1. I'd say there are no moral facts as such, because the idea is a kind of category error. On the other hand I'd say there are human facts, facts about humans and human flourishing, which justify the most socially important moral injunctions. I mean, they are justified just because they are socially important.

2. I believe we all have some sense of the good, but that what various individuals believe is actually good is often distorted by inappropriate social conditioning which can only be remedied by determined self-examination.

3. Goodness or the Good doesn't exist as an object which is open to observation in the way phenomena are, obviously, so in that sense there is no objective good. But I believe there are objective facts about what leads to human flourishing and what works against it. — Janus

Hard to disagree with this. Well put.

Yes, because there is ultimately no rational reason for morality. In absence of an underlying non-rational spiritual reason, morality is simply nonsensical.

You can easily learn to extensively torture and mercilessly kill captives for the mafia. It is certainly a pragmatic choice because they pay you good money for doing that. If you can become an executioner for the official ruling mafia, and learn to enjoy your job, why not become one for an unofficial mafia? It even pays better. It has more perks and more fringe benefits. I don't see any "reason" not to do it. — Tarskian

Well, in fairness, people can also be part of the Catholic church and rape and abuse children with few consequences (unless you're caught by the secular legal system and sent to jail). Or in the case of Islam, follow a religion which was established by a pederast with a 9 year-old wife.

Behaving like a a mafia boss is pretty much a suitable account of how gods behave in Abrahamic religions. They bully, kill and torment anyone who doesn't follow orders. Sometimes they even commit genocide.

The problem with religions is that they provide no objective foundation for morality. All we have is people's interpretations and personal preferences about what they have determined any given account of a god considers to be good. Hence, even within the one religion, there is no agreement on morality, about abortion, the role of women, trans rights, capital punishment, stem cell research, homosexuality, euthanasia, killing in war, etc etc.

For me, personal morality includes the principle that guides me in my personal behavior and it’s very simple - to the extent possible, my actions will be in accordance with the guidance of my intrinsic nature, my heart if you will. — T Clark

I think it's probably the case that most of us just act and rarely think about morality. (But we might think about the law.) Morality is for academics and for conversations and for post-hoc justifications.

I think the intrinsic nature of many people leads them to harm others. They don't necessarily do this out of deliberate evil, it's the by-product of how they see the world.

Can you think of any moral discussion you've heard or participated in that was useful and if it was why was this?

They can never take for granted that they will avoid the need to morally blame and punish others if those values don’t include a means of understanding why other deviate from the normative expectations. — Joshs

But isn't there a great deal of pleasure and exhilaration derived from such judging and punishing? You might as well try to stop people from having sex.

The point of the O'Hagan piece is showcasing Assange's narcissism and incipient sociopathy. If accurate, this may have more significant implications than the payback of the vested interests we've witnessed so far. But as I say I haven't made a study of Assange and his place in media.

There's also the famous 28,000 word hatchet job by his putative biographer Sean O'Hagan - 2014, London Review of Books.

Well argued.

I don't want to die today or any day soon. But if it happens, I am ready. My affairs are in order. My death won't matter in the wider context of life on Earth. But I don't want to die and so if I did, my death would go against my plans and hopes. This would be bad. But I would be oblivious once dead, so there's that. It's a minor paradox.

Intervention sometimes takes the form of an errand. — Paine

Certainly. Or it's part of your job.

parenting has interfered with my most self-destructive tendencies. — Paine

Me too.

Those who have a strong stance on suicide almost necessarily have a strong stance on what happens when we die. — Leontiskos

I'm not so sure of this. In the suicide interventions I have conducted, many are theists. While they fear god's judgment in the afterlife, they still feel compelled to kill themselves. I think this subject is fairly nebulous. My sense is that people know they are going to continue to suffer here and will take their chances with a god or an afterlife later. The unknown fear is preferable to the known experience.

As a sideline, I worked as a contributor and feature writer for almost 20 years and I ghost wrote speeches and papers for various folk. I watched news and comment industry (print) eat itself and die around me as it raged against changing times and fading political literacy. I guess the term journalism is flexible.

I wonder if A will be alive this time next year. No doubt he now has a platform beyond even the dreams of Tucker Carlson or Joe Rogan. It will be interesting to see what happens next.

