I don't have enough faith to be an atheist ch 2

[Pseudonym]

OK, it is either actual meaning or illusionary meaning, in both cases, we sense meaning. But there is no midway point between actual meaning and illusionary meaning. To act incredulous at the suggestion makes you sound balanced and wise, but it fails philosophically.

That's an interesting claim, and many generations of Christian philosophers since Kierkegaard would disagree with you.

Take abstract expressionist art, for example. Is all "meaning" in such works of art illusionary? Not really, because it's the intention of the artist that the viewer come to their own interpretation. That's the point.

[tonyenglish7]

OK, it is either actual meaning or illusionary meaning, in both cases, we sense meaning. But there is no midway point between actual meaning and illusionary meaning. To act incredulous at the suggestion makes you sound balanced and wise, but it fails philosophically.

That's an interesting claim, and many generations of Christian philosophers since Kierkegaard would disagree with you.

Take abstract expressionist art, for example. Is all "meaning" in such works of art illusionary? Not really, because it's the intention of the artist that the viewer come to their own interpretation. That's the point.

Just because some things are on a continuum doesn't mean everything is. Just because some things are subjective, doesn't mean everything is. In fact, the very statement, "all things are subjective" is self defeating and therefore proves it's opposite. The canvas for the subjective painting is either real or unreal, the universe is in existence or it is not. And all things that are on a continuum are attached or refer to things that are not on a continuum.

So, the question is this; Is the standard as to which something is judged to be moral, real or not? I say yes, you say ???

[OzAnt]

You are stumbling over your own opinion.

You asked how we would know if a society is getting more moral if there wasn't a yardstick to measure it against (ie: objective real standard).

How would we know that a society is getting more moral? Based upon what standard?

I simply pointed out that Christianity isn't a good, useful or practical yardstick (ie: Christianity fails as an objective real standard). Granted, it's my opinion, but how am I stumbling?

I do not hold that Christians have all of morality down to a perfectly clear program and that every question is black and white.

Terrific, because it would be foolish to suggest so.

But I do hold that the majority of humans on the planet hold to a majority of the moral standards that are available on a self evident basis.

This is more than good. You, not unlike myself, recognise that there's no god involved or required.

Just because there are some issues that are not clear, doesn't change the discussion at all. All I need is one single moral code that is real and I win the discussion.

And you've gone and lost me again. In your previous paragraph, you stated

that there is either a "sense" of morality, or there is real morality. That is the discussion.

Now, I take that to mean that real morality is rightfully grounded in your Christian God, right? I base this on posts you've made in this thread

Yes, sometimes it seems like morals change in the bible but they do not.

The problem here is that there's no evidence your God is real; which means that, as far as I'm concerned at least, you're grounding your morals in nothing more than thin air. This is where NHB sees danger, because if we all accepted your point of view we'd still be, for example, burning witches at the stake.

I submit that it's you that's stumbling over your opinion.

Ant

[Mr. Sluagh]

OK, it is either actual meaning or illusionary meaning, in both cases, we sense meaning. But there is no midway point between actual meaning and illusionary meaning. To act incredulous at the suggestion makes you sound balanced and wise, but it fails philosophically.

That's an interesting claim, and many generations of Christian philosophers since Kierkegaard would disagree with you.

Take abstract expressionist art, for example. Is all "meaning" in such works of art illusionary? Not really, because it's the intention of the artist that the viewer come to their own interpretation. That's the point.

Just because some things are on a continuum doesn't mean everything is. Just because some things are subjective, doesn't mean everything is. In fact, the very statement, "all things are subjective" is self defeating and therefore proves it's opposite. The canvas for the subjective painting is either real or unreal, the universe is in existence or it is not. And all things that are on a continuum are attached or refer to things that are not on a continuum.

By what criteria do you place morality in the same category as whether the canvas exists rather than whether the painting is good? I think morality clearly in the second category. Think of Lewis' piano analogy, only without the ridiculous idea that there's only one good song, or that if there isn't, there's no good music. Morality is the art of living. This is scary because bad paintings don't kill people, but that's life.

