tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post8022180241899694266..comments2024-03-14T08:15:15.207-07:00Comments on CADRE Comments: More on the moral argumentBKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01967809861892681780noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-57005334247162842662012-12-09T19:53:45.888-08:002012-12-09T19:53:45.888-08:00PV, apologies for not following up on this sooner....PV, apologies for not following up on this sooner. For whatever reason, I cannot get subscribed to the comments, so I was having to check up on these manually, and obviously at some point I forgot to keep doing so. <br /><br />You say that "No proper account is given for the the obligation to follow Yahweh's system of morality either other than might makes right" Obviously, "JB Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12953958874388354830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-996031773949827732012-08-12T16:19:58.558-07:002012-08-12T16:19:58.558-07:00“the whole system hinges on your life having (obje...“the whole system hinges on your life having (objective) value – which the theist would argue is not possible unless God exists”<br />If the theist argues that he is making a fool out of himself. We are entities that value things and one of the things we value most is our lives and the lives of the ones we love. Guarding these valuables is best achieved by striking a deal with others to ensure PhaseVelocityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13430408292872762878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-89734394871624416982012-08-12T16:19:26.464-07:002012-08-12T16:19:26.464-07:00Individuals that have damaged or missing moral fac...Individuals that have damaged or missing moral faculties have definite disadvantages. Highly functioning autists for example often suffer the consequences of their diminished social skills. Sociopaths can often get through life fine but when things go wrong they can go very wrong which essentially removes those from the gene pool. The persistence of such genes can be explained by the fact that PhaseVelocityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13430408292872762878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-71719226924875210612012-08-12T16:18:07.364-07:002012-08-12T16:18:07.364-07:00“There is a subjective element to hunger, but hung...“There is a subjective element to hunger, but hunger exists whether you or I choose to acknowledge it or not. Hunger is objective. Likewise, morality cannot affect anything significantly if it does not exist.”<br />The personal experience of hunger is a personal experience. The experience is real but not objective. Every person will experience hunger slightly different. This is just like the PhaseVelocityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13430408292872762878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-86052636053910220762012-08-12T16:16:22.753-07:002012-08-12T16:16:22.753-07:00“Sure, but then you’d have to account for why we’d...“Sure, but then you’d have to account for why we’d be *obligated* to abide by supernatural entity X’s system of morality. That is more difficult to do than simply dreaming up another being. Classical theism, whether you agree with it or not, grounds this obligation in God being ultimately Good & all-knowing, etc.”<br />No proper account is given for the the obligation to follow Yahweh's PhaseVelocityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13430408292872762878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-87840767371201814442012-08-10T00:15:41.890-07:002012-08-10T00:15:41.890-07:00-“No, the problem is also proving that only a god ...-“No, the problem is also proving that only a god can provide objective morals. Any supernatural entity or force could be thought up to account for morals.”-<br />Sure, but then you’d have to account for why we’d be *obligated* to abide by supernatural entity X’s system of morality. That is more difficult to do than simply dreaming up another being. Classical theism, whether you agree with it or JB Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12953958874388354830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-61355704198318391852012-08-05T20:11:13.121-07:002012-08-05T20:11:13.121-07:00No, the problem is also proving that only a god ca...No, the problem is also proving that only a god can provide objective morals. Any supernatural entity or force could be thought up to account for morals.<br />Not only do they not provide any argument for this, it also is self refuting as objective is not personal and morals grounded in a person, even if God, therefore are logically not objective.<br /><br />Those are just poor excuses by Craig. PhaseVelocityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13430408292872762878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-25309136916535552122012-07-29T12:45:06.759-07:002012-07-29T12:45:06.759-07:00@PhaseVelocity, in your 1st comment you wrote:
-&q...@PhaseVelocity, in your 1st comment you wrote:<br />-"Most religious apologists use such poor logic in their moral arguments for the existence of God."-<br />The moral argument itself - at least as it is usually formulated - is logically airtight. If the premises are true, then the conclusion inevitably follows. The poor logic is not with the moral argument itself, but in defending the JB Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12953958874388354830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-20741605882043013772012-07-29T08:31:11.118-07:002012-07-29T08:31:11.118-07:00“If moral facts do exist, they are supremely relev...<i>“If moral facts do exist, they are supremely relevant to human flourishing and thus it would make sense that human beings evolved to perceive them.”</i><br />In order to be able to account for the existence of our strong feelings regarding morals this feature must be a beneficial adaptation. I struggle to see how anybody cannot see the obvious advantages of for example to be inclined to rejectPhaseVelocityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13430408292872762878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-62939064022352430802012-07-29T08:18:16.049-07:002012-07-29T08:18:16.049-07:00Moral perceptions are meaningful by definition bec...Moral perceptions are meaningful by definition because morals are about the social things that are important to us. Meaning does do nothing for the subjectivity – objectivity distinction.<br />Moral perception being perceived as true is again a personal perception. It is true that Leah Libresco feels strongly about certain moral issues. The problem is that such strong feeling are not a valid wayPhaseVelocityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13430408292872762878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-80552404708856915702012-07-29T08:15:50.906-07:002012-07-29T08:15:50.906-07:00Hi JD,
Thank you for your questions.
