That your faith in God is on the same epistemological level as faith in Teapot and on the same epistemological level as guesswork that flying indetectable giraffes are all around us? — S

that is your claim not mine, it is up to you to support it.

You might have noticed that I was careful with my wording. I didn't say that faith is guesswork, I said that it is on par with it. Good luck trying to argue otherwise. Your faith in God is on par with faith in Teapot. That which is on par with guesswork is very much in contrast to reason. — S

I am not making any claim at all, it seems you are - would you care to make an argument that faith + guesswork I would be happy see what I think.

But more likely you are just trolling for a fight

I know that there is at least one respondent here who is a theist. The question is, is he willing to admit that his belief is on par with guesswork? — S

My theism is based on faith - now you can try to make guesswork = faith if you wish.

I have never claimed God is, is a fact. And I maintain that God is, is still not in conflict with reason.

It's conventional to think of "evidence (suggesting) that F does not exist" is the same as "there is no evidence for F. — Terrapin Station

Not sure how conventional it is - but they are very different - seems we are in violent agreement

It's conventional to think of "evidence (suggesting) that F does not exist" is the same as "there is no evidence for F." — Terrapin Station

to a scientist they are not the same thing at all

"Evidence for it (for F)" to cover both. — Terrapin Station

science does. All scientific theory - as the best current explanation of a physical state of affairs, requires evidence.

Saying some X does not exist, as the best current explanation of a physical state of affairs requires evidence as well.

If there is no evidence to the claim it does not exist - science is agnostic on the claim it does not exist.
If there is no evidence to the claim is does exist - science is agnostic on the claim is does exist.

Science, by definition, is agnostic to all claims without evidence. And is doubtful even on the claims with evidence.

To a scientist - all a lack of evidence against any claim is, is there is a lack of evidence.

Ah, then we agree on that. But who would even suggest that anyone is claiming that something doesn't exist on no evidence? — Terrapin Station

All I ever said is all science says about lack or evidence is that there is a lack of evidence.

Many here and elsewhere erroneously believe science says something does not exist if there is no evidence for it - science does not.

Science only says something does not exist, where there IS evidence that it does not exist.

Sure. But if the drug trial fails to uncover any positive evidence, the conclusion will not be that we're agnostic about e.g. the effect of a drug. It will be that the drug is ineffective. — Echarmion

that is a conclusion based on evidence. You a mis-understanding me - I am not saying science will not say something does not exist, but they will only say that when there is evidence that it does not exist

That sounds precariously close to a no true Scotsman. Anyways, as a matter of fact we make plenty of determinations based on lack of evidence. Drug trials come to mind. — Echarmion

the entire purpose of drug trails is to establish evidence -

sadly - i quite agree

"Science saying something" is scientists saying something. And scientists definitely say that completely implausible, incoherent, etc. things don't exist when there's no evidence for them. They don't remain agnostic on everything. — Terrapin Station

I'll take one example of this.

Without evidence science does not use words like implausible, incoherent. Without evidence science is completely agnostic.

Science says nothing without evidence, that's what makes it science.

You're stuck with either tyranny of the majority or tyranny of the minority. I'll take the majority — ProbablyTrue

The issue is deeper. The fear is that a handful of populous states could, through an exercise of federal power, overrule issues states see as their job.

There is a designed tension between the federal government and the state governments. And on balance this is IMO a good thing.

they may not go looking for your ballerina. But all science is based on doubt and the understanding that nothing is provable.

All science says about things without empirical evidence is there is no empirical evidence. That is all.

All science ever says is our best evidence shows X is.

Or our best evidence shows X is not

If there is no evidence it says nothing

To me, the experience of god is something that comes before understanding. Before words — T Clark

Which is consistent with Rahner as I understand him. I would say his definition of pre apprehension is an awareness before an understanding

was referring to meaning of life, as in some inherent part of the human condition that we seek a meaning for our existence

wasn't ignoring you, busy weekend

This part.

We know a lot about tea pots, we know what they look like, we know how they move, we would know one if we saw one. We know a lot about horses, and flying and horns on foreheads. With what we know about teapots and unicorns and what we know about where to look for them. This is a reasonable statement, We know what a tea pot is, we know where the space between us and the sun is, we have looked at this space, and we haven't seen any tea pots, and with what we know about this space and teapots, we believe there are no tea pots there. And the same idea for unicorns.

We have no reasonable basis to say anything at all about the nature of God, since we have no reason to believe we know what God looks like, where God is, how God is or anything else at all. So we can't say, we know what God looks like, we know where God would be, we have looked in all the places we think God would be, and we don't see God, therefore there is no God.

The only thing you can say about no empirical evidence for God, is there is no empirical evidence for God. That's it.

So a primary idea on this to me, is this. If, you believe as I do, that some inherent search for meaning and purpose is part of the human condition. That for near our entire existence we have looked for meaning from a source outside or greater than ourselves and our understanding.

So we are left with 2 rather opposing views on why that is. At one end we have Camus' absurdity. There is no meaning and it is just some absurd quirk of human nature that we seek it. Or on the other end, Karl Rahner's pre apprehension, that all human beings are inherently aware of something greater than themselves- they do not know what this is, but there is some inherent knowledge that it is there.

So to me, before you can make some judgment about theism or atheism you have to address that fundamental question. And be comfortable in your judgment on why we human beings have such a need for meaning.

are you aware of what Qualia is. I think it is very much what you are saying. The classic thought experiment goes something like this. A person is kept in a black and white room for their entire life, they live in a world without color. But they are taught everything we know about color, they are experts on wave lengths and frequency about how our optics work, how the brain processes it, they know all that can be known about color.

Then they are let out of the room and are amazed by a sunset. The experience of color is different than the knowledge of color. And they are both real.

The only thing any scientist would say about anything that lacks empirical evidence is that is lacks empirical evidence, that is it, that is the only judgment real science would make. Any other judgment you all make about the lack of empirical evidence for anything is not scientific, it either philosophy or theology.

↪Rank Amateur

As I've said a number of times, I don't think the terms are important. I'm fine with dropping the terms "objective" and "subjective." I've suggested dropping them a number of times, including earlier in this thread.

So I'm just saying that moral judgments are things we think.

Do you agree with that?

And on my view, I don't believe that moral judgments (or whatever else we might want to call them--moral whatevers) occur, as moral judgments (whatevers) other than as things we think.

And then what matters are the upshots of the fact that moral judgments are things we think. — Terrapin Station

There is nothing there to disagree with. But it just does not say anything of value about the utility of moral judgments

↪Rank Amateur Of course it does, silly. Sheesh, your denialism is a real problem. You said that the analogy is a poor analogy, and the reasons you gave for this were bad reasons, so I set you straight. The analogy is a good analogy if you look at it in the right way, use it right, draw the right conclusions from it. Russell's teapot was being referenced and the lesson from that is a good one, so it's a good analogy if used right. You don't get to shift the burden of proof to others if you make the assertion that there exists a celestial teapot. Or rather, if you do, then you're not being reasonable. — S

It would add credibility to your pronouncements if, just occasionally, you would provide some support for them. It seems the only thing you need to tell someone they are wrong is your opinion they are. The infallible S has spoken. The problem is you are just a little man behind the curtain, just like the rest of us.

After you make a declarative sentence, add "because " and tell us why please.

My definition of subjective morality is a moral judgment that has no inherent truth value. That the truth value of the statement, or the mental phenomena , is dependent on or subject to something else. It is not always true, it is only true if (fill in the blank)

You have an unassailable argument.

You define all things we think as subjective
Moral judgments are things we think
Moral judgments are subjective

Understand the logic, disagree that all mental process are subjective

Since I'm calling mental phenomena "subjective" and I'm reserving "objective" for things that aren't mental phenomena, then if we're talking about people making a moral judgment as mental phenomena--we're saying that what it is to make a moral judgment is to be in a particular mental state, then even if 100% of everyone, throughout all of history, has that same exact moral judgment, because of how humans have evolutionarily developed, and that led to their brain working a particular way so that they all make that same moral judgment, then I'm calling that moral judgment "subjective," solely because/only because we're talking about mental phenomena, and "subjective" is a term I use to refer to mental phenomena. — Terrapin Station

This was clear, I understand. And just disagree. Which is fine.

seems we just have a definition argument.

not one word of that addresses the point I made about the analogy, not one word. Just one more pronouncement from the all and powerful S. No argument, no support. Just a sermon according to the gospel of S.

,

Not being obstinate or argumentative. Maybe just ignorant. I just don't see the logic in the biology argument, as defacto proof of subjective morality. Again it well could be my ignorance of the topic. But we just at a point now where we are just repeating the same thing. I'll do some reading on your position and see if I can get the logic.

Have to get back to real life.

you did not address the source of these judgments.

↪Rank Amateur There is no more or less objective the way that I use the term. Something either is or isn't. And morality isn't. Nor is it universal. Near universal isn't universal, so if a moral judgement is near universal, then it isn't universal. — S

So exactly how many does it take in your world to shift it from objective to subjective 1 in 7.5 Billion, 10, 1000, 1%. ? Rare exceptions does not proof subjectivity.

I understand the point, what has not been explained is the link that makes these judgments subjective by definition because a human being makes them. It is a source argument. And my point is there is either some source behind these near universal judgments that we all share, making such judgments objective. Or, are we all the individual source of all our own judgments, and it is just a matter of coincidence that on some issues all these individual mental actions the same.

Re this, for the umpteenth time, ALL that I'm saying by the term "subjective" is that we're referring to a mental phenomenon. We can just drop the terms "subjective/objective" and I can just say that "moral stances do not occur outside of persons thinking them." The reason that they think them is biological. Biology is as it is because of evolution and common environmental factors, which lead to near-universal agreement on some things. — Terrapin Station

Why, simply because it is a moral judgment, by an individual thought, makes that thought by definition subjective. People in that same mental phenomenon make a moral judgment, that the sorce of that thought is nearly universal, inherent in being human. Call it human nature or evolution- but if you agree such judgments exist they would seem to be much much more objective than subjective.

What you continue to avoid answering is why you think that difference causes us to consider majority thoughts on morality as objective truths when not only do we not do this for any other class of thought, but we take great pains to avoid doing so. — Isaac

I have never called this near universal moral judgment on some issues a "objective truth". I said it points to their is an objective moral judgment on some actions. Meaning there is some source of this judgment that is not relative or subjective to the person, the culture or the time.

deep breaths S, been a busy day.

Under subjectivist morality, the only explanation that we need for near-universal moral judgments is that our bodies develop in similar ways--a notion that's quite uncontroversial for most things (otherwise medicine wouldn't work, we'd not be able to explain why almost everyone has ten fingers and ten toes, etc.). — Terrapin Station

I do not understand your link between our near general agreement agreement about some things, and our biological development. If you include some near universal evolutionary dispositions I am there. But I don't get the link between we all have a nose and 10 toes so we all think the same about a specific thing and it is subjective.

Can you give me the full logic of this link please.

s pertinent to something I wrote earlier today: "I can't help but think that some of this stems from misunderstandings--namely, believing that relativists and/or subjectivists are more or less saying that morality is wildly divergent from person to person, and that it's essentially arbitrary. But no one is actually claiming anything like that." — Terrapin Station

No I don’t you just have not come up with any reason why on some issues it is near universal. If you want to say we have all evolved as humans to feel that way, I will agree but that seems quite objective to me with the source being a shared human evolution.

i can’t find it. Sorry can you paste it again

You understand that on my view it's biology that produces our moral stances, too, right? — Terrapin Station

I never argued this near universal agreement was not biological, I have said a few times said it could be evolved. It is just not a individually unique biology.

Lots of rhetoric on my challenge- just no reasonable answers

I understand and disagree, can you explain your position in one complete thought.

Why am I failing against Ockham’s razor.

Someone please make a coherent argument how moral relativism explains that near every human being on the planet would think torturing babies for amusement is morally wrong.
— Rank Amateur

It doesn't. Moral relativism explains how some humans do think torturing babies for fun is OK (by positing that there must therefore be no objective moral fact). Evolution is what explains why near every human being on the planet does think torturing babies for amusement is morally wrong (because it would be difficult to raise the next generation if we didn't).

Why must moral relativism explain what you want it to? Moral objectivism doesn't explain why most people have noses, but that isn't an argument against it. — Isaac

"It doesn't " is the best explanation so far

Is it really moral relativism or some form of mental illness that is a better explanation of why some incredibly small number of individuals would think baby torture for fun is morally permissible

evolution is what explains .....

I have said that exact thing, and we are in complete agreement - so by our very nature as it has evolved as species, we all hold near universal views on the morality of some issues - I call that highly objective, don't you?

↪Rank Amateur

I can't help but think that some of this stems from misunderstandings--namely, believing that relativists and/or subjectivists are more or less saying that morality is wildly divergent from person to person, and that it's essentially arbitrary. But no one is actually claiming anything like that.

What I'm saying is that morality/moral stances are something that occurs in minds only (which I believe are brains functioning in particular ways). I'm saying that moral stances do not occur outside of minds. I'm not saying anything suggestive of moral stances being arbitrary, being necessarily widlly divergent, etc.

I'm essentially making a claim about the location of a phenomenon.

There are upshots to what I'm saying, upshots where it makes a difference if we're saying that something only occurs in brains functioning in mental ways versus elsewhere, but the core idea is that moral stances only occur in brains functioning in mental ways. — Terrapin Station

I think I understand your point, let me try and paraphrase it back. The moral judgment we as individuals communicate, has an origin in our individual thoughts and reasoning on the issue. And since its origin is internal to each individual, all of them are unique individual judgments.

And there is no more reason to give then that for subjective morality, it is my thought and I am the origin of all my thoughts.


If I have that right, then I say poppy cock that it in anyway answers the question of why all these unique and self determined evaluations are nearly universal on some issues.

You want to brush that off, as well that is just the way we are made, like noses. But that is the entire crux of the issue. We all didn't independently decide we wanted noses and we would put them between our eyes. Something outside the individual decided that we would get a nose and where it would go.

The crux of the issue is source.

Call it evolution or human nature, but the reason there is near universal moral agreement on some issues is, there is some agency that is more universal than the individual that internally demands we have that view. We universally could no more disagree with on conscience on some points then individually decide where we would want to place our individual nose.

It is objective biology and outside individual human desire or judgment where our nose goes, and it is to a high degree outside individual thought and reason what our human conscience tell us is right or wrong about certain issues.

You're probably reading "Morality is subjective" as me saying something other than "Morality is of bodies" in the sense that "Noses are of bodies," despite the fact that I've tried to correct that misunderstanding tens of times (if not hundreds in general on the board) — Terrapin Station

This point is nonsense.


I have given you all a challenge, show that relative morality is a better explanation than some degree of objective morality for the near universal moral judgments on some actions.

That has not been done yet.