Atheism And Moral Progress

[JimL]

But you're assuming that empiricism is the only valid way of knowing anything. That's a philosophical, not a scientific, claim which requires a philosophical argument to support it.

Actually Jim, I think the assumption is yours, i.e. the assumption that there are other valid ways to know.

[seer]

Actually Jim, I think the assumption is yours, i.e. the assumption that there are other valid ways to know.

Really Jim, do we have to over this again? Can you empirically demonstrate that what goes on in your head corresponds to reality without begging the question.

[Jim B.]

What does that even mean; that truth, love, freedom and justice have intrinsic worth? What gives them intrinsic worth?

'Intrinsic' means having it within itself.

[Jim B.]

A philosophical argument to be valid or ‘sound’ depends upon a true premise and philosophy alone is unable to provide this.

That is also a philosophical claim. I never said "philosophy alone". I'm only saying that the statement "Empiricism alone is the only valid form of knowledge" contradicts itself because it's not an empirical finding.

[Jim B.]

Actually Jim, I think the assumption is yours, i.e. the assumption that there are other valid ways to know.

But if you say "The only way to know anything is empirically," then that can't be true but that's not empirically verifiable. It's self-defeating.

You don't think there are other ways to know anything other than empirically?

[seer]

'Intrinsic' means having it within itself.

I know Jim, so how do moral ideals have intrinsic worth? It seems like an assertion. Worth is something ascribe by rational beings, in this case rational moral beings.

[Tassman]

That is also a philosophical claim. I never said "philosophy alone".

You need to explain how the premise of a philosophical argent can be shown to be true. Because without a ‘true premise’ philosophy cannot arrive at a true conclusion about the real world.

I'm only saying that the statement "Empiricism alone is the only valid form of knowledge" contradicts itself because it's not an empirical finding.

Certainly, science needs philosophy but the bottom line is that philosophy alone can tell us nothing new about the real world. Unlike scientific methodology, it has no means to test and verify its premises.

[Jim B.]

You need to explain how the premise of a philosophical argent can be shown to be true. Because without a ‘true premise’ philosophy cannot arrive at a true conclusion about the real world.



Certainly, science needs philosophy but the bottom line is that philosophy alone can tell us nothing new about the real world. Unlike scientific methodology, it has no means to test and verify its premises.

It's not a simplistic, linear relationship like you suggest. The relationship between observation and reflection or understanding is more like a give-and-take, more like a dialogue. How we see the world isn't just a matter of accurate observation. What we see, to be "seen" at all, must mean something, must fit into a given conceptual structure. Perception, understanding and willing aren't separate activities. They feed into each other. To perceive something is to perceive it as something and that's already to relate it to the rest of what you already know. There's no 'neutral given,' no clean, objective observational starting point. That's a naive misunderstanding of empirical thinking from the 17th Century.

All observation occurs within some system of concepts and the judgments made based on those observations are only as good as the system they occur in.

Locke said that our experience tells us about the nature of reality. But how can we know since we can't jump outside our experience to compare it to reality? He begs the question.

"There are no logically necessary truths about the world" is based on logic. It claims to have logically necessary knowledge about the nature of the world, so it contradicts itself.

[Jim B.]

I know Jim, so how do moral ideals have intrinsic worth? It seems like an assertion. Worth is something ascribe by rational beings, in this case rational moral beings.

These things have worth for conscious beings, of course, but those beings don't necessarily confer that worth onto them, imo. Think of the analogy of pleasure. If pleasure is intrinsically a good thing, there still need to be sentient creatures to experience the pleasure, but that doesn't mean those creatures are ascribing the worth onto pleasure. It's there already waiting for them, even though it has to be actualized by being experienced.

[Tassman]

It's not a simplistic, linear relationship like you suggest. The relationship between observation and reflection or understanding is more like a give-and-take, more like a dialogue.

What you are suggesting with your "give-and take" notion will result perhaps in a nice idea, or one that resonates, but no certainty that it's true. Because, philosophy alone is not equipped to tell us anything new about the real world. Unlike scientific methodology, it has no means to test and verify its premises. And without a verified ‘true premise’ the conclusion of a philosophical argument cannot be shown to be true.

[seer]

These things have worth for conscious beings, of course, but those beings don't necessarily confer that worth onto them, imo. Think of the analogy of pleasure. If pleasure is intrinsically a good thing, there still need to be sentient creatures to experience the pleasure, but that doesn't mean those creatures are ascribing the worth onto pleasure. It's there already waiting for them, even though it has to be actualized by being experienced.

Again Jim, I don't know what you mean - why is pleasure an intrinsically good thing? How do moral ideals have intrinsic worth?

[shunyadragon]

I know Jim, so how do moral ideals have intrinsic worth? It seems like an assertion. Worth is something ascribe by rational beings, in this case rational moral beings.

Moral ideals have survival value in the evolution of the human species as a social intelligent omnivore that requires a social cooperative social unites like families and tribal units to survive.

[Jim B.]

What you are suggesting with your "give-and take" notion will result perhaps in a nice idea, or one that resonates, but no certainty that it's true. Because, philosophy alone is not equipped to tell us anything new about the real world. Unlike scientific methodology, it has no means to test and verify its premises. And without a verified ‘true premise’ the conclusion of a philosophical argument cannot be shown to be true.

You just basically repeated your previous post with no sign that you even read my last post.

[Jim B.]

Again Jim, I don't know what you mean - why is pleasure an intrinsically good thing? How do moral ideals have intrinsic worth?

The word "intrinsic" means "belonging naturally to," "essential or inherent to." So you're asking basically "What gave pleasure its worth which belongs naturally and essentially to it?" The question doesn't make any sense if you accept the meaning of the word "intrinsic." Why assume that there most be a worth-bestower that's external to the thing with worth?

I believe that God is the basis of consciousness, maybe that He is even "consciousness itself." And I also believe that consciousness is an intrinsically good thing. But why does all that necessarily mean that God creates the goodness of consciousness? Why can't it just be good in itself? Why can't it just be good to be healthy as opposed to sick? How does that diminish God's power?

[Jim B.]

Moral ideals have survival value in the evolution of the human species as a social intelligent omnivore that requires a social cooperative social unites like families and tribal units to survive.

That may be how morality first developed among early humans but if that was all there is to morality, it would be a topic for anthropologists only and not for other fields. To reduce a question to the context it first developed in is to commit the 'genetic fallacy.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy