Is morality objective or subjective?

[Will Bouwman]

As an example of 'any particular person' you too have only part of the total data set. Given that the data available to you is conclusive, what data can you bring to my attention that will persuade me likewise?

That's effectively asking "what data am I missing?"

Present all your available data and he'll tell you.

Fair enough. Well, off the top of my head, I am familiar with several versions of ontological argument, cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, arguments from design, irreducible complexity and whatnot, arguments from morality and I've read the bible.

[Skepdick]

As an example of 'any particular person' you too have only part of the total data set. Given that the data available to you is conclusive, what data can you bring to my attention that will persuade me likewise?

That's effectively asking "what data am I missing?"

Present all your available data and he'll tell you.

Fair enough. Well, off the top of my head, I am familiar with several versions of ontological argument, cosmological arguments, teleological arguments, arguments from design, irreducible complexity and whatnot, arguments from morality and I've read the bible.

Those are arguments, not data.

Arguments only tell you how to interpret data.

[Will Bouwman]

Those are arguments, not data.

Arguments only tell you how to interpret data.

Well, I said that I have read the Bible, I was going to add that I see the same sun rising each morning as Immanuel Can. Thank you for your input, but I am more interested in what Immanuel Can considers data than you.

[Skepdick]

Those are arguments, not data.

Arguments only tell you how to interpret data.

Well, I said that I have read the Bible, I was going to add that I see the same sun rising each morning as Immanuel Can. Thank you for your input, but I am more interested in what Immanuel Can considers data than you.

And I am more interested in figuring out whether you consider your moral compass, its predispositions and its ability to overrule reason as any kind of data.

Because it seems to me all those explanatory gaps about clearly causal phenomenological facts, and all those things which can't be reasoned about is what theists call God.

[Sculptor]

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/IfkB4luypbc

What more is there to be said?

[Will Bouwman]

And I am more interested in figuring out whether you consider your moral compass, its predispositions and its ability to overrule reason as any kind of data.

Well, 'Don't be a c unt' pretty much sums up my moral compass. It's different to yours obviously.

Because it seems to me all those explanatory gaps about clearly causal phenomenological facts, and all those things which can't be reasoned about is what theists call God.

I doubt it, but you'd have to ask a theist.

[Immanuel Can]

Any particular person will have, at any given time, only part of that total data set, it's true. But there's a very great difference between accepting the total data set available to one, and pre-selecting out (on the basis of nothing but antipathy to God) only those data that do not seem to contradict Atheism.

You say:

I think that for somebody possessing my data set, it's more than strong enough; it's conclusive.

As an example of 'any particular person' you too have only part of the total data set. Given that the data available to you is conclusive, what data can you bring to my attention that will persuade me likewise?

Yes, I only have part of the total data set. The same is true of every mortal person who has ever lived, of course. We all have a mere 75 years or so to accumulate information and make our decisions; and we're local beings in bodies, not omniscient spirits floating through the universe. We learn what we can, while we can; and, at some point, we make the decision of what we are prepared to die by. The same is true of every scientist, now matter how brilliant, as well; he's also a partial being, bound in a body, headed for death in a few short years, trying to assimilate as much information as he can, but never having anything close to a complete data set.

So all that reminds us of is that life is a matter of faith, not of absolute knowledge. But we all know that anyway, or should, at least. The method of decision I am advocating is not absolute certainty. It's probabilistic. It's an investment of self in the most plausible and trustworthy belief, given the best data one can get.

As for what would please you personally, Will, I'm not sure; that really depends on you, doesn't it? What are you willing to accept? What would constitute the kind of evidence that would persuade you? What are you looking for?

[LuckyR]

You started off by insisting that failure to agree on the measurement result implies non-factuality.

Actually I was addressing the opinion that agreement on a supposedly subjective descriptor such as "red" equates to a factual description independent of opinion. When in reality, since there is no agreement on that descriptor (some would use "red" others "scarlet" still others "ruby"), that your example does, in fact include opinion.

That's what I said. I just used less words.

So we're in agreement? If you say so...

Look, you're the one who tried to equate an objective measure (the appearance of a square that reflects 700nm wavelength light) with a subjective label (calling that appearance "red"). The rest of your reply is trying to use known error in measurement EQUIPMENT to smokescreen what I pointed out for a ridiculous set of conclusions I never said, nor implied.

[Skepdick]

So we're in agreement? If you say so...

We aren't in agreement - I am merely checking that I've understood you correctly.

If you think we are in agreement then it must mean my representation of your view is not unfair...

Look, you're the one who tried to equate an objective measure (the appearance of a square that reflects 700nm wavelength light)

Are you sure it's 700nm and not 699.999999999999999nm? The descriptor is so hard to agree upon...

with a subjective label (calling that appearance "red"). The rest of your reply is trying to use known error in measurement EQUIPMENT to smokescreen what I pointed out for a ridiculous set of conclusions I never said, nor implied.

