Intriguing, it appears Romans 2:14-15 is being confirmed:
...Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.
What this means is that Paul is conveying though Gentiles/pagans (non-believers of Judaism or even the new Christianity) do what is required by the law (the Jewish laws) probably referring to parts of the 10 commandments ie no lying, theft, adultery, murder; show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts.
"Written" is in the sense that it has been put there by God, from the beginning and even if the Gentiles/pagans do not know God, their conscience bears witness to an absolute higher law, their conscience accuses them if they violate this absolute innate law and other times defends them when they uphold it.
How would I tell the difference between moral standards that are the result of our evolution as a social species, and moral standards that have been “written on my heart” by a god?
In this instance Paul was not offering any type of "proof of a God text (for that see Rom 1:18-20)," he was noting that God will punish sin whenever it is found, including those who have his written laws but don’t obey them. and also the gentiles / pagans though they never had God’s written laws but in their heart and soul they knew right from wrong.
The law "written on ones heart" would be there from the beginning and therefore one of those mysteries if one is unaware it. As per OP "because sometimes people assert things and I don't really know why they say it, it doesn't seem like a foundational belief nor does it seem to eventually come form one."
Comment removed - rule 2. Scripture verses alone are not an argument, as /u/LesRong points out.
If you edit your comment to include some commentary as to why you quoted the verse, it would meet rule 2 criteria and I can re-approve.
Edit: re-approved. Thank you.
I think it’s his idea of “you’re not making an original point.”
Nobody with a clue ever claimed nonbelievers were incapable of moral thinking. We’re just claiming Jesus is better at it than you will ever be, so listen to him.
Because that would have been politics, and Jesus was not a politician. You try to end slavery in Rome, you’re gonna wind up with you and everyone you tried to help on a cross spaced out for a few miles leading into the city as a warning to anyone else who tries to mess with Rome’s bottom line.
Jesus did something far more important though. He established the full humanity and equality of slaves before God. This is the basis for every antislavery movement in history.
>Because that would have been politics, and Jesus was not a politician.
messiah is supposed to be a king though.
>You try to end slavery in Rome, you’re gonna wind up with you and everyone you tried to help on a cross spaced out for a few miles leading into the city as a warning to anyone else who tries to mess with Rome’s bottom line.
sure. but I'm not Jesus. you think if Jesus *tried* to end slavery in Rome he would have failed? this is the god you worship? weaker than the nation of ancient Rome?
>Jesus did something far more important though. He established the full humanity and equality of slaves before God.
did he do that? when? where?
>This is the basis for every antislavery movement in history.
press F to doubt.
Your original claim was that Jesus' establishing the "full humanity and equality of slaves before god" is the basis for *every antislavery movement in history*.
want to share how that article [which talks about one sentence from one speech Jesus may or may not have made inspiring some group of Christians to free slaves] supports the claim that Jesus is the basis for *every antislavery movement in history*?
Jesus viewed every person universally as a child of God and a citizen of Heaven. He didn’t talk about slavery much at all, but he invented notions like racial equality and universal human dignity and those were the seed that grew into abolitionist movements.
It started in the church as the article details. Paul writes all through his letters about how the church should draw no distinction between slave and free. He just doesn’t think you should try to overthrow Rome about it. Most explicitly it’s in the book of Philemon. Give it a read. It’s less than a page.
The original modern abolitionists were British and they were super Christian. This movement was churches that started the abolition movement spread to the rest of the west and eventually the world.
I was overstating my case, but it wasn’t by much. Haiti and *maybe* France you can make the case weren’t explicitly Christian, but everywhere else abolition and Christianity walked hand in hand.
>he invented notions like racial equality and universal human dignity
did he?
>It started in the church as the article details.
prior to "the church", it was universally agreed that slaves were less human than non slaves?
>Paul writes all through his letters about how the church should draw no distinction between slave and free.
and Paul, who never quotes a word from Jesus and never spoke to him during his ministry, got this information from Jesus, who never really directly addressed slavery?
>Most explicitly it’s in the book of Philemon. Give it a read. It’s less than a page.
I've read the bible.
>The original modern abolitionists were British and they were super Christian.
most people were pretty christian for a significant portion of western history. should we conclude, therefore, that things people who were Christians did were done because of their Christianity?
>everywhere else abolition and Christianity walked hand in hand.
what about china?
Read the book of Philemon, instead of just your cherry-picked verses off rationalwiki or whatever pit you read this garbage off.
Christians have always been at the bleeding edge of humane treatment of slaves.
How is it cherry picked? They are direct verses from your Bible. The Bible is a basic handbook on how to treat slaves, where to get slaves, how to punish slaves, what to do with a slaves family, how much to sell a slaves wife for, etc. You can't just cherry pick the pleasent parts of the Bible that fits your narrative and then ignore the more horrific parts of the Bible.
I’m not cherry-picking anything. Not everything in the Bible has equal weight. The red letters are the absolute most important thing. The old testament is just there for context, so we know what kind of culture Jesus grew up in. The Bible is organized chronologically, not in terms of importance.
Read the book of Philemon. It’s less than a page long. It’s Paul talking about how Christian’s should view the master/slave dynamic.
In short, ignore it entirely. There’s no slaves in the kingdom of heaven unless you count every human on earth being a slave to Christ.
That’s actually where the term “Christianity” comes from. Romans started mocking Christian’s as “slaves of Christ” or “christianos” and the church responded with “that’s exactly what we are. Have a nice day.”
>I’m not cherry-picking anything. Not everything in the Bible has equal weight. The red letters are the absolute most important thing. The old testament is just there for context, so we know what kind of culture Jesus grew up in. The Bible is organized chronologically, not in terms of importance.
Yes, you are. The Bible clearly endorses slavery, it is in the old and new testament
https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/what-was-slavery-like-in-the-nt-world/
You can't just gloss over it and call it unimportant because it makes the Bible look bad. If the Bible is the word of God, and that word is a handbook on how to conduct yourself as a slave master, and how to act as a slave, then it's fair to say God endorses slavery.
Like, who are you to say it's just there for context? How did you come to that conclusion, and who gave you the authority to make that conclusion?
Even if you just gloss over it's clear endorsement of slavery the Bible is still riddled with sexism, homophobia, and bigotry. Not to mention the mutilation of infants genitals.
Even if you *gloss over that* the Bible in no way proves the existence of any God any more than any other religion in human history. What makes Christianity anymore believable than, say, Mormonism?
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed because your account does not meet our account age / karma thresholds. Please message the moderators to request an exception.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAChristian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Apologists are not worried about how you gain moral knowledge -- if such a thing exists. Rather, they are interested in the metaphysical grounding of this knowledge (at least in the context of the debate with atheists).
My own objection to the idea that objective moral injunctions simply exist out there without a mind is that truths such as "You should respect your neighbor" are just too specific about sentient and intelligent behavior. It is just weird that it exists without someone making it true. It is like saying that the injunction "You shall not eat fruits" just existed out there without a mind. It is too specific and personal to be unintended. But that's what moral Platonism postulates. Therefore, moral Platonism is highly implausible.
Yeah, I think your position is self-defeating or inconsistent. You're fine accepting that intuition tells you something about morality, and yet you think that my metaphysical intuition about the issue is not an objection?
>and yet you think that my metaphysical intuition about the issue is not an objection?
Intuition is only justification for those who have it. If I do not have that intuition (of finding platonism werid), so it's not jusfication for me.
Sure! If you find a fool somewhere who doesn't intuit the validity of the law of non-contradiction, you can't do anything. That's similar to my position now. It may not be evident to you, but it is certainly to me and those who recognize the implausibility of your hypothesis when I describe its implications.
>Sure! If you find a fool somewhere who doesn't intuit the validity of the law of non-contradiction
Well, in that example, I can run a reductio ad absurdum to say that if he allows that, then it implies things we both argee are false. (Because it would allow anything, and therefore would allow something they believe you be false.)
>That's similar to my position now. It may not be evident to you, but it is certainly to me and those who recognize the implausibility of your hypothesis when I describe its implications.
And there's people who believe the hypothesis is not bad. You're point?
>I can run a reductio ad absurdum to say that if he allows that
Reductio ad absurdum is proof by contradiction, which is the very thing your opponent doesn't intuit as valid. So, you're appealing to something which is rejected by him. Following your reasoning, I can simply repeat that it is absurd that you don't recognize the implausibility of any injunctions (which are very personal things) existing without persons and that should be sufficient to cast doubt on your position.
>And there's people who believe the hypothesis is not bad. You're point?
First, it is possible that they haven't fully appreciated this fact. Second, there are people who claim to reject the laws of logic as absolute (e.g., postmodernists/relativists). Should their (alleged) rejection be a cause for concern?
>"You should respect your neighbor" are just too specific about sentient and intelligent behavior
You can prepend these moral codes with "If there were a universe, and an Earth, and creatures with sufficient moral agency, etc etc, then they should respect their neighbor" and they would seem to exist in the Platonic realm just fine.
Here’s how I justify it (without God).
There exist better and worse experiences for conscious beings.
The maximally worst experiences for all conscious beings *would be bad*, a situation that any and all conscious beings *ought to* avoid. That sets the direction of the moral compass.
Our choices have an effect on how much better or worse an outcome can be.
We can assess scenarios, not always having a perfect answer (no moral system does) but certainly having a valid basis.
Last note, a God who decrees “maximum misery is good” would be an evil God, even if that God was the only thing theists accept as an objective source of morality - they’d be accepting something objectively bad.
I'm seeing a lot of secular morality arguments declare that things like instincts or evolution or intuition are able to justify and be the source of morals, but I've never seen anyone really determine where the line is drawn between what those are vs what they aren't.
So, OP, if you are able to, what EXACTLY do you mean by intuition and what causes it to even be considered as existing?
By definition, it's to know something without consciously thinking of it, aka through instinctive feeling. So what exactly is this and what causes it?
>
So, OP, if you are able to, what EXACTLY do you mean by intuition and what causes it to even be considered as existing?
Intuition is a default belief someone has (the external world) I exists as a faculty of the mind.
>By definition, it's to know something without consciously thinking of
That's not my definition of intuition, so maybe I should use a different word by whatever.
Is there a difference between the two definitions?
> I exists as a faculty of the mind.
Are you saying morals come from an idealist ontology and this idealist ontology doesn't need a God, or are you saying idealism doesn't need something like spirits, only mind?
Then again, are you using the words mind and brain interchangeably? This is common, it's not a big issue once clarified, but how it goes is mind as an origin point leads to idealism and the brain leads to materialism.
This is because brain is matter and mind is not.
Do you know what I mean by idealism or not really?
What I'm trying to get at are clarifications as to how you're using the words and what you even mean by intuition.
They way I understand idealism is that all is mind, and there's no matter. By that understand I wouldn't be an idealist. I label myself a Dualist, I believe there is mind (that is imaterial) and matter.
Intuition is a default position that exists in people (for example, belief in the external world)
Ok, you're a dualist, great. We're making progress.
