They think about God about as much as I think about piloting a baboon in a Cannonball Run.That would be so awesome.
To be honest, I don't even know what that is supposed to mean.
|
To be honest, I don't even know what that is supposed to mean.
They think about God about as much as I think about piloting a baboon in a Cannonball Run.That would be so awesome.
It means Derek and Dom DeLuise would be riding feral baboons from Connecticut to California in a zany, illegal road race.
|
|
It means Derek and Dom DeLuise would be riding feral baboons from Connecticut to California in a zany, illegal road race.To be honest, I don't even know what that is supposed to mean.
They think about God about as much as I think about piloting a baboon in a Cannonball Run.That would be so awesome.
How I miss Captain Chaos...
|
|
Wow, I feel sorry for Avalon. Poor soul didn't want a theology debate, just a philosophical one. Too bad some people in this thread are so blinded by their hatred of religion they couldn't see that. And are so interested in showing how clever they are, they don't notice when someone is actually attempting to have a civil debate.
Worse still, apparently some people's reading comprehension went into the tank, considering they were accusing Avalon of making/implying stances that clearly were not the case. Perhaps scientists should stick to science and leave the philosophical debates to the liberal arts majors...
Seriously, take a step back, take a breath, and reread every one of Avalon's posts. It amazes me the conclusions jumped to that simply are not even implied in Avalon's posts...
Then apologize, since people in this thread apparently cannot get out of attack mode for three seconds.
Really should have the mods change the title of this thread. False advertising isn't nice.
Poor soul didn't want a theology debate, just a philosophical one.
His entire argument seemed to rest on the assumption of a god. How is that not crossing into theology?
Too bad some people in this thread are so blinded by their hatred of religion they couldn't see that.
When did it become blind hatred to challenge a base assumption offered which lacks evidence?
Perhaps scientists should stick to science and leave the philosophical debates to the liberal arts majors...
Who is doing the attacking now?
Then apologize, since people in this thread apparently cannot get out of attack mode for three seconds.
I apologize if I made AvalonXQ feel unwelcome. I apologize if I made AvalonXQ feel attacked. But I should point out questioning his position is not the same as an attack. Civil does not mean I have to agree with everything someone posts.
Really should have the mods change the title of this thread. False advertising isn't nice.
When did it become uncivil in the last exchange?
I wonder if any of you even realize David Hume was, if not a proto-atheist, quite agnostic.
What does that have to do with anything? Or are you assuming we would be more inclined to agree with Mr. Hume's position if we knew he was a proto-atheist or agnostic?
Too bad some people in this thread are so blinded by their hatred of religion they couldn't see that.When did it become blind hatred to challenge a base assumption offered which lacks evidence?
Sunday, October 23, 4004 BCE.
CJ, this seems to suggest your experience is not the norm. Just thought you would find it interesting. Might want to dig deeper and find the actual results for better context.
|
|
Poor soul didn't want a theology debate, just a philosophical one.His entire argument seemed to rest on the assumption of a god. How is that not crossing into theology?
Too bad some people in this thread are so blinded by their hatred of religion they couldn't see that.When did it become blind hatred to challenge a base assumption offered which lacks evidence?
Perhaps scientists should stick to science and leave the philosophical debates to the liberal arts majors...Who is doing the attacking now?
Then apologize, since people in this thread apparently cannot get out of attack mode for three seconds.I apologize if I made AvalonXQ feel unwelcome. I apologize if I made AvalonXQ feel attacked. But I should point out questioning his position is not the same as an attack. Civil does not mean I have to agree with everything someone posts.
Really should have the mods change the title of this thread. False advertising isn't nice.When did it become uncivil in the last exchange?
I wonder if any of you even realize David Hume was, if not a proto-atheist, quite agnostic.What does that have to do with anything? Or are you assuming we would be more inclined to agree with Mr. Hume's position if we knew he was a proto-atheist or agnostic?
Well, considering the argument was over the "objective" and "subjective" (in a very philosophical sense), and that Avalon made absolutely no assertion that there was a God (but did make the 100% correct assumption that, in the absence of a god, anything we think when morality is concerned, is, in fact, subjective, and that, even if there is a god, there is only a chance of the objective), the fact y'all kept tying to put words in Avalon's mouth that simply weren't there indicated at least an intellectual dishonesty on the part of the counter-arguers, or an worst an intentional willful malice.
All you have to do is look at the various posts by Kirth and Samnell in the various threads to see the subjective nature of morality as it pertains to atheists. "Objective" means "provable without a doubt". The only stance an atheist can honestly take is that, in fact, all morals are subjective.
Bottom line: if there is no god, humans invented morals. If humans invented morals, they are subjective. QED.
|
Actually in mammalian behavior morals pre- date humanity. For example mammals are famous for the tactic of hunting in packs or family groups, it's part of the reason why they became so successful. But if an individual in that group threatens the cohesion of that group such as by murder of another member the survival of the whole group becomes threatened. Often times you'd see the exile of such an individual because of the threat of the survival of the group as a whole. Morals to me are a natural consequence of being a mammal and be extension a primate. We see moral behavior in them as well, and they obviously didn't didn't develop a moral code. It's just basic mammalian behavior, and as civilization started to build some natural laws started to develop, like to kill your neighbor and rob his stuff, because if you do it there's nothing stopping him from doing the same. To me there's no real mystery in moral behavior at all.
|
|
Actually in mammalian behavior morals pre- date humanity. For example mammals are famous for the tactic of hunting in packs or family groups, it's part of the reason why they became so successful. But if an individual in that group threatens the cohesion of that group such as by murder of another member the survival of the whole group becomes threatened. Often times you'd see the exile of such an individual because of the threat of the survival of the group as a whole. Morals to me are a natural consequence of being a mammal and be extension a primate. We see moral behavior in them as well, and they obviously didn't didn't develop a moral code. It's just basic mammalian behavior, and as civilization started to build some natural laws started to develop, like to kill your neighbor and rob his stuff, because if you do it there's nothing stopping him from doing the same. To me there's no real mystery in moral behavior at all.
No, you see the exile of the individual because they lost their bid to the alpha male. They were acting on instinct. Biological drive. We had to exist to impose a moral outlook on their behavior.
Anthropomorphizing animals isn't going to win your argument.
|
|
Actually in mammalian behavior morals pre- date humanity. For example mammals are famous for the tactic of hunting in packs or family groups, it's part of the reason why they became so successful. But if an individual in that group threatens the cohesion of that group such as by murder of another member the survival of the whole group becomes threatened. Often times you'd see the exile of such an individual because of the threat of the survival of the group as a whole. Morals to me are a natural consequence of being a mammal and be extension a primate. We see moral behavior in them as well, and they obviously didn't didn't develop a moral code. It's just basic mammalian behavior, and as civilization started to build some natural laws started to develop, like to kill your neighbor and rob his stuff, because if you do it there's nothing stopping him from doing the same. To me there's no real mystery in moral behavior at all.No, you see the exile of the individual because they lost their bid to the alpha male. Anthropomorphizing animals isn't going to win your argument.
Hate to tell you but humans are animals :P, if we're talking how morals developed then we can start there since hunter gatherer humans way back were little more than animalistic behavior and yes they would "deal" with an individual who endangered the survival of the group. Especially if it was something that happened a lot. And as for our early behavior we can learn a lot from our closest counsins chimpanzees and Bonobos.
Anthropomorphizing deities won't, either. ;-)
(Avalon's) entire argument seemed to rest on the assumption of a god.
You've misunderstood. Avalon was attempting to prove that you can't have an objective morality without a Creator God - not that a creator god (or objective morality) exists, or even that a Creator mandates the existence of objective morality.
(I lurk on this thread a lot, so thanks all for a good thread.)
|
|
FWIW, I agree with Derek and Avalon that morality is subjective; I just don't see what difference it makes (it's based on and biased towards human understanding - duh, we're humans, so what?)
However, I am tired of people acting like they'll get a fancy hat and shiny badge if only they play Tone Police hard enough. Especially those people who repeatedly storm out of the thread in a huff vowing never to return.
