| |
|
|
- This is a moderated forum, all posts will be checked for bad language and composition.
- Before you post in the information section, make sure the information you add is fully accurate.
- All posts within the local and national policy sections must be factually correct and substantively debatable.
- Feel free to be provocative or even politically incorrect, within the rules set.
- No threats, sexual or racist remarks of any nature will be tolerated. Any posts that violate these common sense rules will be removed. Your account may also be suspended after so many violations.
- Creating multiple accounts and pretending to be someone else will result in instant termination of all accounts. We check up on all accounts / IP addresses frequently. You must register and login in order to post within the forums. Your information will not be given out or sold for mailing lists. The register and login section is at the top right. You can also register or login here.
|
|
| Author |
Messages |
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
 |
| 05/05/2007 2:13 PM |
|
I'm getting the strange feeling that I may be the only liberal (Debator might also be one) on these forums  That is okay, though, since I think it is a great opporitunity to get some good discussion going. I'm generally an easy-going person that doesn't readily take offense to anything, so say what you would like. Now, don't get me wrong - if I think you are incorrect, and you choose to debate me, I'll debate my position to the best of my ability. Some people interpret this as being "mean", but some appreciate the honesty - they know that I mean no offense. However, consider yourself informed.
Anyway, in order to help create some more understanding between liberals (or at least, me) and you, I set up this thread. You can ask me my position on issues, and debate me if you like.
If you want to be mean spirited, I can't really stop you, but that isn't really the point of this thread. So I guess some guidelines are in order:
1. If you start debating me, I'll start debating you.
2. Be civil. This doesn't mean you need to sugar coat what you are saying, but try not to start throwing around insults.
3. Be civil. It's worth repeating: This should be a nice, respectful discussion of the issues, not a barfight.
I wasn't sure where to post this, and since Mr. Mulholland appears to be very active here, I put the thread here. If it is in the wrong place, please move it
So...ask whatever you like.
|
|
|
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 05/05/2007 4:25 PM |
|
| This is a fine place to start. You could also contact the admin to put your own blog up. I also believe in being civil. I have debated too many people who can't handle being wrong. Let's not turn this into a Hannity/Andersen style screaming match. We can start with the topics already existing but feel free to choose some more if you wish but realize that people have other things to do besides comment all day. |
|
|
|
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 06/11/2007 1:25 AM |
|
I know Mr. Mullholland is probably going to shoot me if I start another thread, so...;)
Let us debate religion. I am, of course, an atheist, and I presume the rest of you aren't, and thus we have the foundation for a great discussion. |
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:135
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 06/11/2007 7:51 PM |
|
| I have debated religion in the past, and have generally avoided it in more recent years (e.g. the last decade). In general, people who want to debate religion believe that they can prove their beliefs. These people are wrong. Curiously, this also includes atheists, at least when it comes to a more positive atheism (one that states that there is no god) as opposed to a more agnostic belief. Atheists often believe that there is no god because the existence of god cannot be proven, but the inverse reasoning is equally valid. Theists believe in god because the non-existence of god also cannot be proven. |
|
|
|
|
mulhollandj
Posts:230
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 06/11/2007 8:31 PM |
|
| I agree that debating religion really doesn't work as, according to my understanding, you cannot prove or disprove the existence of God in logical debate and His ways are higher than our ways. Religion can be shared but it is not something understood intellectually but rather spiritually. The method with which you discover truth is very similar to a scientific process but the results are very personal and can't really be shown to others other than by testimony. |
|
|
|
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 06/11/2007 9:31 PM |
|
Curiously, this also includes atheists, at least when it comes to a more positive atheism (one that states that there is no god) as opposed to a more agnostic belief.
I am not an atheist that thinks that absolutely no gods can exist - the only impossiblities are logical impossibilities, and thus the idea of "God" (if we do not define it further) is entirely possible. I simply think that belief in God is about as justified as belief that my magic wand can turn rock into gold - that is to say, it is not justified at all, and definitely should not be the basis for any philosophical or policy decisions.
There are some concepts of God that are indeed logically contradictions (omnibenevolent, omnipotent, etc) and thus I find belief in them to be wholly incorrect.
Theists believe in god because the non-existence of god also cannot be proven.
But why then do they choose one particular God, especially one wrought with so many logical problems? Thor cannot be disproven either - but I don't really see anyone saying "Thor hates X, so I'm going to fight X." or anything like that.
Basically, I ask the following of the religious:
1. Keep your faith out of the public sphere. Unless you can prove it to be true, it does not have any place in rational debate precisely because it is not rational.
