Gary's Corner

[Immanuel Can]

What is the Atheist "looking" at?

Exactly the same world that HQ or any other deist is looking at.

Which is what?

I look around, and I don't see one thing the Atheist can appeal to. If you have something, let's hear what it is. If I'm wrong, I want to know what I've missed.

[MikeNovack]

As Flash points out in the slavery thread: I'm quite retarded. Mebbe you explain what you mean when you say I need one prior moral judgement cuz I'm not wrappin' my limited head around it.

I do not think you are retarded, just lacking exposure to philosophical argument.

You are saying ALL morality comes from God (no PRIOR moral decisions)

I am saying that you must have made moral decisions prior. You have decided not only does this god exist but made the moral evaluation "this is a good god who ought to be obeyed" (as well as thanked, worshiped, etc.) To see that you have made such a decision, consider what if God were Cthulhu? Would you still feel it right to thank, worship, and obey? << well maybe yes, but that would be prudence, not morality >>

[MikeNovack]

Which is what?

I look around, and I don't see one thing the Atheist can appeal to. If you have something, let's hear what it is. If I'm wrong, I want to know what I've missed.

How many philosophers who presented some non-theistic basis for morality have you read? Start say with Epicurus (and so the Utilitarians) to someone very modern like Rawls.

You can think them all wrong (not matching your "all comes from God) but you still need to explain why they are all being "irrational"

[Immanuel Can]

Which is what?

I look around, and I don't see one thing the Atheist can appeal to. If you have something, let's hear what it is. If I'm wrong, I want to know what I've missed.

How many philosophers who presented some non-theistic basis for morality have you read?

Just about all of them. So if you want to discuss any, let's go.

Let's go back to your appeal to Rawls: what do you think justifies his belief that morality can be had on a secular basis?

[MikeNovack]

Let's go back to your appeal to Rawls: what do you think justifies his belief that morality can be had on a secular basis?

Unnecessary. I can prove X exists if I can produce an example of X. Rawls is proposing a basis, and it is not based on some god. That justifies his belief that it can be done. Your mission, if you choose to accept it, would be to demonstrate that it is NOT the basis of a system of morality. It won't do for you to argue "not a correct/valid system of morality because not given by my god"

WHY are you claiming what he is doing is irrational?

[Immanuel Can]

Let's go back to your appeal to Rawls: what do you think justifies his belief that morality can be had on a secular basis?

Unnecessary. I can prove X exists if I can produce an example of X. Rawls is proposing a basis, and it is not based on some god.

You actually don't know Rawls's argument? I do. Did you really think that just quoting the name of a guy who tried (and failed) to provide a groundwork for secular ethics would make anything further "unnnecessary"?

That's what's called a bluff. So again, what gives you confidence that Rawls succeeded? Make the argument.

[MikeNovack]

That's what's called a bluff. So again, what gives you confidence that Rawls succeeded? Make the argument.

It is now totally unclear to me what argument you expect (or would accept). It seems OBVIOUS that Rawls is presenting a plausible basis from which he then derives a system of morality. That's "success" right? If not, what DO you mean by "success?

You disagree with that? PLEASE, not in play whether you consider the basis Rawls used correct or the resulting moral rules correct ones. At the moment, the only question is rationality.

[Immanuel Can]

That's what's called a bluff. So again, what gives you confidence that Rawls succeeded? Make the argument.

It is now totally unclear to me what argument you expect (or would accept).

I'll accept any gesture that demonstrates a basic knowledge of Rawls. And let me help us get started: Rawls has a theory premised on what he calls "the veil of ignorance." He clearly didn't mean "ignorant of Rawls". So you're expected to know what Ralws said, when you invoke him. That's fair.

Maybe you can explain what he DID mean, and why you think it works. Then I can explain why Ralws incorrectly assumed things about it that a good philosopher would surely remember to question, such as the assumption of the moral value of equality. Or the fact that he expected a mere heuristic to motivate, without being able to explain why it should...and so on.