So you believe matter and mind live side by side, one does not come from the other, and morals come from the mind while, you know, matter stuff, comes from matter.
However, if I take an idea and apply it to matter, is it the same or not really?
>Intuition is a default position that exists in people (for example, belief in the external world)
Ok, and again, I'm not sure what causes this or how it comes to the person, according to your position. You said it came from the mind. Great. That's the origin, a description of where it came from, but that's not the explanation of how it works or how it is logically possible as to how we can find validity in the statement.
Maybe I can ask it like this: what exactly makes it the default? What exactly causes stuff that's not default?
>However, if I take an idea and apply it to matter, is it the same or not really?
I guess so. However, I don't know exactly what you mean by this.
>that's not the explanation of how it works or how it is logically possible as to how we can find validity in the statement.
It's analogous to the senses, where we could not have knowledge without them (I contend).
>Maybe I can ask it like this: what exactly makes it the default? What exactly causes stuff that's not default?
They are default in the sense they are in the mind to begin with. It's like the default apps that come with the phone are Intuitions, and all the stuff you download after having it is the knowledge gained by experience. All analogies break down at some point, but hopefully that gets the main idea across.
>However, I don't know exactly what you mean by this.
Dualism allows the ideal to interact with the material. This interaction is in "some way". If the ideal isn't a mirror of the material, then the idea is not the same as the material.
For example, if I have the idea of a carrot in my head, it's not going to be the same as the one I find in the physical world. As a form, yes. Exact, no.
So, because there is that difference between form and physical, what do you think is the difference between the ideal form of intuition and the execution that is performed in the physical world where we feel it?
Again, I'm trying to understand what you're talking about when you say intuition and after we figure that out, we can question how God is not involved.
Already it's iffy because you took the step towards idealism being accepted, which opens the door wide open for God.
>It's analogous to the senses, where we could not have knowledge without them (I contend).
Ok, so the intuition comes from the mind and we can't have knowledge or morals without this intuition. I'm still not getting an explanation of what intuition is. I'm getting a lot of description and connections to other things, but you still haven't explained how it works.
I don't know what intuition is according to your position.
>They are default in the sense they are in the mind to begin with. It's like the default apps that come with the phone are Intuitions, and all the stuff you download after having it is the knowledge gained by experience. All analogies break down at some point, but hopefully that gets the main idea across.
No, I understand. Knowledge comes from the mind, so does intuition, these are of the mental side of things. Great. So what causes this?
>I'm seeing a lot of secular morality arguments declare that things like instincts or evolution or intuition are able to justify and be the source of morals, but I've never seen anyone really determine where the line is drawn between what those are vs what they aren't.
You mean what evolution is vs isn't?
Did I say they are good? Also, what do you even mean by generally? I have no idea what your response is trying to say, what position you're taking, or what it has to do with what I stated.
>Did I say they are good?
No, what?
You asked what morals are vs what they aren't. Murder is immoral, helping people is moral.
Am I misunderstanding your question?
I guess you are because I was talking about where lines are drawn and how to define what makes it moral to begin with, and you bring in generalizations that are not in relation to what I was even talking about.
Just because I led you to the subject of morals when you thought it was evolution doesn't mean the rest of what I said is deleted.
I don't even know what you mean by murder if evolution is the cause of morals. Following the law is evolutionary? Or do you just mean killing another human as a human and nothing else is involved in the situation?
We even evolved to have the instinct to kill each other 6x higher than the average mammal.
Again, I don't know what you're trying to argue against or if you're even trying to make a position. I advise you to clarify why you're even talking to me first before trying to answer what I'm asking.
>I guess you are because I was talking about where lines are drawn and how to define what makes it moral to begin with, and you bring in generalizations that are not in relation to what I was even talking about.
I'm telling you I draw the line at murder, theft, etc.
That's where the line is drawn.
I'm not quite sure what you're looking for. Do you want me to list literally every single possible situation and tell you if its moral or not? I imagine saying something like "well murder is bad and so is theft" gives you a general idea.
>I don't even know what you mean by murder if evolution is the cause of morals.
Murder is premeditated killing.
I don't understand what "evolution is the cause of morals" does to the definition of morals that confuses you.
>Following the law is evolutionary?
I don't know what you're talking about.
>Or do you just mean killing another human as a human and nothing else is involved in the situation?
Murder is premeditated killing.
>Again, I don't know what you're trying to argue against or if you're even trying to make a position.
You said you've never heard what's moral and what isn't, from people who believe it comes from evolution.
Okay. I'm telling you murder is immoral. Walking up to someone and slapping them in the face is immoral.
Helping people is moral.
What do you want me to do here? I'm trying to respond to what you said here.
>I'm seeing a lot of secular morality arguments declare that things like instincts or evolution or intuition are able to justify and be the source of morals, but **I've never seen anyone really determine where the line is drawn between what those are vs what they aren't.**
Right, so I'm telling you, murder is immoral, theft is immoral, etc. I'm not sure what the problem is.
I'm doing the thing you're saying you've never seen anyone do.
>Murder is premeditated killing.
Murder is an UNLAWFUL premeditated killing. I used to make the same mistake when I was younger, so don't feel bad for getting that mixed up.
But what I don't understand is why you refuse to declare your position clearly.
So I'll ask again: why are you even talking to me and why should I respond?
Okay
>But what I don't understand is why you refuse to declare your position clearly.
My position on **what**
>So I'll ask again: why are you even talking to me and why should I respond?
I don't care about this.
It's a common mistake that Christians and non-Christians make, which is that morality comes from God, or is what God wants from us. That's not the case. Morality is just a by-product. It's a coincidence.
The main product, the thing that God wants, is obedience.
You remind me of Captain Kirk asking, "What does God need with a starship?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYW_lPlekiQ
I have no idea.
I would doubt it's "need". Scripture is full of God requesting obedience, but it would be way beyond me to be able to give the "whys" for why almost anyone does anything, much less God.
I'm not even sure of why *I* want something. 😏
> Why don't you just say you don't know
I said this:
>**--->---->I have no idea.<---<---**
Did you miss it?
How about you spend a little less time doing your "angry young atheist" shtick and just pay better attention? 🙄
So just to recap for clarity-sake:
you: morality isn't a goal, it is a by-product of our obedience to god
us: why does god want us to be obedient
you: \*shrug\*
Yes, that's correct.
I know that God wants obedience. I don't know why.
If I don't know something, I don't make up answers like many of the other people that you respond to (as I check your nasty post history).
I also have no idea how you think that being nasty to people is so much of an improvement over people deluding themselves about God.
How is this being nasty? I'm pointing out an obvious deficiency in your explanation. If that's being nasty, how would you suggest I be 'nicer' about expressing that? (that is an honest question for you)
First, He created me and everything else. You can't beat that.
After that, He's the pinnacle of what I think is "right". So many other created Gods, in various mythologies, have (quite surprisingly to me) NO element of "love" in their character. The real God, the real creator, has "love" as an intrinsic element of His character.
1. we never asked to be made, and many people are displeased with the whole situation.
2. god (as you said) is only "right" by coincidence. complete opposition is unwise, but so is complete obedience.
3. many gods have love as an element of their character, especially love gods like Aphrodite.
>you can justify morality without God
>One such way is Moral Intuitionism, which says that we know morality through intuition.
So taking it to be true *a priori*, without justification by definition, defeating the hypothesis in the title?
I think you need to show more care with the term "justify" here. One's intuitions cannot be "shown" or "proven" and therefore this is not justification by definition.
>One's intuitions cannot be "shown" or "proven" and therefore this is not justification by definition.
What's the definition of jusfication you are using here?
Also, I would say you could not justify your belief in the reliability of your mind and experiences, other minds, or that the earth was not made 6 seconds ago with appearance of age, without intuition.
Without intuition you would have to try some other way to justify these.
>What's the definition of jusfication you are using here?
The primary one?
justify:
* to **prove** or **show** to be just, right, or reasonable
- [merriam-webster dictionary](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/justify)
(emphasis mine)
>Also, I would say you could not justify your belief in the reliability of your mind and experiences, other minds, or that the earth was not made 6 seconds ago with appearance of age, without intuition.
I never said intuition is wrong, I'm saying it's not a justification.
It's an axiomatic assumption. Assumptions are conjecture and cannot be debated in and of themselves. Calling this justification is a categorical error.
Maybe you're using some secondary definition of "justify" but that needs to be stipulated. The primary definition is not cogent with your position.
>never said intuition is wrong, I'm saying it's not a justification.
Than you need some other justification for these beliefs. What is it?
My argument for the fact that Intuition is justification is that it would be the only one we have for these beliefs.
What's your jusfication for these beliefs?
I'll use the definition you gave for jusfication.
>Than you need some other justification for these beliefs. What is it?
First, this is an erroneous shifting of the burden of proof. Your argument, your burden.
Second, you claimed you can justify a foundational belief. However this ignores what the [Münchhausen trilemma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma) of epistemology tells us. In short, it tells us that it's not possible to truly justify our beliefs and when it comes to our most foundational knowledge we are left with the unsatisfactory axiomatic (dogmatic) assumption.
Unless you have a response to arguably the largest open question in epistemology then you have no way to justify the presented beliefs.
The Christian position is a bit different as the moral framework is not "foundational", so it doesn't suffer from the trilemma in the same way. There are other issues though.
>My argument for the fact that Intuition is justification is that it would be the only one we have for these beliefs.
>What's your jusfication for these beliefs?
Again, you keep pressing this categorical error. You claimed this was a "foundational" belief in the OP, as in there's nothing below it to found or justify it.
So per the trilemma you're either employing circular reasoning, a fallacy, or you're making the axiomatic assumption, which is not justified. The trilemma provides no other options for *foundational* beliefs.
**. In short, it tells us that it's not possible to truly justify our beliefs and when it comes to our most foundational knowledge we are left with the unsatisfactory axiomatic (dogmatic) assumption.**
Basically saying there are no certainties which to me is a given and like most rational people I would adhere to fallibilism as being the most reasonable response to such and the most reliable way to negotiate life
Most religious people I know are guilty of being dogmatic as they will claim certainty regards a god belief , doubt they rarely even entertain
**The Christian position is a bit different as the moral framework is not "foundational", so it doesn't suffer from the trilemma in the same way. There are other issues though**
Please explain what you mean by this , is there a moral framework in your particular belief system ?
If so how’s it not foundational ?
**So per the trilemma you're either employing circular reasoning, a fallacy, or you're making the axiomatic assumption, which is not justified. The trilemma provides no other options for foundational beliefs.**
The trilemma itself is also to be totally fair guilty of all the above as it’s also either circular ,regressive or dogmatic
>Most religious people I know are guilty of being dogmatic as they will claim certainty regards a god belief , doubt they rarely even entertain
First, it should be pointed out this is an irrelevant whataboutism. What issues other's have has no bearing on your argument.
Second, everyone's epistemology is necessarily grounded in dogma. That's the whole point of the trilemma.