2. Stop maintaining that your religion is rational and logical: Since it most likely isn't, and since you are most likely going to tell me "It can't be disproven either!" or "God works/exists in mysterious ways", that removes it from logical debate entirely.
If neither of you want to challenge 1 or 2, then I guess I must find something else to debate ;) |
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:135
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 06/11/2007 10:35 PM |
|
There are some concepts of God that are indeed logically contradictions (omnibenevolent, omnipotent, etc) and thus I find belief in them to be wholly incorrect.
What you are saying here is that you cannot envision a being that can embody these attributes simultaneously. That's not the same thing as being logically contradictory.
Keep your faith out of the public sphere. Unless you can prove it to be true, it does not have any place in rational debate precisely because it is not rational.
There is a fine distinction to be made here. Faith is an inherently private thing and I see that we have come a long way from the days of conversion at the point of a sword. The catch here is that faith, which is private, is closely tied to morality, which is very public. A significant part of public policy, even in a strictly atheistic world, is based on public morality. For example, is it morally wrong to steal? Is it morally wrong to kill a person? What if the person has killed someone else? Is it morally wrong to treat two people differently strictly based on some arbitrary attribute such as skin color or gender (this would include both historical forms of discrimination as well as affirmative action programs)?
The point is that there are things that the society is willing to accept or reject, and it is all based on the overall sense of morality. For some people, their moral compass is strictly internal, for others it is tied to a religion, and with others it is tied to how they believe themselves to be seen in the eyes of their neighbors. Sure, we can keep our faith out of our public lives, but we cannot and indeed we should not divorce our public lives from our private sense of morality. |
|
|
|
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 06/11/2007 11:02 PM |
|
What you are saying here is that you cannot envision a being that can embody these attributes simultaneously. That's not the same thing as being logically contradictory.
No. A being cannot have Property X and Property Anti-X at the same time in the same manner. THAT is a logical contradiction.
For example, is it morally wrong to steal? Is it morally wrong to kill a person? What if the person has killed someone else? Is it morally wrong to treat two people differently strictly based on some arbitrary attribute such as skin color or gender (this would include both historical forms of discrimination as well as affirmative action programs)?
Oh sure, but there are philosophical systems that make "public morality" entirely logical: Moral noncognitivism, for instance. An argument founded upon a moral system formed out of moral noncognitivism is only valid as long as the value-assumptions are accepted by both parties, but those value assumptions have to be explicitly stated: I value liberty, therefore I value freedom of speech.
In order for this to be disputed, you either have to show that freedom of speech does not actualise liberty, or you have to place an anti-value on liberty.
These are normative statements, and thus they must be accepted by fiat because it is absudr to parse them in any other fashion
Religion makes descriptive statements. God eixsts, etc. Therefore, arguments founded on a religious basis are far weaker. For instance: I believe in freedom of speech because of the Bible.
Well, if I don't accept the authority of the Bible, then freedom of speech does not flow at all. If I can disprove the Bible, then freedom of speech does not flow. Etc. There is no imperative to action because now the justification for these philosophies rests upon *descriptive* statements, which are subject to being proven or not proven.
Also, people tend to use their religion as a refuge to make their viewpoints more palatable. In the gay marriage debate, it would be wholly unacceptable for someone to say "I oppose gay marriage because I place an anti-value on homosexuality", but saying "I oppose it because of my faith" somehow changes the statement, when in reality they are both essentially the same.
|
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:135
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 06/12/2007 10:19 PM |
|
An argument founded upon a moral system formed out of moral noncognitivism is only valid as long as the value-assumptions are accepted by both parties
All moral systems, not just religious ones, are subject to this, and all of them tend to be equally invalid as a result.
The best moral advocates are the ones who can find a way to justify their own moral position within the moral framework of their opponents. For example, a supporter of gay rights/marriage would point to Christ's teachings of love and tolerance (and anti-hypocracy, although that would probably feel too accusatory and just alienate people) such as his response to the woman taken in adultery ("let he who is without sin cast the first stone") when talking to Christians.
Of course this is very hard to do because most people don't even understand their own moral foundation that well, much less understand a position that they don't agree with well enough to bend it to their own. |
|
|
|
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 06/12/2007 10:30 PM |
|
All moral systems, not just religious ones, are subject to this, and all of them tend to be equally invalid as a result.
Oh sure, but religious moral systems have the additional problem of needing to be factually correct, whereas systems based on noncongitivism merely need to be held. Moral imperatives and such need to be accepted by fiat, but with noncognitivism those imperatives are backed by their own weight, whereas with religion then tend to be backed by a holy book or "God", and thus those things need to be established to be true.
