On May 03 2010 14:29 BruceLee6783 wrote: By the way...did anyone watch his video about math? He referenced "The Monty Hall predicament" which is something that I saw in the movie "21", where Kevin Spacey's character lectures on the topic of "variable change", in reference to using probability to your advantage. I don't agree with that, however. Perhaps it is that neither Spacey nor QualiaSoup do a good enough job of explaining it. I rewinded that part of the Youtube video and the movie over and over and over, and I tried my best to listen and think about what he was saying, but I could not grasp that concept.
Could someone knowledgeable about that concept explain it to me better?
it's easy. if you're Z and he's T, proxy hatch and Silver Build.
I understand what you're saying I think I understand WLC differently than you do. You seem to be taking this "proof" (of the Kalam) as something absolute, or definitive. I take it only as what he believes to be the best explanation for the "evidence" that he's dealing with. That's how I view the difference between mathematics, and philosophy (or science, and philosophy). One has you restricted to "cold" facts, the other lets you take things a step further (which philosophy has always done). Now, Craig may be completely wrong and unjustified in all his views, but if I had to make the judgment personally, I would have to agree with his philosophical speculation (in as far as I understand entropy, beginnings, infinities, etc.) Otherwise, even for science I see a point where it ceases to follow the "scientific method" and becomes suspiciously similar to metaphysics.
Well, WLC refers to it as "proof for the existence of god", not as "speculation about the existence of god", but anyway. With respect to the differentiation between math and philosophy and "going beyond cold facts" I think you are mistaken. First, math is not restricted at all by facts nor based on them (at least from what we usually refer to as facts). It is an axiomatic construct with no necessary representation in reality. That's why it's also not considered as a "real science" by many.
Math and certain branches of philosophy are actually similar in this respect, e.g. the field of logic. Both, math and logic are tools which allow us to describe the world which surrounds us. Whenever we use these tools, we therefore need to make sure that our descriptions actually match with a relevant part of reality. We call the systematic application of these tools "science" and every philosopher worth his salt has always based his reasoning on observable facts.Philosophers might speculate or hypothesize, but whenever they do, they usually make clear when they are entering the realm of meta-physics just like any other scientist would. That is also why what WLC does is not philosophy, but theology! He is an apologist, not a philosopher.
Ultimately I think the question boils down to this: is there an objective morality? If there is, then how can we know it. If not, then we have a lot of thinking, and reflection to do. We have to utilize any and all of the ethical theories that we've developed, and move from there (and perhaps we will develop better ethical theories). But again on this view, there is no right and wrong, just what we make of it. And to be clear, we can still act in a "moral" way, and we can still be "good" people.
I think you, like many people, just confuse the term "objective" when talking about morality. There is no "objective" morality just as there is no "objective" blue, as long as we don't agree on a common scale and how to measure it. How do we know we found the "right" scale for morality? Well, how do we know we found the right scale for "blue" or "color"? Actions have consequences. Consequences can be desirable/harmful/constructive/destructive etc. Morality deals with finding out which actions are right. But right in this sense has to be contingent on a purpose or aim which needs to have an equivalent in reality.
On May 05 2010 01:04 tinman wrote: dude you shouldn't be so apologetic to someone who's being a complete dick to you.
Well, this is just getting confusing now.
In any case, I'm apologising because I made a mistake, and he/you deserves an apology for the confusion and implied insult. Anyway, I'm logging out now and won't be using this account again.
Ultimately I think the question boils down to this: is there an objective morality? If there is, then how can we know it. If not, then we have a lot of thinking, and reflection to do. We have to utilize any and all of the ethical theories that we've developed, and move from there (and perhaps we will develop better ethical theories). But again on this view, there is no right and wrong, just what we make of it. And to be clear, we can still act in a "moral" way, and we can still be "good" people.
I think you, like many people, just confuse the term "objective" when talking about morality. There is no "objective" morality just as there is no "objective" blue, as long as we don't agree on a common scale and how to measure it. How do we know we found the "right" scale for morality? Well, how do we know we found the right scale for "blue" or "color"? Actions have consequences. Consequences can be desirable/harmful/constructive/destructive etc. Morality deals with finding out which actions are right. But right in this sense has to be contingent on a purpose or aim which needs to have an equivalent in reality.
Ignoring the analogy you already know is insufficient (I'm sure you can equate the color "blue" with a certain spectrum of light, independent of our observing it), when I use the word objective, I mean objective. Numbers are objective, in the same sense, morality is objective . I'm not confused about what I mean. Morality, like numbers, exist independently of human thought. These are discovered, not invented.
I'm not sure if you understand what I'm saying. I disagree with how you view morality, though I'm agreeing that you're consistent in your view, one I really don't have a problem with.
I understand what you're saying I think I understand WLC differently than you do. You seem to be taking this "proof" (of the Kalam) as something absolute, or definitive. I take it only as what he believes to be the best explanation for the "evidence" that he's dealing with. That's how I view the difference between mathematics, and philosophy (or science, and philosophy). One has you restricted to "cold" facts, the other lets you take things a step further (which philosophy has always done). Now, Craig may be completely wrong and unjustified in all his views, but if I had to make the judgment personally, I would have to agree with his philosophical speculation (in as far as I understand entropy, beginnings, infinities, etc.) Otherwise, even for science I see a point where it ceases to follow the "scientific method" and becomes suspiciously similar to metaphysics.
Well, WLC refers to it as "proof for the existence of god", not as "speculation about the existence of god", but anyway. With respect to the differentiation between math and philosophy and "going beyond cold facts" I think you are mistaken. First, math is not restricted at all by facts nor based on them (at least from what we usually refer to as facts). It is an axiomatic construct with no necessary representation in reality. That's why it's also not considered as a "real science" by many.
Math and certain branches of philosophy are actually similar in this respect, e.g. the field of logic. Both, math and logic are tools which allow us to describe the world which surrounds us. Whenever we use these tools, we therefore need to make sure that our descriptions actually match with a relevant part of reality. We call the systematic application of these tools "science" and every philosopher worth his salt has always based his reasoning on observable facts.Philosophers might speculate or hypothesize, but whenever they do, they usually make clear when they are entering the realm of meta-physics just like any other scientist would. That is also why what WLC does is not philosophy, but theology! He is an apologist, not a philosopher.
Fair enough You might do well to listen to WLC a bit more, he's quite clear about the purpose and substance of his arguments.
Ignoring the analogy you already know is insufficient (I'm sure you can equate the color "blue" with a certain spectrum of light, independent of our observing it), when I use the word objective, I mean objective. Numbers are objective, in the same sense, morality is objective . I'm not confused about what I mean. Morality, like numbers, exist independently of human thought. These are discovered, not invented.
I'm not sure if you understand what I'm saying. I disagree with how you view morality, though I'm agreeing that you're consistent in your view, one I really don't have a problem with.
Thank you for your patience. I think I see much clearer now where we differ. And I disagree strongly. Numbers just like morality are merely concepts. They only exist in our minds and cease to exist when we die. It is what these numbers point to that exists in reality, not the number itself.
We call something "objectively the case", if we can demonstrate to others that things behave like described irrespective of the observer. Morality does not fall into this category per se and I find this quite obvious since it is tied to the value system of a culture. The idea of an "objective morality" which exists without a prior agreement on common values is an intellectual dead end. But if morality depends on values and values need to be agreed upon (not imposed by any "value giver"), then we can use the term objective in the sense that "given certain values" an action is always immoral irrespective of who commits it or who perceives it (as long as we take these values as a common scale or measure). Morality is not discovered, it is the consequence of axioms of value. Likewise math or numbers are not discovered, but are the consequences of axioms on sets. Once a common basis is established, there are consequences which inevetibly follow. Those can hence be discovered.
Ignoring the analogy you already know is insufficient (I'm sure you can equate the color "blue" with a certain spectrum of light, independent of our observing it), when I use the word objective, I mean objective. Numbers are objective, in the same sense, morality is objective . I'm not confused about what I mean. Morality, like numbers, exist independently of human thought. These are discovered, not invented.
I'm not sure if you understand what I'm saying. I disagree with how you view morality, though I'm agreeing that you're consistent in your view, one I really don't have a problem with.
Thank you for your patience. I think I see much clearer now where we differ. And I disagree strongly. Numbers just like morality are merely concepts. They only exist in our minds and cease to exist when we die. It is what these numbers point to that exists in reality, not the number itself.
Sorry I should have been more clear, I think you missed it a bit as a result. As numbers correspond to something in reality, so too would morality. The concept of a number (or the concept of morality) may "cease to exist when we die," though it will remain true that numbers - or morality - describe some aspect of reality independent of us. By this I mean that the equation "2+2=4" could arbitrarily be the same as "II+II=IV", so long as each number in both sets corresponds to the same thing in reality.
Morality does not fall into this category per se and I find this quite obvious since it is tied to the value system of a culture.
