IS and OUGHT

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22261
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harbal wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:20 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 4:51 pm
Harbal wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 3:48 pm In order to believe in God, I would need to believe in magic.
I don't see why. "Magic" is mere tricksterism.
No, magic is supernatural intervention.
Actually, I think most people just call it what is it: "divine intervention." Sometimes, in extraordinary cases, it's called a "miracle." But nobody says "magic."
In general, they seem to do it recreationally. They're very happy to inform you, upon the mere mention of God, that they don't believe what you believe, and to inform you in such a way as is intended to imply you're foolish to do otherwise. They just hate it when you can push back. That makes them really, really mad...which it shouldn't, really, if they had any actual confidence.
What place has this in an argument?
It was just a refutation of your claim that Atheists don't argue. They do. And everyone knows they do. Harris, or Hitchens, Dawkins...what are they trying to do, if what they do is not "arguing"?
So you're fine with me believing in God? And everyone else, too? Just not you?
It wouldn't bother me too much if it were the case, but it is far from being the case. Of the regular posters on this forum, I certainly get the impression that significantly more than your 4% are atheists.
Maybe "regular posters on this forum" aren't everybody.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:28 pm
Harbal wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:20 pm

No, magic is supernatural intervention.
Actually, I think most people just call it what is it: "divine intervention." Sometimes, in extraordinary cases, it's called a "miracle." But nobody says "magic."
Why would they say magic when "devine intervention" sounds so much more godly?
It was just a refutation of your claim that Atheists don't argue. They do. And everyone knows they do. Harris, or Hitchens, Dawkins...what are they trying to do, if what they do is not "arguing"?
They are hardly typical examples of none believers, are they? And you can hardly deny that their religious equivalents at least equal them in number.

Maybe "regular posters on this forum" aren't everybody.
They aren't true Scotsmen, you mean? :)

Actually, while I admit there is no guarantee of high quality in their thinking, it is interesting that on a philosophy forum, which is a place where you would expect to find people who think about things more deeply than the average person, the percentage of atheists is higher than in the general population.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by henry quirk »

Harbal wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:21 pm Those is the rules, henry
Accordin' to the amoralists: there are no real rules, just opinions.
don't shoot the messenger. :)
Why not?
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by Harbal »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:53 pm
Harbal wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:21 pm Those is the rules, henry
Accordin' to the amoralists: there are no real rules, just opinions.
I never listen to ists, henry.
henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:53 pm
Harbal wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:21 pm
don't shoot the messenger. :)
Why not?
Because, on this occasion, I was the messenger. That's a good enough reason for me.
User avatar
Sculptor
Posts: 8535
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:32 pm

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by Sculptor »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:53 pm
Harbal wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:21 pm Those is the rules, henry
Accordin' to the amoralists: there are no real rules, just opinions.
don't shoot the messenger. :)
Why not?
Who are these imaginary amoralists?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22261
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harbal wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 5:50 pm
It was just a refutation of your claim that Atheists don't argue. They do. And everyone knows they do. Harris, or Hitchens, Dawkins...what are they trying to do, if what they do is not "arguing"?
They are hardly typical examples of none believers, are they?
Non-believers are not Atheists. They're agnostics.

It's dis-believers who are Atheists.
Maybe "regular posters on this forum" aren't everybody.
They aren't true Scotsmen, you mean? :)
No. Just aren't representative of the general population.

Do you think they are?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by henry quirk »

Harbal.
I never listen to ists, henry.
You are an ist.

*
Because, on this occasion, I was the messenger. That's a good enough reason for me.
Which, of course, means nuthin'.

-----

Sculptor,
Who are these imaginary amoralists?
You're one.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 6:32 pm
No. Just aren't representative of the general population.

Do you think they are?
Probably not, but I think that supports my view more than yours.

The thing is; while the majority of people may say they believe in a God of some sort, many have no firm ideas about God, and most don't consider the Bible to be something that should be taken literally. For the average person, their moral conduct isn't informed by any religious belief. That's certainly what seems to be the case in my part of the world; I can't comment on your part. As for the USA, the more I hear, the more shocking I find it. It wasn't until the internet got into full swing that I became aware of how "religious" some parts of the USA are, and I do not think it's a religiosity that could be held up as a paragon of morality. From what I've seen, some of them are appalling people. My point is; just to say that a person believes in God tells you no more about that person than saying someone in an atheist tells you.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by Harbal »

henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 6:58 pm
Which, of course, means nuthin'.
It means something to me, henry.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 14706
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm
Location: Right here, a little less busy.