For example, a supporter of gay rights/marriage would point to Christ's teachings of love and tolerance
They could attempt this route, but the problem is that the Bible is so ambiguous and contradictory that it can be used to say anything (especially once the ad-hoc assumptions start parading out). As well, for Christians who do not interpret the Bible as the literal, inerrant word of God, they can always simply use the "interpretation" argument ("You aren't interpreting it correctly!").
Its better to just run a kritik against the religion itself, and thus wholly remove the justification. Of course, that usually isn't convincing, but someone justifying their beliefs against gay marriage on religious grounds likely won't be convinced out of it: As someone once said, you cannot reason someone out of something they didn't reason themselves into.
However, exploiting gaps in internal consistency is definitely a thing that should be done: A supporter of gay rights, for instance, can do it with great success (typically) when someone brings up the "procreation" argument. |
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:135
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 06/13/2007 12:03 AM |
|
Oh sure, but religious moral systems have the additional problem of needing to be factually correct, whereas systems based on noncongitivism merely need to be held. Moral imperatives and such need to be accepted by fiat, but with noncognitivism those imperatives are backed by their own weight, whereas with religion then tend to be backed by a holy book or "God", and thus those things need to be established to be true.
I would disagree. A non-cognitivist would react to all moral statements as not having absolute truth value, whether they be the person's own or those of another person. Cognitivists, on the other hand, see the semantic weaseling of non-cognitivism as a rather convoluted attempt to selectively discriminate against their moral standards. To a cognitivist, everyone's moral beliefs can be seen as deriving from their personal sense of what is right and wrong, and that those terms have some truth value to each person.
While the moral standards of most religions claim some sort of supernatural origin, most religions do not strictly rely on divine fiat to justify their positions. Apologists through the centuries have come up with many arguments in support of every tenet of religious morality that do not rely on an appeal to any supernatural reason. It is not true that merely because something uses justifications that someone finds find irrational there are no rational justifications for those beliefs. |
|
|
|
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 06/13/2007 12:22 AM |
|
To a cognitivist, everyone's moral beliefs can be seen as deriving from their personal sense of what is right and wrong, and that those terms have some truth value to each person.
But the truth value to "each person" is not particularly relevant - the absolute truth value is the only one that is relevant in determining whether the moral suppositions "justify themselves" or require something else.
It is not true that merely because something uses justifications that someone finds find irrational there are no rational justifications for those beliefs.
Oh indeed not, but in debates about morality you can only go with the justifications that your opponent provides: It is immaterial whether other justifications exist, because until your opponent endorses those justifications, they do not form a part of the belief system and are thus outside the realm of the debate.
Thus, if someone believes that listening to music or stealing things or eating small children is "wrong" because their Holy Book says so, and the Holy Book is disproven, then by their system of belief it is no longer "justified" - by their system of belief, they are no longer justified in endorsing their position. Now, they may adopt some other position later to rectify the situation, but until they do, their belief in X is illogical.
It is basically the same with factual statements: If I say (to use an above example) that Seattle is not the capital of the United States because capital cities cannot start with an "S", and this is my imperative justification for that belief, and someone disproves my justification ("Santiago is the capital city of Chile, and it starts with an S..."), then the belief itself is no longer justified unless new evidence comes into play. Thus, if the debate takes the following course:
ZASCH: Seattle is not the capital of the United States because capital cities cannot start with an "S"
FIERY DARTS: Hey, wait a minute. Santiago is the capital of Chile. Take a look at the Constitution/laws of Chile....
ZASCH: Hmm. You do appear to be correct.
Then I can no longer endorse the statement "Seattle is not the capital of the United States", since it is categorical: Without any other new information, Seattle may very well be the capital of the US! My reasoning has been demolished, and thus the position is no longer justified.
This, of course, does not mean there aren't other arguments that can be made to salvage the position, but until the arguments are made, belief just is not justified. If it then went like:
FIERY DARTS: Well, look at this applicable law that shows that Washington DC is the capital.
Now I have new evidence, and thus my original position is justified once again.
Do you see what I'm trying to get at? Similarly:
MARY: I oppose drinking water because my Holy Book says so.
JIM: Well, wait a minute, is your Holy Book wholly true?
MARY: Of course it is! And the Holy Book says "Drinking water is morally bad.", and since the Holy Book is true, the statement is also true.
