Winnie the Pooh taught me that people can be all different and all have different weaknesses and strengths, and yet be good friends to each other and live lovingly together even if they all make mistakes. — unenlightened

Lolita taught me that pedophilia is unacceptable, especially if you are an ironist with a baroque prose style.

I don't think the 'continuous battle' you seem to be suggesting MUST be a permanent state of life for most humans due to some obscure dictate that humanity is too inherently flawed. — universeness

I don't disagree with most of this paragraph, including this sentence.

I wasn't suggesting that the continuous battle MUST be a permanent state, just that our past experience suggests that it will be. Things might change. But I don't see how. World government based on human rights with effective enforcement? As things stand, many people would experience that as a tyranny. But perhaps we wouldn't care?

Nor did I mean to say that the battle with psychopaths has always involved everyone. But it seems to me that there has always been someone involved in it. Sure, it doesn't follow that there always will be someone fighting. But I do think it will always be dangerous not to be willing to battle (which means suspending normal life!)

So to support this division, the objectivity of "fact" must be justified. — Metaphysician Undercover

From the context, I'm guessing that you think that's problematic. Depending what you mean by "justified", that's true. For example, one could argue that our practices, which define "rational" as well as "fact", themselves are not exempt from the challenge of justification, hopefully of a kind different from the justification that they define. The only alternative is some kind of foundationalism.

But if the objectivity of facts is in question, it follows, doesn't it, that the subjectivity of values is also in question. But the means to a given end is already subject to rational justification, so it is presumably "factual", if a conditional can be factual. So it all turns on the status of ends.

As a preliminary, I observe that individuals are what they are within a society, which develops the rational capacities they are born with and, in many ways, defines the world in which they will live and do their thinking and make their choices. I'm happy to agree there is no reason to assume that what we are taught is a consistent or complete system, either for facts or for values.

There are four possibilities that I am aware of:-

1 God's commandments do not help us. The Euthyphro problem is one difficulty. The question which god is another.

2. What is comprehensible as a final end in the context of human practices and ways of life. Martha Nussbaum uses this criterion in "The Fragility of Goodness". This one is particularly interesting because it adopts the Wittgensteinian approach of rational justification as based on practices and ways of life, and so would be either identical to, or parallel with, the concept of rationality.

3. The idea that some activities are "intrinsically worth while". This is a popular concept in philosophy of education. I learnt of it from R.S. Peters' work, but I don't know if he originated it. This amounts to declaring that some ends need no justification, though if you look at the examples (art, music, philosophy &c.), there is a widespread fondness for turning them into the means for other ends. Perhaps those are intrinsically worth while. I think the idea is that these are axioms, from which it is rational to deduce means. So this too amounts to incorporating means into a rational framework.

4. Naturalization of values. By this I mean argument from what are posited as human needs or instincts, shaped by the natural and social context. This has the merit of being very likely true, but suffers from all the arguments that established the fact/value distinction in the first place. It could be a variant of either of the other alternatives.

I don't know whether these approaches amount to abolishing the fact/value distinction and I don't suppose for a moment that they would abolish the issues you and @Jamal are discussing. But I think they might help.

3. The idea that some activities are "intrinsically worth while". This is a popular concept in philosophy of education. I learnt of it from R.S. Peters' work, but I don't know if he originated it. This amounts to declaring that some ends need no justification, though if you look at the examples (art, music, philosophy &c.), there is a widespread fondness for turning them into the means for other ends. Perhaps those are intrinsically worth while. I think the idea is that these are axioms, from which it is rational to deduce means. So this too amounts to incorporating means into a rational framework. — Ludwig V

Interesting. The challenge is how do we determine what is intrinsically worthwhile and what is not? This has to be based on a value system which is open to challenge. We all hold presuppositions as the building blocks for our views and actions. Some would say God is a necessary presupposition to explain why there's something rather than nothing, why there's intelligibility, morality and goodness. Christians and Muslims often argue this way. Kant and CS Lewis did.

4. Naturalization of values. By this I mean argument from what are posited as human needs or instincts, shaped by the natural and social context. — Ludwig V

Can you think of anything available to humans that is not natural? I don't know how far this gets us in practice. I tend to think that if we can do it or make it, it's natural... Whether it is 'good' or not is a separate matter.

But not the temporary death of god? — universeness

Whatever. :cool:

World government based on human rights with effective enforcement? As things stand, many people would experience that as a tyranny. But perhaps we wouldn't care? — Ludwig V

A tyranny? Can you give me an example of what you think their main complaint might be?

But I do think it will always be dangerous not to be willing to battle. — Ludwig V

Yes, as a final resort, and if you are under attack or absolutely sure that you are about to be, then I agree. Self-defence is also a human right and natural imperative.

Some would say God is a necessary presupposition to explain why there's something rather than nothing, why there's intelligibility, morality and goodness. Christinas and Muslims often argue this way. Kant and CS Lewis did. — Tom Storm

This is just the basis for the Kalam Cosmological argument, yes? Which has been fairly convincingly debunked, yes?

But not the temporary death of god?
— universeness

Whatever. :cool: — Tom Storm

Do you think that it does not matter, either way? If so, why?
Or is it more just a personal .... 'I just don't care about such details of the claims of individual organised religions?'

I tend to think that if we can do it or make it, it's natural... — Tom Storm

Careful Tom! Think of what folks could throw into that statement and by doing so, claim justification in declaring any lie or evil act, 'natural.'
The concept of natural can be so strongly related to 'moral' by nefarious individuals.

This is just the basis for the Kalam Cosmological argument, yes? Which has been fairly convincingly debunked, yes? — universeness

No. I am referring to a type of apologetics that is called presuppositional apologetics. Quite sophisticated and the best of them are provided by philosophy professors - like Alvin Plantinga. As a subsidiary argument, they also use the evolutionary argument against naturalism which is pretty cool too.

I always remember that whether an argument is debunked depends a lot on whether you are susceptible to or agree with the arguments made.

Do you think that it does not matter, either way? If so, why? — universeness

I don't care enough about theology to hairsplit the gradients of Nazarene identity and purpose.

The concept of natural can be so strongly related to 'moral' by nefarious individuals. — universeness

Indeed - some forget that arsenic, heroin and melanomas are perfectly natural.

I always remember that whether an argument is debunked depends a lot on whether you are susceptible to or agree with the arguments made. — Tom Storm

One persons truth is another persons lie, is a fair definition of subjective truth, but I think if your epistemology is the scientific method or scientific empiricism, then I think increasing your credence level to a level of an (to you) acceptable truth, based on demonstration of a process with observable predicted outcomes, is valid. If this is your foundation then posits like the Kalam and 'presuppositional apologetics,' such as 'talking about god, presupposes one exists,' can be dismissed as highly unlikely to be true which is what I would accept as 'debunked.' Based on a definition such as:
'to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated'

Indeed - some forget that arsenic, heroin and melanomas are perfectly natural. — Tom Storm

Yeah, but does that make guns, atom bombs, gods and murder, natural, merely because they are products of the human mind and also, would it follow that the word unnatural has no existent.
Would it be unnatural for example, for a human to try to live life as if they were an ant or a fish or a god?

Would it be unnatural for example, for a human to try to live life as if they were an ant or a fish or a god? — universeness

No. It would be futile. Someone might have a very natural mental illness which makes them attempt this. But perhaps we are using the term natural in different ways.

One persons truth is another persons lie, is a fair definition of subjective truth, but I think if your epistemology is the scientific method or scientific empiricism, then I think increasing your credence level to a level of an (to you) acceptable truth, based on demonstration of a process with observable predicted outcomes, is valid. — universeness

I'm mostly there, but some subjects are not so neat and the 'evidence' is contested. Personally I don't think humans have access to reality or absolute truth, just provisional little truths which are useful for certain goals (or not). But this is for another thread.

Yeah, but does that make guns, atom bombs, gods and murder, natural, merely because they are products of the human mind and also, would it follow that the word unnatural has no existent. — universeness

How could they not be natural? If beaver's damns and bird's nests are natural, then guns and highways are too. The matter of human intervention on nature upsetting the natural balance may well be a fair point, but takes the discussion in a different direction. But I am willing to be corrected on this.

How could they not be natural? If beaver's damns and bird's nests are natural, then guns and highways are too. — Tom Storm

Well, that's an interesting pair of examples to choose and compare. I think emulating the actions of a beaver by building something like the hoover dam can be paralleled as a 'natural' act by humans or the creation of a highway as many animals can 'clear a path,' to move more easily from place to place. Ants will clear obstructions in their path, on occasion, for example. No other creature on Earth, past or present has ever produced anything like a gun however. So I see no parallel in 'nature.'
I accept that some other species make use of a projectile action (an aquatic that spits a water jet at an insect on an overhanging tree branch, to knock it into the water, for example) but I don't think this parallels the invention of the gun or the atom bomb.
Are you content to accept that other species use of projectile actions and natures ability to equal or surpass the destructive power of an atom bomb, are sufficient parallels, for the human inventions of guns and atom bombs to be declared natural?
If so, do you consider AI natural? considering the A stands for artificial?

RE: Atheist Dogma.
SUBTOPIC: The relevance of the basis for the Kalam Cosmological argument.
⁜→ universeness, et al,

The specific argument for the existence of the Supreme Being, First Cause, or Creator (God) (in this case the Kalam Cosmological Argument) and (∆) "Atheist Dogma" (something not clearly defined) is confusing at best.

(COMMENT)
.
Atheism [the denial of the existence • Supreme Being, First Cause, or Creator (God)] → and → the belief in the existence of same "sound," at first, to be polar opposites. ••• Belief 'vs' Disbelief ••• But they are not. There is no commonly held contemporary definition of what a Supreme Being, First Cause, or Creator (God) might be in terms of qualities or characteristics.

A faith-based concept in the belief in the Supreme Being, First Cause, or Creator[/i] (God)] is not required to be sound and valid. "What I believe" to be a Supreme Being, First Cause, or Creator[/i] (God)] and "what you believe" may vastly differ. But that does not preclude the belief in the existence. However, to hold the opinion that something does not exist, one must understand what it is that does not exist.

You and I can agree that there is something called a car. However, my concept of a car (a VW Beetle) and your concept of a car (an Aston Martin) may differ greatly. The believers may disagree on what constitutes a "car" as many times as there are makes and models. Although they only have to come to an agreement once for the belief to be true (T). But in the mind of the Atheist, you cannot disagree on something for which you cannot define. Thus, in atheism, there is no common ground for a dogma on what it is that they disagree (because it doesn't exist).

A believer and a non-believer can never agree on what a void is. Why? Because, for them, to disagree with one another they must exist and be recognized by one another. But IF that is true (T) THEN the existence of a void cannot exist.

.
Most Respectfully,
R

The specific argument for the existence of the Supreme Being, First Cause, or Creator (God) (in this case the Kalam Cosmological Argument) and (∆) "Atheist Dogma" (something not clearly defined) is confusing at best.
↪universeness
(COMMENT) — Rocco Rosano

I am trying to understand your style of post. Is your quote above, a request for me to comment on your statement above? or are you just indicating a reference to the comments I have already made previously, regarding the Kalam?

From the context, I'm guessing that you think that's problematic. Depending what you mean by "justified", that's true. For example, one could argue that our practices, which define "rational" as well as "fact", themselves are not exempt from the challenge of justification, hopefully of a kind different from the justification that they define. The only alternative is some kind of foundationalism. — Ludwig V

The objectivity of fact only requires justification if one intends to maintain the separation between fact and value. A practice can be held up as evidence in an attempt to justify a fact as objective, but such a practice is only successful in relation to an end, or a variety of ends, and so the extent of the justification is limited to the extent that the end or variety of ends is justified.

But if the objectivity of facts is in question, it follows, doesn't it, that the subjectivity of values is also in question. But the means to a given end is already subject to rational justification, so it is presumably "factual", if a conditional can be factual. So it all turns on the status of ends. — Ludwig V

The status of ends I covered in the next post after the one which you quoted, here: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/812893
The means cannot be truly "factual" if this is supposed to mean objective, because the means are justified by the end, and the end is justified as being the means to a further end. So we get either an infinite regress or a subjective "ultimate end". This is explained in Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics" where he proposes "happiness" as the ultimate end.

... So it all turns on the status of ends.

As a preliminary, I observe that individuals are what they are within a society, which develops the rational capacities they are born with and, in many ways, defines the world in which they will live and do their thinking and make their choices. I'm happy to agree there is no reason to assume that what we are taught is a consistent or complete system, either for facts or for values.

There are four possibilities that I am aware of:- — Ludwig V

I can't quite apprehend the premises you use to come up with only four possibilities. If ends are truly subjective, merely personal preferences, then the possibilities appear to be endless. So the only way to reduce the multitude of possibilities into something more reasonable would be to somehow make ends/values objective. This is why I proposed that we start with the objective fact, the truth, that ends are subjective. This is a sort of objectivity by proxy, because it does not get to the objectivity of any particular end, to say that such an end is objective, but it produces the general objective premise, or true proposition (as true as a proposition can get, I would say) that all ends are subjective. If this general statement was not true, then an objective end could be produced which would disprove it, and we'd have our objective end. Until then we must accept the truth of the general proposition that all ends are subjective, as a working principle for our purpose.

From this perspective we can construct a proper hierarchy of values. The fact/value separation is denied because supposed "fact" is always supported by, or justified by, pragmatic principles, which in the end become subjective. Now all proposed facts are reduced to values, ends, and we can consider their individual merits, and position them as related to other ends. As general philosophers, we might just want to understand how all the various ends relate to each other, but as moral philosophers we might question the general proposition, that all ends are subjective, and try to understand what could bring some form of objectivity into any end. This would involve a defining of "objective". Either way, we must understand that moral philosophy is the highest philosophy when all knowledge is related in a hierarchy of values, because moral philosophy is directed toward that task of understanding values.

You and I can agree that there is something called a car. However, my concept of a car (a VW Beetle) and your concept of a car (an Aston Martin) may differ greatly. — Rocco Rosano

No, they are both cars and we can agree that a bike is not a car, although you can create a hybrid between the two. Variations in the attributes of gods, do not, in anyway, challenge the atheist claim that there is no evidence that ANY god exists.

Thus, in atheism, there is no common ground for a dogma on what it is that they disagree (because it doesn't exist). — Rocco Rosano

However, to hold the opinion that something does not exist, one must understand what it is that does not exist. — Rocco Rosano

A person can try as they may to conceive or perceive the notion of nothing, but always fail in the attempt.
This does not prevent an individual rejecting the proposal, that 'nothing' is or has ever been an existent state.

The 'common' ground between atheists IS sound in their insistence that there is insufficient, or no compelling evidence that ANY god exists. You are merely choosing to accept that some of the arguments put forward in presuppositional apologetics have some validity, based on the rules of propositional logic, when propositional logic itself, is burdened by such as paradox, logical infinities and the concept/context of nothing. 'Nothing' is not a valid state, under any known condition of the universe. BUT zero still exists as the absence of a contextual quantity, in that there are zero penquins, living in my ear.
God proposed as having omni attributes is far more problematic, when it comes to logic, than any proposal that presuppositional christian or moslem apologists can present to atheists imo.

When a thread suggesting that arguments about the existence or nonexistence of gods entirely misses the point of religion which rather is about how to live, nevertheless becomes dominated with a back and forth argument about the existence or non-existence of gods, I feel like the proselytisers on both sides are being rude and domineering in insisting that they continue to make that very argument over and over. It's not as if we never hear these arguments is it?

IT'S OFF TOPIC, CHAPS! GO AWAY!

When a thread suggesting that arguments about the existence or nonexistence of gods entirely misses the point of religion which rather is about how to live — unenlightened

Dictates/commands about how to live, delivered via uniformed humans in representation of their chosen organised 'faithdom,' is rejected by many as pernicious, not only atheists. If you post 'unenlightened,' provocative sentences such as:

How atheist dogma created religious fundamentalism. — unenlightened

Don't feign surprise and annoyance when you got exactly the responses you incited.

Nevertheless, in my own experience, I can't think of anything I have gained in wisdom from a work of fiction. — Tom Storm

Since the value of the work of fiction is in its interpretation in terms of what it evokes from the reader and not as much in the literalism of the text, those works that have been most subject to interpretation and analysis would offer the greatest amount of wisdom.

While you might learn something of value from spending months dissecting the Grapes of Wrath, it would pale in comparison to other works that have been subjected to thousands of years of analysis, especially if those offering that analysis were the best and brightest of their time.

In other words, why would I ever select the Bible, with all its absurdity, contradiction, and violence as a fictional centerpiece of wisdom? I didn't. Others did and I benefit less from its black and white text as I do its interpretation. But that's somewhere where fiction has led to meaning.

why would I ever select the Bible, with all its absurdity, contradiction, and violence as a fictional centerpiece of wisdom? I didn't. — Hanover

Are the traditional Judaic scriptures any more reliable than the bible, as a guide to how a human should live their life?, in accordance with:

the point of religion which rather is about how to live — unenlightened

Are the traditional Judaic scriptures any more reliable than the bible, as a guide to how a human should live their life?, in accordance with: — universeness

So the story goes, at Mt. Sinai, not only was the written law handed down (the Torah, meaning the five books of Moses), but also the oral law, which was passed down by word of mouth and eventually written down (the Talmud). They are read and interpreted together, neither having higher authority than the other.

This leaves open rabbinic interpretation as important as the text is itself.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_Torah#:~:text=According%20to%20Rabbinic%20Jewish%20tradition,threat%2C%20by%20virtue%20of%20the

It is also why criticisms related to simplistic literalism apply only to limited theological systems, like contemporary Christian fundamentalism, but really not to others.

Are the traditional Judaic scriptures any more reliable than the bible, as a guide to how a human should live their life? — universeness

On the whole, I prefer Lao Tzu and Zen Buddhism, personally. But when one is brought up within a Christian and post Christian culture, one has to wrestle with the local mud one was born in first, before one can get to the calm waters of comparative religion. But you're not actually asking seriously, are you? I think you are just carrying right on with your rhetorical defence of your own fiction that you have identified with.

So the story goes, — Hanover

Do you accept all of 'the story' as true? Did moses spend 10 years in a pit, as the captive of Jethro, before he marred Jethro's daughter Zipporah? Did an angel of god???? Come to kill moses for not cutting off part of his childs penis, and Zipporah, saved him by doing the deed there and then with a sharp stone?
In the words of the Torah:

Now he was on the way, in an inn, that the L‑rd met him and sought to put him to death. So, Zipporah took a sharp stone and severed her son's foreskin and cast it to his feet

I assume you accept critical assessment, as to the likelyhood of such events and further critical assessment of the rationale, behind such events when it comes to how such should be interpreted by uniformed Rabbi's regarding how you should live your life and inform your children accordingly?
DO such events and Rabbinical translation of them, inform you how to live your life? Did you circumcise your male children for fear that an angel of god would come down and kill you if you didn't?

I assume you don't consider those who are not guided by the Torah and the Talmud on how they should live their lives, religiously damned and amoral. As an atheist we can both exist on this planet and hold such differing views, BUT, it will never ever be left like that. Many in the next generation of humans will ask anew! 'You believe what? why? How do you know that's true? what is your evidence? etc, etc.

Can you put a percentage on how much of the content of the Torah and Talmud is complete nonsense?
I assume you will not be willing to? I think it's reasonable for atheists to keep asking you what your personal version of theism compels you to believe is true, and why you believe it's true, in the face of such poor evidence. If you don't answer or give poor answers then I think the assumption will continue to be that your primal fear controls your need for some supernatural protector/arbiter.

