Are you a secularist

[PixyMisa]

This looks question-begging to me.

If you define your terms so that your question is meaningful relative to the physical Universe, science can address it.

If you don't, nothing can address it.

 

[angrysoba]

If you define your terms so that your question is meaningful relative to the physical Universe, science can address it.

If you don't, nothing can address it.

Well, first of all, to point out the problem of what you initially said...

The problem is that this is complete garbage. Valid questions of meaning and moral value are scientifically answerable. The reason most questions of meaning and moral value aren't scientifically answerable is that they're not valid - they are not answerable by any means.

The question-begging comes from this:

Premise: For something to be "valid"* it must be scientifically answerable.

Conclusion: If it is not scientifically answerable then it is not "valid".*

Can you see the problem with your reasoning? Your stated premise is the same as the conclusion.

But what do you mean by valid?

Is it morally acceptable to kill animals for meat / experimentation?

How is that question scientifically answerable?

 

[GDon]

Do you live in a universe that isn't a the natural one?

I mean "natural" as used in the philosophical sense of "naturalism". As a theist, I believe that there is more than a natural universe, along the lines of Plato's famous Analogy of the Cave.

 

[GDon]

Gould defines NOMA as "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm: what the Universe is made of (fact) and why does it work in this way (theory). The magisterium of religion extends over questions of ultimate meaning and moral value."

The problem is that this is complete garbage. Valid questions of meaning and moral value are scientifically answerable.

I know that this is something Sam Harris and Richard Carrier has proposed, but I didn't know that they were considered established as scientifically answerable. Do you have any links that you could share?

The reason most questions of meaning and moral value aren't scientifically answerable is that they're not valid - they are not answerable by any means.

That's fair enough.

 

[GDon]

"Morals" are no some special subcategory of knowledge that operates under completely different rules.

Morality is just another objective opinion. A "moral" is an opinion about the well being of a conscious creature. That's all. This mythology that Woo Slingers have cultivated around morality and the apologetics that good people like Gould and many others have bought into is dangerous and highly anti-intellectual.

"Meaning of Life" isn't even a real thing. It's an excellent Monty Python film and a half decent country song, nothing more.

I think that meaning of life, the ideas of 'goodness' and moral values are very important; that's why I went from atheist to theist a few years back. Theism allowed me to fit those things into my worldview.

---------------------

Working back into the OP: Most have agreed that we need a secular government. If morality and meaning-of-life do not need to be part of religion and can be part of the natural world, should they be things that secular governments be concerned with?

 

[Bikewer]

Seems to me that our essential tendencies towards what we have come to call ethics and morality are a product of our evolutionary heritage. We know that characteristics like altruism, cooperation, and similar items have a strong evolutionary background.
They would have helped our primitive ancestors survive. (So, conversly, would things like territoriality, violent reactions to strangers, and outbursts of violence...)

However, when we began to achieve a certain level of communal living, even at the level of small villages, then culture enters the picture and behaviors that helped the society get along would have been encouraged and behaviors that were disruptive or desctructive would have been discouraged.

Culture and evolution working together. That's why there's no apparent universal morality....Individual cultures valued different things.

 

[devnull]

Everyone's irrational about something, therefore it's wrong to hold anyone to any intellectul standard, therefore Woo.

woo is a different beast to applied woo.

You know this. You know many otherwise sane people go to church, read their horoscopes, or go to a chiropractor. It's only a problem when the woo encroaches on their work.

 

[tsig]

I mean "natural" as used in the philosophical sense of "naturalism". As a theist, I believe that there is more than a natural universe, along the lines of Plato's famous Analogy of the Cave.

You believe that alongside the reality that we perceive with our senses there is another reality operating? How we perceive this other reality? If it's real then shouldn't everyone who perceives it agree as to it's nature?


Plato has Socrates describe a gathering of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall by things passing in front of a fire behind them, and begin to designate names to these shadows. The shadows are as close as the prisoners get to viewing reality. He then explains how the philosopher is like a prisoner who is freed from the cave and comes to understand that the shadows on the wall do not make up reality at all, as he can perceive the true form of reality rather than the mere shadows seen by the prisoners.

Are we all the prisoners and you the philosopher that sees reality?

