Are cureloms imaginary?

[RevTestament]

20 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I get the sense that both you and mfbukowski are trying to back me into the positivisms corner...and as I stated earlier...I'm not that dogmatic in my worldview...however I am very skeptical of metaphysical or mystical super powers that remain untestable.  I tend to want evidence for fanciful claims and am skeptical of claims that are dependent on feelings for support.  I reject priesthood power claims, a god that intercedes in our life or any other claims of the metaphysical....but ethics and symphonies...you have my attention.

 

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is nothing at all wrong with such preferences by you, and you share that general desire with a great many others.  Especially in modern times.  The problem comes in your uneven application of that standard to everything.  If you become too persnickity, then everything is subject to severe question.  Not sure that you will find it practical to go that far.  Moreover, the standard of evidence you apply may be far too great and unreasonable.  It is probably best to temper our demands a bit for absolute proof.  We are rarely going to find it.

Atheists often fail to realize that they don't apply their evidence analysis evenly. When it comes to God, their skepticism meter tends to go way up, and they demand much clearer and better evidence than for believing other things in their lives.

For instance they trust their feelings regarding their personal relationships with other persons, but not with a god whom they don't see. I often see claims that such feelings "are dangerous." 

[Johnnie Cake]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Don't ask me- what you believe this is YOUR deal.   I am a relativist.

Wikipedia ain't gonna help you out of this one!!  (You know I love you)  I just want to see you work through this

We can just change the topic to "Are moral maxims imaginary" and we are right on topic with cureloms- no different.

Now YOU get to defend YOUR cureloms!!

I know that philosophy is your thing...and that you took the thread in this direction and off the OP...and I'll be happy to answer your question...but can you please repeat your question? :-) 

[mfbukowski]

59 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Can there be morality without people?

Are the Gods people?

They teach us through the light of Christ, er , uh, I mean "our emotions" und Spieltrieb

Different language games/ cultural descriptions

How the Gods see it, in their culture, I haven't a clue.

This is the brilliance of Mormonism, Humanism IS theology in a different context.

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Then what is your objective evidence for any moral maxim, since your view is consistent and so complex?

This is where Atheism gets interesting - trying to define their moral system without God. Typically it involves stomping their foot and saying it is just right....

The other choice is to claim that it is hard-wired into us - despite evidence from multiple cultures with different moral systems showing it is not hard-wired into us.

What it ends up boiling down to is Atheists just end up each being their own independent competing god. It's ironic.

[mfbukowski]

13 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I know that philosophy is your thing...and that you took the thread in this direction and off the OP...and I'll be happy to answer your question...but can you please repeat your question? :-) 

You asked ME a question about robust moral realism.

I donknow the answer to what you believe, I was asking you for evidence against moral relativism and for moral realism, which you espouse apparently.

Summary:

You believe that all true assertions must be backed by objective evidence, ie scientific evidence.

You said that you are not a moral relativist, implying that moral assertions CAN be backed by evidence

My question to you originally was, then, how can you justify the moral assertion that "Murdering babies is wrong" through objective, scientific evidence?

In short, what scientific experiment proves that murdering babies is wrong?

The goal here for me is to show you that not all true statements need to be backed up by scientific evidence.  That is what it means that "positivism is dead" because positivism IS the assertion that statements which cannot be backed up by scientific evidence are meaningless.

So IF there ARE statements which do not need scientific evidence to be "true", then positivism does not account for the truth of all assertions or statements.

If there ARE statements which do not require scientific evidence to be true, then "God exists" is one such statement

So at this point, you have asserted that moral statements ALSO do not have to be backed up  by scientific evidence because you have said you are not a moral relativist.

So the question is, how is the truth of the statement "it is wrong to kill babies" different from the statement "God exists"?

How can one POSSIBLY be true while the other cannot POSSIBLY be true?

There is no scientiic evidence for either- how to those statements then differ??

Does that help?

I want to pursue this until at least until you understand the question at hand, and I know my writing style is easy to misunderstand.

Edited July 12, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

15 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

This is where Atheism gets interesting - trying to define their moral system without God. Typically it involves stomping their foot and saying it is just right....

The other choice is to claim that it is hard-wired into us - despite evidence from multiple cultures with different moral systems showing it is not hard-wired into us.