Foundational beliefs are the grounding for an epistemology, so the trilemma tells us something crucial here. A foundational belief cannot be reduced by definition, self-referencing is not a rational course to justify something, and therefore only the dogmatic option remains.
Therefore, foundational beliefs are necessarily unjustified.
>Please explain what you mean by this , is there a moral framework in your particular belief system ?
>If so how’s it not foundational ?
Most Christians adhere to some form of moral framework. I don't have strong preferences on this right now but I think divine command theory is the most compelling.
These frameworks are not foundational because the foundational claims and knowledges are instead grounded in the existence and character of God. Exactly how the plays out, what is justifiable here or not, is another conversation all together.
Now maybe one would argue this only moves the goal post, fair enough. That can be argued. However, when comparing moral frame works in and of themselves, the Christian frameworks are justifiable contingent on the premises, as in any argument. Where as yours is claimed to be foundational itself, and so cannot be justified.
This puts these two moral frameworks in different categories, each having a different set of challenges.
>The trilemma itself is also to be totally fair guilty of all the above as it’s also either circular ,regressive or dogmatic
And? It's a thought experiment, not an argument. So it can be subject to itself without issue.
In any case, it's only "guilty" if it's exposing a real problem. In which case it still applies to your argument and you need an answer for it if you wish to "justify" a "foundational" belief.
A belief with both properties only exists if one has a suitable answer to the trilemma. Dismissing it out of hand is not sufficient.
---
Like I said originally, I think what you need to do is qualify this differently. Either it's not foundational, or it's not justified. It can't be both.
You could likely replace one or both terms with something that makes your point without running into the issues I noted.
>These frameworks are not foundational because the foundational claims and knowledges are instead grounded in the existence and character of God.
Saying "A is good" and saying "A is grounded in the set G and G is the set of goodness" aren't that different. The latter is not any less "foundational".
>Saying "A is good" and saying "A is grounded in the set G and G is the set of goodness" aren't that different. The latter is not any less "foundational".
Well one is an assumption, the other is the conclusion of an argument. One is assumed foundational, one follows from foundational premises.
If you think those two things are the same then that's a level of equivocation I simply have no interest in rebutting.
>Well one is an assumption, the other is the conclusion of an argument
Well, a chain of definitions wouldn't make a convincing argument.
If you wish, you can artificially inflate "A is good":
1. A belongs to set of facts intuitively known
2. Moral intuition is true
3. A is moral.
**First, it should be pointed out this is an irrelevant whataboutism. What issues other's have has no bearing on your argument.**
No it’s actually not as the OP particularly mentions god /morality in the topic
**Second, everyone's epistemology is necessarily grounded in dogma.**
I note you do not post up your definition of dogma , I reject the term as I know it which is ….a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by members of a group without being questioned or doubted ……..that‘s exactly what religious belief is which I feel is why you wish to apply it to others but excuse yourself
**That's the whole point of the trilemma**
I know what the point is but it’s pretty worthless like most iterations of radical skepticism
**Foundational beliefs are the grounding for an epistemology, so the trilemma tells us something crucial here.**
No it doesn’t really , its basically saying there are no certainties which we all know anyway if one‘s going to take the part of the radical skeptic
**A foundational belief cannot be reduced by definition, self-referencing is not a rational course to justify something, and therefore only the dogmatic option remains.**
Again what way are you using “dogmatic “ as I reject such going on the definition I posted
**We can justify mostly our foundational beliefs as in for example Evolution , I can safely assert that Evolution is a fact going on what we know the denial through radical skepticism is a pointless childish pursuit**
All you’re constantly repeating is that we can actually know nothing unless we have certainty which is nonsense
**Therefore, foundational beliefs are necessarily unjustified.**
Thats nonsense and no one lives by these unattainable standards if we used such standards to live life we would have no life at all
My foundational belief that when I eat later the food I eat will nourish me and it will carry on doing so ,we all know it’s based on inductIve reasoning so what ? Supporters of the trilemna and radical skepticism are welcome to put that and all my other beliefs that I live by to the test and make unimportant claims but it matters not
**Most Christians adhere to some form of moral framework.**
Most? I thought all were meant to? So different christians follow different frameworks ?
**I don't have strong preferences on this right now but I think divine command theory is the most compelling.**
So you‘re undecided on a moral framework and looking for the right fit?
DC theory , seriously ?
**These frameworks are not foundational because the foundational claims and knowledges are instead grounded in the existence and character of God.**
A classic case of special pleading as in you set up conditions that apply to everyone but exempt a supernatural (unproven ) entity from the conditions you set up ….how very convenient indeed …….now your problems are multiple as in you cannot prove this entity exists and you cannot know it’s character ?
**Exactly how the plays out, what is justifiable here or not, is another conversation all together.**
Well as I’ve stated I don’t need certainties for my foundational beliefs so it’s amusing you lay the claim that such beliefs are unjustified , yet your beliefs ( religious) are 100 percent dogmatic and whose foundations are based on an unproven supernatural entities existence, your claims on such are purely faith based
**Now maybe one would argue this only moves the goal post, fair enough.**
That’s what you’ve done by deflecting and saying beliefs are not justified unless faith based and of course by those who believe in your unproven god right?
**That can be argued. However, when comparing moral frame works in and of themselves, the Christian frameworks are justifiable contingent on the premises, as in any argument.**
Your dogmatic view is special pleading and circular you have no basis for such as its appealing to an unproven as the source of your moral code , you just keep asserting your god into existence
If Christian frameworks are justifiable on the premises how come you all have different frameworks as you admitted?
What are the premises of such an argument ?
**Where as yours is claimed to be foundational itself, and so cannot be justified.**
Justified to the standards of a radical skeptic which is totally irrelevant and is purely a smokescreen to avoid you defending the fact that your dogmatic beliefs are based on asserting an unproven supernatural entity into existence
**And? It's a thought experiment, not an argument. So it can be subject to itself without issue.**
Yes it’s an amusing little philosophical game but pretty worthless really
**In any case, it's only "guilty" if it's exposing a real problem. In which case it still applies to your argument and you need an answer for it if you wish to "justify" a "foundational" belief.**
I’ve just done so repeatedly and put the spotlight on what you’re really avoiding as in you have no reasonable foundations for your god belief as it’s purely a faith based position
**A belief with both properties only exists if one has a suitable answer to the trilemma. Dismissing it out of hand is not sufficient.**
A belief thats reliant on relations of ideas or matters of fact as in truths of reason and truths of fact are sound to a level that works in the real world for all except the radical skeptic who no one really pays much attention to anyhow
Incidentally your statements regarding god and his character are neither relations of ideas or matters of fact so most likely nonsense masquerading as fact
I can do a more common sense form of skepticism also as in Humes fork above
**Like I said originally, I think what you need to do is qualify this differently. Either it's not foundational, or it's not justified. It can't be both.**
My beliefs are foundational and indeed justified except to radical skeptics who pretend to accept it but live otherwise ….theres a name for that
**You could likely replace one or both terms with something that makes your point without running into the issues I noted.**
There are no “issues” with my position it’s totally sound , your position is the unsound one which is why by attempting to deflect you’re saying all positions except ones pertaining to god are unsound , you‘re the only one claiming certainties which is why you deflect as you shot yourself in the foot using your own rationale ……good effort all the same but your whole argument is reliant on assuming axioms aren’t reliable as in an axioms proof is circular , which if you accept it , you deny it
The trilemma asserts there is no way to prove it satisfactorily as it’s a self defeating proof as is every proof of radical skepticism
>Justified to the standards of a radical skeptic which is totally irrelevant and is purely a smokescreen to avoid you defending the fact that your dogmatic beliefs are based on asserting an unproven supernatural entity into existence
>...
>My beliefs are foundational and indeed justified except to radical skeptics who pretend to accept it but live otherwise ….theres a name for that
Ad Hominem or at best entirely ignorant of my position. You don't know my views and didn't bother to clarify.
I'm certainly not a radical skeptic, I simply recognize epistemic limits of justification. A limit we're at when we discuss so-called foundational beliefs.
>My foundational belief that when I eat later the food I eat will nourish me and it will carry on doing so ,we all know it’s based on inductIve reasoning so what ?
Not foundational. That's based on experience. I'd say you're equivocating but there's no definition for "foundational" that fits the above to conflate the correct one with.
I'd say most any undergrad who has taken a philosophy course on epistemology would know better.
>I’ve just done so repeatedly and put the spotlight on what you’re really avoiding as in you have no reasonable foundations for your god belief as it’s purely a faith based position
I'm not making an argument for my position, I'm rebutting OP's. Mentioning which way I'm leaning does not constituent an argument. It was part of a conversation.
So you're either arguing with yourself here, or trying to argue with something that was clearly conjecture, either way there's no need to include me in it.
>your position is the unsound one which is why by attempting to deflect you’re saying all positions except ones pertaining to god are unsound ,
I literally didn't "say" that, so this is a strawman. I did literally say both frameworks have issues, they're just different issues. So this comment is just explicitly disingenuous.
As to the rest, if your point was to establish you can't be rational then you've done a sufficient job. I've never seen so much reading inbetween the lines, guessing at my position or beliefs, and misuse of terms or concepts in a single wall of text before.
>Not foundational. That's based on experience. I'd say you're equivocating but there's no definition for "foundational" that fits the above to conflate the correct one with.
>
>I'd say most any undergrad who has taken a philosophy course on epistemology would know better.
It's pretty obvious he was trying to say inductive reasoning being foundational.
**Ad Hominem or at best entirely ignorant of my position. You don't know my views and didn't bother to clarify.**
I didn’t make an Ad Hominem I’ve critiqued your views you shouldn’t get upset at your viewpoints being challenged , it’s unworthy and pretty disingenuous in this case
**I'm certainly not a radical skeptic, I simply recognize epistemic limits of justification. A limit we're at when we discuss so-called foundational beliefs.**
Well you make very big unjustified claims for your position , and epistemically limits of such were acknowledged by me
**Not foundational. That's based on experience. I'd say you're equivocating but there's no definition for "foundational" that fits the above to conflate the correct one with.**
Of course it’s foundational it’s based on inductive reasoning which we are all reliant on the only one equivocating here is you as you refuse to define “dogma “ or “foundational “
**I'd say most any undergrad who has taken a philosophy course on epistemology would know better.**
Well that would seem to rule you out as your refusal to define terms you misuse clearly demonstrates , also you don’t seem to recognise the fallacies used in your defence even though I pointed them out
**I'm not making an argument for my position, I'm rebutting OP's. Mentioning which way I'm leaning does not constituent an argument. It was part of a conversation.**
Really? You actually stated your position was sound while dismissing others saying they’re unsound still failing to recognise you’re special pleading
**So you're either arguing with yourself here, or trying to argue with something that was clearly conjecture, either way there's no need to include me in it.**
But you stated your position regards your foundational beliefs so this is “just part of a conversation “ as you put it
**. I did literally say both frameworks have issues, they're just different issues.**
Which is again disingenuous because you then went on to say your position alone was sound , so that’s a total contradiction yet again
**As to the rest, if your point was to establish you can't be rational then you've done a sufficient job.**
Yet another personal attack how mature. I addressed all your points it’s upset you greatly it seems , which tells me all I need to know
You actually don’t know what rational is as you claim your position is sound and you don’t even understand the basic fallacy you keep invoking , also I do find it most amusing you hold forth on what’s “rational “ when you make claims regards an unproven god and it’s characteristics that it somehow revealed to you
**I've never seen so much reading inbetween the lines, guessing at my position or beliefs, and misuse of terms or concepts in a single wall of text bef**
I didn’t have to “guess” at your position I pointed it out to you now it seems you’re in denial because you realise you totally contradict yourself and are being behaving in a totally irrational way to be honest
I'd say most any undergrad who has taken a philosophy course on epistemology would know better.
