Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I did attempt to discuss my views(which are still under construction) but the discussion was getting circular. I don'thave time for that, but i thought it'd be polite to suggest a few books as NoCapo seemed genuinely interested in the question.
my justification is not that alot people believe x, therfore i should too. The justification for my belief in moral truths are founded in my moral experience. X strongly appears to be this way, therefore X(until i have sufficient reason to doubt x). Now lots people believing X may be a consequence of X's obviousness, but it isn't my justification.
Well, this is exactly how I determine what I think is right. I just can't make the leap from what I think is right to believing that that is the objective truth. I mean, I obviously am very fond of my beliefs. I think they are correct, or at least very good and useful. I just cant get to my values being objectively true with out a way to measure this. I did find through a little web research that this is a common criticism of moral realism, so I am not the only one who struggles with this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meep
Also, you say you can not divorce justification from morality. I'd just say moral actions and moral principles aren't identical, the latter is what usually guides the former. You seem to be equivocating principles with actions. I think i've already adressed your moral diversity point.
I guess for me, the principles usually given are so general as to be useless. Foe example, murder is bad, is a moral sentence that most of us would agree to be true. But without rigorous definition of "murder" it tells us almost nothing practical. Is killing in self defense murder? Is military combat murder? is abortion murder? Is euthanasia murder? It seems to me that, regardless of philosophy, if an objective morality cannot definitively and provably categorize all of these kinds of things into "right" and "wrong" than why it is any more useful that a subjective approach?
Quote:
Originally Posted by meep
i know people believe differently, but this in itself is not proof that i don't know what i know.
True, but without a way to verify what you "know" why should anyone believe you over someone else? If everyone is supposed to adhere to the morality that they "know", have you really reached any sort of objective morality? I mean I have the exact same type of moral "knowledge" as you. What right do I have to insist that my "knowledge" is binding? To me is seems that even moral realists are competing to get their idea of objective morality adopted, to be accepted as the one true moral system. The problem is I don't see a good way of declaring a winner. There appears to be no way to measure a morality, other than preference. How else can one decide between even two objective moralities, say Kantian ethics or the morality of Ayn Rand's Objectivism? Both claim to be objective, and both are different. Which is right and how would we know?
I do appreciate the reading suggestions. I'll have to see what my library has. Maybe that will help me understand where you are coming from, because I just can't understand for the life of me how one can verify an objective morality.
-NoCapo
Well, this is exactly how I determine what I think is right. I just can't make the leap from what I think is right to believing that that is the objective truth. I mean, I obviously am very fond of my beliefs. I think they are correct, or at least very good and useful. I just cant get to my values being objectively true with out a way to measure this. I did find through a little web research that this is a common criticism of moral realism, so I am not the only one who struggles with this.
I guess for me, the principles usually given are so general as to be useless. Foe example, murder is bad, is a moral sentence that most of us would agree to be true. But without rigorous definition of "murder" it tells us almost nothing practical. Is killing in self defense murder? Is military combat murder? is abortion murder? Is euthanasia murder? It seems to me that, regardless of philosophy, if an objective morality cannot definitively and provably categorize all of these kinds of things into "right" and "wrong" than why it is any more useful that a subjective approach?
True, but without a way to verify what you "know" why should anyone believe you over someone else? If everyone is supposed to adhere to the morality that they "know", have you really reached any sort of objective morality? I mean I have the exact same type of moral "knowledge" as you. What right do I have to insist that my "knowledge" is binding? To me is seems that even moral realists are competing to get their idea of objective morality adopted, to be accepted as the one true moral system. The problem is I don't see a good way of declaring a winner. There appears to be no way to measure a morality, other than preference. How else can one decide between even two objective moralities, say Kantian ethics or the morality of Ayn Rand's Objectivism? Both claim to be objective, and both are different. Which is right and how would we know?
I do appreciate the reading suggestions. I'll have to see what my library has. Maybe that will help me understand where you are coming from, because I just can't understand for the life of me how one can verify an objective morality.
-NoCapo
Subjectivity is completely unavoidable, NoCapo. It always will be as the extreme solipsists would remind us. The difference is rooted in whether or not there IS an objective morality. Finding it and categorizing it within the myriad human circumstances will always be problematic because of the unavoidable subjectivity. But the real issue is whether or not we are trying to establish what does not actually exist. If you are atheist . . . it does not actually exist . . . so it becomes an exercise of preferences. If you are theist . . . it does exist . . . but it becomes a matter of discerning what our purpose in existing IS and how our actions impact that purpose. In either case . . . it pragmatically redounds to the same problem of subjectivity . . . but for atheists it is largely capricious while for theists it is of utmost importance.