What it ends up boiling down to is Atheists just end up each being their own independent competing god. It's ironic.

That appears to be exactly what is happening here.

Taht is not to say that atheists are immoral- obviously they are not.  But usually they are moral relativists- here Johnny has stated he is not, so I am wondering how he puts it all together, IF he has thought it through that far.

I suspect he has not.

Edited July 12, 2017 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

And really as I see it this is not a derail at all

It is still about the silly word "imaginary" as if religion can be proven true or false by scientific evidence.

I see no other importance to the question about cureloms than that.

So are metaphors for anything "imaginary" and does that include metaphors for wrong behavior like "murder is wrong"?

And so we have volumes in law defining that metaphor detailing all the circumstances where a human death may or not be "murder" - all questions of definitions of metaphors using other metaphors like "manslaughter" instead of "murder"

It's still all words and their definitions.

So let's take it at least to the stage of whether or not metaphors are imaginary as if that question actually has importance, and has implications for anything in real life.

To me this goes to the question of whether or not cureloms being imaginary is even discussable or relevant to anything!

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, USU78 said:

In my field TRVTH is never the goal, just a preponderance or, at most, clear and convincing.

And what those look like in practice is simply a gut check, when it comes right down to it.

This is exactly the point

After thousands and thousands of years the best practical philosophy that actually works in the real world is "preponderance of the evidence" or "beyond a reasonable doubt" both of which come down to a gut check by one person who is the judge or 12 who are the jury.

This is the best version of "truth" we can come up with, period, end of story.

People get executed based on this definition of truth, people spend their lives in prison for this definition of truth and it is the best humanity has been able to come up with

And the philosophers debate moral realism when it never has worked in the real world

And the bottom line becomes "what the spirit tells us" or "the light of Christ" in Mormonese, but a "gut check" in secularese.

When will the metaphysicians here and elsewhere figure out they don't have a leg to stand on?

"Revelation" or "The light of Christ" or "your gut" IS ALL there is to work with, period, end of story.

And we debate evidence.  Absurd.   I am getting the Sartre disease again....  

 

[Gray]

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

 

Atheists often fail to realize that they don't apply their evidence analysis evenly. When it comes to God, their skepticism meter tends to go way up, and they demand much clearer and better evidence than for believing other things in their lives.

For instance they trust their feelings regarding their personal relationships with other persons, but not with a god whom they don't see. I often see claims that such feelings "are dangerous." 

That's true, although it's a bit of a category shift. Of course all we trust our feelings about our personal relationships, but we don't have to rely on feelings alone to know that the people we love actually exist.

I think the bigger area where atheists often don't realize they're relying on faith to a similar extent to religious folks is in the area of ethics and values.

[Gray]

41 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

This is where Atheism gets interesting - trying to define their moral system without God. Typically it involves stomping their foot and saying it is just right....

The other choice is to claim that it is hard-wired into us - despite evidence from multiple cultures with different moral systems showing it is not hard-wired into us.

What it ends up boiling down to is Atheists just end up each being their own independent competing god. It's ironic.

This is where atheism and Mormonism converge. Neither ascribes morality to God's decrees.

[RevTestament]

4 minutes ago, Gray said:

This is where atheism and Mormonism converge. Neither ascribes morality to God's decrees.

You'll have to explain this. This has gotten off topic, but perhaps all has been said that will be said. 

I see God's decrees as a system of morality. If you are also speaking about being their own gods, I will speak for myself. I don't believe I am going to become some god independent of the Father. I do believe I can be one with Him even as Christ is one with Him - through Christ. That doesn't mean I get to run off and be my own god. It means I accept the teaching of Yeshua and the will of the Father. These concepts I believe are foreign to atheists. They become life unto themselves - right is whatever they decide is right. They do not accept a teacher with regard to their personal morals. It's a recipe for societal collapse.

[Johnnie Cake]

40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You asked ME a question about robust moral realism.

I was being cheeky

40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I donknow the answer to what you believe, I was asking you for evidence against moral relativism and for moral realism, which you espouse apparently.

If you're asking if I prefer evidence over feelings as a means to confirm truth...then yes I do have a preference

40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Summary:

You believe that all true assertions must be backed by objective evidence, ie scientific evidence.

