrect. And you assume that to express a belief is to want to impose it on others, which is false. The 'and I want you to agree with me' bit is a separate matter. To say 'I reject this claim for lack of evidence' is not to say 'there can be no evidence'.

So Atheism is not protected by that defense. It's on the hook for what its claim is. And it's certainly not flattering to Atheism to suggest it claims nothing at all. Any position that claims nothing can safely be dismissed without further thought.

As can any claim that lacks evidence. And the burden is with the claimant to produce the evidence, as you agree. Atheism need not be 'a claim', much as you insist it is. You need your straw man to deflect attention from your inability to meet the burden of proof for theism. In my opinion.

Atheists don't have to provide evidence that no god exists.

They do,

What evidence could there be for the non-existence of a god or a fairy?

if they want anybody else to believe them, or if they think their disbelief is rational.

'Provide evidence for the non-existence of the invisible goblin in my kitchen - if you want me to believe you and think your disbelief is rational'. Stroll on.

If they want to maintain it's only irrational and a personal statement of ignorance, they can do that. But then, they can't speak to anybody else about what they should believe, and they can't be proud of their own basis for refusal to believe.

That we may have to take some claims on trust - or 'faith' - doesn't mean that any claim can be taken on trust.

Of course not.

It's empirical claims we're talking about. Analytic claims wouldn't need it. But science is empirical.

Your concern for the rationality and self-esteem of people who reject belief in goblins and gods is touching. But rest assured, we're comfortable with the conclusion that, pending (empirical) evidence, belief in their existence is irrational.

In my opinion, people should be free to believe whatsoever nonsense they do or choose to believe - such as that their team's invented god actually exists - so long as their belief harms no one else.

[Harbal]

The burden of proof (test) has to be with the claimant.

Yes. And Atheism claims, "There is no God." If there's any kind of gods, then Atheism is, by definition false. So it has to include that claim, implicitly even if the Atheist is reluctant to make it overt.

Moreover, the Atheist has to decide if he wants to claim, "I believe there are no gods," or "There are no gods, and other people should believe the same." If it's the former, it's merely trivial: it amounts to, "I, the Atheist, do not happen to have any experience of what gods there may be." But if it's the latter, it's overly-ambitious: it tells people, "You have to disbelieve in the way I disbelieve, because you can't possibly have any evidence to which I'm not already privy."

So Atheism is not protected by that defense. It's on the hook for what its claim is. And it's certainly not flattering to Atheism to suggest it claims nothing at all. Any position that claims nothing can safely be dismissed without further thought.

Atheists don't have to provide evidence that no god exists.

They do, if they want anybody else to believe them, or if they think their disbelief is rational. If they want to maintain it's only irrational and a personal statement of ignorance, they can do that. But then, they can't speak to anybody else about what they should believe, and they can't be proud of their own basis for refusal to believe.

That we may have to take some claims on trust - or 'faith' - doesn't mean that any claim can be taken on trust.

Of course not.

It's empirical claims we're talking about. Analytic claims wouldn't need it. But science is empirical.

Some atheists don't accept any claims of the existence of God, and they don't find the subject interesting enough to go any further than that. They don't care what anyone else believes in, and they don't care what anyone else says they have to prove, because they are not interested in convincing anyone of anything.

[Immanuel Can]

The burden of proof (test) has to be with the claimant.

Yes. And Atheism claims, "There is no God." If there's any kind of gods, then Atheism is, by definition false. So it has to include that claim, implicitly even if the Atheist is reluctant to make it overt.

To reject all god claims is not to claim there is no god.

Yes, it is. Because "rejecting" also requires reasons. If I "reject" the existence of cancer, I need to be able to say why I don't believe in something that many other people do. And if I have no reasons, they're going to suspect me of lunacy...and they're rightly going to disregard me.

Moreover, the Atheist has to decide if he wants to claim, "I believe there are no gods," or "There are no gods, and other people should believe the same." If it's the former, it's merely trivial: it amounts to, "I, the Atheist, do not happen to have any experience of what gods there may be." But if it's the latter, it's overly-ambitious: it tells people, "You have to disbelieve in the way I disbelieve, because you can't possibly have any evidence to which I'm not already privy."

...you assume that to express a belief is to want to impose it on others,

No, I clearly do not say that. What I say is obviously true: that the Atheist has two ways to go, not one; and he can pick which way he wants to fail. He can say, "I only mean myself as a disbeliever," and then he can fail to impress anyone with the truth of that belief. Or he can say, "I mean you should disbelieve too," in which case he fails for lack of evidence to warrant that.

So Atheism is not protected by that defense. It's on the hook for what its claim is. And it's certainly not flattering to Atheism to suggest it claims nothing at all. Any position that claims nothing can safely be dismissed without further thought.

As can any claim that lacks evidence.

Exactly right.

Atheism need not be 'a claim', much as you insist it is.

If it is not a claim, it can be totally disregarded.

Provide evidence for the non-existence of the invisible goblin in my kitchen

Now you've summarized the Atheist's plight admirably. He cannot disprove anything at all...gods, goblins or fairies...unless he can devise an evidentiary method to do so. And in the case of God, he simply can't.

But what is the Theist's need to find evidence? All he has to do is find one true evidence of God -- just one. Because one definite evidence of God destroys Atheism completely -- so let there be just one case of a genuinely divine action in any point in history, and Atheism's dead. Let there be one Creation, one miracle, one prophecy, one existential religious experience, one prayer answered, one Incarnation, one healing, one revelation, one person's relationship with God...so long as that one thing is genuine, Atheism's dead.

Bottom line: Atheism has to (dis)prove every possibility. Theism only has to find one single case of an authentic religious event. The playing field is badly tilted against Atheism...almost vertical, in fact.

...we're comfortable with the conclusion that, pending (empirical) evidence, belief in their existence is irrational.

But there is empirical evidence...and lots of it. However, the Atheist has already decided he's "comfortable" with treating none of it as if it were evidence.

In my opinion, people should be free to believe whatsoever nonsense they do or choose to believe...

Funny that you spend so much time arguing they shouldn't, then.

[Immanuel Can]

Some atheists don't accept any claims of the existence of God, and they don't find the subject interesting enough to go any further than that.

Well, that would be what we call, "the thoughtless Atheist." Yes, they exist.

They're a funny breed, though: because it's as if they don't even understand the importance of the claim, "God exists." That just suggests they're hopelessly unthinking, because it's pretty obvious that premise changes everything, if true.

[Harbal]

Some atheists don't accept any claims of the existence of God, and they don't find the subject interesting enough to go any further than that.

Well, that would be what we call, "the thoughtless Atheist." Yes, they exist.

I know they exist, because I'm one of them. This may surprise you, but I don't give much thought to the existence of dragons and goblins, either. I guess that makes me an incredibly thoughtless atheist.

They're a funny breed, though

Yet I can't think of anything more normal.

because it's as if they don't even understand the importance of the claim, "God exists."

But it isn't important. What's to understand?

That just suggests they're hopelessly unthinking,

I actually give a lot of thought to things I am interested in.

because it's pretty obvious that premise changes everything, if true.

But you are speaking from the point of view of someone who believes a particular thing about a particular God, so it may well seem obvious to you, but it is far from obvious to me. I just don't have any belief that there is such a thing as God, but that non-belief applies equally to whichever god might be in question, not just the one you happen to believe in. Some people may well believe in a god who doesn't insist on being believed in. I think you take God far too seriously; I'm sure nothing disastrous would happen if you thought about him a bit less.

[Immanuel Can]

Some atheists don't accept any claims of the existence of God, and they don't find the subject interesting enough to go any further than that.

Well, that would be what we call, "the thoughtless Atheist." Yes, they exist.

I know they exist, because I'm one of them. This may surprise you...

Can I be honest? I mean, without offense, just saying what occurs to me to be true? I sincerely mean no insult here.

Not really. I can see that some of these things are new and unwelcome thoughts for you.

...because it's pretty obvious that premise changes everything, if true.

But you are speaking from the point of view of someone who believes a particular thing about a particular God,

Not at this moment. I would say that statement applies to any conception of God at all, though of course different conceptions will issue in some different particulars of that.

I think you take God far too seriously; I'm sure nothing disastrous would happen if you thought about him a bit less.

I believe you think that.

I also know it probably couldn't be more wrong.

[Harbal]

Well, that would be what we call, "the thoughtless Atheist." Yes, they exist.

I know they exist, because I'm one of them. This may surprise you...

Can I be honest? I mean, without offense,

You must never worry about offending me. I am not particularly sensitive, but if you did manage to offend me, I would just retaliate and offend you back, thus restoring a balance.

I can see that some of these things are new and unwelcome thoughts for you.

See, I told you not to worry; that didn't offend me at all.

But you are speaking from the point of view of someone who believes a particular thing about a particular God,

Not at this moment. I would say that statement applies to any conception of God at all, though of course different conceptions will issue in some different particulars of that.

I treat all concepts of God with equal disinterest, and that includes all the Gods you probably don't approve of, so that is something you should be pleased about.

I think you take God far too seriously; I'm sure nothing disastrous would happen if you thought about him a bit less.

I believe you think that.

I also know it probably couldn't be more wrong.

Have you considered thinking about him more, but speaking about him less?

[Immanuel Can]

I treat all concepts of God with equal disinterest, and that includes all the Gods you probably don't approve of, so that is something you should be pleased about.

If I thought a person who did not think about God as being better than somebody who worshipped the wrong god, then perhaps so.

But there are really only two types of people: those who know God, on the one hand, and on the other, those who know something else or nothing at all. There really is no subsitute for knowing God as He is.

Have you considered thinking about him more, but speaking about him less?

If I think about God, I have also to think about what He requires of me.

And He requires me to speak. So that's really not an option.

I suppose there are people who enjoy abuse...or at least enjoy exchanging abusive emails with other people. I'm not one of those. Left to my own interests, I would perhaps not speak at all. However, God Himself is interested in the welfare of those who may hear about Him, so I cannot be indifferent to them either.