IS and OUGHT

[Immanuel Can]

I still think morality is the same thing for atheists as it is for (in this case) Christians.

I think it is, too.

Being objective, and being something the conscience of everybody knows at least something about, it's obligatory to everyone. But to be fair, not all consciences are equally sensitive. I may be thick skinned, and somebody else may have a very tender conscience. And to be fair, there are some people who may have a clearer idea of what morality entails than others may.

Still, objective morality is all about the idea that the code itself doesn't change if the person does.

...the nature of an individual's morality is shaped by his formative environment.

That's another thing that accounts for some differences. Some people have a more morally aware background, so they may have more precise understanding than somebody who comes from a background where moral questions were sidelined.

Still, I've met some folks who have an amazing internal radar. I remember one kid who was the son of an alcoholic. He had a twin brother, identical in every superficial respect to him. But whereas the second twin seemed much like his father, the first had this incredible sense of what he should and shouldn't do, and a strong moral backbone to stand for that. It was really impressive.

Morality isn't an intellectual thing, it is an emotional response, and is not informed by logic or rationality.

I think it's both intellectual and moral.

Maybe there are things one "just knows" on an emotional level...like that you shouldn't murder your children, say...and it's also objectively morally true. I think that's likely the case. But there are also things one doesn't really understand until one is told and grasps them properly. For example, gossip or covetousness are things which all people seem drawn to on an emotional level; but it's really clear, when we think about them, how morally poisonous they are. In such a case, the intellectual knowledge sharpens and awakens the appropriate emotions, I think.

And as you say, if "formative environment" accounts for some of our moral beliefs, then they're knowledge-based. If they come from environment, then those are things we don't really fully know internally already, right?

And another thought: If your morality can be influenced by the church, it can also be corrupted by it.

That is absolutely true: a religious organization doesn't get a pass on this simply by way of being a religious organization. And while such an organization may be part of one's moral "environment," that doesn't mean it's suddenly infallible or auotmatically a perfect guide to what one's conscience should be telling one.

I think maybe we agree more than maybe you're suspecting yet. I don't see that there's very much in your objections that I'd resist.

[Immanuel Can]

As a moral noncognitivist I have a lot to say about this, but alas I’m going to sleep and leaving town when I wake up. I’ll try to get back to it Monday or Tuesday.

Well, hello again, Cat. Nice to see you back.

Didn't I say we'd find something to chew over here relatively quickly?

Do I get a cookie for being right?

[Harbal]

I think maybe we agree more than maybe you're suspecting yet. I don't see that there's very much in your objections that I'd resist.

And that is probably a better position to end up in than either of us dared hope for. So, until one of us says something the other can't quite live with, let's appreciate the relative harmony.

[Immanuel Can]

You think that, for example, ancient tribal people were aware of "nihilistic existential anguish," and so invented polytheisms remedy it?

That explanation, I'd have to see. That would take some very ingenious anthropological account, for sure...one I've never seen.

But go ahead, if you have it.

It is necessary to look at it with simplicity.

As did Anselm with his ontological proof of God. Which consists of an extremely simple act.

Actually, I think it's rather easy to get Anselm wrong. He was more complicated than people give him credit for. Most textbooks I've read seem to have too simplistic a version of what they think Anselm was implying.

But... 2 is the source of all evil.

I'm not seeing why.

While God is the negation of the negation!

I'm not seeing this, either.

If you seek the simple, with all your heart, then in every direction you will venture you will perceive God.

I don't think one will. I think one will just end up being simple.

The Bible, which is written by man for man,

Well, that's the point of debate, isn't it? Is the Bible just "the word of man," or is it "The Word of God"?

Men were certainly involved as agents of the writing. But the debate comes when we ask, "Were they, as the Bible itself claims, carried along as they wrote by the Spirit of God, or were they just writing what they imagined?

But if it's the latter, then I think we can safely disregard the entire thing, can't we? After all, if God's not in it, then it's just the worlds of one contingent, perishing, corrupt creature to others of the same kind.

...is an allegory that describes the epochal event of the birth of rationality.

Hmmm...no, there I think you're pretty clearly wrong, if I may say. There is certainly very rational argumentation IN the Bible, in various places; but there are also stories, poetry, parables, analogies, anecdotes, wisdom sayings, and other such literary forms in there. And even your claim that it's an "allegory...[for] the birth of rationality" admits that it's an analogy, a literary form, not merely some kind of syllogism.

An event that threw us out of the earthly paradise of our ignorance.
We got out of it precisely because of the incompatibility between rationality and evil.

Well, two things here: first of all, "rationality" does not use terms like "evil." "Evil" is a value-laden term, and belongs to the realm of moralizing, not rationalizing. But secondly, there are many ways rationality can be used to justify what we conventionally call "evil." So none of that seems evidently right to me.

...the voice of God is nothing but the feeling of man...

Then it's nothing. Because man is nothing. He comes into existence from the materials of the earth, without his bidding or knowledge, grows for a brief span and is dispersed back into material nothingness, in that case. There is no merit, value or truth in the "feelings" of such a being that any other such being should be concerned with.,

But man becomes aware of good and evil.
Which for rationality have no reality in themselves.

This contradicts what you said earlier. You said rationality and evil were "incompatible." Now you're saying that "good" is also incompatible with rationality. So rationality is simply incompatible with morality in toto?

And so man loses the innocence he previously had by not knowing.

You mean 'ignorance." "innocence" is a moral state, one to do with culpability...concerning which, you've said, rationality has nothing. Lack of knowledge, "not knowing" as you call it, is "ignorance," not "innocence."

One can be morally innocent and knowledgeable.

But what this entails we see with Cain, the first man to repent of the evil committed, and repents because of greater awareness (agriculture supplants pastoralism).

Ummm...sorry...you've completely contradicted the narrative. Cain never "repented." Check Genesis.

And then Moses, the first to warn: "I am who I am".
God's voice is that of Moses himself.

Ummm...no, not according to the narrative, again. Check Exodus.

But all of this is quite irrelevant, I'm afraid. I don't see an anthropological account of how polytheisms (which you don't even mention) are a compensatory device ancient people ginned up to deal with their "existential" anguish. That was the claim it seems to me that you made, and the one I wanted to see substantiated.

I'm sorry, but I can't say it works for me. It simply looks unrelated to the anthropological evidence I was hoping you might have.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

Men were certainly involved as agents of the writing. But the debate comes when we ask, "Were they, as the Bible itself claims, carried along as they wrote by the Spirit of God, or were they just writing what they imagined?

What or who is the Spirit of God? Is the Spirit of God identical to the Holy Ghost or the Holy Spirit?
Are any of these Spirits persons or are they human motivations, or both?
I expect you will recognise that philosophers don't normally talk about Spirits or spirits as if the existences of such entities were universally acknowledged. It's because of presumptions like "the Holy Spirit" that whole posts are not philosophy but polemics.
Immanuel Can wrote:

Men were certainly involved as agents of the writing. But the debate comes when we ask, "Were they, as the Bible itself claims, carried along as they wrote by the Spirit of God, or were they just writing what they imagined?

But if it's the latter, then I think we can safely disregard the entire thing, can't we? After all, if God's not in it, then it's just the worlds of one contingent, perishing, corrupt creature to others of the same kind.

But the latter is what Man is since God expelled him from Eden.

[bobmax]

Immanuel Can,

All religions are superstitions. It doesn't matter if they are monotheistic or polytheistic.

They are superstitions because they pretend to establish what Truth is.

Why are there these superstitions?

To provide a remedy for existential anguish.

However, a truly spiritual heart beats in religions.
Often mistreated by the same religions, which deny it because they are subject to their wanting to believe in their own superstition.

Anselmo is not complex, far from it!
It is simple, because all its demonstration is in its own preparation, there is in fact no logical step to follow.

In fact, it is only necessary to create a vacuum around one's soul.
And this is very difficult.
But precisely because it is simple.

If Anselmo is complex for you, I suppose we are not there ...

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel Can,

All religions are superstitions. It doesn't matter if they are monotheistic or polytheistic.

That’s mere assumption. I would respond that it’s not true.

What’s true is that SOME religions are “superstitions.” But if a thousand were, that would still not tell us if there were one that is not “superstition.” So the fact that Islam is hokey doesn’t tell us whether or not Hinduism is, and the decision that Hinduism is “superstitious” might tell us something also about Buddhism, since they are related; but it will not tell us about Mennonism, Catholicism or Zoroastrianism.

They are superstitions because they pretend to establish what Truth is.

Science does that. Are you arguing that science is “superstitious” too?

Why are there these superstitions?

To provide a remedy for existential anguish.

No, that’s not plausible.

Existential anguish is a Modern discovery. You could better posit that is was fear of death of the tumult of the natural world, or a magical desire for control, or the human need for social organization, or as a grounds for public morality…all those things would make cases that were not historically anomalous, the way your “existential” explanation is.

That’s way, way too simplistic…and Modern…an explanation, I think.

Anselmo is not complex, far from it!

If you think that, then it’s certain you don’t understand Anselm.

That’s alright. It’s quote a common mistake. He’s nowhere so easy to dismiss as you probably imagine. But if all you’ve ever known is simple summaries whomped up by skeptics, then that’s exactly what you’re likely to think.

[bobmax]

Immanuel Can,

All religions are superstitions. It doesn't matter if they are monotheistic or polytheistic.

That’s mere assumption. I would respond that it’s not true.

What’s true is that SOME religions are “superstitions.” But if a thousand were, that would still not tell us if there were one that is not “superstition.” So the fact that Islam is hokey doesn’t tell us whether or not Hinduism is, and the decision that Hinduism is “superstitious” might tell us something also about Buddhism, since they are related; but it will not tell us about Mennonism, Catholicism or Zoroastrianism.

They are superstitions because they pretend to establish what Truth is.

Science does that. Are you arguing that science is “superstitious” too?

Why are there these superstitions?

To provide a remedy for existential anguish.

No, that’s not plausible.

Existential anguish is a Modern discovery. You could better posit that is was fear of death of the tumult of the natural world, or a magical desire for control, or the human need for social organization, or as a grounds for public morality…all those things would make cases that were not historically anomalous, the way your “existential” explanation is.

That’s way, way too simplistic…and Modern…an explanation, I think.

Anselmo is not complex, far from it!

If you think that, then it’s certain you don’t understand Anselm.

That’s alright. It’s quote a common mistake. He’s nowhere so easy to dismiss as you probably imagine. But if all you’ve ever known is simple summaries whomped up by skeptics, then that’s exactly what you’re likely to think.

You confuse "simple" with "easy".

So you are not going anywhere.

Furthermore, science is the renunciation of the possession of the Truth.
Precisely because every scientific discovery is such only insofar as it can be falsified.

Perhaps you are referring to scientism, which is a degeneration of science.
In fact, scientism is superstition, precisely because it claims to know the Truth.

There are basic concepts that are essential to be able to discuss philosophically. Without which all dialogue is in vain.
Particularly when there is no faith in the Truth.

[Immanuel Can]

You confuse "simple" with "easy".

Well, then, you should justify what you claim.

Furthermore, science is the renunciation of the possession of the Truth.

Not even close to true.

Science aims at approximation to truth, through inductive investigation systematically disciplined. That's the whole purpose of its methodology. And that's its strength.

Precisely because every scientific discovery is such only insofar as it can be falsified.

Oh, you're a victim of Popper.

Are you planning to update your scientific epistemology anytime soon?

Particularly when there is no faith in the Truth.

Which one of us is saying that truth isn't available, even to science?

Oh...it's you, not me.

[bobmax]

You confuse "simple" with "easy".

Well, then, you should justify what you claim.

Furthermore, science is the renunciation of the possession of the Truth.

Not even close to true.

Science aims at approximation to truth, through inductive investigation systematically disciplined. That's the whole purpose of its methodology. And that's its strength.

Precisely because every scientific discovery is such only insofar as it can be falsified.

Oh, you're a victim of Popper.

Are you planning to update your scientific epistemology anytime soon?

Particularly when there is no faith in the Truth.

Which one of us is saying that truth isn't available, even to science?