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by henry quirk »

Harbal wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 7:09 pm
henry quirk wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 6:58 pm
Which, of course, means nuthin'.
It means something to me, henry.
I know.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22261
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harbal wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 7:08 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 6:32 pm
No. Just aren't representative of the general population.

Do you think they are?
Probably not, but I think that supports my view more than yours.
I don't think it does, actually.

As you rightly point out, being here is no particular guarantee of anything...it's an open forum. And we can probably both point to plenty of posts that make one wonder if there shouldn't at least be some minimum intelligence prerequisite... :wink:
For the average person, their moral conduct isn't informed by any religious belief.
The average secular Westerner, you mean. Others are more aware of the derivation.

But this is hardly a stroke in the favour of secular Westerners. All it means it that a lot of them are not aware of where their moral beliefs actually come from. And they continue to replicate behaviours that their Atheism or agnosticism give them no reason to suppose are obligatory. So it seems they've just "reified" (to use the PoMo term) morality into their consciousness, and have lost all sense that they owe it nothing.

That's hardly high praise for them.
...just to say that a person believes in God tells you no more about that person than saying someone in an atheist tells you.
Well, it doesn't even tell you which "god" they think they believe in, or what they mean by "believe." So yes, they can be just as ignorant of their own beliefs as an Atheist can be. But here's the difference: whereas a thinking Christian can find the logic that connects belief to action, the way his ontology sponsors morality, the Atheist never can -- and the more thinking the Atheist is, the more he's likely to realize the absence of any such connection.

That's why Nietzsche recognized it, but most garden-variety Atheists are probably still oblivious to it. They simply lack either Neitzsche's perspecacity, or his nerve.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:32 pm

But this is hardly a stroke in the favour of secular Westerners. All it means it that a lot of them are not aware of where their moral beliefs actually come from. And they continue to replicate behaviours that their Atheism or agnosticism give them no reason to suppose are obligatory. So it seems they've just "reified" (to use the PoMo term) morality into their consciousness, and have lost all sense that they owe it nothing.
I suppose to you, and those like you, morality is a rational matter. Act in accordance with the wishes of God, because that is what is required of you. Whereas a secular person has to be guided by his emotions in matters of morality. You seem to think that that devalues secular morality, and I think it enhances it. It isn't really a difference in opinion that is suceptible to argument as far as it being resolved is concerned. And why does it even need to be resolved? I can live with this situation, can't you?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22261
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harbal wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:50 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 8:32 pm

But this is hardly a stroke in the favour of secular Westerners. All it means it that a lot of them are not aware of where their moral beliefs actually come from. And they continue to replicate behaviours that their Atheism or agnosticism give them no reason to suppose are obligatory. So it seems they've just "reified" (to use the PoMo term) morality into their consciousness, and have lost all sense that they owe it nothing.
I suppose to you, and those like you, morality is a rational matter.
That's too broad a claim, but it's essentially right. Morality is a matter of getting your behaviour lined up with your beliefs, so that what you think is really true is reflected properly in what you do. It takes reasoning to do that.

Does that make it "rational"? In one sense, yes: it means there's a rational relationship between beliefs and action. But it's not "rational" in the impersonal, secular sense of that word, which means, "available to pure, indifferent reason." For a person who does not believe in God cannot "reason" from the claim, "this universe is an accident" to "therefore I must morally do X." There never will be a rational link there.
...a secular person has to be guided by his emotions in matters of morality.
Actually, he doesn't "have to" anything. :shock:

There are no "have to's" in his world. There's no necessity of any moral precept at all, and no duty to follow any. He can if he wants, but nothing says he "has to."

So he has no "guides." And there's nowhere for his emotions to "guide" him. Nothing's morally obligatory.
User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 9563
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by Harbal »

Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 9:03 pm
Actually, he doesn't "have to" anything.
That is true. He could choose to ignore the dictates of his conscience, just as you could choose to ignore those of God. It seems we are not so different after all, we just have different masters.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22261
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: IS and OUGHT

Post by Immanuel Can »

Harbal wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 9:11 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Fri Aug 12, 2022 9:03 pm Actually, he doesn't "have to" anything.
That is true. He could choose to ignore the dictates of his conscience, just as you could choose to ignore those of God.
Yes. But whereas I would have to answer for doing so, he believes he will never have to answer for it.

Of course, that he believes that doesn't mean he won't. It just means he doesn't know he will.
Post Reply