I don't know if that is even possible to state that "all" true assertions must be backed by objective evidence...but it would certainly be my personal preference

40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You said that you are not a moral relativist, implying that moral assertions CAN be backed by evidence

My question to you originally was, then, how can you justify the moral assertion that "Murdering babies is wrong" through objective, scientific evidence?

In short, what scientific experiment proves that murdering babies is wrong?

The goal here for me is to show you that not all true statements need to be backed up by scientific evidence.  That is what it means that "positivism is dead" because positivism IS the assertion that statements which cannot be backed up by scientific evidence are meaningless.

We are in agreement...and I've never stated that "all" truth assessments need to be backed up by scientific evidence...you've created a strawman...and misstated my position.

40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

 

So IF there ARE statements which do not need scientific evidence to be "true", then positivism does not account for the truth of all assertions or statements.

I think we agree on this

40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

If there ARE statements which do not require scientific evidence to be true, then "God exists" is one such statement

So at this point, you have asserted that moral statements ALSO do not have to be backed up  by scientific evidence because you have said you are not a moral relativist.

So the question is, how is the truth of the statement "it is wrong to kill babies" different from the statement "God exists"?

I'm going to argue that it is sometimes NOT wrong to kill babies...and under certain circumstances might be the Right and Moral thing to do for a civilization.  And science can back up this moral dilemma...when the very survival of a civilization is at risk and killing babies is a choice between the survival of a tribe...or the death of the tribe...then perhaps killing babies is the moral and right thing to do.

40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

How can one POSSIBLY be true while the other cannot POSSIBLY be true?

As I've pointed out that sometimes the moral questions often come down to what serves our needs best.

But I get your point....and actually as I've stated earlier in this thread...I'm agnostic on the question of God...frankly there could be one...I just don't know, I don't believe one exists...but if one does, I firmly believe that he/she/it is not Mormon but I could even be wrong on that.

40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

There is no scientiic evidence for either- how to those statements then differ??

I think I've demonstrated that actually one could make a scientific argument on why killing a baby is the right thing to do...I believe you could also make a scientific argument against this moral questino as well.

40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Does that help?

I want to pursue this until at least until you understand the question at hand, and I know my writing style is easy to misunderstand.

my head hurts...

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I was being cheeky

If you're asking if I prefer evidence over feelings as a means to confirm truth...then yes I do have a preference

I don't know if that is even possible to state that "all" true assertions must be backed by objective evidence...but it would certainly be my personal preference

We are in agreement...and I've never stated that "all" truth assessments need to be backed up by scientific evidence...you've created a strawman...and misstated my position.

I think we agree on this

I'm going to argue that it is sometimes NOT wrong to kill babies...and under certain circumstances might be the Right and Moral thing to do for a civilization.  And science can back up this moral dilemma...when the very survival of a civilization is at risk and killing babies is a choice between the survival of a tribe...or the death of the tribe...then perhaps killing babies is the moral and right thing to do.

As I've pointed out that sometimes the moral questions often come down to what serves our needs best.

But I get your point....and actually as I've stated earlier in this thread...I'm agnostic on the question of God...frankly there could be one...I just don't know, I don't believe one exists...but if one does, I firmly believe that he/she/it is not Mormon but I could even be wrong on that.

I think I've demonstrated that actually one could make a scientific argument on why killing a baby is the right thing to do...I believe you could also make a scientific argument against this moral questino as well.

my head hurts...

Ok, so then you are a moral relativist.

Problem solved

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

You'll have to explain this. This has gotten off topic, but perhaps all has been said that will be said. 

I see God's decrees as a system of morality. If you are also speaking about being their own gods, I will speak for myself. I don't believe I am going to become some god independent of the Father. I do believe I can be one with Him even as Christ is one with Him - through Christ. That doesn't mean I get to run off and be my own god. It means I accept the teaching of Yeshua and the will of the Father. These concepts I believe are foreign to atheists. They become life unto themselves - right is whatever they decide is right. They do not accept a teacher with regard to their personal morals. It's a recipe for societal collapse.

The BOM teaches that God must follow laws, or He will cease to be God. That means morality is outside of God's control - it exists independently of God, and wasn't created by God.

[RevTestament]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

The BOM teaches that God must follow laws, or He will cease to be God. That means morality is outside of God's control - it exists independently of God, and wasn't created by God.