So, the question is this; Is the standard as to which something is judged to be moral, real or not? I say yes, you say ???

Reread the first paragraph of my last post. Did I say there were no real standards by which to judge whether something was moral, or did I list (in abstract) several such standards? Granted, my standards are lower than yours, but they're still standards. They're not based on awe-inspiring, palpable ideals, they're based on the humble reality that we're all stuck on this rock together, we all want to make the best of our short time here, and we all depend on each other to do that. This is less heartening, but I think it's more realistic. When a person demands absolute moral standards from the universe, you sound a teenager whose poor parents just got him a used car for his sixteenth birthday who's now having a tantrum because they didn't get him a Ferrari. (Or rather, convincing himself that it's a Ferrari so he doesn't have to have a tantrum.)

[StillSearching]

So, the question is this; Is the standard as to which something is judged to be moral, real or not? I say yes, you say ???

Yes, the standard is real, and it varies greatly by time and culture.

fin

[Pseudonym]

Yes, the standard is real, and it varies greatly by time and culture.

Thanks, SS, that's a great answer, and much more succinct than I would have put it.

An obvious example in the Bible is slavery.

In Biblical times, slavery was considered a fact of life. It wasn't necessarily right or wrong, but the Biblical authors' consensus opinion is that if you're going to do it, do it right.

If you understand the historical context, this makes perfect sense. Humans have always relied on labour-saving devices to make our civilisation work, and a slave is the ultimate labour-saving device. It's no coincidence that slavery tends to end in countries around the same time that they have their industrial revolution (with some notable exceptions, such as Hungary).

Moreover, at the time, it was better than the alternative. Once upon a time, when you conquered a city, you utterly destroyed it and everyone in it. When the option of taking people into slavery came about, a lot fewer massacres took place.

[spongebob]

Just because some things are subjective, doesn't mean everything is. In fact, the very statement, "all things are subjective" is self defeating and therefore proves it's opposite.

I'm always amazed at the fallacious logic Tony can cook up. Tony, just where do you get this stuff? What logical argument can you possibly make to support this claim? I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the base claim here, that all things are subjective or not subjective, but I just don't see any logic in your claim that such a statement is "self defeating".

Here's an example of a "self-defeating" assertion: All possible knowledge in the universe is known.

Now that's self defeating because no matter how much knowledge one has of the universe, he/she does not know what they do not know. I don't see the same kind of logical consistency in your claim that "all things are subjective" is a self-defeating assertion. If I make the assertion that all things are subjective, then I've not contradicted my claim by making such a statement. From my singular perspective, I can certainly argue that all things are subjective. I could be wrong, but my argument itself is not self-contradictory.

The canvas for the subjective painting is either real or unreal, the universe is in existence or it is not. And all things that are on a continuum are attached or refer to things that are not on a continuum.

Tony, you should spend some time reading Stephen Hawking or Albert Einstein. If you think you know what is real and what is not real, you might be surprised.

[spongebob]

If you are a complicated result of natural selection by chance changes over time and lack a designer, or a personal cause, and lack any future after death, then any concept of meaning is well, meaningless. The only meaning you have is the illusion of meaning you experience when you are alive, that is it. But even that is not what we are discussing, we are talking about real meaning and purpose.

Tony, I've yet to hear a single Christian provide a convincing case that their life is any less meaningless, that what Christians do is any different from what atheists do, in regards to meaning. I know you spend a lot of time noodling around with concepts like everlasting life and eternal love and higher power, but it basically sounds meaningless to me, and I lived this stuff for over 20 years! I'm sure I spouted this stuff at one time myself, embarrassing as it now seems. But when the conversation is over, all I really take away from it is that Christians live each day of their life (more or less) in a manner specified by a guy who may or may not have lived/died/resurrected some 2,000 years ago. And by sheer coincidence, I happen to agree with about 75% of it. So, we're talking about a difference of 25% and the origin of the ideas. No big deal to me. Heck, I think Catholics and Calvinists probably disagree by at least 30%.

[tonyenglish7]

Just because some things are subjective, doesn't mean everything is. In fact, the very statement, "all things are subjective" is self defeating and therefore proves it's opposite.

I'm always amazed at the fallacious logic Tony can cook up. Tony, just where do you get this stuff? What logical argument can you possibly make to support this claim? I'm not saying I agree or disagree with the base claim here, that all things are subjective or not subjective, but I just don't see any logic in your claim that such a statement is "self defeating".

Here's an example of a "self-defeating" assertion: All possible knowledge in the universe is known.

Now that's self defeating because no matter how much knowledge one has of the universe, he/she does not know what they do not know. I don't see the same kind of logical consistency in your claim that "all things are subjective" is a self-defeating assertion. If I make the assertion that all things are subjective, then I've not contradicted my claim by making such a statement. From my singular perspective, I can certainly argue that all things are subjective. I could be wrong, but my argument itself is not self-contradictory.

The canvas for the subjective painting is either real or unreal, the universe is in existence or it is not. And all things that are on a continuum are attached or refer to things that are not on a continuum.

Tony, you should spend some time reading Stephen Hawking or Albert Einstein. If you think you know what is real and what is not real, you might be surprised.

Dude, the statement, "all things are subjective" is an objective statement, which being "objective" commits suicide, is self refuting and is a classic example used in Logic 101. But thanks for the lesson in Logic! Do I have to explain it more??????

I have read Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstien, I actually have a polaroid of Albert Eistein with a friend of my Dad which was given to me when I was 8 years old. He is one of my hero's. It was taken when he was hiding from the Nazi's.

Stephen Hawking used imaginary numbers and divided by Zero and used "negative time" in his case to make the universe out to be self existent. It was trashed by virtually every one in his own field.

[spongebob]

Dude, the statement, "all things are subjective" is an objective statement, which being "objective" commits suicide, is self refuting and is a classic example used in Logic 101. But thanks for the lesson in Logic! Do I have to explain it more??????

But what makes it "objective" if only one person asserts it?

I have read Stephen Hawking and Albert Einstien, I actually have a polaroid of Albert Eistein with a friend of my Dad which was given to me when I was 8 years old. He is one of my hero's. It was taken when he was hiding from the Nazi's.

Well, that's very nice. It's interesting that you hold an atheist as a hero. And I'm glad to hear you've read some of their work. For some reason I don't see it having influenced your thinking process.

Stephen Hawking used imaginary numbers and divided by Zero and used "negative time" in his case to make the universe out to be self existent. It was trashed by virtually every one in his own field.

Tony, imaginary numbers are a completely normal part of mathematics; there's nothing *strange* about them. Energy calculations wouldn't work without them. I doubt you really understand any other mathematics Hawking has used in his work. And his ideas on String Theory have not yet been born out by evidence, but they haven't been falsified either.

And I'm still not convinced by your assertions of "meaning and purpose".

[tonyenglish7]

Dude, the statement, "all things are subjective" is an objective statement, which being "objective" commits suicide, is self refuting and is a classic example used in Logic 101. But thanks for the lesson in Logic! Do I have to explain it more??????

But what makes it "objective" if only one person asserts it?
[quote]

OK, let's try this again... the statement "All things are subjective" is either an objective statement, or a subjective one. If it is objective, it violoates it's own premise, namely that all things are subjective. But if it is subjective, then it is not actually saying anything. If you said, "some things are subjective" that would not be self refuting. But it uses the word "all" things are subjective. It is an objective statement about all things being subjective. It doesn't matter how many or how few people say it, the meaning stays the same.

It is like saying, "I do not speak a word of English" in English, that would be self refuting. OR, "I am a married bachelor". Or this is a square circle. Or, all things are subjective, opps, the example typically used to teach this point is the actual point we are discussing...