And everytime when someone makes an universal statement that ought to apply to everything, watch out! — ssu

Does this principle apply to this statement? :wink:

So, my sympathies are definitely much more Muslim nowadays. So, the problem is not necessarily Christianity but the lack of enthusiasm of the Christians. But then again, they completely mishandled the reformation too. — Tarskian

Thanks for the background. I thought as much. You're definitely interesting, even if we disagree about many things. I appreciate your generally good nature and politeness. Some folks get pretty abusive on here sometimes.

By the way, atheists really need to prove that they are not making use of omniscience for their impossibility claim that an omniscient entity does not exist. This burden is on them and not on us. — Tarskian

I’ve not met many atheists who would argue this. How would we know? Atheism is as botched and bungled as any religion in its range of strident and moderate advocates. I’ve met atheists who believe in ghosts, fairies and Bigfoot. Perhaps be a bit more cautious about your characterisation of atheists. I don’t consider all theists to be stupid rubes.

Out of interest, what type of believer are you? Muslim or Christian, or something less specific?

No. Of course journalism proper is hard to find these days, obscured as it is by all the corporate shills and entertainers. But some pretty serious commentators like Robertson and Varafakis consider A to be a legit journalist. I haven’t followed the case closely enough.

Do you consider him a journalist or a document dumper, with Wikileaks a mail box?

If someone is not interested in the issue, fine, but then his answer should still get mapped to the truth value unknown/maybe. — Tarskian

So you would have 'don't care' mapped to unknown?

:up:

I don't have a problem with suicide. If people experince life as so miserable that they would prefer to die (and this can come about through mental ill health, illness, trauma, old age, etc) I completely understand.

But what is sobering are the number of people I have met who have tried to kill themselves and failed or been 'talked around' and then have recovered from their despair, only to gain a different perspective on life and the problems they face. Generally those people are extremely thankful they did not succeed in killing themselves. This to me suggests that intervention is important.

There are many people who use threats of suicide and attempts to gain attention. There are others who are not thinking clearly and only contemplate suicide because they are not able to imagine better solutions to whatever issue they are dealing with. There are people who appear to have no alternative - extreme pain or trauma. There are some who are just overwhelmed and for whom suicide is an overreaction. And also those who see suicide as a kind of fitting punishment for their family. I have spent a lot of time as part of a suicide intervention team in my city over 20 years, so I have seen most types of self-harm presentations.

As someone with actual training in philosophy, what do you make of arguments?

Or do you think the supposed truths held by Marxists
— Tom Storm

Marxism has collapsed. Some religions are unsustainable. Nobody urges you to choose one of those. — Tarskian

That's irrelevant. The point is that Marxism has had way more power than the Taliban. The point is that this -

the Taliban unceremoniously deported NATO from Kabul airport, they achieved something that nobody else was able to do. Or do you think that you can do that too? — Tarskian

- might have been done by any number of fanatics (Castro, Hitler, Putin, whoever). And why ask me if I can do this? I am not an organisation. Nor do I belong to any organisation. Strange.

No, they can't. There is no justification for axioms. If an axiom can be justified, it is not a legitimate axiom.

Religion cannot demonstrate gods.
— Tom Storm

Math cannot demonstrate its axioms either. — Tarskian

The effectiveness of math can be demonstrated through its consistency and predictability. Religions by contrast are a mess of contradictory and conflicting beliefs, with no agreed upon goals or values - even within the single religion. It is unpredictable and inconsistent. To say religion is 'effective' in the way you are doing is to say that an atomic bomb is a good way to keep your lawn short.

But what about religion? You can't even demonstrate that religion (whichever one you pick) has anything to do with a gods. Even if a god or ten exist, there is no way of demonstrating which religion is true and reflects the will of that god.

What is there about religion that does not work? — Tarskian

We are talking about god and math. Religion is politics. Forget it. To call religion effective is an equivocation fallacy. It's not the same kind of demonstration of effectiveness as math. Math axioms can be shown to work. Religion cannot demonstrate gods. All it can do is what secular humanists or even communists might do - organize.

Religion also demonstrates its utility. The government fears us more than the result of its elections. So, the tool achieves its goal. — Tarskian

I would call that evidence of religion's disfunction. Biblically literalists, highjacked by corporate power - who are, incidentally, also scorned by vast numbers of members within the same religion are simply fearful of modernity and are retreating into strident accounts of their myths. This disorganized shambles is well understood. Even religious scholar and religious apologist, Karen Armstrong presents this hypothesis.