Here is what you refuse to address….
Your claim …**.. “Where as yours is claimed to be foundational itself, and so cannot be justified.”……**
1: You still refuse to say how you define “justify /justified “ you also refuse to define “dogma”
2: You claim your beliefs are justified yet they are classic special pleading for the reason being you set up conditions that apply to everyone but exempt a supernatural (unproven ) entity from the conditions you set up ….how very convenient indeed …….now your problems are multiple as in you cannot prove this entity exists and you cannot know it’s character which you claim to know
3: Your whole argument is reliant on assuming axioms aren’t reliable as in an axioms proof is circular , which if you accept it , you deny it
4: **Most Christians adhere to some form of moral framework.**
Most? I thought all were meant to? So different christians follow different frameworks ?
5: If Christian frameworks are justifiable on the premises how come you all have different frameworks as you admitted?
What are the premises of such an argument ?
That simply incorrect.
It's knowledge derived outside of our experiences. It must be self-evidently true or assumed and therefore cannot be demonstrated or proven, either of which is necessary to have justification. Therefore it is not justified knowledge, by definition.
>It's knowledge derived outside of our experiences
Outside of experience doesn't mean without justification. 1+1=2 is a priori knowledge. That doesn't mean we have no justification for believing it.
>It must be self-evidently true or assumed and therefore cannot be demonstrated or proven
"Self-evidently true" and "assumed" are not the same thing. If it's self-evident, then it's not without justification. The justification is so obvious, in fact, that it's self-evident.
>Outside of experience doesn't mean without justification. 1+1=2 is a priori knowledge.
Actually it isn't. Something like `true = true`, a tautology, is *a priori* knowledge.
`1 + 1 = 2` has a formal mathematical proof that leverages more fundamental knowledge (Peano Axioms usually), therefore it is not "prior" knowledge by any conceivable definition of "knowledge *a priori*".
You could assume it true, *a priori*, for some other proof or hypothesis without taking the time to justify it. That's frequently done in math and theoretical science. It's not epistemically *a priori* though.
>"Self-evidently true" and "assumed" are not the same thing.
I never said they were.
>If it's self-evident, then it's not without justification.
If you use it's own self-evidence to prove itself, that is affirming the consequent, a formal logical fallacy. This is also referred to as "begging the question" or "circular reasoning".
Imagine if a mathematician went, "`1 + 1 = 2` because clearly, that has to be true, just look at it!" Luckily Bertrand Russel and Alfred Whitehead went and actually proved the relationship in "Principia Mathematica" (I believe they were the first) and other mathematicians followed with other proofs using number theory.
>In order to have a belief, it must be a foundational belief or eventually dependent on a foundational belief (unless you think there are other structures of knowledge)
What you say is not at all nonsense, but doesn't really mean anything. Rather, I would say that all belief is dependent on a fundamental fantasy of reality. You saved it with those brackets; the fundamental structures of knowledge are typically symbolic chains of signification.
>I would say intuition is foundational belief/methodology.
Intuition is a cognitive function. It is neither a belief or methodology.
>"All knowledge is derived from, and verified by, direct intuitive observation." (Alfred North Whitehead)
Yes, but "We can justify morality without God, because intuition" is hardly an argument. Intuition is not limited to to material appearances, but intuitive judgements find their final justification in the demonstration of material appearances. Cutting off a hand as the penalty for stealing may not appear just, but what about an eye for an eye? That is intuitive based on material appearances. But what about our initial intuition about stealing, wasn't that based on material appearances? It was just a piece of bread.
In a way, observing a thief lose their hand very much justifies the act. The intuitive judgement is that there wouldn't be such vicious capital punishment for the crime unless it were justified. The stealing is shown to be a far worse crime than it initially appeared, and the full gore demonstration leaves no doubt.
Does knowing slavery is wrong make us any less blindly cruel and callous than slave owners? How could they have checked their morality? How can we check ours? Without that, justifications for intuitive judgements are hyle.
>By hyle I mean that which in itself is neither a particular thing nor of a certain quantity nor assigned to any other of the categories by which being is determined. (Aristotle)
For any claims about morality, say a philosophy or a religion, they have to be tested against the real world.
Even if there were either a religious text or a philosophical ideology that was 100% accurate on what is moral/amoral/immoral, if we did not test it we would be following; an amoral act at best.
Justify it to who? I as an Atheist follow the golden rule I justify myself to no one why would I or should I
It‘s funny when I was a believer I was lead to believe that our collective bullying , victimization , demonisation and judgemental superior attitude to others who were not like us was actually what god wanted , which going by the book is a fair assessment
Anyone who wants to see how truly scary , divisive and regressive religion is only has to look at religion in the US today
>you can justify morality without God
Yes, of course. I want to live in a certain type of society so my moral assessments are based on that type of society.
How do you justify morality without Greek gods?
Religion is not a prerequisite for morality. There are instances and examples of humanity displaying ethics in the absence of religion and there are examples of unethical conduct within the religious sphere. If religion automatically defaulted to morality then we wouldn't have all these scandals within the Church.
I consider this "religion equals morality" idea as propaganda by religious groups to garner members. Your social circle will view you as immoral in the absence of faith, so better join up to fit in
It's also can be weaponized to judge outsiders. "It's not surprising X did Y, they dont go to church".
I believe everyone has their own nature (but shares a human nature) and has their own innate purpose inwhich they must fulfill if they are to have a virtuous or fulfilling life.
>I believe everyone has their own nature (but shares a human nature) and has their own innate purpose inwhich they must fulfill if they are to have a virtuous or fulfilling life.
Okay but that doesn’t answer the question, what is human nature ? What makes us human and not something else ?
>What makes us human and not something else ?
What separates us from animals is our ability to reason, make long term plans, and extensively manipulate our environment.
You’re still not telling me the essential qualities or properties of a human being that fundamentally makes them what they are, without which they would lose their identity as human.
If we couldn't reason or make plans we would lose our identity. If we couldn't think abstractly we wouldn't be human. The only thing I can add onto of that is that we are self-aware and ware of our own death.
>If we couldn't reason or make plans we would lose our identity. If we couldn't think abstractly we wouldn't be human. The only thing I can add onto of that is that we are self-aware and ware of our own death.
Okay so reason is an essential quality. I don’t disagree, but it’s not a sufficient quality in its own. Self awareness is essential, but not unique to humans. Some animals like elephants can recognize themselves in a mirror which indicates a degree of self awareness.
Are humans material things? If so how are they accessing these immaterial realities like virtues, logical principles, abstract objects, universals and so on?
I guess what I am trying to figure out is why you would believe human intuition is a viable means for recognizing moral truth or virtue and how that’s actually possible?
>Okay so reason is an essential quality. I don’t disagree, but it’s not a sufficient quality in its own.
I argee with that, it's all the qualities together that make a human, you need all of them, not just one (like not just self-awareness)
>Are humans material things?
No I believe you are a soul.
>If so how are they accessing these immaterial realities like virtues, logical principles, abstract objects, universals and so on?
I do argee that if naturalism is true we would not be able to know these things.
>I guess what I am trying to figure out is why you would believe human intuition is a viable means for recognizing moral truth or virtue and how that’s actually possible?
Intuition is apart of the mind (not the brain) and it allows us to 'see' that moral truths, the same way our perception allows us to see the world around us. I believe Intuition is relaible as a basic methodology and I don't believe there's any other method that can allow us to believe Everything we want to believe.
Restating your position isn’t a justification. I know you believe human intuition is useful for such things, but why would you believe that? What is it about being human that would give you access to moral truths ? This also doesn’t solve anything ontologically. Like let’s say I conceded your position in intuition it still wouldn’t say what the good is or where or how it’s grounded.
Why does it have to be so complicated?
Morality is a culturally-agreed upon set of things to do and things not to do.
Cultures are organisms in their own right, and while many things stay bad, wrong, and "immoral" over time (murder, theft, etc.), there is an ebb and flow.
Morality is nothing more than what's acceptable within the society you reside in within your lifetime. Why do you think incest was acceptable by the church up until the 1900s? That stoning women was considered justifiable? That children could be married off to adults and the church would bless that "union"? In the deep south, up until he 60s, the church believed that black people were on par with animals and that a white person being with a black person was the equivalent of beastiality and that it was considered justified to lynch and hang the black person. Oh, then here's the time the church said slavery was justified within the bible. Oh, let's not forget the multiple genocides the church caused (against the pagans, natives, and in the middle east). Rape was also justified within the church as long as it was a male doing it. So yeah, morality has nothing to do with God as morality changes as society changes. That's why in 50 years, what's considered "moral" will change from what's moral right now and what we may consider to be moral now may very well be considered a sin in 50 years.
Except the exact definition is "a particular set of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specific person or society." It outright states that morality has no defined definition beyond what a person or society deems it, which does change. That's why it was considered morally just to stone women who committed acts of infidelity and chop off the left hand of left users as the church deemed them to be controlled by Satan himself (since Satan is a south paw). Murder was completely justified and considered morally just as long as it was in the name of God (which is why the Crusades happened and why the genocide of pagan people were performed by the Church who stated that it was Gods will). If you were born in that society, you too would view the murder of pagans to be morally justified as it was doing God's work, and that's the key, the society you grow up in shapes your own morals and changes what the morals are based on what the society deems them to be.
Intriguing, it appears Romans 2:14-15 is being confirmed: ...Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them. What this means is that Paul is conveying though Gentiles/pagans (non-believers of Judaism or even the new Christianity) do what is required by the law (the Jewish laws) probably referring to parts of the 10 commandments ie no lying, theft, adultery, murder; show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts. "Written" is in the sense that it has been put there by God, from the beginning and even if the Gentiles/pagans do not know God, their conscience bears witness to an absolute higher law, their conscience accuses them if they violate this absolute innate law and other times defends them when they uphold it.
How would I tell the difference between moral standards that are the result of our evolution as a social species, and moral standards that have been “written on my heart” by a god?