[spongebob]

OK, let's try this again... the statement "All things are subjective" is either an objective statement, or a subjective one. If it is objective, it violoates it's own premise, namely that all things are subjective. But if it is subjective, then it is not actually saying anything. If you said, "some things are subjective" that would not be self refuting. But it uses the word "all" things are subjective. It is an objective statement about all things being subjective. It doesn't matter how many or how few people say it, the meaning stays the same.

It is like saying, "I do not speak a word of English" in English, that would be self refuting. OR, "I am a married bachelor". Or this is a square circle. Or, all things are subjective, opps, the example typically used to teach this point is the actual point we are discussing...

I disagree. I don't see your analogies as consistent. What makes an idea objective is multiple points of view, Tony. If one person says, "All things are subjective", then he could very well be correct. But if two people agree that, "All things are subjective", then a breach of logic has occurred because the two people have just objectively validated an idea. The act of declaring multiple (or all) things to be subjective does not violate any logical rule. I'm simply stating my (subjective) opinion in the matter. In fact, as a single opinion, it's difficult for me to even quantify objectivity. Think of it this way. If you were the only conscious intelligent being in the universe and you declared that, "all things are subjective". Who's going to disagree? From your perspective, everything is subjective.

What you seem to be asserting is that by using the term "all", it is not logically consistent to declare subjectivity. So what's magic about the word "all"? What if I asserted that 99.9% of everything is subjective? That still leaves lots of things that might be objective, but would you consider it logically inconsistent? What number would you consider accurate? 90%? 50%? And where's the dividing line? What's your criteria? And how is a single mind to know the difference between subjective and objective? I just don't see how declaring things to be subjective is an objective statement. I think maybe you are talking about absolutes. If I stated that everything in the universe is absolute, that would likely be logically invalid because I don't have absolute knowledge of everything.

When I assert that I'm being objective about something, it usually means I'm considering the opinions or ideas or experiences of others in my analysis.
I don't think I can truly go outside my own consciousness and experience life, so I know of no way to objectively experience life other than considering the experiences of others. Even if I choose to reject another's experience, I can still be objective in my final analysis because I'm considering the issue from more than one point of view.

[JustJim]

Spongebob,

I think Tony is misunderstanding and misapplying Norm Geisler's ridiculous (illogical) "RoadRunner tactic" for dealing with self-refuting statements in the book I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be An Atheist. But I could be mistaken.

Jim

[nogods]

Dude, the statement, "all things are subjective" is an objective statement, which being "objective" commits suicide, is self refuting and is a classic example used in Logic 101. But thanks for the lesson in Logic! Do I have to explain it more??????

But what makes it "objective" if only one person asserts it?

OK, let's try this again... the statement "All things are subjective" is either an objective statement, or a subjective one. If it is objective, it violoates it's own premise, namely that all things are subjective. But if it is subjective, then it is not actually saying anything. If you said, "some things are subjective" that would not be self refuting. But it uses the word "all" things are subjective. It is an objective statement about all things being subjective. It doesn't matter how many or how few people say it, the meaning stays the same.

It is like saying, "I do not speak a word of English" in English, that would be self refuting. OR, "I am a married bachelor". Or this is a square circle. Or, all things are subjective, opps, the example typically used to teach this point is the actual point we are discussing...

Is this not an argument from a negative. If something is subjective - it is subjective, to ask for objactive proof of a subjective statement is simply mixing categories. It is like asking for a cat to bark? pointless - So why ask?

It seems you ask because you want to argue that if there is no way to prove that a subjective statement is objectivly true, then objective staements - of the type used in this arguement - must exist. But this is the very thing that you have not proved.

I fear the terms objective and absolute are confused with these kind of statements. For example, I believe in objective morality - as opposed to subjective morality- but that does not mean I think there is such a thing as 'absolute' morality.

There are no absolute statements. Theism is the search for Plato's 'ideals,' problem is none have been found, therefore the reasonable conclusion to draw is that none exist.

[JustJim]

There are no absolute statements.

Are you absolutely sure about that?

Jim