And now you are backtracking on the very things you said we "agreed" on...

Typical.

[Skepdick]

Are you able to tell the difference between the claim "green cars are nicer than red cars" and "green cars are faster than red cars"?
Objectively, the first is subjective and cannot be true or false, while the second is objectively untrue.

What difference?

It depends entirely on the metric-space you have in mind when you use words like "better" and "faster."!

Why do you feel that green cars are nicer than red cars? Oh - because more people buy green cars. Green is less psychologicaly aggressive. Red is more intimmidating and causes me discomfort.

What do you say that a bycicle is faster than a Top Fuel dragster? Oh - because it goes around the Nürburgring in less time.

Both of those are fucking objective. So what difference?

[Immanuel Can]

Given that the data available to you is conclusive, what data can you bring to my attention that will persuade me likewise?

As for what would please you personally, Will, I'm not sure; that really depends on you, doesn't it? What are you willing to accept? What would constitute the kind of evidence that would persuade you? What are you looking for?

Is that a difficult question, Will?

What does it indicate, if it is?

Does it mean that you haven't thought of any pattern of evidence you would accept as indicative of the existence of God?

But if there were NO such standard (and I'm not saying you have none, but only that at present, you aren't seeming to offer one) then is it not fair to say you've simply closed your mind on that question? I mean, if there is absolutely NO way you would accept ANY evidence, under ANY circumstances, then can it be surprising at all that you've arrived at the conviction that God does not exist, and that that seems the only possible conclusion to you?

But then, how much space for evidence have you left for the other side to occupy?

To be fair, though, It's a tough question, isn't it? It's a lot easier to just sit and wait for putative evidence to roll in, and to dismiss it piece-by-piece as it arrives, than to settle on a fair-minded and reasonable way of being persuaded to change one's mind. Yet without any means to change your mind, how is the Theist expected to proceed?

So I'm quite serious with the offer: if you can come up with a reasonable standard by which you would change your mind, I will do my best to summon what I can to meet it, or to explain with good reasons why, perhaps, the standard you're setting won't really work, submitting that to your approval.

Or...there's one other way we could go. Instead of pre-specifying an epistemic model of how to convince you, we could let you run your own experiment. I have an idea about that, if you were interested...

I'll leave it with you, which way we go on that.

[Peter Holmes]

'There's an invisible goblin in my kitchen.'

'Pending evidence, I reject your claim.'

'What kind of evidence would you accept?'

'Well, for a start, try offering the evidence that convinces you - and I'll let you know.'

'But what epistemic model do you use to decide what counts as evidence?'

'Well, explain your epistemic model, and we can take it from there. After all, you made the claim.'

[Skepdick]

There's a green square on the screen!

square-xxl.png

'Pending evidence, I reject your claim.'

'What kind of evidence would you accept?'

'Well, for a start, try offering the evidence that convinces you - and I'll let you know.'

OK. The green square on the screen convinces me. Let me know.

'But what epistemic model do you use to decide what counts as evidence?'

The model where there is a green square on the screen.

'Well, explain your epistemic model, and we can take it from there. After all, you made the claim.'

OK. There is a green square the screen.

Since you are the one rejecting the claim, perhaps you should explain your epistemic model?

What would accept as evidence for the green square on the screen?

[LuckyR]

There's a green square on the screen!

square-xxl.png

'Pending evidence, I reject your claim.'

'What kind of evidence would you accept?'

'Well, for a start, try offering the evidence that convinces you - and I'll let you know.'

OK. The green square on the screen convinces me. Let me know.

'But what epistemic model do you use to decide what counts as evidence?'

The model where there is a green square on the screen.

'Well, explain your epistemic model, and we can take it from there. After all, you made the claim.'

OK. There is a green square the screen.

Since you are the one rejecting the claim, perhaps you should explain your epistemic model?

What would accept as evidence for the green square on the screen?

A not unreasonable argument that the label "green" (or red for that matter) contains within it, some element of opinion and thus subjectivity.

[Will Bouwman]

Given that the data available to you is conclusive, what data can you bring to my attention that will persuade me likewise?

As for what would please you personally, Will, I'm not sure; that really depends on you, doesn't it? What are you willing to accept? What would constitute the kind of evidence that would persuade you? What are you looking for?

Is that a difficult question, Will?

You're right that we all choose our own standards for evidence, but if you appreciate that, you must also accept that this is misspoken:

I think that for somebody possessing my data set, it's more than strong enough; it's conclusive.

What you presumably mean is that your data set is strong enough that you find it conclusive.

I mean, if there is absolutely NO way you would accept ANY evidence, under ANY circumstances, then can it be surprising at all that you've arrived at the conviction that God does not exist, and that that seems the only possible conclusion to you?

I have said several times now that, in my view, God is an underdetermined hypothesis; that is not a conviction that God does not exist. Is that a difficult concept, Immanuel?