 

[JoeMorgue]

How is that question scientifically answerable?

How are they Woo answerable?

The argument seems to be since "science" (as you narrowly understand/define it) can't answer questions to your satisfication then Woo is totally justified in filling in the blanks at random.

"The giant invisible sky wizard said so" isn't an answer. "It's moral because it is" isn't an answer.

Even if science can't answer these questions (which is a big if) nothing else has come any closer.

With either answer questions emperically and logically or we just make stuff up at random. And I don't see an honest, open "We just don't know yet" as inferior to the later alternative. It seems you do.

You'd rather have a wrong answer then no answer.

 

[angrysoba]

How are they Woo answerable?

The argument seems to be since "science" (as you narrowly understand/define it) can't answer questions to your satisfication then Woo is totally justified in filling in the blanks at random.

"The giant invisible sky wizard said so" isn't an answer. "It's moral because it is" isn't an answer.

Even if science can't answer these questions (which is a big if) nothing else has come any closer.

With either answer questions emperically and logically or we just make stuff up at random. And I don't see an honest, open "We just don't know yet" as inferior to the later alternative. It seems you do.

You'd rather have a wrong answer then no answer.

What?

 

[tsig]

I think that meaning of life, the ideas of 'goodness' and moral values are very important; that's why I went from atheist to theist a few years back. Theism allowed me to fit those things into my worldview.

---------------------

Working back into the OP: Most have agreed that we need a secular government. If morality and meaning-of-life do not need to be part of religion and can be part of the natural world, should they be things that secular governments be concerned with?

What meaning of life do you have from your god?

What morals do you have from your god that you would not otherwise have?

 

[JoeMorgue]

I mean "natural" as used in the philosophical sense of "naturalism". As a theist, I believe that there is more than a natural universe, along the lines of Plato's famous Analogy of the Cave.

Yeah I remember the first time I saw the Matrix too.

Even for philosophy the "Simulated reality" argument is stupid. So if this is a simulated related where did the reality where the simulation is operating in come from? Or is it just simulated turtles all the way down?

 

[angrysoba]

Yeah, Joe, I really mean "What?" because you rail against a lot of assumptions you have about what I think which are all wrong.

And, on a separate note,

please at least try to spell "empirical", as your constant mangling of it makes you look like Biff from Back to the Future hyuck hyuck hyucking over his own witticisms when he says things like, "Make like a tree and get out of here!" I'm saying that for your own good as being terminally self-unaware while making such solecisms might lead to people laughing at you. The same with your constant use of "then" for "than".

 

[tsig]

Yeah I remember the first time I saw the Matrix too.

Even for philosophy the "Simulated reality" argument is stupid. So if this is a simulated related where did the reality where the simulation is operating in come from? Or is it just simulated turtles all the way down?

Who's paying the bills?

Of course Occam serves to slice off any uneeded levels of reality.

The whole argument for another reality is circular, "I need another reality for my woo* to be possible therefore there is another reality and my woo is possible".


*woo includes all religions, spirituality, psychic phenomenon, ect.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Yeah, Joe, I really mean "What?" because you rail against a lot of assumptions you have about what I think which are all wrong.

Errr okay.

So answer my question. If it is so bloody important to get your "morals" from somewhere and you say "science" (which you refuse to believe can be anything but beakers and labcoats apparently) then where do you get yours from? The big invisible father figure in the sky? The ether? Voices in your head?

Again I'm not stupid. I've done this scene before. You go "Science can't answer everything!" and I'm supposed to go slack jawed in response to your awesome insightfulness and go "OMG You're right! I totally need Woo!"

Yes science can't answer everything yet. Woo can answer nothing.

And, on a separate note,

please at least try to spell "empirical", as your constant mangling of it makes you look like Biff from Back to the Future hyuck hyuck hyucking over his own witticisms when he says things like, "Make like a tree and get out of here!" I'm saying that for your own good as being terminally self-unaware while making such solecisms might lead to people laughing at you. The same with your constant use of "then" for "than".

Really? Being a spelling Nazi? Cute. What did you run out of semantics to argue so you had to go down another level? Wanna criticize my choice of font size next? It's English. The spelling doesn't make a lick of sense anyway. If you want to think you're smarter then I am because you spell knife with a "K" even though there is no K sound knock yourself out. I guess spelling means more out beyond the event horizon of the formless.