That seems to me like a confusion. If the "value system of a culture" was reflective of morality as a thing in reality, then we've no less violated the objective existence of a set of morals. We've simply happened upon a culture that follows them (and has agreed to follow them). The difficulty is discovering what this set of objective morals is (as per my previous post).
The idea of an "objective morality" which exists without a prior agreement on common values is an intellectual dead end. But if morality depends on values and values need to be agreed upon (not imposed by any "value giver"), then we can use the term objective in the sense that "given certain values" an action is always immoral irrespective of who commits it or who perceives it (as long as we take these values as a common scale or measure).
That's still subjective, it's just a word game. The system depends upon perception to be formed, there's no reason to to then condemn everyone because they "perceive otherwise" after the fact. By this I would mean that our perceptions do not relate to some thing in reality.
Morality is not discovered, it is the consequence of axioms of value. Likewise math or numbers are not discovered, but are the consequences of axioms on sets. Once a common basis is established, there are consequences which inevetibly follow. Those can hence be discovered.
So what you're saying, then, is that we can start from a basis of subjectivism, and then move onto an objective system (of morality), having discovered something about reality, independent of us? I'm really not trying to argue with you, just get a better understanding I don't know quite enough to argue, about most things, actually.
having words written in stone or agreed upon by a group of people doesn't make them objective. they're still subjective to each individual. objective means it exists as an object in reality, and unless you mean synapses in the brain or something, there's nothing objective about morals nor numbers for that matter, no matter how many believe in it or how many twos can you fill a blackboard with.
well you can also argue for the hard emergence of patterns, like being able to create something out of nothing, but I hardly understand that
Ultimately I think the question boils down to this: is there an objective morality? If there is, then how can we know it. If not, then we have a lot of thinking, and reflection to do. We have to utilize any and all of the ethical theories that we've developed, and move from there (and perhaps we will develop better ethical theories). But again on this view, there is no right and wrong, just what we make of it. And to be clear, we can still act in a "moral" way, and we can still be "good" people.
I think you, like many people, just confuse the term "objective" when talking about morality. There is no "objective" morality just as there is no "objective" blue, as long as we don't agree on a common scale and how to measure it. How do we know we found the "right" scale for morality? Well, how do we know we found the right scale for "blue" or "color"? Actions have consequences. Consequences can be desirable/harmful/constructive/destructive etc. Morality deals with finding out which actions are right. But right in this sense has to be contingent on a purpose or aim which needs to have an equivalent in reality.
This is the explained version of what i wrote in previous posts. I don't think morality is objective Gnosis. No need to go so deep either. I think it is completely subjective. No matter how hardly someone says that it is wrong to kill a human in some circumstances (different mindset and culture, different time, different place that teaches killing some people is right) it can easily be the opposite. So according to you killing people is wrong and that mindset has bad place in morality? If there is a objective morality you have to explain what source that independent from humans makes it objective, the absolute morality? Also people can see this video of QualiaSoup where he explains some moral stuff and such.
Ultimately I think the question boils down to this: is there an objective morality? If there is, then how can we know it. If not, then we have a lot of thinking, and reflection to do. We have to utilize any and all of the ethical theories that we've developed, and move from there (and perhaps we will develop better ethical theories). But again on this view, there is no right and wrong, just what we make of it. And to be clear, we can still act in a "moral" way, and we can still be "good" people.
I think you, like many people, just confuse the term "objective" when talking about morality. There is no "objective" morality just as there is no "objective" blue, as long as we don't agree on a common scale and how to measure it. How do we know we found the "right" scale for morality? Well, how do we know we found the right scale for "blue" or "color"? Actions have consequences. Consequences can be desirable/harmful/constructive/destructive etc. Morality deals with finding out which actions are right. But right in this sense has to be contingent on a purpose or aim which needs to have an equivalent in reality.
This is the explained version of what i wrote in previous posts. I don't think morality is objective Gnosis. No need to go so deep either. I think it is completely subjective. No matter how hardly someone says that it is wrong to kill a human in some circumstances (different mindset and culture, different time, different place that teaches killing some people is right) it can easily be the opposite. So according to you killing people is wrong and that mindset has bad place in morality? If there is a objective morality you have to explain what source that independent from humans makes it objective, the absolute morality?