You seem to...Hi JD,<br /><br />Thank you for your questions.<br /><br />You seem to be interested in people changing faith. I just happened to stumble upon somebody I knew as a rather fundamentalist Christian called Paleocrat who seems to have become an atheist because of the evidential argument from evil and the impossibility to find a coherent and plausible set of religious doctrines:<br />http://PhaseVelocityhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13430408292872762878noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-74017886245019086442012-07-25T19:57:27.251-07:002012-07-25T19:57:27.251-07:00The distinction of when appealing to consensus is ...The distinction of when appealing to consensus is valid or not is when you are appealing to opinion/belief or not. Appealing to a consensus of observation is valid, as I indicated earlier. But this is because the underlying justification is the observation. It surprises me that you don’t see that your example about those who believe evolutionary theory more closely resembles the scenario where JB Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12953958874388354830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-63788163887889018302012-07-25T12:43:03.709-07:002012-07-25T12:43:03.709-07:00JB,
It is not logically fallacious to appeal to c...JB,<br /><br />It is not logically fallacious to appeal to consensus in general. If I am not sure that I am really seeing what I think I'm seeing, for example, an excellent way to test that is to find out if others are also seeing the same thing. Maybe in certain highly ramified contexts it would be problematic, for example to judge the validity of evolutionary theory based on the percentage Henotheist11https://www.blogger.com/profile/11379183579727346837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-20021029321332676742012-07-24T03:41:39.585-07:002012-07-24T03:41:39.585-07:00So called "appeal to consensus" is not a...So called "appeal to consensus" is not a proof for moral axioms, like empirical data. It's one source of grousing, probalby the only one that can be managed since we can't prove moral axioms.Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-84924918252022600672012-07-24T03:39:26.950-07:002012-07-24T03:39:26.950-07:00"Claiming you converted to a religion for rat..."Claiming you converted to a religion for rational arguments is common. Few people are willing to admit they converted for irrational arguments. Still this is usually the case. Humans base around 80% of their decisions on non-rational grounds. When somebody starts to accept faith for emotional reasons cognitive dissonance kicks in. A posteriori rationalizations are collected and most of the Joseph Hinman (Metacrock)https://www.blogger.com/profile/06957529748541493998noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-87113650093173158052012-07-23T22:31:35.331-07:002012-07-23T22:31:35.331-07:00Yes, I realize that an appeal to consensus isn’t t...Yes, I realize that an appeal to consensus isn’t the only factor, and I indicated as much. Nevertheless, you mentioned it as an important one. That is problematic, considering that it is a logically fallacious method of argumentation. If such a key cog in this argument is logically fallacious, I do not see why it would take “a pretty solid case” to unseat it. Seems to me all that needs to be JB Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12953958874388354830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-3015030424417958752012-07-23T19:37:26.275-07:002012-07-23T19:37:26.275-07:00I don't appeal to consensus as THE clinching a...I don't appeal to consensus as THE clinching argument in the case for moral realism. But it is an important factor. If people across time periods and cultures agree on some fundamental aspects of moral judgment (not necessarily agreement about specific moral judgments, but certainly agreement that moral judgments are statements that can be right and wrong), it would take a pretty solid case Henotheist11https://www.blogger.com/profile/11379183579727346837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6363362.post-12138646234033306632012-07-23T15:26:30.094-07:002012-07-23T15:26:30.094-07:00An appeal to consensus does not, to me, make for a...An appeal to consensus does not, to me, make for a convincing argument for the objectivity of morality. With regard to the tree comparison, the existence of trees can be tested and observed in other ways besides just general agreement. Basically, the "arguments" presented to demonstrate that morality is objective are generally two-fold: humans tend to agree on certain moral precepts andJB Chappellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12953958874388354830noreply@blogger.com