So reality is flexible and subjective but spelling is iron clad. Some worldview you got there.

I'd rather misspell the occasional word then spend all day making my word salad more pretentious and ponderous to hide the fact that I'm not making anything resembling a point.

 

[angrysoba]

Errr okay.

So answer my question. If it is so bloody important to get your "morals" from somewhere and you say "science" (which you refuse to believe can be anything but beakers and labcoats apparently)

Evidence that I "refuse to believe [science] can be anything but beakers and labcoats"?

This is pretty typical of your style of "debate". On the basis of nothing at all you make claims about your opponent's position. I don't know where you plucked this from, but it aint science!

then where do you get yours from? The big invisible father figure in the sky? The ether? Voices in your head?

I'm an atheist, so you can cut out all of those attempted smears.

"The ether"? "Voices in your head"?

No, it is called reason. It involves using your brain to make judgments. Some people are not very good at it and some people are much better at it.

But of course, not everyone comes to the same conclusions even when they have the same empirical information and similar reasoning capacities.

For example, do you think it is acceptable to eat meat?

Let's say I do and you don't. Is one of us a "woo slinger" or is there a reasonable difference of opinion here? Could we not both answer the question differently despite having the same access to the scientific data on various kinds of animals' ability to feel pain etc...?

Again I'm not stupid.

Evidence?

I've done this scene before. You go "Science can't answer everything!" and I'm supposed to go slack jawed in response to your awesome insightfulness and go "OMG You're right! I totally need Woo!"

Yes science can't answer everything yet. Woo can answer nothing.

More tedium, Joe! Just because you have arguments against imaginary opponents in your head does not mean that the person you are talking to is going to take the role you have assigned for him or her.

Really? Being a spelling Nazi? Cute. What did you run out of semantics to argue so you had to go down another level? Wanna criticize my choice of font size next? It's English. The spelling doesn't make a lick of sense anyway. If you want to think you're smarter then I am because you spell knife with a "K" even though there is no K sound knock yourself out. I guess spelling means more out beyond the event horizon of the formless.

So reality is flexible and subjective but spelling is iron clad. Some worldview you got there.

I'd rather misspell the occasional word then spend all day making my word salad more pretentious and ponderous to hide the fact that I'm not making anything resembling a point.

Apparently you can do both!

 

[PixyMisa]

I know that this is something Sam Harris and Richard Carrier has proposed, but I didn't know that they were considered established as scientifically answerable. Do you have any links that you could share?

Well, scientifically answerable in principle. Once you've defined all your terms, you've reduced your "What should I do?" question into some specific real-world optimisation problem - what is the most efficient way to achieve this outcome with these resources.

If you can't reduce your question to a real-world problem, then either you don't understand the question, or the question isn't about the real world.

 

[PixyMisa]

But what do you mean by valid?

Simple: All the terms must be well-defined.

Is it morally acceptable to kill animals for meat / experimentation?

How is that question scientifically answerable?

Define "morally acceptable".

 

[angrysoba]

Simple: All the terms must be well-defined.

"Valid" means "all the terms must be well-defined"? I don't think that's true and if you were to make that the test then we would have a lot of problems even with a lot of scientific questions in which the terms are not exactly well-defined.

Define "morally acceptable".

In accordance with a set of ethics. And obviously these things are important in our daily lives and they are also important even in scientific research. There are numerous guidelines and laws about such things and they do not come from science.

 

[GDon]

I mean "natural" as used in the philosophical sense of "naturalism". As a theist, I believe that there is more than a natural universe, along the lines of Plato's famous Analogy of the Cave.

Yeah I remember the first time I saw the Matrix too.

Even for philosophy the "Simulated reality" argument is stupid. So if this is a simulated related where did the reality where the simulation is operating in come from? Or is it just simulated turtles all the way down?

??? The Analogy of the Cave is not about a "simulated reality". Probably best to read it before criticizing it. It's about abstract ideas like the Good and Justice having a source outside our visible world, which is the Cave. The shadows on the Cave wall are the effect of these things in our world. The Cave dwellers give names to the shadows, but they are just part of their world -- they exist as subjective objects only.