Go ahead. You called Rawls; let's play.

[MikeNovack]

I'll accept any gesture that demonstrates a basic knowledge of Rawls. And let me help us get started: Rawls has a theory premised on what he calls "the veil of ignorance." He clearly didn't mean "ignorant of Rawls". So you're expected to know what Ralws said, when you invoke him. That's fair.

The ignorance referred to is not knowing which position one is in, one's role in the interaction. Justice/fairness is what a rational "player" would choose given that ignorance << I'm using game theory terminology here >>

[Immanuel Can]

I'll accept any gesture that demonstrates a basic knowledge of Rawls. And let me help us get started: Rawls has a theory premised on what he calls "the veil of ignorance." He clearly didn't mean "ignorant of Rawls". So you're expected to know what Ralws said, when you invoke him. That's fair.

The ignorance referred to is not knowing which position one is in, one's role in the interaction. Justice/fairness is what a rational "player" would choose given that ignorance << I'm using game theory terminology here >>

Very good. You're right about Rawls. I was seriously starting to wonder whether you had any actual knowledge of him, but it seems you do.

But now I'm curious about the next step: what makes you think Rawls gives a rationally-plausible account of morality? And if you like, you might even say something about why you think his "veil" game is likely to be morally informative.

[Gary Childress]

Apparently, if there were no God, then IC wouldn't make any effort to behave morally in any way. Or maybe IC is using a circular argument that morality can only exist if there is a God because there is a God and so we know that morality exists?

@ IC: I seem to recall you've argued before that if there were no God, then everything would be perfectly random and there would be no order at all in the universe. A watch implies a watch maker sort of thing. As I've repeatedly pointed out, that's a speculation since this is the only universe we know of and determining that only a random universe could exist without a God would be an assumption based on one example of a universe (one in which we don't have much certainty beyond what can be measured scientifically or about the ultimate origins of everything). But you ether know or else pretend to know what many of the rest of us don't.

[phyllo]

Apparently, if there were no God, then IC wouldn't make any effort to behave morally in any way. Or maybe IC is using a circular argument that morality can only exist if there is a God because there is a God and so we know that morality exists?

What if there is no God ? Then IC is behaving morally ( ) and a morality has been created without a God.

Which would show that God is not required for morality to exist.

[Gary Childress]

Apparently, if there were no God, then IC wouldn't make any effort to behave morally in any way. Or maybe IC is using a circular argument that morality can only exist if there is a God because there is a God and so we know that morality exists?

What if there is no God ? Then IC is behaving morally ( ) and a morality has been created without a God.

Which would show that God is not required for morality to exist.

I don't know. We'll have to ask IC to verify that. He's an expert on unobservable reality.

[phyllo]

He's just going to ask me for an axiom that atheists have about morality.

[Immanuel Can]

Apparently, if there were no God, then IC wouldn't make any effort to behave morally in any way.

I'm afraid that might well be true, Gary. I'm not a special kind of man: if I genuinely believed there were no God, then I think the obvious logic of that position would drive me toward being quite amoral and strategic, rather than moral. If you look for special goodness in me, you will not find it.

But by the grace of God, I know He exists. And for me, this changes everything. As it should for you, too. Logic compels it.

@ IC: I seem to recall you've argued before that if there were no God, then everything would be perfectly random and there would be no order at all in the universe.

On the contrary, what I have said is that there would be no universe at all. And we wouldn't be here to debate it.

However, Atheism, Naturalism, Physicalism and other such Atheism-grounding beliefs require us to believe just that: that the universe, and all the order it exhibits, were produced by nothing but randomness, and yet that you and I are still impossibly here, somehow. And yes, I would agree with you that that's a risible belief, and contrary to all the evidence of our eyes. But you'll find it's common enough in the West, especially among those who are disposed to reject God.

Atheism isn't just morally vaccuous, you know: it's also empirically, scientifically absurd. Look around you: do you see what looks the the mere products of randomness? Even on a superficial glance, does that appear to you to be a belief a sensible person could hold?