JIM: But the Holy Book also says, in one chapter: "Talking on the telephone is morally bad.". However, in another chapter, it says: "Talking on the telephone is morally good.". This is a contradiction, and thus the Holy Book cannot be entirely true.
Then, in the absence of some other form of logical support, the belief isn't justified:
The Holy Book says not to drink water ----> Don't drink water.
But we take that out, and it just dangles in front of us:
----> Don't drink water.
Maybe we'll fill it in with another thing:
My personal sense of right and wrong says don't drink water ----> Don't drink water
And thus it becomes valid again. But until we take that step, it is not valid, regardless of whether some other justification exists.
So, to bring it back to the realm of "real world debate": A person who says "I dislike homosexuals, therefore I oppose gay marriage" has a valid argument - all it rests upon are the subjective affectional states of one person. A person who says "The Bible says homosexuality is wrong, therefore I oppose gay marriage" is not, because it relies on the objective truth of the Bible in order to make the argument flow.
|
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:135
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 06/13/2007 5:58 PM |
|
So, let me try to sum up your last post.
Most religious people do not provide non-religious arguments in support of their moral positions.
This is somewhat regrettable, but hardly surprising. Most people don't have logical reasons to justify their moral beliefs, whether or not those beliefs are religious in origin.
Oh indeed not, but in debates about morality you can only go with the justifications that your opponent provides: It is immaterial whether other justifications exist, because until your opponent endorses those justifications, they do not form a part of the belief system and are thus outside the realm of the debate.
This is absolutely true in formal debates, but in informal debates such as this it is far less true. In any case, the best that you can (logically) get from this point is that a person who has well-developed logical arguments in support of their beliefs will "win" more debates against people who do not. This is ultimately nearly as pointless as debating against strawmen of your own devising.
In any case, from my perspective at this point it is sufficient to note that there are abundant logical arguments in support of most religious moral beliefs. This means that a religious moral belief is not of less value than a secular one merely because there are supernatural claims behind it.
For that matter, many of the 18th and 19th century philosophers were religious apologists, so that any of their philosophies are merely secular justifications for religious beliefs. Add to that the fact that many (most?) biblical writers qualify as philosophers as well (especially Job and Jesus), and the only remaining difference between religious morality and secular morality is usually the degree of institutionalization involved in teaching them. |
|
|
|
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 06/13/2007 10:47 PM |
|
This is somewhat regrettable, but hardly surprising. Most people don't have logical reasons to justify their moral beliefs, whether or not those beliefs are religious in origin.
But the whole point is that secularist moral systems do not need "rational justification" for moral statements because they are normative in nature, whereas religious moral systems are descriptive in nature, and thus do require those beliefs.
In any case, from my perspective at this point it is sufficient to note that there are abundant logical arguments in support of most religious moral beliefs.
But it doesn't matter whether such arguments exist! It matters whether the person you are talking to endorses those arguments. There is a big difference between a person who is anti-abortion because they think the embryo/whatever is a life and someone who believes that women ought not have any rights whatsoever. They both have come to the same conclusion, but the manner in which they came to that conclusion is fundamental in any debate about morality. |
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:135
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 06/14/2007 5:54 PM |
|
| How are secular moral systems normative while religious ones are descriptive? Why do normative beliefs require justification and descriptives ones do not? If you made these points, you didn't make them clearly. |
|
|
|
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 06/15/2007 12:16 AM |
|
I don't have much time, but:
Secular moral systems justify themselves on a normative basis: Murder is wrong because it provokes a negative reaction within me. The only thing this is really dependent on is whether the statement "It provokes a negative reaction within me" is true.
Religious moral systems justify it based on a different reason: Murder is wrong because God says it is wrong. Here, we must prove God for the rest to follow.
I was watching a debate on CNN the other day about atheism, and an atheist was challenged by a religionist: "I get my morality from God and the Bible. Where do you get yours from?"
But if you justify your morality based on that, then you have to demonstrate the postiive truth value of the Bible and of God.
Normative beliefs do not require justification because they are held on the same position as "Chocolate ice cream is the best": Because the experience of chocolate ice cream and the desires therein are subjective, so too is the "truth value" of this (It can only be evaluated from the frame of reference of the individual in question: Or, we can say that it is objectively false). To say "The statement "despotism is wrong" is objectively true" is a nonsense statement.