"Civil" doesn't preclude asking difficult questions or bringing reality into the discussion. Yes, things get a little heated, but that's why we're on the Internet in a public thread. If you need to take a break, someone else will be there to carry on the discussion while you close the window and compose yourself.
|
|
FWIW, I agree with Derek and Avalon that morality is subjective; I just don't see what difference it makes (it's based on and biased towards human understanding - duh, we're humans, so what?)
However, I am tired of people acting like they'll get a fancy hat and shiny badge if only they play Tone Police hard enough. Especially those people who repeatedly storm out of the thread in a huff vowing never to return.
"Civil" doesn't preclude asking difficult questions or bringing reality into the discussion. Yes, things get a little heated, but that's why we're on the Internet in a public thread. If you need to take a break, someone else will be there to carry on the discussion while you close the window and compose yourself.
I don't care about tone. A quick perusal of many of my posts should make that clear. But intellectual dishonesty and willfully ignoring what someone is saying by someone I respect tends to annoy the piss out of me. I just expected better from that person. I really don't expect much from most of the usual suspects in this thread.
|
|
(Avalon's) entire argument seemed to rest on the assumption of a god.You've misunderstood. Avalon was attempting to prove that you can't have an objective morality without a Creator God - not that a creator god (or objective morality) exists, or even that a Creator mandates the existence of objective morality.
(I lurk on this thread a lot, so thanks all for a good thread.)
But you can have objective morality without god, you just need some other thing in it's place. Sebastian put forth one theory (that I can't remember without paging back), and Avalon said no, it can't be this other omnipotent thing, it has to be god.
Thanks for lurking :). Feel free to jump in any time - we welcome new voices, and we aren't all that vicious as some make us out to be ;)
|
|
(Avalon's) entire argument seemed to rest on the assumption of a god.You've misunderstood. Avalon was attempting to prove that you can't have an objective morality without a Creator God - not that a creator god (or objective morality) exists, or even that a Creator mandates the existence of objective morality.
(I lurk on this thread a lot, so thanks all for a good thread.)
But you can have objective morality without god, you just need some other thing in it's place. Sebastian put forth one theory (that I can't remember without paging back), and Avalon said no, it can't be this other omnipotent thing, it has to be god.
Thanks for lurking :). Feel free to jump in any time - we welcome new voices, and we aren't all that vicious as some make us out to be ;)
That's just it. As long as it is a human being deciding what "objective morality" is, another human is going to disagree with that. Look at the abortion debate. 100% subjective. Even pro choice people cannot agree when it is acceptable to end a pregnancy. If we are "just animals", then all of our behaviors are objectively "correct". It is we who decide what is unacceptable, not nature.
|
|
That's just it. As long as it is a human being deciding what "objective morality" is, another human is going to disagree with that. Look at the abortion debate. 100% subjective. Even pro choice people cannot agree when it is acceptable to end a pregnancy. If we are "just animals", then all of our behaviors are objectively "correct". It is we who decide what is unacceptable, not nature.(Avalon's) entire argument seemed to rest on the assumption of a god.You've misunderstood. Avalon was attempting to prove that you can't have an objective morality without a Creator God - not that a creator god (or objective morality) exists, or even that a Creator mandates the existence of objective morality.
(I lurk on this thread a lot, so thanks all for a good thread.)
But you can have objective morality without god, you just need some other thing in it's place. Sebastian put forth one theory (that I can't remember without paging back), and Avalon said no, it can't be this other omnipotent thing, it has to be god.
Thanks for lurking :). Feel free to jump in any time - we welcome new voices, and we aren't all that vicious as some make us out to be ;)
I have no problem with that. Humans make those decisions all the time. So why do we care so much if the behavior is "Subjective" or "Objective". I just offered from a scientific view were morals developed, I don't it matters if it's "subjective" or not.
That's just it. As long as it is a human being deciding what "objective morality" is, another human is going to disagree with that.
Why can't morality be something that exists objectively independent of humans, with humans struggling to perceive and understand it, and sometimes getting it wrong? Over time humans' understanding of what is or isn't moral evolves, with better or more exact approximations of the true, objective morality replacing more flawed approximations -- but all the while, it isn't the truth of morality that's been changing, only humans understanding of it.
In other words, just like humans' understanding of physics.
Hate to tell you but humans are animals :P, if we're talking how morals developed then we can start there since hunter gatherer humans way back were little more than animalistic behavior and yes they would "deal" with an individual who endangered the survival of the group. Especially if it was something that happened a lot. And as for our early behavior we can learn a lot from our closest counsins chimpanzees and Bonobos. They'll tell us a lot, it is anthropomorphizing them since we are animals of the same genus.Actually in mammalian behavior morals pre- date humanity. For example mammals are famous for the tactic of hunting in packs or family groups, it's part of the reason why they became so successful. But if an individual in that group threatens the cohesion of that group such as by murder of another member the survival of the whole group becomes threatened. Often times you'd see the exile of such an individual because of the threat of the survival of the group as a whole. Morals to me are a natural consequence of being a mammal and be extension a primate. We see moral behavior in them as well, and they obviously didn't didn't develop a moral code. It's just basic mammalian behavior, and as civilization started to build some natural laws started to develop, like to kill your neighbor and rob his stuff, because if you do it there's nothing stopping him from doing the same. To me there's no real mystery in moral behavior at all.No, you see the exile of the individual because they lost their bid to the alpha male. Anthropomorphizing animals isn't going to win your argument.
I studied primatology and paleoanthropology. You are making a lot of unwarranted claims here. While it is tempting and makes for good shows, making inferences or assumptions about extinct hominin behavior is a perilous enterprise. Furthermore, you cannot assume that extant apes, including humans, provide good models for the behavior of human ancestors. Also, current taxonomy classifies humans as the only living members of genus Homo, while the common chimpanzee and bonobo are assigned to genus Pan.
|
|
I have no problem with that. Humans make those decisions all the time. So why do we care so much if the behavior is "Subjective" or "Objective". I just offered from a scientific view were morals developed, I don't it matters if it's "subjective" or not.That's just it. As long as it is a human being deciding what "objective morality" is, another human is going to disagree with that. Look at the abortion debate. 100% subjective. Even pro choice people cannot agree when it is acceptable to end a pregnancy. If we are "just animals", then all of our behaviors are objectively "correct". It is we who decide what is unacceptable, not nature.(Avalon's) entire argument seemed to rest on the assumption of a god.You've misunderstood. Avalon was attempting to prove that you can't have an objective morality without a Creator God - not that a creator god (or objective morality) exists, or even that a Creator mandates the existence of objective morality.
(I lurk on this thread a lot, so thanks all for a good thread.)
But you can have objective morality without god, you just need some other thing in it's place. Sebastian put forth one theory (that I can't remember without paging back), and Avalon said no, it can't be this other omnipotent thing, it has to be god.
Thanks for lurking :). Feel free to jump in any time - we welcome new voices, and we aren't all that vicious as some make us out to be ;)
It doesn't, but it does make for an interesting philosophical discussion. That is, if people actually want a discussion, and not just to argue for argument's sake.
You've misunderstood.
Entirely possible.
Certainly the concept of an objective morality exists. I am not convinced that because god wills it so makes it anymore objective than because the fates (or nature or any other substitute) will it so. If I create something, say a poem, is that poem moral because I willed it to be?
To me, and I acknowledge I may not fully understand, this all hinges on the concept of a first cause. Is not the argument that only because the first cause willed it to be, it is moral? The problem I have with that is that I am not entirely convinced of first cause. Every proposition I have seen of it has to first break its own assumptions in order to work. So it seems like fail to me. To continue building an argument based on a faulty foundation means the entire argument is faulty, no matter how excellent the rest of the arguments are.
So objective morality may exist. It could exist with or without a creator god. The morality of a creator god is not objective. It is just as subjective relative to that being as our own is to us.
All I'm refuting is the statement that Avalon's argument "rests on the assumption of a god." It doesn't. It is an argument about a god and a morality. I wouldn't even say it's resting on an assumed connection - that connection is the conclusion Avalon is (was?) trying to prove. (Not even judging the quality of the argument, mind. I'm just reading this out of the text.)
|
|
I studied primatology and paleoanthropology. You are making a lot of unwarranted claims here. While it is tempting and makes for good shows, making inferences or assumptions about extinct hominin behavior is a perilous enterprise. Furthermore, you cannot assume that extant apes, including humans, provide good models for the behavior...Hate to tell you but humans are animals :P, if we're talking how morals developed then we can start there since hunter gatherer humans way back were little more than animalistic behavior and yes they would "deal" with an individual who endangered the survival of the group. Especially if it was something that happened a lot. And as for our early behavior we can learn a lot from our closest counsins chimpanzees and Bonobos. They'll tell us a lot, it is anthropomorphizing them since we are animals of the same genus.Actually in mammalian behavior morals pre- date humanity. For example mammals are famous for the tactic of hunting in packs or family groups, it's part of the reason why they became so successful. But if an individual in that group threatens the cohesion of that group such as by murder of another member the survival of the whole group becomes threatened. Often times you'd see the exile of such an individual because of the threat of the survival of the group as a whole. Morals to me are a natural consequence of being a mammal and be extension a primate. We see moral behavior in them as well, and they obviously didn't didn't develop a moral code. It's just basic mammalian behavior, and as civilization started to build some natural laws started to develop, like to kill your neighbor and rob his stuff, because if you do it there's nothing stopping him from doing the same. To me there's no real mystery in moral behavior at all.No, you see the exile of the individual because they lost their bid to the alpha male. Anthropomorphizing animals isn't going to win your argument.
True but that is the best way we can determine extinct behavior is looking at the closest relative to the extinct animal. For example my husband is part of a group trying to understand the animalistic behavior of the great Auk, which was wiped out in 1852, most of it was based off of the behavior of atlantic puffins, Razorbills, and Murrs the other auk species of the region.
But you can have objective morality without god, you just need some other thing in it's place. Sebastian put forth one theory (that I can't remember without paging back), and Avalon said no, it can't be this other omnipotent thing, it has to be god.
A superintelligent computer (powered by rainbow magic!). That one makes me smile. :-)
It's a good point, though -- it's possible that the discovery of an objective fact other than the Creator God might give a different objective basis to reality. And, in fact, I think Christianity gives a reason separate from the teleology argument I attempted to outline above -- namely the existence of an objective metaphysical reality, and redefining the terms "good" and "evil" to reflect this reality.Anyway, there were some very good points made here, even if some of the primary contributors to the discussion decided I was saying things I wasn't saying and made it unprofitable to continue. So I mean it -- cheers!
I'm still around if/when something else interesting comes up.
|
|
. If we are "just animals", then all of our behaviors are objectively "correct". It is we who decide what is unacceptable, not nature.
Again, I say "so what?"
We (humanity) aren't sitting at the objective position. Nothing/no one in the universe is, for that matter. Why does it matter what the objective view is? The only reason I can think of to argue about it at all is if you believe someone/something *is* sitting at the objective position.
|
|
That's just it. As long as it is a human being deciding what "objective morality" is, another human is going to disagree with that.Why can't morality be something that exists objectively independent of humans, with humans struggling to perceive and understand it, and sometimes getting it wrong? Over time humans' understanding of what is or isn't moral evolves, with better or more exact approximations of the true, objective morality replacing more flawed approximations -- but all the while, it isn't the truth of morality that's been changing, only humans understanding of it.
In other words, just like humans' understanding of physics.
That is pretty much Hume's argument, that you can apply the same principles to morality that you can to physics. Which is why Avalon granted that teleology is an acceptable basis for objective morals.
I suspect quite a few posters who argued the contrary have no idea what the word means, however.
And I happen to disagree with the thought, I still think all morality is purely subjective. But that's just me, I rarely believe in absolute truths when it comes to anything involving human thought and endeavors.
|
|
. If we are "just animals", then all of our behaviors are objectively "correct". It is we who decide what is unacceptable, not nature.Again, I say "so what?"
We (humanity) aren't sitting at the objective position. Nothing/no one in the universe is, for that matter. Why does it matter what the objective view is? The only reason I can think of to argue about it at all is if you believe someone/something *is* sitting at the objective position.
I don't think anything is, frankly. That's my stance. My argument is if you're trying to bring nature into the debate (as Jeremy has), you're just reinforcing my stance that morality is, in fact, completely subjective.
|
|
So objective morality may exist. It could exist with or without a creator god. The morality of a creator god is not objective. It is just as subjective relative to that being as our own is to us.
To go one further, the morality of a creator god may or may not be "objective" as well. Creator god does not automatically assume objective morality.
That's all that was being said. Not that there IS a god, not that god is the only possible way to have objective morality, none of that.
That is, if people actually want a discussion, and not just to argue for argument's sake.
Just because someone disagrees does not mean they are arguing for argument's sake.
Despite what you may think, HD, I respect you. I will concede there have been 'attacks' on religion in this thread before. This last exchange was not an 'attack'. AvalonXQ stated a position and several people have challenged several different points of that position.
Avalon - so, do you think morality as it currently exists is objective or subjective? Why?
Sorry, but the discussion environment here isn't civil enough for me to want to involve my personal beliefs. I saw how many snide and attacking remarks I got just for the beliefs people incorrectly thought I was espousing -- up to and including being hateful to others!
…not that god is the only possible way to have objective morality…
Wow. I really did misunderstand then. That is exactly what I thought the position was. I apologize. Thanks for clearing things up, HD.
|
|
That is, if people actually want a discussion, and not just to argue for argument's sake.Just because someone disagrees does not mean they are arguing for argument's sake.
Despite what you may think, HD, I respect you. I will concede there have been 'attacks' on religion in this thread before. This last exchange was not an 'attack'. AvalonXQ stated a position and several people have challenged several different points of that position.
CourtFool, as I understand it, you're just curious. My issue was with one poster I have an amazing amount of intellectual respect for completely ignoring what Avalon was actually saying (which was amazingly clear to me) and asserting Avalon was saying something quite the contrary.
I'll let you in on a secret, it wasn't you. Not that I don't respect your intellect, just that I expected better from the other person.
No worries. I just felt compelled to defend Avalon as I thought he/she was being treated unfairly.
Thank you for your posts on that topic. I appreciate them.
|
|
No worries. I just felt compelled to defend Avalon as I thought he/she was being treated unfairly.Thank you for your posts on that topic. I appreciate them.
Well, you were being misrepresented and misinterpreted. And, frankly, my opinions on this thread, and the tone in a thread titled "civil", are pretty well known on these forums.
But, you're welcome. Hume is a personal favorite of mine, so I get all warm and fuzzy when someone name checks him and gets his point ;@)
Wow. I really did misunderstand then. That is exactly what I thought the position was. I apologize. Thanks for clearing things up, HD.
FWIW, I misread it the exact same way.
No worries. I just felt compelled to defend Avalon as I thought he/she was being treated unfairly.
Yeah, me too. To the point of actually going out of lurk mode. I think KG, for one, musta stubbed his toe and be in a grumpy mood - he's usually a fair bit more, well, fair. But, I see it's being resolved, so ...
<Lurks>
I went back and re-read. I am confused again.
I claimed that the only basis for one would be a creator God -- that in the absence of a creator God, we cannot have one, while a creator God (with some other objective facts) makes one possible.
I read this as "…god is the only possible way to have objective morality…". So where am I going wrong?
|
|
I went back and re-read. I am confused again.
I claimed that the only basis for one would be a creator God -- that in the absence of a creator God, we cannot have one, while a creator God (with some other objective facts) makes one possible.I read this as "…god is the only possible way to have objective morality…". So where am I going wrong?
Well, that post was a response to a misrepresentation of an earlier thought, and focused only on one part of the debate. The previous post allowing teleology as another basis for an "objective morality" was irrelevant to the misinterpretation being addressed.
Because a created universe can have an actual purpose, and entities in that universe can likewise have actual objective purposes that they are designed to fulfill.
So objective morality is defined as fulfilling your 'originally' defined purpose?
Well, that post was a response to a misrepresentation of an earlier thought, and focused only on one part of the debate.
Then I respectfully request the court reduce the charge negligence since I was obviously mislead. :)
The previous post allowing teleology as another basis for an "objective morality" was irrelevant to the misinterpretation being addressed.
Another or the only? I thought it was proposed as the only, but I want to check all my assumptions to make sure I am on the same page.
Another assumption check, by Teleology, we are discussing the following, correct?
Final cause, or telos, is defined as the purpose, end, aim, or goal of something.
|
|
Because a created universe can have an actual purpose, and entities in that universe can likewise have actual objective purposes that they are designed to fulfill.So objective morality is defined as fulfilling your 'originally' defined purpose?
Well, that post was a response to a misrepresentation of an earlier thought, and focused only on one part of the debate.Then I respectfully request the court reduce the charge negligence since I was obviously mislead. :)
The previous post allowing teleology as another basis for an "objective morality" was irrelevant to the misinterpretation being addressed.Another or the only? I thought it was proposed as the only, but I want to check all my assumptions to make sure I am on the same page.
Another assumption check, by Teleology, we are discussing the following, correct?
Final cause, or telos, is defined as the purpose, end, aim, or goal of something.
Yep. The important point to understand is the basis of the argument/discussion that Avalon put forth was the philosophy of David Hume, who endeavored to try to understand human nature and morality using the same principles Newton used to understand the physical universe. Hume wanted to apply the principles of Newtonian physics to human behavior.
So, you kind of have to look at all of Avalon's posts through that prism to "get" what he/she (Avalon, throw me a bone here) is saying.
The main point being, you can't just say something is objective, you have to demonstrably prove something is objective, just like you would with a scientific hypothesis.
But then, you start spinning off into Spinoza territory as to whether or not you can objectively prove the existence of a creator god. (Urizen, that last part's for you ;) )
Edit: The only "only" is that there can only be one source for an "objective" morality. Not that a creator god is the only possible source.
Wow, I feel sorry for Avalon. Poor soul didn't want a theology debate, just a philosophical one. Too bad some people in this thread are so blinded by their hatred of religion they couldn't see that. And are so interested in showing how clever they are, they don't notice when someone is actually attempting to have a civil debate.
Worse still, apparently some people's reading comprehension went into the tank, considering they were accusing Avalon of making/implying stances that clearly were not the case. Perhaps scientists should stick to science and leave the philosophical debates to the liberal arts majors...
Seriously, take a step back, take a breath, and reread every one of Avalon's posts. It amazes me the conclusions jumped to that simply are not even implied in Avalon's posts...
Then apologize, since people in this thread apparently cannot get out of attack mode for three seconds.
Really should have the mods change the title of this thread. False advertising isn't nice.
I'm with HD on this if on so little else. That was not pretty. Read the post then make a friggen reasoned response...even when the posters post was not reasoned.
Also if the person above just made your point you don't have to make it again. Reading this thread is like watching Atheistic lynchings in progress.
|
|
I'm with HD on this if on so little else. That was not pretty. Read the post then make a friggen reasoned response...even when the posters post was not reasoned.Wow, I feel sorry for Avalon. Poor soul didn't want a theology debate, just a philosophical one. Too bad some people in this thread are so blinded by their hatred of religion they couldn't see that. And are so interested in showing how clever they are, they don't notice when someone is actually attempting to have a civil debate.
Worse still, apparently some people's reading comprehension went into the tank, considering they were accusing Avalon of making/implying stances that clearly were not the case. Perhaps scientists should stick to science and leave the philosophical debates to the liberal arts majors...
Seriously, take a step back, take a breath, and reread every one of Avalon's posts. It amazes me the conclusions jumped to that simply are not even implied in Avalon's posts...
Then apologize, since people in this thread apparently cannot get out of attack mode for three seconds.
Really should have the mods change the title of this thread. False advertising isn't nice.
Hey, we kind of agreed on some stuff in the Gygaxian Naturalism thread! ;@)