You see, when the Taliban unceremoniously deported NATO from Kabul airport, they achieved something that nobody else was able to do. Or do you think that you can do that too? — Tarskian

You make me laugh. We know that people can be galvanized by deception and undemonstrated beliefs. A crowd that believes something is just a crowd that believes something. Truth is a separate matter. Or do you think the supposed truths held by Marxists, Hare Krishna, Scientologists are all 'really' true because each of these groups has been effective in significant ways?

In that case, you will need to reject mathematics as it is staunchly foundationalist, i.e. axiomatic. Since science is not viable without math, you will also need to reject science. — Tarskian

Not so. We accept science and math because they work pragmatically, subject to contingent factors like communities of practice, culture and language. Science doesn't uncover reality, it gives us reliable and tentative models which are iterative and replaced when better models come forward. I suspect this process is never complete. Math can be understood in numerous ways including intuitionism, formalism, constructivism, Platonism, empiricism, not to mention postmodern accounts of math.

What you are doing, is comparing apples to oranges. — Tarskian

So your argument is that religion doesn't work and god can't be demonstrated, but we should believe it anyway because it is an orange and ideas like 'demonstration' are apples?

I'm not interested in an undergraduate debate about religion or gods. My point is that math demonstrates its utility, god can't even demonstrate it's existence. Hence faith. I don't think there's much point going on in this way. Take care.

There are three possibilities concerning the belief in God: true, false, indeterminate. Religion believes it is true. Atheism believes that it is false. Agnosticism is indeterminate. — Tarskian

From American Atheists website:

To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.

It's important to understand how people use words.

I would call myself an agnostic atheist - A fairly common category these days. I can't know there is no god. I don't believe there is a god. Atheism is not necessarily a knowledge claim.

Now one might claim we can know there is no Zeus, Ganesh, Zoroaster or Jesus. But we can't know whether or not there is some unspecified theistic entity (whatever that might look like).

There is no knowledge without belief. Furthermore, at the foundationalist core of knowledge you always find necessarily unjustifiable beliefs. Rejecting the foundation of unjustifiable beliefs amounts to rejecting the entire edifice of knowledge. If you can't have faith, you cannot know either. — Tarskian

I'm not a foundationalist.

All this is a distraction. We still can't demonstrate that there are any gods. We can demonstrate that math works. We seem unable to get past this point.

Dunning-Kruger is about people who think that they know but in fact they don't. Since atheism requires omniscience while faith in God does not, doesn't Dunning-Kruger rather describe atheists and not religious people? — Tarskian

Omniscience? Straw man, there. As an atheist I put it: I do not belive the proposition that gods exist. I have heard no good reason to accept it and the idea of gods do not assist me to make sense of my experince. This is how many contemporary atheists view the subject. We do not say there is no god, that would be making a positive claim. For many, atheism is about belief not knowledge. But this entire 'gods or not gods' is a really boring debate. Let's not let a little thing like gods come between us. :wink:

Can you demonstrate that god exists or not? We can demonstrate that math exists and works.

There are alternative religions, just like there are alternative foundations for math. Two billion people agree on Christianity. Two billion on Islam. A similarly large number on Buddhism. There are obscure religions with a small number of followers, just like there are obscure math theories.

Furthermore, religion can be very effective. It can successfully prevent governments from overruling the laws of nature. It can also be effective at motivating individuals and stimulate their survival instinct. It can motivate individuals to maintain faith in life and in the future and keep reproducing from generation to generation. — Tarskian

Nicely put. But unconvincing.

The quesion we are addressing is - is there good reason to belive in god the way there are good reasons to believe in math? We haven't even addressed the matter of which gods.

Whether there are many obscure math theories doesn't cancel the effectiveness of math in general.

Religion being an effective political group is not the same thing as assessing the effectiveness of the god hypothesis. This would seem to be another equivocation. Religion all over the world behaves like a political party - theism being incidental to its machinations.

Faith in axioms still requires belief without evidence. Religious people also agree on the foundational principles of their faith. What's the difference? — Tarskian

The difference is it misses a key factor. Demonstration of effectiveness. We have good reasons to accept math and the axioms because we can demonstrate their effectiveness. Anyone can do this at any time.

We can't do the same with any gods. We can't even agree on which gods or why gods or how gods. As an axiom, god is like an empty vase in which believers arrange the flowers.

