keith wrote:

"Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote in message
news:<2rj0o1F19j5hkU1@uni-berlin.de>...

keith wrote:

"Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote in message
news:<2rhb0tF19u95qU1@uni-berlin.de>...

keith wrote:

<big snip>...>> > That seems like a contradiction to me.

Seems perfectly straightforward to me. We have opinions that are
based on the way something makes us feel, and are thus particular
to the individual, rather than being based on anything objective
and independent of the individual.

I wouldn't phrase it that way. I would say that our moral opinions are
based on our consciences, which is the faculty of moral understanding.
Moral perceptions do indeed come with a feeling and nobody else can
feel *my* feelings, but then again no one else can have *my* sensory
perceptions either.

You feelings have always been molded by the society (and religion)
you are brought up in. To medieval Mongols, lesser nations of
mere farmer and townspeople were scum of the earth, to be ruthlessly
wiped out that man might live the way man is supposed to live, on
horseback, raiding and killing and keeping the plains free of lessor
breeds of man. Their simple religion of the time had nothing to say
against this elitest and cruel idea of how the world was supposed to be.

Islam has the Quran that allows slavery and for centuries expansionist
Islam enslaved hundreds of millions of people as daily routine.
You can still find Slavery in Islamic parts of the world, notably
Sudan and "the Feudals" of back country Pakistan.
Again, moral opinions are based on conciousness, based on
custom, religion and culture, they do not stand alone and above that.

Moral understandings of far right pre-war Japan allowed many
to become cruel and savage oppressors of China and Korea
and elsewhere, based on an exaggerted moral creed based
on warlike Shinto Medieval Japan.

In America, we had a century of Jim Crow, racism segregation,
and lynchings in the South, a remarkable religous part of the
world. where the bible was preached in a million churches
every Sunday.

Cultures and religions are remarkably capable of
supporting rather grotesque (to us) moral opinions
and have been since the beginning of written history.
And all cultures, bad evil, or very evil, have had their religions
which either commanded, encouraged or at worst did not
ameliorate this behavior much at all.

**********************

I would say that if right and wrong are applicable terms, the
notion isn't subjective.

Why do you think we can't have subjective opinions about whether
something is right or wrong? In morality, an action is regarded
as wrong if it makes us feel bad and feel that it shouldn't
happen.

Yeah, and that feeling that it shouldn't be done entails feeling that
the tastes of those who disagree with you is flawed.

Who is right? Which culture, which religion?

Our culture is very influenced by sober, moral
scholarship of the enlightement and 18th century England,
Hobbes, Kant, Bentham, Mills, Locke, and other thinkers
and theorists.

Which is one reason we are far different from
medieval Mongols or Sudanese Moslems, or pre-war Japan or
Roman Catholic Crusader Europe of the middle ages,
or Christian Europe during the religous wars of the 1500's,
the Reformation and Counter-Reformation.

Sometimes. Unless perverted by bad culture as in
the Jim Crow American South.

Moral theorists as mentioned above, tried to be
objective in the sense, we all hate to be killed,
robbed and oppressed.
The problem was how to achieve such a society.
Which is what they wrote about, a good example
would be Hobbe's "Leviathan" which made this
explicit and plays a large part in the role of making
our moral culture of today which is based explicitly
on such theories of morals and culture. Our nation
was founded by men who were deeply influenced
by people like Hobbes and Locke and their theories
of morals and government.
And is a large part of why they insisted on keeping
government and religion seperate. They also knew
history.

None of that entails any kind of *objective*
determination of the rightness or wrongness of the action, it's
simply based on how we feel (just like aesthetics), i.e. it's
subjective.

It seems to me that you are saying that because we come to our moral
beliefs by way of subjective experience therefore the thing we believe
isn't objective. I would disagree and note that everything we know
comes to us via subjective experience.

see you later
Keith

"Icarus" <icarus_uk@email.com> wrote in message
news:<2rhb0tF19u95qU1@uni-berlin.de>...

keith wrote:

<big snip>...

You wondered why a person was not suffering from cognitive
dissonance as a result of ignoring the obvious existence of
objective morality, but, since you have only your opinion as
to its existence, your question was, in fact, baseless.

In fact, That's *not* what I said should lead to cognitive
dissonance.
I said that the belief that morals are subjective should lead
to
cognitive dissonance, because a person who thinks that morals
are
subject cannot logically think contrary moral views are wrong,
and yet
that's necessarily what people *do* think when making moral
statements. My comment had nothing to do with their ignoring
evidence.

The view that morality is subjective doesn't mean that moral views
don't exist - It just identifies moral views as dependent on the
individual, rather than having any mind-independent existence.

