Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stout said:
Where did that idea that certain topics (religion and politics) are "forbidden" to skepticism, come from ? I must have missed that memo.
Click to expand...

If someone is making untestable faith claims (e.g. history is a providential outworking of God's will, history is a class struggle between owners and labour, history is a gender struggle between patriarchs and women, etc.) then they aren't going to be particularly amenable to the skeptical process. You have to be willing to put forward testable claims to engage with scientific skepticism, and while psychics and dowsers and faith-healers can do that, but oftentimes people of faith (whether it's Theism, Marxism, or Feminism) cannot.
 
d4m10n said:
If someone is making untestable faith claims (e.g. history is a providential outworking of God's will, history is a class struggle between owners and labour, history is a gender struggle between patriarchs and women, etc.) then they aren't going to be particularly amenable to the skeptical process. You have to be willing to put forward testable claims to engage with scientific skepticism, and while psychics and dowsers and faith-healers can do that, but oftentimes people of faith (whether it's Theism, Marxism, or Feminism) cannot.
Click to expand...
If your view is outside of skepticism then your view is outside of reason. What's the point?
 
Stout said:
Where did that idea that certain topics (religion and politics) are "forbidden" to skepticism, come from ? I must have missed that memo.
Click to expand...

That's because you're just projecting from your cocoon of privilege, Stout. Only true believers got the memo, get it? They have an entire thread on arguments to avoid.

This is not your grandmother's skepticism. This is Skepticism+! ;)
 
Stout said:
Where did that idea that certain topics (religion and politics) are "forbidden" to skepticism, come from ? I must have missed that memo.
Click to expand...
Steve Novella recently made a claim sort of similar, but not exactly that.
He said (correctly, IMO) that values claims are outside the scope of skepticism.
 
RandFan said:
If your view is outside of skepticism then your view is outside of reason. What's the point?
Click to expand...

This is outside of the discussion about A+, but I think we all hold views outside of skepticism andreason.
For example, altruistic impulses are not necessarily rational or based in logic/skepticism. We can use reason, science, and skepticism to direct those instincts and understand where they come from, but views like "Causing other people suffering is wrong" and "Genocide is bad" are not anywhere close to scientific facts or based in logic.
 
kellyb said:
This is outside of the discussion about A+, but I think we all hold views outside of skepticism andreason.
For example, altruistic impulses are not necessarily rational or based in logic/skepticism. We can use reason, science, and skepticism to direct those instincts and understand where they come from, but views like "Causing other people suffering is wrong" and "Genocide is bad" are not anywhere close to scientific facts or based in logic.
Click to expand...
I agree that impulses are not necessarily rational or based in logic/skepticism. I agree we can use reason, science and skepticism to understand those instincts. I agree that what is and is not moral is not a scientific fact. What I do not agree with is that there is no moral reasoning which is what you seem to be saying. Is that correct, you believe that moral, legal and ethical philosophers cannot apply logic and reason to their respective fields?

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy said:
Moral reasoning is individual or collective practical reasoning about what, morally, one ought to do.
Click to expand...

You are saying that if someone wanted to kill me it is a waste of time to try and reason with that person? I'm confused. :)
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
I agree that impulses are not necessarily rational or based in logic/skepticism. I agree we can use reason, science and skepticism to understand those instincts. I agree that what is and is not moral is not a scientific fact. What I do not agree with is that there is no moral reasoning which is what you seem to be saying. Is that correct, you believe that moral, legal and ethical philosophers cannot reason morality?



You are saying that if someone wanted to kill me it is a waste of time to try and reason with that person? I'm confused. :)
Click to expand...

Hmmm...

Like I said, I think you can use reason to guide moral impulses/instincts.

I think trying to argue "Killing me is morally wrong!" to a homicidal sociopath would probably be an exercise in futility, although you might be able to convince them it was a bad idea for some other reason ("There is a security camera right there and the cops are probably already on the way! You should run!" or something like that.)
 
RandFan said:
If your view is outside of skepticism then your view is outside of reason. What's the point?
Click to expand...