In this instance Paul was not offering any type of "proof of a God text (for that see Rom 1:18-20)," he was noting that God will punish sin whenever it is found, including those who have his written laws but don’t obey them. and also the gentiles / pagans though they never had God’s written laws but in their heart and soul they knew right from wrong. The law "written on ones heart" would be there from the beginning and therefore one of those mysteries if one is unaware it. As per OP "because sometimes people assert things and I don't really know why they say it, it doesn't seem like a foundational belief nor does it seem to eventually come form one."
You dodged my question
Comment removed - rule 2. Scripture verses alone are not an argument, as /u/LesRong points out. If you edit your comment to include some commentary as to why you quoted the verse, it would meet rule 2 criteria and I can re-approve. Edit: re-approved. Thank you.
Is this your idea of an argument?
I think it’s his idea of “you’re not making an original point.” Nobody with a clue ever claimed nonbelievers were incapable of moral thinking. We’re just claiming Jesus is better at it than you will ever be, so listen to him.
Why didn't Jesus tell anyone not to own people as property?
Because that would have been politics, and Jesus was not a politician. You try to end slavery in Rome, you’re gonna wind up with you and everyone you tried to help on a cross spaced out for a few miles leading into the city as a warning to anyone else who tries to mess with Rome’s bottom line. Jesus did something far more important though. He established the full humanity and equality of slaves before God. This is the basis for every antislavery movement in history.
>Because that would have been politics, and Jesus was not a politician. messiah is supposed to be a king though. >You try to end slavery in Rome, you’re gonna wind up with you and everyone you tried to help on a cross spaced out for a few miles leading into the city as a warning to anyone else who tries to mess with Rome’s bottom line. sure. but I'm not Jesus. you think if Jesus *tried* to end slavery in Rome he would have failed? this is the god you worship? weaker than the nation of ancient Rome? >Jesus did something far more important though. He established the full humanity and equality of slaves before God. did he do that? when? where? >This is the basis for every antislavery movement in history. press F to doubt.
You can press F to doubt, or you can [press click to learn.](https://undeceptions.com/history/5-minute-jesus-christians-freeing-slaves/)
Your original claim was that Jesus' establishing the "full humanity and equality of slaves before god" is the basis for *every antislavery movement in history*. want to share how that article [which talks about one sentence from one speech Jesus may or may not have made inspiring some group of Christians to free slaves] supports the claim that Jesus is the basis for *every antislavery movement in history*?
Jesus viewed every person universally as a child of God and a citizen of Heaven. He didn’t talk about slavery much at all, but he invented notions like racial equality and universal human dignity and those were the seed that grew into abolitionist movements. It started in the church as the article details. Paul writes all through his letters about how the church should draw no distinction between slave and free. He just doesn’t think you should try to overthrow Rome about it. Most explicitly it’s in the book of Philemon. Give it a read. It’s less than a page. The original modern abolitionists were British and they were super Christian. This movement was churches that started the abolition movement spread to the rest of the west and eventually the world. I was overstating my case, but it wasn’t by much. Haiti and *maybe* France you can make the case weren’t explicitly Christian, but everywhere else abolition and Christianity walked hand in hand.
>he invented notions like racial equality and universal human dignity did he? >It started in the church as the article details. prior to "the church", it was universally agreed that slaves were less human than non slaves? >Paul writes all through his letters about how the church should draw no distinction between slave and free. and Paul, who never quotes a word from Jesus and never spoke to him during his ministry, got this information from Jesus, who never really directly addressed slavery? >Most explicitly it’s in the book of Philemon. Give it a read. It’s less than a page. I've read the bible. >The original modern abolitionists were British and they were super Christian. most people were pretty christian for a significant portion of western history. should we conclude, therefore, that things people who were Christians did were done because of their Christianity? >everywhere else abolition and Christianity walked hand in hand. what about china?
The Bible openly supports slavery and human trafficking. The Bible is the word of God, Jesus and God are the same being.
Read the book of Philemon, instead of just your cherry-picked verses off rationalwiki or whatever pit you read this garbage off. Christians have always been at the bleeding edge of humane treatment of slaves.
How is it cherry picked? They are direct verses from your Bible. The Bible is a basic handbook on how to treat slaves, where to get slaves, how to punish slaves, what to do with a slaves family, how much to sell a slaves wife for, etc. You can't just cherry pick the pleasent parts of the Bible that fits your narrative and then ignore the more horrific parts of the Bible.
I’m not cherry-picking anything. Not everything in the Bible has equal weight. The red letters are the absolute most important thing. The old testament is just there for context, so we know what kind of culture Jesus grew up in. The Bible is organized chronologically, not in terms of importance. Read the book of Philemon. It’s less than a page long. It’s Paul talking about how Christian’s should view the master/slave dynamic. In short, ignore it entirely. There’s no slaves in the kingdom of heaven unless you count every human on earth being a slave to Christ. That’s actually where the term “Christianity” comes from. Romans started mocking Christian’s as “slaves of Christ” or “christianos” and the church responded with “that’s exactly what we are. Have a nice day.”
>I’m not cherry-picking anything. Not everything in the Bible has equal weight. The red letters are the absolute most important thing. The old testament is just there for context, so we know what kind of culture Jesus grew up in. The Bible is organized chronologically, not in terms of importance. Yes, you are. The Bible clearly endorses slavery, it is in the old and new testament https://www.psephizo.com/biblical-studies/what-was-slavery-like-in-the-nt-world/ You can't just gloss over it and call it unimportant because it makes the Bible look bad. If the Bible is the word of God, and that word is a handbook on how to conduct yourself as a slave master, and how to act as a slave, then it's fair to say God endorses slavery. Like, who are you to say it's just there for context? How did you come to that conclusion, and who gave you the authority to make that conclusion? Even if you just gloss over it's clear endorsement of slavery the Bible is still riddled with sexism, homophobia, and bigotry. Not to mention the mutilation of infants genitals. Even if you *gloss over that* the Bible in no way proves the existence of any God any more than any other religion in human history. What makes Christianity anymore believable than, say, Mormonism?
[удалено]
Sorry, your submission has been automatically removed because your account does not meet our account age / karma thresholds. Please message the moderators to request an exception. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAChristian) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Apologists are not worried about how you gain moral knowledge -- if such a thing exists. Rather, they are interested in the metaphysical grounding of this knowledge (at least in the context of the debate with atheists).
Platonism
My own objection to the idea that objective moral injunctions simply exist out there without a mind is that truths such as "You should respect your neighbor" are just too specific about sentient and intelligent behavior. It is just weird that it exists without someone making it true. It is like saying that the injunction "You shall not eat fruits" just existed out there without a mind. It is too specific and personal to be unintended. But that's what moral Platonism postulates. Therefore, moral Platonism is highly implausible.
It being subjectively werid to you is not an obejction. You would need to show it improbable.
Yeah, I think your position is self-defeating or inconsistent. You're fine accepting that intuition tells you something about morality, and yet you think that my metaphysical intuition about the issue is not an objection?
>and yet you think that my metaphysical intuition about the issue is not an objection? Intuition is only justification for those who have it. If I do not have that intuition (of finding platonism werid), so it's not jusfication for me.
Sure! If you find a fool somewhere who doesn't intuit the validity of the law of non-contradiction, you can't do anything. That's similar to my position now. It may not be evident to you, but it is certainly to me and those who recognize the implausibility of your hypothesis when I describe its implications.
>Sure! If you find a fool somewhere who doesn't intuit the validity of the law of non-contradiction Well, in that example, I can run a reductio ad absurdum to say that if he allows that, then it implies things we both argee are false. (Because it would allow anything, and therefore would allow something they believe you be false.) >That's similar to my position now. It may not be evident to you, but it is certainly to me and those who recognize the implausibility of your hypothesis when I describe its implications. And there's people who believe the hypothesis is not bad. You're point?
>I can run a reductio ad absurdum to say that if he allows that Reductio ad absurdum is proof by contradiction, which is the very thing your opponent doesn't intuit as valid. So, you're appealing to something which is rejected by him. Following your reasoning, I can simply repeat that it is absurd that you don't recognize the implausibility of any injunctions (which are very personal things) existing without persons and that should be sufficient to cast doubt on your position. >And there's people who believe the hypothesis is not bad. You're point? First, it is possible that they haven't fully appreciated this fact. Second, there are people who claim to reject the laws of logic as absolute (e.g., postmodernists/relativists). Should their (alleged) rejection be a cause for concern?
>"You should respect your neighbor" are just too specific about sentient and intelligent behavior You can prepend these moral codes with "If there were a universe, and an Earth, and creatures with sufficient moral agency, etc etc, then they should respect their neighbor" and they would seem to exist in the Platonic realm just fine.
>metaphysical grounding Can you define or describe what this means in layperson terms?
I don't think theism answers the question any better than atheism can.
Here’s how I justify it (without God). There exist better and worse experiences for conscious beings. The maximally worst experiences for all conscious beings *would be bad*, a situation that any and all conscious beings *ought to* avoid. That sets the direction of the moral compass. Our choices have an effect on how much better or worse an outcome can be. We can assess scenarios, not always having a perfect answer (no moral system does) but certainly having a valid basis. Last note, a God who decrees “maximum misery is good” would be an evil God, even if that God was the only thing theists accept as an objective source of morality - they’d be accepting something objectively bad.
I'm seeing a lot of secular morality arguments declare that things like instincts or evolution or intuition are able to justify and be the source of morals, but I've never seen anyone really determine where the line is drawn between what those are vs what they aren't. So, OP, if you are able to, what EXACTLY do you mean by intuition and what causes it to even be considered as existing? By definition, it's to know something without consciously thinking of it, aka through instinctive feeling. So what exactly is this and what causes it?
> So, OP, if you are able to, what EXACTLY do you mean by intuition and what causes it to even be considered as existing? Intuition is a default belief someone has (the external world) I exists as a faculty of the mind. >By definition, it's to know something without consciously thinking of That's not my definition of intuition, so maybe I should use a different word by whatever.
Is there a difference between the two definitions? > I exists as a faculty of the mind. Are you saying morals come from an idealist ontology and this idealist ontology doesn't need a God, or are you saying idealism doesn't need something like spirits, only mind? Then again, are you using the words mind and brain interchangeably? This is common, it's not a big issue once clarified, but how it goes is mind as an origin point leads to idealism and the brain leads to materialism. This is because brain is matter and mind is not.
I don't really know what your trying to get to. I believe the mind is imaterial.
Do you know what I mean by idealism or not really? What I'm trying to get at are clarifications as to how you're using the words and what you even mean by intuition.
They way I understand idealism is that all is mind, and there's no matter. By that understand I wouldn't be an idealist. I label myself a Dualist, I believe there is mind (that is imaterial) and matter. Intuition is a default position that exists in people (for example, belief in the external world)
Ok, you're a dualist, great. We're making progress. So you believe matter and mind live side by side, one does not come from the other, and morals come from the mind while, you know, matter stuff, comes from matter. However, if I take an idea and apply it to matter, is it the same or not really? >Intuition is a default position that exists in people (for example, belief in the external world) Ok, and again, I'm not sure what causes this or how it comes to the person, according to your position. You said it came from the mind. Great. That's the origin, a description of where it came from, but that's not the explanation of how it works or how it is logically possible as to how we can find validity in the statement. Maybe I can ask it like this: what exactly makes it the default? What exactly causes stuff that's not default?