Accepting a truth without evidence is faith. — Tarskian

That doesn't address my points. Equivocation. Have another look.

Numbers are not "real". They are abstractions. Their use ultimately requires faith in Peano's axioms. So, you can't do math without faith. In all practical terms, you can't do science or technology without at least some math. — Tarskian

Is this an example of faith? We know numbers work and can demonstrate their efficacy on demand. No one can do this with gods. I wonder if this is an equivocation on the word faith? In mathematics, "faith" in axioms is more about agreement on foundational principles rather than belief without evidence. Faith in gods is the excuse people give for believing in something when they don't have a good reason. One can't demonstrate the existence of gods. But we have good reasons to believe in the existence of math. Whatever the nature of numbers - which may well be convenient fictions for talking about collections of objects or properties of objects, rather than having an independent existence.

My answer: God, in the traditional attitude and the personal and social conditions in which I was brought up, is an all-knowing and all-powerful being who is able to intervene in the affairs of his servants, and whenever I have prayed to him and he has answered, have mercy on me. He said, and if he did not answer, it was because of his wisdom. — Ali Hosein

I have no belief in a 'sky wizard' or 'magic man'. My thinking about gods hasn't changed much since I was around 8. The idea simply doesn't resonate in any form.

A more sophisticated theology as expressed by, say, Paul Tillich, David Bentley Hart or Richard Rohr are much more interesting to me, but I am still not a customer, just an interested bystander.

Of course, I have examined the arguments used to defend various accounts of gods - since they are impossible to avoid if you talk or read about this subject. I find none of the arguments especially compelling.

I want to change this traditional belief, which in my opinion is wrong and based on "self-will" rather than "pure truth", that's why I seek to understand people's attitudes. — Ali Hosein

The truths I recognise are contingent products of language and culture. I do not believe that humans can have certain knowledge (or capital T truth) of the universe or that there is a transcendent realm we can know. The quest to discover 'reality' as it really is, seems to have become a god substitute for many people. This is the one area where I have changed. I used to think that science would build us ultimate knowledge and that we would come to know everything.

If you believe we live in a simulation, or likely, what follows? God the simulator. — Richard B

Not god necessarily. Here's what a currently limited AI thinks (ChatGPT)

The idea that we might be living in a simulation is a hypothesis explored in various philosophical, scientific, and popular culture contexts. If we consider the simulation hypothesis seriously, several speculative answers emerge regarding who might be behind it:

Advanced Civilization: One of the most popular ideas is that a highly advanced civilization, possibly our future descendants or an alien species, has created the simulation. This advanced civilization would have immense computational power and technological sophistication, allowing them to simulate entire universes.

Superintelligent AI: Another possibility is that a superintelligent artificial intelligence has created the simulation. This AI might have been developed by an advanced civilization or could have arisen independently. It could be running the simulation for purposes of research, entertainment, or some other reason beyond our understanding.

Post-Humanity: This idea suggests that future humans, who have reached a post-human stage of evolution and possess extraordinary technological capabilities, are running the simulation. They could be simulating past eras, including their own ancestors, to study historical events or for other purposes.

Extraterrestrial Beings: The simulation could be the work of an advanced extraterrestrial species. These beings might be curious about human behavior, evolution, or society, and are conducting a large-scale experiment by simulating our universe.

God or Deity: In a more theological or metaphysical context, some might equate the creator of the simulation to a god or deity. This aligns with certain religious and philosophical views where the universe is crafted by a higher power for reasons that might be unknowable to us.

Self-Simulating Universe: A more abstract idea is that the universe itself is a self-simulating entity. This concept suggests that the universe has the intrinsic capability to simulate itself through natural laws and processes, with no distinct external creator.

Is it just because the want people to accept the fact that there might be robots around soon or is it just that they think people are stupid? — Sir2u

I think it may also be down to most people not being all that interested in this issue and not having any theorized frameworks with which to understand it. But also, the image of a robot doing human things is a kind of short-hand - an easily recognized symbol. Not necessarily meant to be taken literally.

What was the traditional belief and actually your idea of ​​God? (that is, the belief that every person has had under the influence of the environment in which he was raised, before he encountered any wise thoughts about God)
Has this belief changed now? — Ali Hosein

I was brought up in the Baptist tradition. But I was never able to belive in gods, even as a child. You either believe or you don't. For me the idea of gods or 'a god' is incoherent - whether it's literalism or a more nebulous philosophical theism. Belief seems to me to be like sexual attraction, a preference you either have or don't. The arguments or justifications come post hoc.

But, it seems to me that part of the reason is emotional regulation through substances. Another would be simply thrill seeking through drugs. And then there's pure hedonism which seems like a non significant population of drug users, paradoxically. Does that make any sense? — Shawn

Yep, that's reasonable.

That's the good part. "Being drunk" is a somewhat different, less pleasant experience. — BC

For you perhaps. I could never get enough and almost always enjoyed it. Even the stumbling, falling down parts.

For most people, though, I think you are correct in naming "fun" as the primary driver. Escape from the unpleasant realities of life (apart from trauma) is also a driver. — BC

Indeed. There are several well understood causal factors. I think even this -

I mostly think the majority of people on one drug or another have a hard time feeling loved or appreciated by anyone including those without close ones to talk to. — Shawn

- is sometimes true and generally a by-product of trauma. If you are sexually or physically abused by a care giver, or brought up in the care of the state, it can be hard to feel loved.

I don't think it's really an answer to be honest. — Shawn

I thought so. I wonder why you think this way? Care to elaborate?

Nonsense. The US, probably the most materialistic culture, has a high percentage of people who profess to be either religious or spiritual. — Janus

Yes, and more broadly the same is true for many people who identify with 'New Age' spirituality and Eastern religious ideas - even those who follow this or that guru. They remain resolutely obsessed with status, wealth and real estate. And having worked recently with a number of Thai Buddhists - the same materialism dominates.

It think it's pretty clear that spirituality and/or religion do not lead to less acquisitive worldviews, but often nestle comfortably alongside status seeking materialism. Nor do they lead to enhanced compassion or tolerance.

Of course many defenders of higher consciousness worldviews are likely to say that such people are not real, Buddhists, Hindus, Parsis, Sikhs, Christians, etc.

I suppose the follow up question to this thread is to the point in asking, why do people want or need drugs? Is it curiosity or a need derived out of a sense of emotional poverty or boredom in ones life? — Shawn

You asked this from the beginning and it seems to me this has been answered. Is it that you don't agree or do you not like the answer?

And as I've said a couple of times -

I think it's one of those subjects if you have to ask, it may not be possible to readily explain.
— Tom Storm — Tom Storm

I've often wondered why there are not more people who are substance dependent.

I don't know what you mean with 'emotional poverty' - this sounds judgemental, but perhaps you don't mean it like this.

People who have had experiences of trauma are more likely to use substances and become dependent on them. I don't consider this emotional poverty. Drugs in these cases are self-medication for dysregulation and anxiety.

But mostly drugs are fun. That's the key. They are enjoyable. As someone who has abused alcohol over many years I can only say that I enjoyed it very much and getting drunk was almost always a highlight.

:up:

Sure, but, how do you explain the negative image that the government presents of drug users, as you say? Most governments around the world and the United Nations have a negative view on drugs. — Shawn

In countries with more reflective governments (Holland, for instance) drugs are decriminalized. I don't really care what government's say. Not that long ago they criminalized homosexuality. Some governments still do.

What you are pointing to is that many activities come with risks. Drug use can lead to addiction and can cause death. Driving cars can lead to fatal collisions. Most things people do have a shadow side.

if I want drugs and the government doesn't allow it, then what gives? — Shawn

Really an entirely separate issue to what we have been discussing. I'm only talking about what people do and why. I have made no comment thus far about whether it is safe.

quote="Shawn;911227"]Now, it might seem perplexing that a person seeks out a high or mind alteration by the administration of already mentioned substances to one's homeostatic state.[/quote]

Hmmm. As I wrote earlier:

I think it's one of those subjects if you have to ask, it may not be possible to readily explain. — Tom Storm

Human beings in most cultures throughout history have used substances and had roles for mind altering experiences. We relish and build lives around exhilarating activities, risk taking, extreme sports, adrenalin inducing movies, etc, etc. Kids often go around in circles in order to spin out and fall over. We seem to be hard wired to try and mix things up with thrills, euphoria, elation and other similar sensations. Unless someone is on the spectrum, boredom and routine are often experienced as 'soul' destroying. Particularly when younger.