Not necessarily. It means God does follow some laws - not that He doesn't give us additional laws which are totally within His control - polygamy might be one example of this. I think God is bound by principles of justice. He is God because He is just. Therefore, essentially, we made Him God, because He was the most just of us back in the beginning before this world. Justice demands equality. So nothing God expects of us does He not expect of Himself. Also as the final arbiter of justice between us, He must be just which is why He is no respecter of persons. We all have to meet the same standards of justice, forgiveness, etc. He doesn't play favorites. Those who follow best receive the most light - receive the promises.

[clarkgoble]

18 minutes ago, Gray said:

The BOM teaches that God must follow laws, or He will cease to be God. That means morality is outside of God's control - it exists independently of God, and wasn't created by God.

Doesn't the regress of Gods in the King Follet Discourse allow self-ascribed relativists like Mark to deal with this?

46 minutes ago, Gray said:

This is where atheism and Mormonism converge. Neither ascribes morality to God's decrees.

In what sense? I don't think Mormons deny morality to many of God's decrees either directly or in a secondary sense. (The secondary sense of obedience - much like it's not a moral issue when I tell my kids not to eat ice cream before dinner but it's moral in that they are consciously disobeying me.) So for instance I have a hard time seeing a coffee proscription as moral, but because I've made a covenant to abide by that proscription it becomes moral. I think Mark's argument is that all morality reduces to that sort of arrangement.

55 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And the philosophers debate moral realism when it never has worked in the real world

What do you mean by "moral realism has never worked in the real world?" It comes off like a category error. I'm not sure realism is a question of what works but rather a question of why something works.

1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

This is where Atheism gets interesting - trying to define their moral system without God. Typically it involves stomping their foot and saying it is just right....

I think you need to read more ethics. Let me give an example of one of the more expansive ethical theories until Kantianism made a comeback with Rawls: Utilitarianism. It first unarguably led to pretty significant changes in social behavior in the west. It's an example of a moral realist theory since what counts as moral doesn't depend upon what any finite group thinks. So the idea that God is necessary for morality really seems odd.

Now we can of course quibble with this. We can argue how much J. S. Mill really was an utilitarian for instance. We can debate whether the semantics behind utilitarianism is correct. (Is the good what makes people the most happy?) We can perhaps debate that even if that defines the good it doesn't explain why one should be good. But overall it's a fairly expansive important moral system without depending upon God.

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

You believe that all true assertions must be backed by objective evidence, ie scientific evidence.

You said that you are not a moral relativist, implying that moral assertions CAN be backed by evidence

My question to you originally was, then, how can you justify the moral assertion that "Murdering babies is wrong" through objective, scientific evidence?

In short, what scientific experiment proves that murdering babies is wrong?

The reason I'm skeptical he's a true positivist is that I don't think he's arguing they're meaningless. I think he's saying they're not trustworthy. But he also might well simply appeal to evolution much as Michael Sherman tries to in The Science of Good and Evil. Now I think Sherman's work is flawed for a variety of reasons. However in terms of what he thinks, it's clear he thinks he can scientifically investigate good and evil, regardless of whether his particular arguments are wrong. In that alone he's quite different from a positivist who would think Sherman's whole project is doomed and meaningless. (And give arguments for what Sherman is simply investigating what social norms arise by evolution rather than really establishing ethics)

[thesometimesaint]

28 minutes ago, Gray said:

The BOM teaches that God must follow laws, or He will cease to be God. That means morality is outside of God's control - it exists independently of God, and wasn't created by God.

No it simply means God follows his own rules. IE; Can God lie? Technically Yes, he hasn't given up his own Agency. Will he lie? No, for to do so would make him not God.

[clarkgoble]

3 hours ago, USU78 said:

Can there be morality without people?

Sure. We just have to be a realist about possibilities. So in the possible world in which there are people there's morality. But as a possibility it's true in all possible worlds.

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

All I care about is the intuitive nature of the "light of Christ" which I see in the category of "direct revelation".  You are right- you can couple that with even a Platonic Realm of Moral Forms if you want to as long as you account for direct revelation of what those Forms are.

Well there definitely are some parallels with platonic intuition, as you note. Although I'd reject platonic intuition and say everything is mediated including especially revelation.

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

But now you need some way of getting "evidence" as you say and how we interpret the evidence and whether or not we interpret the evidence correctly or cases in which we have the evidence but misinterpret it..... HOOOO!  It is a never ending circular argument with layers and layers of metaphysics attached- it becomes Scholasticism and deciding if angels can occupy the same space or not.

I don't think so. To embrace thoroughgoing fallibilism doesn't mean we can't make arguments. It just means we reject absolute certainty. So long as one doesn't make the argument that certainty is necessary for realism then I don't see the problem. And of course that sort of argument would be self-refuting much like simplistic positivism statements are.

The main debate is over the meaning of "good." But one of the few places I'll give traditional analytic philosophy credit for its descent into natural language philosophy is in at least recognizing that the meaning of the words determines the argument. In this case so long as we agree upon what we mean by good it's quite plausible to assume realism is at least a possibility. I gave an example of this in the prior post with Utilitarianism. Now of course we can debate whether that's the proper sense of the meaning of good. But at least for those who think it is, certainly it entails moral realism.

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Please elaborate.

My circular argument warning light is going crazy. 

I take the Peircean definition of realism (which I think is far superior to the muddled way it was discussed from the 1960's onward in analytic philosophy - Dummett in particular) For Peirce the question is basically whether it's truth depends upon what any finite group of people are thinking about it. If it does then it's anti-realist and is a statement about their minds. If it doesn't then it's realist. He puts the finitism in there because he thinks inherent structures in the universe are mind-like in a certain sense - the way say a beehive exhibits mind like qualities.

Once you have that definition to go on (which largely comes from or at least is heavily influenced by Duns Scotus) then it becomes relatively trivial to determine what's a claim of realism dependent upon the boundaries of the claim itself. So the claim that all electrons have a mass of a certain value is a claim about electrons independent of what any human scientist thinks about it. Thus it's a realist claim. The claim that mass is always actual measured mass and has no meaning until the act of measurement is to make an anti-realist claim.

Thus to make a moral claim is just to ask whether the 'oughts' are structures in the universe independent of what we think of them. Now such claims may be tied to minds in some way, but so long as it's not finite minds there's no problem.

Edited July 12, 2017 by clarkgoble

[Johnnie Cake]

18 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

No it simply means God follows his own rules. IE; Can God lie? Technically Yes, he hasn't given up his own Agency. Will he lie? No, for to do so would make him not God.

Since this thread has completely flown off the rails....I'll just add that the biblical god has no problem instructing others to lie however. 

[Gray]

19 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

No it simply means God follows his own rules. IE; Can God lie? Technically Yes, he hasn't given up his own Agency. Will he lie? No, for to do so would make him not God.

If they're his own rules, he could changed them and do something different, and still be God.

[thesometimesaint]

5 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Since this thread has completely flown off the rails....I'll just add that the biblical god has no problem instructing others to lie however. 

I don't know all the circumstances behind those lies. So I am reserving judgment of God. Would God instruct you to lie if you doing so saved the life of your child? 

[ksfisher]

19 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I'll just add that the biblical god has no problem instructing others to lie however. 

Where?

[Johnnie Cake]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That appears to be exactly what is happening here.

Taht is not to say that atheists are immoral- obviously they are not.  But usually they are moral relativists- here Johnny has stated he is not, so I am wondering how he puts it all together, IF he has thought it through that far.

I suspect he has not.

Here are the secrets of living my amazing life without Mormonism: 

The Four Agreements are:

1. Be Impeccable with your Word: Speak with integrity. Say only what you mean. Avoid using the Word to speak against yourself or to gossip about others. Use the power of your Word in the direction of truth and love.

2. Don’t Take Anything Personally
Nothing others do is because of you. What others say and do is a projection of their own reality, their own dream. When you are immune to the opinions and actions of others, you won’t be the victim of needless suffering.

3. Don’t Make Assumptions
Find the courage to ask questions and to express what you really want. Communicate with others as clearly as you can to avoid misunderstandings, sadness and drama. With just this one agreement, you can completely transform your life.

4. Always Do Your Best
Your best is going to change from moment to moment; it will be different when you are healthy as opposed to sick. Under any circumstance, simply do your best, and you will avoid self-judgment, self-abuse, and regret.

[Johnnie Cake]

19 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Where?

God told Abraham to lie

[USU78]

16 minutes ago, Johnnie Cake said:

God told Abraham to lie

And if that lie saved lives, so what?