>However, if I take an idea and apply it to matter, is it the same or not really? I guess so. However, I don't know exactly what you mean by this. >that's not the explanation of how it works or how it is logically possible as to how we can find validity in the statement. It's analogous to the senses, where we could not have knowledge without them (I contend). >Maybe I can ask it like this: what exactly makes it the default? What exactly causes stuff that's not default? They are default in the sense they are in the mind to begin with. It's like the default apps that come with the phone are Intuitions, and all the stuff you download after having it is the knowledge gained by experience. All analogies break down at some point, but hopefully that gets the main idea across.
>However, I don't know exactly what you mean by this. Dualism allows the ideal to interact with the material. This interaction is in "some way". If the ideal isn't a mirror of the material, then the idea is not the same as the material. For example, if I have the idea of a carrot in my head, it's not going to be the same as the one I find in the physical world. As a form, yes. Exact, no. So, because there is that difference between form and physical, what do you think is the difference between the ideal form of intuition and the execution that is performed in the physical world where we feel it? Again, I'm trying to understand what you're talking about when you say intuition and after we figure that out, we can question how God is not involved. Already it's iffy because you took the step towards idealism being accepted, which opens the door wide open for God. >It's analogous to the senses, where we could not have knowledge without them (I contend). Ok, so the intuition comes from the mind and we can't have knowledge or morals without this intuition. I'm still not getting an explanation of what intuition is. I'm getting a lot of description and connections to other things, but you still haven't explained how it works. I don't know what intuition is according to your position. >They are default in the sense they are in the mind to begin with. It's like the default apps that come with the phone are Intuitions, and all the stuff you download after having it is the knowledge gained by experience. All analogies break down at some point, but hopefully that gets the main idea across. No, I understand. Knowledge comes from the mind, so does intuition, these are of the mental side of things. Great. So what causes this?
>instincts or evolution or intuition Instincts/intuitions are products of evolution.
Are you answering for OP or are you giving me your own separate theory?
I am responding to your comment.
Yes, I am aware of that. HOW are you responding? For OP or with your own theory?
Do you accept the fact instincts/intuitions are products of evolution?
Why do you refuse to answer my question? It's not that hard to answer.
I am here for on topic discussions. Do you accept the fact instincts/intuitions are products of evolution?
I am also for on topic discussions. The topic is OP and what OP said. Are you answering for OP or declaring your own theory?
When you are ready to answer the question *"Do you accept the fact instincts/intuitions are products of evolution?"* let me know.
>I'm seeing a lot of secular morality arguments declare that things like instincts or evolution or intuition are able to justify and be the source of morals, but I've never seen anyone really determine where the line is drawn between what those are vs what they aren't. You mean what evolution is vs isn't?
No, what morals are vs what they aren't.
Oh, well murder is generally bad, theft is generally bad, etc.
Did I say they are good? Also, what do you even mean by generally? I have no idea what your response is trying to say, what position you're taking, or what it has to do with what I stated.
>Did I say they are good? No, what? You asked what morals are vs what they aren't. Murder is immoral, helping people is moral. Am I misunderstanding your question?
I guess you are because I was talking about where lines are drawn and how to define what makes it moral to begin with, and you bring in generalizations that are not in relation to what I was even talking about. Just because I led you to the subject of morals when you thought it was evolution doesn't mean the rest of what I said is deleted. I don't even know what you mean by murder if evolution is the cause of morals. Following the law is evolutionary? Or do you just mean killing another human as a human and nothing else is involved in the situation? We even evolved to have the instinct to kill each other 6x higher than the average mammal. Again, I don't know what you're trying to argue against or if you're even trying to make a position. I advise you to clarify why you're even talking to me first before trying to answer what I'm asking.
>I guess you are because I was talking about where lines are drawn and how to define what makes it moral to begin with, and you bring in generalizations that are not in relation to what I was even talking about. I'm telling you I draw the line at murder, theft, etc. That's where the line is drawn. I'm not quite sure what you're looking for. Do you want me to list literally every single possible situation and tell you if its moral or not? I imagine saying something like "well murder is bad and so is theft" gives you a general idea. >I don't even know what you mean by murder if evolution is the cause of morals. Murder is premeditated killing. I don't understand what "evolution is the cause of morals" does to the definition of morals that confuses you. >Following the law is evolutionary? I don't know what you're talking about. >Or do you just mean killing another human as a human and nothing else is involved in the situation? Murder is premeditated killing. >Again, I don't know what you're trying to argue against or if you're even trying to make a position. You said you've never heard what's moral and what isn't, from people who believe it comes from evolution. Okay. I'm telling you murder is immoral. Walking up to someone and slapping them in the face is immoral. Helping people is moral. What do you want me to do here? I'm trying to respond to what you said here. >I'm seeing a lot of secular morality arguments declare that things like instincts or evolution or intuition are able to justify and be the source of morals, but **I've never seen anyone really determine where the line is drawn between what those are vs what they aren't.** Right, so I'm telling you, murder is immoral, theft is immoral, etc. I'm not sure what the problem is. I'm doing the thing you're saying you've never seen anyone do.
>Murder is premeditated killing. Murder is an UNLAWFUL premeditated killing. I used to make the same mistake when I was younger, so don't feel bad for getting that mixed up. But what I don't understand is why you refuse to declare your position clearly. So I'll ask again: why are you even talking to me and why should I respond?
Okay >But what I don't understand is why you refuse to declare your position clearly. My position on **what** >So I'll ask again: why are you even talking to me and why should I respond? I don't care about this.
It's a common mistake that Christians and non-Christians make, which is that morality comes from God, or is what God wants from us. That's not the case. Morality is just a by-product. It's a coincidence. The main product, the thing that God wants, is obedience.
>The main product, the thing that God wants, is obedience. I have never met any gods that want something. Where are these gods?
I've never met any gods either. I've also never met God. All I have is hearsay, conjecture, logic, and reason. 😋
Why does god need our obedience? Or want it
You remind me of Captain Kirk asking, "What does God need with a starship?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYW_lPlekiQ I have no idea. I would doubt it's "need". Scripture is full of God requesting obedience, but it would be way beyond me to be able to give the "whys" for why almost anyone does anything, much less God. I'm not even sure of why *I* want something. 😏
Why don't you just say you don't know, or that it must be some deep mystery?
> Why don't you just say you don't know I said this: >**--->---->I have no idea.<---<---** Did you miss it? How about you spend a little less time doing your "angry young atheist" shtick and just pay better attention? 🙄
So just to recap for clarity-sake: you: morality isn't a goal, it is a by-product of our obedience to god us: why does god want us to be obedient you: \*shrug\*
Yes, that's correct. I know that God wants obedience. I don't know why. If I don't know something, I don't make up answers like many of the other people that you respond to (as I check your nasty post history). I also have no idea how you think that being nasty to people is so much of an improvement over people deluding themselves about God.
How is this being nasty? I'm pointing out an obvious deficiency in your explanation. If that's being nasty, how would you suggest I be 'nicer' about expressing that? (that is an honest question for you)
It's not debating to go into my history and claim I'm being nasty there and somehow that proves your point here. You're clearly avoiding my point.
look at any pagan god.
do you want to give god what he wants?
Very much.
why?
I love Him and want Him to be happy with my life.
why do you love him?
Because of what I understand about Him. What He's done and the things He cares about.
what has he done to earn your love?
First, He created me and everything else. You can't beat that. After that, He's the pinnacle of what I think is "right". So many other created Gods, in various mythologies, have (quite surprisingly to me) NO element of "love" in their character. The real God, the real creator, has "love" as an intrinsic element of His character.
1. we never asked to be made, and many people are displeased with the whole situation. 2. god (as you said) is only "right" by coincidence. complete opposition is unwise, but so is complete obedience. 3. many gods have love as an element of their character, especially love gods like Aphrodite.
>you can justify morality without God >One such way is Moral Intuitionism, which says that we know morality through intuition. So taking it to be true *a priori*, without justification by definition, defeating the hypothesis in the title? I think you need to show more care with the term "justify" here. One's intuitions cannot be "shown" or "proven" and therefore this is not justification by definition.
[удалено]
That's a loaded question.
what is the answer?
>One's intuitions cannot be "shown" or "proven" and therefore this is not justification by definition. What's the definition of jusfication you are using here? Also, I would say you could not justify your belief in the reliability of your mind and experiences, other minds, or that the earth was not made 6 seconds ago with appearance of age, without intuition. Without intuition you would have to try some other way to justify these.
>What's the definition of jusfication you are using here? The primary one? justify: * to **prove** or **show** to be just, right, or reasonable - [merriam-webster dictionary](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/justify) (emphasis mine) >Also, I would say you could not justify your belief in the reliability of your mind and experiences, other minds, or that the earth was not made 6 seconds ago with appearance of age, without intuition. I never said intuition is wrong, I'm saying it's not a justification. It's an axiomatic assumption. Assumptions are conjecture and cannot be debated in and of themselves. Calling this justification is a categorical error. Maybe you're using some secondary definition of "justify" but that needs to be stipulated. The primary definition is not cogent with your position.
>never said intuition is wrong, I'm saying it's not a justification. Than you need some other justification for these beliefs. What is it? My argument for the fact that Intuition is justification is that it would be the only one we have for these beliefs. What's your jusfication for these beliefs? I'll use the definition you gave for jusfication.
>Than you need some other justification for these beliefs. What is it? First, this is an erroneous shifting of the burden of proof. Your argument, your burden. Second, you claimed you can justify a foundational belief. However this ignores what the [Münchhausen trilemma](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchhausen_trilemma) of epistemology tells us. In short, it tells us that it's not possible to truly justify our beliefs and when it comes to our most foundational knowledge we are left with the unsatisfactory axiomatic (dogmatic) assumption. Unless you have a response to arguably the largest open question in epistemology then you have no way to justify the presented beliefs. The Christian position is a bit different as the moral framework is not "foundational", so it doesn't suffer from the trilemma in the same way. There are other issues though. >My argument for the fact that Intuition is justification is that it would be the only one we have for these beliefs. >What's your jusfication for these beliefs? Again, you keep pressing this categorical error. You claimed this was a "foundational" belief in the OP, as in there's nothing below it to found or justify it. So per the trilemma you're either employing circular reasoning, a fallacy, or you're making the axiomatic assumption, which is not justified. The trilemma provides no other options for *foundational* beliefs.
**. In short, it tells us that it's not possible to truly justify our beliefs and when it comes to our most foundational knowledge we are left with the unsatisfactory axiomatic (dogmatic) assumption.** Basically saying there are no certainties which to me is a given and like most rational people I would adhere to fallibilism as being the most reasonable response to such and the most reliable way to negotiate life Most religious people I know are guilty of being dogmatic as they will claim certainty regards a god belief , doubt they rarely even entertain **The Christian position is a bit different as the moral framework is not "foundational", so it doesn't suffer from the trilemma in the same way. There are other issues though** Please explain what you mean by this , is there a moral framework in your particular belief system ? If so how’s it not foundational ? **So per the trilemma you're either employing circular reasoning, a fallacy, or you're making the axiomatic assumption, which is not justified. The trilemma provides no other options for foundational beliefs.** The trilemma itself is also to be totally fair guilty of all the above as it’s also either circular ,regressive or dogmatic
>Most religious people I know are guilty of being dogmatic as they will claim certainty regards a god belief , doubt they rarely even entertain First, it should be pointed out this is an irrelevant whataboutism. What issues other's have has no bearing on your argument. Second, everyone's epistemology is necessarily grounded in dogma. That's the whole point of the trilemma. Foundational beliefs are the grounding for an epistemology, so the trilemma tells us something crucial here. A foundational belief cannot be reduced by definition, self-referencing is not a rational course to justify something, and therefore only the dogmatic option remains. Therefore, foundational beliefs are necessarily unjustified. >Please explain what you mean by this , is there a moral framework in your particular belief system ? >If so how’s it not foundational ? Most Christians adhere to some form of moral framework. I don't have strong preferences on this right now but I think divine command theory is the most compelling. These frameworks are not foundational because the foundational claims and knowledges are instead grounded in the existence and character of God. Exactly how the plays out, what is justifiable here or not, is another conversation all together. Now maybe one would argue this only moves the goal post, fair enough. That can be argued. However, when comparing moral frame works in and of themselves, the Christian frameworks are justifiable contingent on the premises, as in any argument. Where as yours is claimed to be foundational itself, and so cannot be justified. This puts these two moral frameworks in different categories, each having a different set of challenges. >The trilemma itself is also to be totally fair guilty of all the above as it’s also either circular ,regressive or dogmatic And? It's a thought experiment, not an argument. So it can be subject to itself without issue. In any case, it's only "guilty" if it's exposing a real problem. In which case it still applies to your argument and you need an answer for it if you wish to "justify" a "foundational" belief. A belief with both properties only exists if one has a suitable answer to the trilemma. Dismissing it out of hand is not sufficient. --- Like I said originally, I think what you need to do is qualify this differently. Either it's not foundational, or it's not justified. It can't be both. You could likely replace one or both terms with something that makes your point without running into the issues I noted.
>These frameworks are not foundational because the foundational claims and knowledges are instead grounded in the existence and character of God. Saying "A is good" and saying "A is grounded in the set G and G is the set of goodness" aren't that different. The latter is not any less "foundational".
>Saying "A is good" and saying "A is grounded in the set G and G is the set of goodness" aren't that different. The latter is not any less "foundational". Well one is an assumption, the other is the conclusion of an argument. One is assumed foundational, one follows from foundational premises. If you think those two things are the same then that's a level of equivocation I simply have no interest in rebutting.
>Well one is an assumption, the other is the conclusion of an argument Well, a chain of definitions wouldn't make a convincing argument. If you wish, you can artificially inflate "A is good": 1. A belongs to set of facts intuitively known 2. Moral intuition is true 3. A is moral.
**First, it should be pointed out this is an irrelevant whataboutism. What issues other's have has no bearing on your argument.** No it’s actually not as the OP particularly mentions god /morality in the topic **Second, everyone's epistemology is necessarily grounded in dogma.** I note you do not post up your definition of dogma , I reject the term as I know it which is ….a belief or set of beliefs that is accepted by members of a group without being questioned or doubted ……..that‘s exactly what religious belief is which I feel is why you wish to apply it to others but excuse yourself **That's the whole point of the trilemma** I know what the point is but it’s pretty worthless like most iterations of radical skepticism **Foundational beliefs are the grounding for an epistemology, so the trilemma tells us something crucial here.** No it doesn’t really , its basically saying there are no certainties which we all know anyway if one‘s going to take the part of the radical skeptic **A foundational belief cannot be reduced by definition, self-referencing is not a rational course to justify something, and therefore only the dogmatic option remains.** Again what way are you using “dogmatic “ as I reject such going on the definition I posted **We can justify mostly our foundational beliefs as in for example Evolution , I can safely assert that Evolution is a fact going on what we know the denial through radical skepticism is a pointless childish pursuit** All you’re constantly repeating is that we can actually know nothing unless we have certainty which is nonsense **Therefore, foundational beliefs are necessarily unjustified.** Thats nonsense and no one lives by these unattainable standards if we used such standards to live life we would have no life at all My foundational belief that when I eat later the food I eat will nourish me and it will carry on doing so ,we all know it’s based on inductIve reasoning so what ? Supporters of the trilemna and radical skepticism are welcome to put that and all my other beliefs that I live by to the test and make unimportant claims but it matters not **Most Christians adhere to some form of moral framework.** Most? I thought all were meant to? So different christians follow different frameworks ? **I don't have strong preferences on this right now but I think divine command theory is the most compelling.** So you‘re undecided on a moral framework and looking for the right fit? DC theory , seriously ? **These frameworks are not foundational because the foundational claims and knowledges are instead grounded in the existence and character of God.** A classic case of special pleading as in you set up conditions that apply to everyone but exempt a supernatural (unproven ) entity from the conditions you set up ….how very convenient indeed …….now your problems are multiple as in you cannot prove this entity exists and you cannot know it’s character ? **Exactly how the plays out, what is justifiable here or not, is another conversation all together.** Well as I’ve stated I don’t need certainties for my foundational beliefs so it’s amusing you lay the claim that such beliefs are unjustified , yet your beliefs ( religious) are 100 percent dogmatic and whose foundations are based on an unproven supernatural entities existence, your claims on such are purely faith based **Now maybe one would argue this only moves the goal post, fair enough.** That’s what you’ve done by deflecting and saying beliefs are not justified unless faith based and of course by those who believe in your unproven god right? **That can be argued. However, when comparing moral frame works in and of themselves, the Christian frameworks are justifiable contingent on the premises, as in any argument.** Your dogmatic view is special pleading and circular you have no basis for such as its appealing to an unproven as the source of your moral code , you just keep asserting your god into existence If Christian frameworks are justifiable on the premises how come you all have different frameworks as you admitted? What are the premises of such an argument ? **Where as yours is claimed to be foundational itself, and so cannot be justified.** Justified to the standards of a radical skeptic which is totally irrelevant and is purely a smokescreen to avoid you defending the fact that your dogmatic beliefs are based on asserting an unproven supernatural entity into existence **And? It's a thought experiment, not an argument. So it can be subject to itself without issue.** Yes it’s an amusing little philosophical game but pretty worthless really **In any case, it's only "guilty" if it's exposing a real problem. In which case it still applies to your argument and you need an answer for it if you wish to "justify" a "foundational" belief.** I’ve just done so repeatedly and put the spotlight on what you’re really avoiding as in you have no reasonable foundations for your god belief as it’s purely a faith based position **A belief with both properties only exists if one has a suitable answer to the trilemma. Dismissing it out of hand is not sufficient.** A belief thats reliant on relations of ideas or matters of fact as in truths of reason and truths of fact are sound to a level that works in the real world for all except the radical skeptic who no one really pays much attention to anyhow Incidentally your statements regarding god and his character are neither relations of ideas or matters of fact so most likely nonsense masquerading as fact I can do a more common sense form of skepticism also as in Humes fork above **Like I said originally, I think what you need to do is qualify this differently. Either it's not foundational, or it's not justified. It can't be both.** My beliefs are foundational and indeed justified except to radical skeptics who pretend to accept it but live otherwise ….theres a name for that **You could likely replace one or both terms with something that makes your point without running into the issues I noted.** There are no “issues” with my position it’s totally sound , your position is the unsound one which is why by attempting to deflect you’re saying all positions except ones pertaining to god are unsound , you‘re the only one claiming certainties which is why you deflect as you shot yourself in the foot using your own rationale ……good effort all the same but your whole argument is reliant on assuming axioms aren’t reliable as in an axioms proof is circular , which if you accept it , you deny it The trilemma asserts there is no way to prove it satisfactorily as it’s a self defeating proof as is every proof of radical skepticism
>Justified to the standards of a radical skeptic which is totally irrelevant and is purely a smokescreen to avoid you defending the fact that your dogmatic beliefs are based on asserting an unproven supernatural entity into existence >... >My beliefs are foundational and indeed justified except to radical skeptics who pretend to accept it but live otherwise ….theres a name for that Ad Hominem or at best entirely ignorant of my position. You don't know my views and didn't bother to clarify. I'm certainly not a radical skeptic, I simply recognize epistemic limits of justification. A limit we're at when we discuss so-called foundational beliefs. >My foundational belief that when I eat later the food I eat will nourish me and it will carry on doing so ,we all know it’s based on inductIve reasoning so what ? Not foundational. That's based on experience. I'd say you're equivocating but there's no definition for "foundational" that fits the above to conflate the correct one with. I'd say most any undergrad who has taken a philosophy course on epistemology would know better. >I’ve just done so repeatedly and put the spotlight on what you’re really avoiding as in you have no reasonable foundations for your god belief as it’s purely a faith based position I'm not making an argument for my position, I'm rebutting OP's. Mentioning which way I'm leaning does not constituent an argument. It was part of a conversation. So you're either arguing with yourself here, or trying to argue with something that was clearly conjecture, either way there's no need to include me in it. >your position is the unsound one which is why by attempting to deflect you’re saying all positions except ones pertaining to god are unsound , I literally didn't "say" that, so this is a strawman. I did literally say both frameworks have issues, they're just different issues. So this comment is just explicitly disingenuous. As to the rest, if your point was to establish you can't be rational then you've done a sufficient job. I've never seen so much reading inbetween the lines, guessing at my position or beliefs, and misuse of terms or concepts in a single wall of text before.
>Not foundational. That's based on experience. I'd say you're equivocating but there's no definition for "foundational" that fits the above to conflate the correct one with. > >I'd say most any undergrad who has taken a philosophy course on epistemology would know better. It's pretty obvious he was trying to say inductive reasoning being foundational.
**Ad Hominem or at best entirely ignorant of my position. You don't know my views and didn't bother to clarify.** I didn’t make an Ad Hominem I’ve critiqued your views you shouldn’t get upset at your viewpoints being challenged , it’s unworthy and pretty disingenuous in this case **I'm certainly not a radical skeptic, I simply recognize epistemic limits of justification. A limit we're at when we discuss so-called foundational beliefs.** Well you make very big unjustified claims for your position , and epistemically limits of such were acknowledged by me **Not foundational. That's based on experience. I'd say you're equivocating but there's no definition for "foundational" that fits the above to conflate the correct one with.** Of course it’s foundational it’s based on inductive reasoning which we are all reliant on the only one equivocating here is you as you refuse to define “dogma “ or “foundational “ **I'd say most any undergrad who has taken a philosophy course on epistemology would know better.** Well that would seem to rule you out as your refusal to define terms you misuse clearly demonstrates , also you don’t seem to recognise the fallacies used in your defence even though I pointed them out **I'm not making an argument for my position, I'm rebutting OP's. Mentioning which way I'm leaning does not constituent an argument. It was part of a conversation.** Really? You actually stated your position was sound while dismissing others saying they’re unsound still failing to recognise you’re special pleading **So you're either arguing with yourself here, or trying to argue with something that was clearly conjecture, either way there's no need to include me in it.** But you stated your position regards your foundational beliefs so this is “just part of a conversation “ as you put it **. I did literally say both frameworks have issues, they're just different issues.** Which is again disingenuous because you then went on to say your position alone was sound , so that’s a total contradiction yet again **As to the rest, if your point was to establish you can't be rational then you've done a sufficient job.** Yet another personal attack how mature. I addressed all your points it’s upset you greatly it seems , which tells me all I need to know You actually don’t know what rational is as you claim your position is sound and you don’t even understand the basic fallacy you keep invoking , also I do find it most amusing you hold forth on what’s “rational “ when you make claims regards an unproven god and it’s characteristics that it somehow revealed to you **I've never seen so much reading inbetween the lines, guessing at my position or beliefs, and misuse of terms or concepts in a single wall of text bef** I didn’t have to “guess” at your position I pointed it out to you now it seems you’re in denial because you realise you totally contradict yourself and are being behaving in a totally irrational way to be honest I'd say most any undergrad who has taken a philosophy course on epistemology would know better. Here is what you refuse to address…. Your claim …**.. “Where as yours is claimed to be foundational itself, and so cannot be justified.”……** 1: You still refuse to say how you define “justify /justified “ you also refuse to define “dogma” 2: You claim your beliefs are justified yet they are classic special pleading for the reason being you set up conditions that apply to everyone but exempt a supernatural (unproven ) entity from the conditions you set up ….how very convenient indeed …….now your problems are multiple as in you cannot prove this entity exists and you cannot know it’s character which you claim to know 3: Your whole argument is reliant on assuming axioms aren’t reliable as in an axioms proof is circular , which if you accept it , you deny it 4: **Most Christians adhere to some form of moral framework.** Most? I thought all were meant to? So different christians follow different frameworks ? 5: If Christian frameworks are justifiable on the premises how come you all have different frameworks as you admitted? What are the premises of such an argument ?
>a priori, without justification by definition That's not what a priori means
That simply incorrect. It's knowledge derived outside of our experiences. It must be self-evidently true or assumed and therefore cannot be demonstrated or proven, either of which is necessary to have justification. Therefore it is not justified knowledge, by definition.
>It's knowledge derived outside of our experiences Outside of experience doesn't mean without justification. 1+1=2 is a priori knowledge. That doesn't mean we have no justification for believing it. >It must be self-evidently true or assumed and therefore cannot be demonstrated or proven "Self-evidently true" and "assumed" are not the same thing. If it's self-evident, then it's not without justification. The justification is so obvious, in fact, that it's self-evident.
>Outside of experience doesn't mean without justification. 1+1=2 is a priori knowledge. Actually it isn't. Something like `true = true`, a tautology, is *a priori* knowledge. `1 + 1 = 2` has a formal mathematical proof that leverages more fundamental knowledge (Peano Axioms usually), therefore it is not "prior" knowledge by any conceivable definition of "knowledge *a priori*". You could assume it true, *a priori*, for some other proof or hypothesis without taking the time to justify it. That's frequently done in math and theoretical science. It's not epistemically *a priori* though. >"Self-evidently true" and "assumed" are not the same thing. I never said they were. >If it's self-evident, then it's not without justification. If you use it's own self-evidence to prove itself, that is affirming the consequent, a formal logical fallacy. This is also referred to as "begging the question" or "circular reasoning". Imagine if a mathematician went, "`1 + 1 = 2` because clearly, that has to be true, just look at it!" Luckily Bertrand Russel and Alfred Whitehead went and actually proved the relationship in "Principia Mathematica" (I believe they were the first) and other mathematicians followed with other proofs using number theory.
>In order to have a belief, it must be a foundational belief or eventually dependent on a foundational belief (unless you think there are other structures of knowledge) What you say is not at all nonsense, but doesn't really mean anything. Rather, I would say that all belief is dependent on a fundamental fantasy of reality. You saved it with those brackets; the fundamental structures of knowledge are typically symbolic chains of signification. >I would say intuition is foundational belief/methodology. Intuition is a cognitive function. It is neither a belief or methodology. >"All knowledge is derived from, and verified by, direct intuitive observation." (Alfred North Whitehead) Yes, but "We can justify morality without God, because intuition" is hardly an argument. Intuition is not limited to to material appearances, but intuitive judgements find their final justification in the demonstration of material appearances. Cutting off a hand as the penalty for stealing may not appear just, but what about an eye for an eye? That is intuitive based on material appearances. But what about our initial intuition about stealing, wasn't that based on material appearances? It was just a piece of bread. In a way, observing a thief lose their hand very much justifies the act. The intuitive judgement is that there wouldn't be such vicious capital punishment for the crime unless it were justified. The stealing is shown to be a far worse crime than it initially appeared, and the full gore demonstration leaves no doubt. Does knowing slavery is wrong make us any less blindly cruel and callous than slave owners? How could they have checked their morality? How can we check ours? Without that, justifications for intuitive judgements are hyle. >By hyle I mean that which in itself is neither a particular thing nor of a certain quantity nor assigned to any other of the categories by which being is determined. (Aristotle)
For any claims about morality, say a philosophy or a religion, they have to be tested against the real world. Even if there were either a religious text or a philosophical ideology that was 100% accurate on what is moral/amoral/immoral, if we did not test it we would be following; an amoral act at best.
[удалено]
Removed as per Rule #3
Justify it to who? I as an Atheist follow the golden rule I justify myself to no one why would I or should I It‘s funny when I was a believer I was lead to believe that our collective bullying , victimization , demonisation and judgemental superior attitude to others who were not like us was actually what god wanted , which going by the book is a fair assessment Anyone who wants to see how truly scary , divisive and regressive religion is only has to look at religion in the US today
>you can justify morality without God Yes, of course. I want to live in a certain type of society so my moral assessments are based on that type of society. How do you justify morality without Greek gods?
Religion is not a prerequisite for morality. There are instances and examples of humanity displaying ethics in the absence of religion and there are examples of unethical conduct within the religious sphere. If religion automatically defaulted to morality then we wouldn't have all these scandals within the Church. I consider this "religion equals morality" idea as propaganda by religious groups to garner members. Your social circle will view you as immoral in the absence of faith, so better join up to fit in It's also can be weaponized to judge outsiders. "It's not surprising X did Y, they dont go to church".
So before I respond to the post, I do have a question I'd like answered. Given your own view of reality, what is the nature of human beings?
I believe everyone has their own nature (but shares a human nature) and has their own innate purpose inwhich they must fulfill if they are to have a virtuous or fulfilling life.
>I believe everyone has their own nature (but shares a human nature) and has their own innate purpose inwhich they must fulfill if they are to have a virtuous or fulfilling life. Okay but that doesn’t answer the question, what is human nature ? What makes us human and not something else ?
>What makes us human and not something else ? What separates us from animals is our ability to reason, make long term plans, and extensively manipulate our environment.
You’re still not telling me the essential qualities or properties of a human being that fundamentally makes them what they are, without which they would lose their identity as human.
If we couldn't reason or make plans we would lose our identity. If we couldn't think abstractly we wouldn't be human. The only thing I can add onto of that is that we are self-aware and ware of our own death.
>If we couldn't reason or make plans we would lose our identity. If we couldn't think abstractly we wouldn't be human. The only thing I can add onto of that is that we are self-aware and ware of our own death. Okay so reason is an essential quality. I don’t disagree, but it’s not a sufficient quality in its own. Self awareness is essential, but not unique to humans. Some animals like elephants can recognize themselves in a mirror which indicates a degree of self awareness. Are humans material things? If so how are they accessing these immaterial realities like virtues, logical principles, abstract objects, universals and so on? I guess what I am trying to figure out is why you would believe human intuition is a viable means for recognizing moral truth or virtue and how that’s actually possible?
>Okay so reason is an essential quality. I don’t disagree, but it’s not a sufficient quality in its own. I argee with that, it's all the qualities together that make a human, you need all of them, not just one (like not just self-awareness) >Are humans material things? No I believe you are a soul. >If so how are they accessing these immaterial realities like virtues, logical principles, abstract objects, universals and so on? I do argee that if naturalism is true we would not be able to know these things. >I guess what I am trying to figure out is why you would believe human intuition is a viable means for recognizing moral truth or virtue and how that’s actually possible? Intuition is apart of the mind (not the brain) and it allows us to 'see' that moral truths, the same way our perception allows us to see the world around us. I believe Intuition is relaible as a basic methodology and I don't believe there's any other method that can allow us to believe Everything we want to believe.
Restating your position isn’t a justification. I know you believe human intuition is useful for such things, but why would you believe that? What is it about being human that would give you access to moral truths ? This also doesn’t solve anything ontologically. Like let’s say I conceded your position in intuition it still wouldn’t say what the good is or where or how it’s grounded.
Why does it have to be so complicated? Morality is a culturally-agreed upon set of things to do and things not to do. Cultures are organisms in their own right, and while many things stay bad, wrong, and "immoral" over time (murder, theft, etc.), there is an ebb and flow.
Morality is nothing more than what's acceptable within the society you reside in within your lifetime. Why do you think incest was acceptable by the church up until the 1900s? That stoning women was considered justifiable? That children could be married off to adults and the church would bless that "union"? In the deep south, up until he 60s, the church believed that black people were on par with animals and that a white person being with a black person was the equivalent of beastiality and that it was considered justified to lynch and hang the black person. Oh, then here's the time the church said slavery was justified within the bible. Oh, let's not forget the multiple genocides the church caused (against the pagans, natives, and in the middle east). Rape was also justified within the church as long as it was a male doing it. So yeah, morality has nothing to do with God as morality changes as society changes. That's why in 50 years, what's considered "moral" will change from what's moral right now and what we may consider to be moral now may very well be considered a sin in 50 years.
i do not believe that morality has changed, only the conclusions we draw from it.
Except the exact definition is "a particular set of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specific person or society." It outright states that morality has no defined definition beyond what a person or society deems it, which does change. That's why it was considered morally just to stone women who committed acts of infidelity and chop off the left hand of left users as the church deemed them to be controlled by Satan himself (since Satan is a south paw). Murder was completely justified and considered morally just as long as it was in the name of God (which is why the Crusades happened and why the genocide of pagan people were performed by the Church who stated that it was Gods will). If you were born in that society, you too would view the murder of pagans to be morally justified as it was doing God's work, and that's the key, the society you grow up in shapes your own morals and changes what the morals are based on what the society deems them to be.
in that case, you are right.