That seems like a contradiction to me. If I think the holocaust was
morally wrong, then I necessarily think that the nazis ought not have
done it, which means I cannot think that the nazi who says that the
holocaust was a moral imperative was right. On the other hand, if I
say that Tool (the band) is boring, I *can* think that you are right
if you like Tool--because I know that what's boring is subjective.

qally strong Lev 22:10.

Therefore there is no cognitive dissonance involved in regarding
morality as subjective, whilst at the same time holding moral views
yourself and regarding contrary moral views as wrong. That, after
all, is what subjective morality is all about. It doesn't deny moral
views, it just identifies the nature of them.

I would say that if right and wrong are applicable terms, the notion
isn't subjective.

Keith

thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:<trg1l05006481a12ahi8dvbi0tpl2aksi0@4ax.com>...

On 20 Sep 2004 20:58:45 -0700,

thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:<q0cuk010c7qpnucpnmuk3oqok15kj1al0i@4ax.com>...

On 19 Sep 2004 09:22:09 -0700,

thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message
news:<risnk0pbeh4aundo4ppi5m9u7pst3pd6ga@4ax.com>...

On 17 Sep 2004 16:47:47 -0700,

(snip)

As I explained to my friend Jess, I consider the existence of
objective moral truth to *be* evidence for God. I consider it
obviously true that objective moral facts existm which is why I offer
them as evidence. But I know you don't agree with me that such is
evidence, probably because you don't agree that objectve moral facts
exist.

I see. In other words you have no evidence for objective moral truth.

You are correct, I don't have evidence for that. But I would say your
insistance that one have evidence for evidence for evidence...ad
infinitum is self-defeating.

I have insisted on no such thing. You said evidence was being
ignored. Now you say you have no evidence. Therefore your claim that
evidence was being ignored was baseless. Don't worry; I never
expected a rational answer. I am just pointing out yet one more
absurdity.

You are mistaken. The statement "objective moral values exists" is
either true or it is false.

thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<trg1l05006481a12ahi8dvbi0tpl2aksi0@4ax.com>...

On 20 Sep 2004 20:58:45 -0700,

thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<q0cuk010c7qpnucpnmuk3oqok15kj1al0i@4ax.com>...

On 19 Sep 2004 09:22:09 -0700,

thomas p <thomasagainspam@yahoo.dk> wrote in message news:<risnk0pbeh4aundo4ppi5m9u7pst3pd6ga@4ax.com>...

On 17 Sep 2004 16:47:47 -0700,

(snip)

As I explained to my friend Jess, I consider the existence of
objective moral truth to *be* evidence for God. I consider it
obviously true that objective moral facts existm which is why I offer
them as evidence. But I know you don't agree with me that such is
evidence, probably because you don't agree that objectve moral facts
exist.

I see. In other words you have no evidence for objective moral truth.

You are correct, I don't have evidence for that. But I would say your
insistance that one have evidence for evidence for evidence...ad
infinitum is self-defeating.

I have insisted on no such thing. You said evidence was being
ignored. Now you say you have no evidence. Therefore your claim that
evidence was being ignored was baseless. Don't worry; I never
expected a rational answer. I am just pointing out yet one more
absurdity.

You are mistaken. The statement "objective moral values exists" is
either true or it is false. Whether or not I have *evidence* for the
truth of that statement, if it's true it's true. Likewise for the
statement "if objective morals exist then it is very likely that God
exists". Now if the above statements are true, then God probably
exists, and in that case,objective moral values are evidence for
God--and if you ignore those values you are ignoring evidence. Since
IF objective morals exist they are evidence for God, the statement
that I have no evidence for God equates to the strong statement that
objective moral values DON'T exist. Whether or not I have evidence for
the existence of objective morals, you haven't offered any reason to
think they *don't* exist, thus you have offered no supoprt for your
assertion that I have no evidence for God.

On 17 Sep 2004 16:47:47 -0700,

jesshc@phantomemail.com (JessHC) wrote in message news:<d58e3ac.0409170745.470e4ce8@posting.google.com>...

(snip)

snip

I'm still not understanding. I haven't seen any convincing evidence
against materialism, and don't understand how that would reduce the
probablity of atheism anyway.

You don't find the evidence of objective moral truth to be evidence
against materialism

What evidence?

because you have denied the existence of objective
moral truth. I fyou really believe that, you ought to feel a sense of
cognitive dissonence every time you feel a sense of injustice. Or so
it seems to me.

Why do you criticize people for ignoring evidence that has not been
provided? Doesn't that cause cognitive dissonance?

I would say that we deem things like the holocaust to be
immoral because our properly functioning consciences
accurately report to us that objective moral fact.