William Lane Craig is not just an apologist, he is also a philosopher with various specializations in the field but this is besides the point. I didn't reference apologetic works. Misrepresentation seems to be a common characteristic of the new atheism. everything that conflicts with "Dawkinism" has to be apologetics, right?
Crane is a Christian apologist primarily. He is a *defender of the faith.*
Try Bernard Williams Morality: An Introduction to Ethics
Dawkins, btw, has plenty of scientific credentials. There is a class of philosophers, some theologically inspired, who object to the very fact that scientists might presume to address any version of this fundamental ontological issue. William Lane Craig is one of those.
William Lane Craig is a despicable, dishonest excuse for a human being. I've read the things he's written... it's no wonder that atheists have little, if any, respect for the man.
I'm not going to give an all out defense of Craig but i think there is a desire to want dismiss him or misrepresent because he is a very intelligent theist( an oxymoron to most here), if you think Craig is irrelevant here then you are simply intimidated by him and dismissively looking for reasons to write him off or you simply haven't progressed far enough your studies to realize his contributions to the field of philosophy of religion.
Ridiculing and hating everything God/Religion without first trying to understand it is a very fundamentalist trait. Guess what guys, There are intelligent theist scholars out there and these scholars are making a splash in academia. Also, the God debate isnt centered on the evo-design controversy. And all theists aren't 6 day literalists(nor is it obvious that they under obligation to be). And there is more, logical positivism and the verification principle are untenable(and nearly all epistemologist recognize this) so all this abuse of "Science" isn't predicated on solid foundation. Maybe, just maybe after you left religion you quickly jumped on the atheist bandwagon without looking deeply at contemporary issues in the philosophy of religion. Maybe, just maybe you need to do just that.
I'm not going to give an all out defense of Craig but i think there is a desire to want dismiss him or misrepresent because he is a very intelligent theist( an oxymoron to most here), if you think Craig is irrelevant here then you are simply intimidated by him and dismissively looking for reasons to write him off or you simply haven't progressed far enough your studies to realize his contributions to the field of philosophy of religion.
Ridiculing and hating everything God/Religion without first trying to understand it is a very fundamentalist trait. Guess what guys, There are intelligent theist scholars out there and these scholars are making a splash in academia. Also, the God debate isnt centered on the evo-design controversy. And all theists aren't 6 day literalists(nor is it obvious that they under obligation to be). And there is more, logical positivism and the verification principle are untenable(and nearly all epistemologist recognize this) so all this abuse of "Science" isn't predicated on solid foundation. Maybe, just maybe after you left religion you quickly jumped on the atheist bandwagon without looking deeply at contemporary issues in the philosophy of religion. Maybe, just maybe you need to do just that.
*end rant
You might try this article by Dr. Craig. I give you the first page so as not to be accused of taking him out of context, but the quote on page 5, is quite telling.
A robust natural theology may well be necessary for the gospel to be effectively heard in Western society today. In general, Western culture is deeply post-Christian. It is the product of the Enlightenment, which introduced into European culture the leaven of secularism that has by now permeated Western society. While most of the original Enlightenment thinkers were themselves theists, the majority of Western intellectuals today no longer considers theological knowledge to be possible. The person who follows the pursuit of reason unflinchingly toward its end will be atheistic or, at best, agnostic.
It seems to me then, that Craig knows that reason cannot support Christianity in any way.
he is saying the consequence of a post-christian society(one that excludes the possibility of theological knowledge) is that many will only consider secularism, therfore leading them to Atheism/Agnosticism. Bill Craig is the last person to deny the reasonableness of belief in God lol. He was just calling Christians to take up a life of the mind in a Christian context and develop a natural theology, this would transform popular presuppositions in our secular culture, making it more conducive to sharing the gospel.
I really don't want to discuss Bill Craig's character anymore.
but for atheists it is largely capricious while for theists it is of utmost importance.
I would be quick to point out on such a thread as this that the concept of morality - and finding a right and wrong way to act ethically in society and towards ourselves and others - is no less important to the average atheist as it is to the average theist. The only difference I can see between them is that the latter is claiming morality is something that exists outside of us and we have to uncover/discover it. The former realises there is no evidence for this and that morality is just something we decide together and try to refine over time to maximise the benefits of it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