Oh...it's you, not me.

Just try to think what a simple thing is and an easy thing.
God is simple, but not easy.

Do you really not know that the development of science was possible at the very moment when it gave up possession of the Truth?

I see you despise Nietzsche without obviously knowing him.
Now you contest Popper, so you have no idea what science is.
You even confuse belief in the Truth with its possession!

Well I'd say we're in full superstition.

Have a good time.

[promethean75]

Mm-hm, and when you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer. Superstition ain't the way, yeah.

[uwot]

Anselmo is not complex, far from it!

If you think that, then it’s certain you don’t understand Anselm.

Either Mr Can is to dim to understand Anselm's argument, or he is peddling the same subterfuge as the tailors in the Emperor's New Cloths. Anselm's argument is simple. Any complexity rests on whether you accept the crucial premise that 'existence' is 'greater' than 'understanding'.

That’s alright. It’s quote a common mistake. He’s nowhere so easy to dismiss as you probably imagine. But if all you’ve ever known is simple summaries whomped up by skeptics, then that’s exactly what you’re likely to think.

Mr Can can't be Mr Can without being condescending. Here is the actual unwhomped up argument:

"Thus even the fool is convinced that something than which nothing greater can be conceived is in the understanding, since when he hears this, he understands it; and whatever is understood is in the understanding. And certainly that than which a greater cannot be conceived cannot be in the understanding alone. For if it is even in the understanding alone, it can be conceived to exist in reality also, which is greater. Thus if that than which a greater cannot be conceived is in the understanding alone, then that than which a greater cannot be conceived is itself that than which a greater can be conceived. But surely this cannot be. Thus without doubt something than which a greater cannot be conceived exists, both in the understanding and in reality." https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/onto ... tAnsOntArg
In bold is the premise that neither Anselm nor Descartes could demonstrate, nor anyone before nor since, including Mr Can. You can accept it or not, but you are not compelled to.

[Immanuel Can]

God is simple, but not easy.

I gave up word games long ago. You'll have to excuse me.

Do you really not know that the development of science was possible at the very moment when it gave up possession of the Truth?

The development of science was possible because Bacon discovered a method.

But you don't know that history?

I see you despise Nietzsche without obviously knowing him.

I don't "despise Nietzsche." I never knew the man.

I find what he said about God fundamentally based on nothing. I like a great deal of what he said about Atheism.

Now you contest Popper, so you have no idea what science is.

Popper's an old story. He died back in the early Nineties. I'm supposing you don't know what the critiques of his critiques were.

That's why your epistemology needs updating. Falsificationism doesn't even pass the test of falsification. It's kind of obviously self-defeating.

[promethean75]

I mean yeah a real unicorn would be greater and more perfect than an imaginary unicorn, but only if unicorns existed in the first place. This is a non-problem. Chances are the concept is just an imaginary composition of other real things.... horses, wings and horns and stuff. Just like 'god' is an imaginary composition of other real things... body, intelligence, awareness, choice, foresight, and other human characteristics.

Anselm just got carried away in the argument and tried to slide one in on us.

[bobmax]

God is simple, but not easy.

I gave up word games long ago. You'll have to excuse me.

Do you really not know that the development of science was possible at the very moment when it gave up possession of the Truth?

The development of science was possible because Bacon discovered a method.

But you don't know that history?

I see you despise Nietzsche without obviously knowing him.

I don't "despise Nietzsche." I never knew the man.

I find what he said about God fundamentally based on nothing. I like a great deal of what he said about Atheism.

Now you contest Popper, so you have no idea what science is.

Popper's an old story. He died back in the early Nineties. I'm supposing you don't know what the critiques of his critiques were.

That's why your epistemology needs updating. Falsificationism doesn't even pass the test of falsification. It's kind of obviously self-defeating.

The possibility that any truth will turn out to be false in the future is at the heart of modern science.

This approach underpins every scientific method.

Freed from the bonds of religious dogmas, science was finally able to progress.
And it progresses because it has faith in the Truth, aware that it can never fully possess it.

Claiming to know the Truth is to blaspheme.
Indeed, blasphemy is nothing more than the claim to know God.