Descriptive beliefs require jutsification because they are making statements about how the world actually is: For instance, if I say "The Empire State Building is the tallest building in the world", I'm not speaking to the subjective moral states of the individual but instead to the objective physical reality of the universe. Thus, I need proof to back this up. |
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:135
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 06/15/2007 6:06 AM |
|
| Religious moral systems are just as normative as secular ones. Instead of saying inwardly, "Murder is wrong because it provokes a negative reaction within me" a religious person would say "Murder is wrong because I believe (for whatever reason) that God says it is wrong (plus for these other non-religious reasons)." If you allow people's internal reactions to justify a moral system then religious beliefs qualify as such an internal reaction. You can't reject that simply because you have internally rejected the idea of God any more than I can reject a tenet of a secular moral system simply because I don't think that the person's internal reactions are valid or reasonable. |
|
|
|
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 06/15/2007 6:30 AM |
|
It isn't that people's "internal reactions" literally justify these things: Or else absolutely everything would be justified. It is people's internal moral determinations that justify themselves: A belief that X is right or wrong because of the right or wrongness of X.
If a religious person wants to say "You know what, it isn't logic or rational, but homosexuality just provokes a negative reaction from within me", that is fine and valid and consistent. The foundation here is "my own internal sense of right and wrong".
If they say "I oppose it because the Bible says so", suddenly we aren't just dealing with their own internal sense of right and wrong - we are dealing with the integrity of an outside document. If we can prove that document to be without integrity, then nothing else follows from it.
"God", being a statement about the physical state of the universe, rather than a statement about the subjective moral state of the individual in question, is subject to the same analyses of evidence that all other statements about the physical state of the universe are. You cannot arrive to a negative conclusion given "Murder provokes a negative reaction in Jim" and "For Jim, murder is wrong", regardless of what you think of Jim (unless you think that Jim is lying about whether he considers murder wrong).
If the justification becomes God, however, then God needs to be proven before anything else really flows from it. If God is not true, then the statement "Murder is wrong because God says so" is now invalid.
If the whole of my moral system "comes from God" (or the Bible, or whatever), then unless I am able to prove those things to be true, I really ought to reexamine the basis of my moral system: Find out what *I* actually believe, and remove the excess.
If you have non-religious reasons for believing what you believe, great! Then ultimately your moral convictions will survive: But using God to justify them, unless you can prove him, is not proper. |
|
|
|
|
Fiery Darts
Posts:135
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 06/16/2007 10:49 PM |
|
So, what you are saying is that, because religious beliefs rely on a premise that you believe is false, or at least not logically supported, you conclude that most religious people are irrational and/or illogical, even if they are "right" about some things? This is a valid concern. I think that it is unfairly applied to religious people as a group, largely because most people are quite irrational about their beliefs, and that irrationality is hardly confined to religious adherents. Very, very few people stop and think through the logical steps that connect their specific beliefs, including moral ones, to some internal or external axiomatic foundation (and ultimately if that foundation is not internal, then it isn't sufficient).
I've been thinking about moral beliefs of religious people for some time, and I think that apologetics are far more common than I had implied earlier. Sure, most religious morality is taught from the perspective that "God says so, and so it is" but quite often if some other argument can be made in favor of it, then that argument will be made as well. That people don't remember these reasons when quizzed about them (it's a lot easier to remember the single answer, "because God said so") is unfortunate. Then again, that's why most people don't go into philosophy.
By the way, I've often given people a hard time for relying on religious justifications when advocating public policy. Such arguments have been very popular at this site where, until recently, they have generally been accepted due to the fairly homogeneous makeup of the board members. They are unacceptable in this case because by violating the principle of non-establishment, they set a dangerous precedent especially given the fact that the majority of Utahns belong to a minority religion that is thoroughly despised by a vast number of this country's conservative Christians. Even if they are willing to ally themselves to Mormons now, that alliance has no promise of enduring past the point of convenience for them.
But using God to justify them, unless you can prove him, is not proper.
The key distinction that must be made here is that using God to prove your arguments only works if you are working in a setting where everyone shares your view of God. So, that works well for your internally held beliefs and for discussions at church, but it breaks down in the public realm. Statements of faith can serve to engender respect for a person and their integrity and conviction, but they are poorly suited to drive policy decisions. |
|
|
|
|
Zasch
Posts:134
Senior User
Online Status:
|
| 06/24/2007 7:57 PM |
|
even if they are "right" about some things?
No, because their status as "right" depends entirely on the justification that they use, given the subjective nature of morality.
and that irrationality is hardly confined to religious adherents.
Well, given their size, it is the most visible group. As well, it tends to be the one that cares the least about justifying their beliefs logically, and it also seems to be a group that is very willing to impose its view on the rest of the nation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
|
|
ActiveForums 3.7
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|