You don't find the evidence of objective moral truth to be
evidence against materialism because you have denied
the existence of objective moral truth. If you really believe
that, you ought to feel a sense of cognitive dissonence
every time you feel a sense of injustice. Or so it seems
to me.

jesshc@phantomemail.com (JessHC) wrote in message
news:<d58e3ac.0409161301.1e3ff0a4@posting.google.com>...

keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in message
news:<ba696799.0409160531.60ac3a6f@posting.google.com>...

jesshc@phantomemail.com (JessHC) wrote in message
news:<d58e3ac.0409151129.3898c719@posting.google.com>...

keithj43@yahoo.com (keith) wrote in message
news:<ba696799.0409150523.5abfbe06@posting.google.com>...

(snip)

Golly, there's a surprize; you dodged. Answer the question: Why do
you believe in something for which there is no evidence? What thing
is it you presume I believe in without evidence?

It wasn't really a dodge, the point I was making is that it is
necessarily the case that each of us believe something without
evidence, if we believe anything at all.

I asked a straightforward question, and you responded by not
answering. Looks like a dodge to me. And again I ask, what thing is
it you presume I believe in without evidence? Why do you think "it is
necessarily the case that each of us believe something without
evidence, if we believe anything at all"? I don't agree, but maybe
you can come up with an example that will sway me.

You couldn't evaluate
evidence at all without presupposed premises from which you make your
evaluation.

What do you mean by "presupposed premises"? Ideally, one should
evaluate evidence with no preconceptions, apart from things like "the
universe exists" and the like. Is that what you mean by presupposed
premises?

Those are among the presupposed premises, but there are also others.
For example: astronomers look at the spectral patterns in stars and
conclude that they use hydrogen fusion to produce their light. This
presupposes that the laws of physics are the same light-years away as
they are in labs in earth. You can't *test* this hypothesis unless you
actually *go* to those places, and we haven't done so. Without the
presupposition you couldn't infer anything about those far off stars.
Similarly for estimating the age of the universe. We make some
observations, and trace things back to a point, assuming that the
universe wasn't simply created at some more recent time, what would
have been fully formed at that time. You can't have evidence for
either of those presuppositions, but without them you couldn't infer
anything about things far away in space or long agao in time.

If you are realy interested I can tell you why *I*
believe, what *I* see as evidence, but I am betting that you won't
agree with me that it *is* evidence.

Having seen what theists think is "evidence," I have "presupposed
premises" as to what your "evidence" would consist of, and it's
probably something entirely subjective or completely unverifiable.
That you recognize the problem is in your favor, in my opinion; do you
have any evidence that is objective and verifiable?

Yes. The universe exists, that's an objective fact--you can verify
this fact by looking up at the night sky. Also an objective fact--this
might seem more debatable to you--there are objectivekly true moral
facts. From things like this I infer that God exists.

And I must ask you: where do *you* get off *demanding* that I answer
the question, like some kind of prosecuter?

I hardly think asking you to clarify why you believe in something for
which, you seem to agree, there is no objective, verifiable evidence
is an outrageous request.

Requests aren't usually expressed like this: "Golly, there's a
surprize; you dodged. Answer the question...". A request is usually
made in the form of a question.

You came to alt.atheism and made the
statement "God exists, but I can't prove it" (paraphrased); what sort
of response did you expect? I was trying to be polite. I'm sure you
would have preferred something more like "Well, shoot, you convinced
me."

I would *not* have preferred that. I only want you to be honest with
me, and if you don't believe then you'd be lying to say different. I
did indeed come to a.a.; I responded to a person who made an assertion
about God. I counter-asserted the contrary. If you guys are serious
about evidence you'd demand evidence even when *atheists* make
assertions.

Anyway, here is a bit of what I consider to be evidence for God, along
with the premise that I use to interpret it (there are other things,
but I'll wait until I know you are seriously asking me to type all
that).

Have you seen earl's "Evidences of God" monograph? He posts it
semi-regularly here. I hope someone more well-versed in logic and
more intelligent than me addresses these points, but suspect they've
all plonked you already.

1. There exist some things that are objectively morally wrong. For
example, the Holocaust.

We have evolved to be a social, empathic animal; that's where our
morals come from.

Evolution can at most give us moral instinct. It doesn't even address
the issue of why things like the Holocaust are actually immoral. If
evolution were all there were to it, then our belief that some things
are objectively morally wrong would be nothing more than a useful
illusion, with no moral significance at all.

What's god got to do with that? In fact, morality
is in large part fluid; what may be objectionable in one culture,
might be accepted in another.

For example the nazis accepted--even embraced--the murder of Jews. the
fact that a culture accepts a given behavior doesn't mean the behavior
isn't immoral.