I didn't say that the views I listed are unable to be tested by some reasonable means. I did say that they are outside of the purview of scientific skepticism. Now maybe I'm wrong about that, I'd love to see how they could be empirically tested with reproducability.
 
kellyb said:
Hmmm...

Like I said, I think you can use reason to guide moral impulses/instincts.
Click to expand...
I apologize but I do not understand the distinction.

I think trying to argue "Killing me is morally wrong!" to a homicidal sociopath would probably be an exercise in futility, although you might be able to convince them it was a bad idea for some other reason ("There is a security camera right there and the cops are probably already on the way! You should run!" or something like that.)
Click to expand...
My premise did not consist of a homicidal sociopath. I simply want to know if it is possible to reason with someone who wants to do you harm?
 
d4m10n said:
I didn't say that the views I listed are unable to be tested by some reasonable means. I did say that they are outside of the purview of scientific skepticism. Now maybe I'm wrong about that, I'd love to see how they could be empirically tested with reproducability.
Click to expand...
Thanks. Okay. But I still fail to see your point. So what if they are not amenable to "scientific skepticism"? So long as we can use reason, skepticism and critical thinking then I don't see a problem.
 
RandFan said:
I apologize but I do not understand the distinction.
Click to expand...

Morality presupposes some things. Human suffering is bad, hurting people is wrong, murder is immoral, and things like that. Presupposition is antithetical to skepticism.

Now, if you're willing to just live with the presuppositional nature of morality, reason can then be used to figure out how to best achieve objectives like reducing human suffering, etc. But reason/logic/science wasn't what created the feeling that human suffering is bad.

My premise did not consist of a homicidal sociopath. I simply want to know if it is possible to reason with someone who wants to do you harm?
Click to expand...

As a general rule, yes. (Sociopaths are the exception to the rule.)
 
RandFan said:
Thanks. Okay. But I still fail to see your point. So what if they are not amenable to "scientific skepticism"? So long as we can use reason, skepticism and critical thinking then I don't see a problem.
Click to expand...

Again, perhaps I'm mistaken, but I'd thought that most of those who were arguing that certain aspects of religion and politics were off limits to scientific scepticism were grounding that argument in the dintinction between what is empircally testable (e.g. faith-healing really works) and what is not (e.g. God consists of three Divine Persons). We can come up with a test for the former claim, not the latter.

Obviously nothing is immune to small-'s' scepticism in general.
 
kellyb said:
Morality presupposes some things. Human suffering is bad, hurting people is wrong, murder is immoral, and things like that. Presupposition is antithetical to skepticism.
Click to expand...
I do not accept your premise. I can just as easily assert global skepticism in which case everything other than my thoughts are presuppositional. Given global skepticism there are no axioms. At some point we have to make some assumptions. We cannot disprove Idealism so if we choose to survive in the material world we must assume either A.) materialism or B.) consequentialism. In either case we must assume cause and effect. If we assume cause and effect and we assume shared values (goals) then the rest is just reasoning (see the case for objective morality)

Now, if you're willing to just live with the presuppositional nature of morality, reason can then be used to figure out how to best achieve objectives like reducing human suffering, etc. But reason/logic/science wasn't what created the feeling that human suffering is bad.
Click to expand...
You could also say that we can best figure out how to alleviate our hunger but reason/logic/science isn't what created the feeling of hunger. It's still an objective fact that to survive we need food. You could assert global skepticism and not eat but I would not recommend it.

If you are willing to forgo global skepticism I cannot see why we would not be willing to accept axiomatically that suffering, like hunger is a bad thing.
 
d4m10n said:
Again, perhaps I'm mistaken, but I'd thought that most of those who were arguing that certain aspects of religion and politics were off limits to scientific scepticism were grounding that argument in the dintinction between what is empircally testable (e.g. faith-healing really works) and what is not (e.g. God consists of three Divine Persons). We can come up with a test for the former claim, not the latter.

Obviously nothing is immune to small-'s' scepticism in general.
Click to expand...
Okay, I think I better understand you. Not sure what the point is given the context of the post you originally responded to but I can let it go.
 