Sorry, I didn't realize I was going deep (a critical thinking thread, no?). Basically I enjoy learning, Miramax seems like a smart fellow, so I engaged him as he engaged me. I don't really mean to debate, but I do like discussions
The question was "is murder wrong" (or something close enough to that), not is killing wrong. It would be best to define our terms, then we can move ahead in our discussion. In doing so, we can avoid confusing the two (as you've done above). As I look through my dictionary I see murder defined as the "unlawful killing of another," I think to that I would add the word innocent. Killing is defined as the deprivation of life. I believe murder is always wrong, but I don't believe killing is always wrong (the execution of a murderer, war, etc.). There are other questions which are corollaries to this, such as "what about innocent civilians killed in war?" and while the questions are important, I think they are at this point simply red herring. Though don't mistake what I'm saying, there are serious and complex moral considerations to these sorts of questions and "moral dilemmas". Not even my statement "murder is always wrong" is without it's gray areas, just as my belief that killing isn't always wrong isn't without its gray areas. I think the unfortunate reality of the world that we live in is such that violating an objective moral standard may at times be necessary.So please don't get it in your head that I'm trying to talk in black and white terms and keep the discussion on such a level. An act itself may be wrong, but we may still be required to perform it.
As for where I believe this objective moral set comes from, I believe I said it in a previous post, a divine moral law giver--God, in other words. You could call it divine command theory if you like, but I don't know if that would be entirely accurate.
If there is a objective morality you have to explain what source that independent from humans makes it objective, the absolute morality?
If I might interject: you see how well it works out for all concerned
Let's say for instance a society decided murder was ok. It wouldn't work very well: the constant murders, the constant need to watch your back; all very distracting and time-consuming - and a neighbouring society could simply stroll in, murder everyone and take over without facing any organised resistance.
Or let's say a society decided that causing any harm to anyone was utterly forbidden. Same end result: sooner or later someone will stroll in and enslave or wipe out such a society.
Objectively, these moral codes are sub-optimal - you can tell because they get stomped by different ones. Nihilism self-destructs, or is swept aside. Pacifism is a luxury affordable only by the idealistic few. How much someone likes or dislikes a particular moral code makes no difference to its performance in a competitive environment. That makes them objectively comparable.
If there is a objective morality you have to explain what source that independent from humans makes it objective, the absolute morality?
If I might interject: you see how well it works out for all concerned
Let's say for instance a society decided murder was ok. It wouldn't work very well: the constant murders, the constant need to watch your back; all very distracting and time-consuming - and a neighbouring society could simply stroll in, murder everyone and take over without facing any organised resistance.
Or let's say a society decided that causing any harm to anyone was utterly forbidden. Same end result: sooner or later someone will stroll in and enslave or wipe out such a society.
Objectively, these moral codes are sub-optimal - you can tell because they get stomped by different ones. Nihilism self-destructs, or is swept aside. Pacifism is a luxury affordable only by the idealistic few. How much someone likes or dislikes a particular moral code makes no difference to its performance in a competitive environment. That makes them objectively comparable.
You've demonstrated how certain norms can help a society in avoiding death. They may be efficient at doing so. But there's nothing anywhere, objectively saying that you ought to avoid death. It only becomes better when you adopt it as your goal. The fact is that there are people who kill for pleasure or money, and who suicide out of misery.
I concur with you that a society that doesn't value life will ultimately die. But what remains is no prescription for what should be. It's still your decision, and my decision, to live.
Ok i am sorry i figured out just now. I understand you i don't want to reduce discussion level but i think these are important enough things to find a proper answer too.
Again i think my point stays the same. As you define murder "unlawful killing of another" your morals come from law not from god. Or maybe you mean law of god but since we don't know if there is a god or even he has a law for us people i'll consider this as human law. And the law itself is not permanent and can be multiple types of law in different groups(claimed that coming from different gods maybe?) which means there is no absolute truth. Even though there would be a god and has a law for us people i don't know how can we be exactly sure that it is his thoughts when there is not evidence of any kind to the books people claim belongs to his ideas.(Not even considering conflicts in the books) If you don't believe in a theist god the question stays the same too.
I do sincerly believe that murder is wrong though. But even every single person in earth would agree that murder is wrong it still wouldn't be objective truth because of the possibility that future people may not agree. It shouldn't have left to agree or not. Explains the lack of absolute unquestionable rule. And i am sorry if make some mistakes using English i know it is not perfect, as you can figure out i use basic language i am still learning.
I'm still unclear what 'objective' morality would mean. Principles for behavior cannot be 'true' or 'false'... they can be the principles most likely to achieve certain ends, but that only matters if there's one 'objective' goal.
Even if you somehow prove there is a particular being (deity or otherwise) with that particular goal, and the principles she suggests for humans are the objectively best principles to achieve that goal... that only means they're the best principles to achieve that being's goal. To coherently argue that, objectively, everyone 'should' adopt those principles, you'd also have to show that the goal you've singled out is everyone's goal (or that their goal is unattainable, and this is the closest attainable goal to it)...
On May 05 2010 10:02 Aelfric wrote: Ok i am sorry i figured out just now. I understand you i don't want to reduce discussion level but i think these are important enough things to find a proper answer too.
Again i think my point stays the same. As you define murder "unlawful killing of another" your morals come from law not from god. Or maybe you mean law of god but since we don't know if there is a god or even he has a law for us people i'll consider this as human law. And the law itself is not permanent and can be multiple types of law in different groups(claimed that coming from different gods maybe?) which means there is no absolute truth. Even though there would be a god and has a law for us people i don't know how can we be exactly sure that it is his thoughts when there is not evidence of any kind to the books people claim belongs to his ideas.(Not even considering conflicts in the books) If you don't believe in a theist god the question stays the same too.
I do sincerly believe that murder is wrong though. But even every single person in earth would agree that murder is wrong it still wouldn't be objective truth because of the possibility that future people may not agree. It shouldn't have left to agree or not. Explains the lack of absolute unquestionable rule. And i am sorry if make some mistakes using English i know it is not perfect, as you can figure out i use basic language i am still learning.
Sorry, I don't know what you mean by "reduce discussion level"? This isn't me going deep, or trying to sound profound... This is "every day" me (much to the disdain of many people, irl).
The dictionary I quoted from probably was referring to human law, though I would extend it to divine law (I think I would hold the - maybe untenable - position that human law is, generally, a reflection of divine law). The question becomes, "how can we know divine law?" (if in fact there is such a thing). A few ways come to mind. The first is revelation, which is what you have in the Torah, Christian scriptures, Qu'ran, etc. (which you mention internal conflicts). The second way is that people have been created such that divine law is "imprinted on their hearts," which is a view taken by Christians (or at least taught in Christian scriptures). The third way is through reason, perhaps an idea adapted from miramax that we begin with a subjective moral set, and are able through this foundation to discover the objective moral set. So even with difficult (maybe impossible) questions such as these, we have a few places where we could begin.
Edit: Oh, sorry! I thought you were referring to the conversation, not the words we were using. I apologize, I completely misunderstood you. Let me know if I'm still using words outside of what you're familiar with.
Let's say for instance a society decided murder was ok. It wouldn't work very well: the constant murders, the constant need to watch your back; all very distracting and time-consuming - and a neighbouring society could simply stroll in, murder everyone and take over without facing any organised resistance.
Or let's say a society decided that causing any harm to anyone was utterly forbidden. Same end result: sooner or later someone will stroll in and enslave or wipe out such a society.
Objectively, these moral codes are sub-optimal - you can tell because they get stomped by different ones. Nihilism self-destructs, or is swept aside. Pacifism is a luxury affordable only by the idealistic few. How much someone likes or dislikes a particular moral code makes no difference to its performance in a competitive environment. That makes them objectively comparable.
I suppose different moral codes are objectively comparable, to some extent, if they result in your society being destroyed in war. What about when they don't? Either way, the purpose of morality isn't really to increase the military power of your country to protect your country. Or if you're saying it is, then that's an underlying assumption which you'd have to prove for your argument to be seriously considered.
Simply from experience reading forums, my observations are that people do not in fact base their opinions on logic and critical thinking, but rather emotion. Those that claim they do are in fact the most bigoted, imo.
On May 05 2010 13:45 fight_or_flight wrote: Simply from experience reading forums, my observations are that people do not in fact base their opinions on logic and critical thinking, but rather emotion. Those that claim they do are in fact the most bigoted, imo.
EPT
I think I understand WLC differently than you do. You seem to be taking this "proof" (of the Kalam) as something absolute, or definitive. I take it only as what he believes to be the best explanation for the "evidence" that he's dealing with. That's how I view the difference between mathematics, and philosophy (or science, and philosophy). One has you restricted to "cold" facts, the other lets you take things a step further (which philosophy has always done). Now, Craig may be completely wrong and unjustified in all his views, but if I had to make the judgment personally, I would have to agree with his philosophical speculation (in as far as I understand entropy, beginnings, infinities, etc.) Otherwise, even for science I see a point where it ceases to follow the "scientific method" and becomes suspiciously similar to metaphysics.