I am not assuming that the content of the torah and talmud guides your life via rabbinical interpretation but to whatever extent it does defies my own sense of rationality?

How do you know which religious scripture it REALLY wants you to follow. How do you know it's not the Islamic ones or @unenlightened's buddhism or some other theosophist flavour?

This leaves open rabbinic interpretation as important as the text is itself. — Hanover

The book is holy, but the what the priest says, goes.

On the whole, I prefer Lao Tzu and Zen Buddhism, personally. — unenlightened

Unless I disagree with the priest, and the book, and go shopping for a different one.

Well, at least it's not dogmatic.

The book is holy, but the what the priest says, goes. — Vera Mont

I'm not sure what you're suggesting you're summarizing, my view or a simplified view of Orthodoxy? It sounds like neither.

one has to wrestle with the local mud one was born in first, before one can get to the calm waters of comparative religion — unenlightened

Is that personal wrestle still on going in your head or is the fight settled and buddhism or it's 'zen' variety won?

But you're not actually asking seriously, are you? — unenlightened

I can only insist that I am!

I think you are just carrying right on with your rhetorical defence of your own fiction that you have identified with. — unenlightened

Exactly which of us is guided by fiction when choosing how to live their own life is for others to assess.
My priority remains ensuring that I don't surrender my skepticism and critical thinking to unsupported conjectures and the esoteric imaginings of others alive today or in the past.
My awe and wonder and how I choose to live my life, remains credited to me, and not imagined esoterics, interpreted by so called religious humans, who assume they have the authority to do so, based on the illusion that some non-existent god or buddha caricature speaks through them.

Do you accept all of 'the story' as true? — universeness

Pay attention or leave the conversation. This entire conversation revolves around my position that the literal truth is irrelevant and the historicity of the account highly doubtful. You're a one trick pony with your only ability to point out that Christian fundamentalists have an unsustainable position.

How do you know which religious scripture it REALLY wants you to follow. — universeness

Pay attention. I've offered no special status to the text, nor suggested it is of any more divine origin than any other text.

I'm not going to restate it. Just scroll up and see if you can follow how I've placed the value in the interpretation. These are people looking for meaning, not inerrant gods decreeing truth and who can't be defied.

If the wisest if rabbis utters bullshit, it remains bullshit.

Why do we keep going over this? I consider its literal truth irrelevant and its historicity — Hanover

You're a one trick pony with your only ability to point out that Christian fundamentalists have an unsustainable position. — Hanover

Nonsense! Stop just spitting at me for the sake of it and debate me instead.
Give me examples from the torah or talmud OR ANY OTHER SCRIPTURAL SOURCE, that you use to guide your own life and the life of your progeny but make sure the example is theistic in content or in 'spirit' and let it be held up to critical assessment by others.

I'm not going to restate it. Just scroll up and see if you can follow how I've placed the value in the interpretation. These are people looking for meaning, not inerrant gods decreeing truth and who can't be defied. — Hanover

I UNDERSTAND what you have already claimed but you HAVE NOT exemplified your theism from that which is written or interpreted by others into how you employ such in your life!
Your poor attempts to insult me are ineffective, debate me instead or YOU leave the conversation.

This leaves open rabbinic interpretation as important as the text is itself. — Hanover

I wasn't summarizing; I was interpreting:
The book tells us how to live, but we can't understand it, so we need a priest/ rabbi/ pastor / imam to tell us how to live.
If that's not what it means, what does it mean?

I didn't defer to an interpreter.

I didn't defer to an interpreter. — Hanover

rabbinic interpretation — Hanover

Didn't you? If an interpretation does not prove the existence of an interpreter then I shall consent to be called a fool.

Didn't you? If an interpretation does not prove the existence of an interpreter then I shall consent to be called a fool. — Vera Mont

If defer to rabbinic interpretation as much as you'd defer to a literary critic.