RandFan said:
Okay, I think I better understand you. Not sure what the point is given the context of the post you originally responded to but I can let it go.
Click to expand...

Well that's mighty white of ya'll, RF! :D

Did anyone else listen to those long YT videos that Paul and someone else posted links to? The guy with the cow skull? Whoa! :jaw-dropp And nobody has mentioned it? This one is recent, and about 20 minutes long. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_7SRa_xQNQ It would seem to have taken butthurt to a whole new plateau, so I assume by no responses I'm lacking some info about the history of these folks. Any enlightenment would be appreciated. I'm relatively new to all this. :boggled:

Kind of long train wreck that is hard to not rubberneck on as it plods along showering debris to the far corners of the net. Also I strongly suspect now there is some site image manipulation going down there via the hidden forums to keep each topic on the main board current. They may also be using socks, but for sure there is some coordination going on. They average fewer than 10 logged in on a site with 2,400+ members, lol. Yet the Potemkin index page gaslights a mirage of activity.

Again I would note qwints posts a lot more here than at A+ these days. :)
 
RandFan said:
I do not accept your premise. I can just as easily assert global skepticism in which case everything other than my thoughts are presuppositional. Given global skepticism there are no axioms. At some point we have to make some assumptions. We cannot disprove Idealism so if we choose to survive in the material world we must assume either A.) materialism or B.) consequentialism. In either case we must assume cause and effect. If we assume cause and effect and we assume shared values (goals) then the rest is just reasoning (see the case for objective morality)

You could also say that we can best figure out how to alleviate our hunger but reason/logic/science isn't what created the feeling of hunger. It's still an objective fact that to survive we need food. You could assert global skepticism and not eat but I would not recommend it.

If you are willing to forgo global skepticism I cannot see why we would not be willing to accept axiomatically that suffering, like hunger is a bad thing.
Click to expand...

There's a lot of what I see as "wrongness" in the objective morality link. For example:

Social needs such as needs for trade, communication, friendship and love: these values are social in that they occur only through interaction with others. Logically, their status as values is due to the fact that they contribute to the fulfillment of spiritual and material needs.
Click to expand...

Not everyone has the same social values. The primary social need of the successful social darwinist is (apparently, at least) the need to exert power over the weak. For the slave trader, the need to profit from slavery clearly exceeds the need to reduce the suffering of other people. Same deal for the plantation owner.

And here he basically argues "I don't like the implication, ergo, it can't be true":

One may claim that in the absence of a possible objective morality, we must fall back on subjectivism. But that is unacceptable: in the absence of objective evidence for a proposition, we must remain silent.
Click to expand...

Sooo....

Regarding this:

Given global skepticism there are no axioms.
Click to expand...
I've found that most things declared axiomatic are anything but, upon closer inspection. (Although math stuff is an exception there.)


If we assume cause and effect and we assume shared values (goals) then the rest is just reasoning
Click to expand...

We can't assume shared values, though. That's the major divergence between your position and mine.
 
Atheism Plus

RP — I've watched that video a couple times, now, and all the factual bits that can be verified, have been verified. By what can only be considered a wonderful twist of fate, Mykeru and Hensley live and work in the same metro and each believe that the other one is plotting something nefarious against them. Probably they are both half-right.
 
qwints said:
@squalpiggy:
What's your evidence that those names are suggestive of socioeconomic or educational background?
Click to expand...

Those specific names? Lacking a comprehensive list of names and socioeconomic status I can't tell you what score Emily and Lakisha have respectively.

But ask yourself something: If you hear the name Lakisha and the name Emily and had to rank their parental level of education and socioeconomic status, which would rank higher? Now do the same thing for Krystina and Aiyetoro.

Remember that the resumes had identical addresses and educational backgrounds and only differed in the name.
Click to expand...

Remember my comments about perceptual set? The first thing an employer sees is the name on the resume. The name colours everything else they see on that document. If they're looking at two equally qualified applicants, one called Andrew and one called Billy-Bob they're going to be more inclined to take Andrew seriously.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom