Same Sex Marriages, Florists, and Bakers

[seer]

"When it comes to making life meaningful, what secular humanists hanker after is something they can't have and don't need. What they do need, if meaninglessness makes it impossible to get out of bed in the morning, is Prozac."

LOL... I wonder if Carp is on meds...

In a Godless world where there is no cosmic justice, and where morality is purely subjective, imagine telling the young victim of the holocaust that "meaning is what we bring to life," while her captor escapes punishment and leads a long and fulfilling life in Argentina believing that his actions were just and noble. Life on this planet is often harsh and cruel, with most people throughout history scratching and clawing just to survive. The absurdity of someone sitting comfortably in their middle class home in the developed West, with all of the freedoms afforded them by 2000 years of Christian influence, asserting that morality and meaning is ultimately subjective, but "gosh darnit, just carve out your own meaning. It's just as real."

Yep...

[carpedm9587]

He doesn't. As Russell himself stated,

“That Man is the product of causes which had no prevision of the end they were achieving; that his origin, his growth, his hopes and fears, his loves and his beliefs, are but the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms; that no fire, no heroism, no intensity of thought and feeling, can preserve an individual life beyond the grave; that all the labours of the ages, all the devotion, all the inspiration, all the noonday brightness of human genius, are destined to extinction in the vast death of the solar system, and that the whole temple of Man’s achievement must inevitably be buried beneath the debris of a universe in ruins—all these things, if not quite beyond dispute, are yet so nearly certain, that no philosophy which rejects them can hope to stand. Only within the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul’s habitation henceforth be safely built."

Or as atheist philosopher Alex Rosenberg puts it in The Atheist's Guide to Reality,

"Here is a list of some of the questions and their short answers The rest of the book explains the answers in more detail. Given what we know from the sciences, the answers are all pretty obvious. The interesting thing is to recognize how totally unavoidable they are, provided you place your confidence in science to provide the answers.

Is there a God? No.
What is the nature of reality? What physics says it is.
What is the purpose of the universe? There is none.
What is the meaning of life? Ditto.
Why am I here? Just dumb luck.
Does prayer work? Of course not.
Is there a soul? Is it immortal? Are you kidding?
Is there free will? Not a chance!
What happens when we die? Everything pretty much goes on as before, except us.
What is the difference between right and wrong, good and bad? There is no moral difference between them.
Why should I be moral? Because it makes you feel better than being immoral.
Is abortion, euthanasia, suicide, paying taxes, foreign aid, or anything else you don't like forbidden, permissible, or sometimes obligatory? Anything goes.
What is love, and how can I find it? Love is the solution to a strategic interaction problem. Don't look for it; it will find you when you need it.
Does history have any meaning or purpose? It's full of sound and fury, but signifies nothing.
Does the human past have any lessons for our future? Fewer and fewer, if it ever had any to begin with."

"When it comes to making life meaningful, what secular humanists hanker after is something they can't have and don't need. What they do need, if meaninglessness makes it impossible to get out of bed in the morning, is Prozac."

I've never seen this list. Here are my responses:

• Is there a God? No.
• What is the nature of reality? What physics says it is.
• What is the purpose of the universe? There is none.
• What is the meaning of life? Whatever I make it to be
• Why am I here? The process of evolution
• Does prayer work? Sometimes
• Is there a soul? There is "mind" Is it immortal? No.
• Is there free will? I have no idea. I experience free will, so that's good enough for me.
• What happens when we die? I like Keanu Reeve's answer: the people who love us will miss us.
• What is the difference between right and wrong, good and bad? Right is what we have determined we ought do, wrong is what we have determined we ought not do. What promotes/enhances/protects what we value we call "good" and what diminishes/threatens/degrades what we value we call "bad."
• Why should I be moral? Because, in a society, it maximizes the probability that what I value will be protected/promoted/enhanced.
• Is abortion, euthanasia, suicide, paying taxes, foreign aid, or anything else you don't like forbidden, permissible, or sometimes obligatory? That depends on the moral code of the person making the assessment.
• What is love, and how can I find it? Love is an intense feeling of deep affection and/or a choice of action
• Does history have any meaning or purpose? History is nothing more than the story of what has gone before. It has meaning if we wish to learn from it. It has purpose if it has meaning.
• Does the human past have any lessons for our future? Absolutely. Those not willing to learn from the past will end up repeating it - the bad as well as the good.

In a Godless world where there is no cosmic justice, and where morality is purely subjective, imagine telling the young victim of the holocaust that "meaning is what we bring to life," while her captor escapes punishment and leads a long and fulfilling life in Argentina believing that his actions were just and noble. Life on this planet is often harsh and cruel, with most people throughout history scratching and clawing just to survive. The absurdity of someone sitting comfortably in their middle class home in the developed West, with all of the freedoms afforded them by 2000 years of Christian influence, asserting that morality and meaning is ultimately subjective, but "gosh darnit, just carve out your own meaning. It's just as real."

And now you get to one of the primary reasons I think people cling to the notion of a god: it just makes them feel better to think that the "bad guys" get it in the end. Otherwise, how unfair is that! I mean, really.

But the fact is, sometimes the bad guys get away with it. Sometimes there is no justice. Sometimes life is cruel. If inventing a god to avoid having to face that reality makes you feel better, by all means invent a god. Or adopt one humanity has already invented for you. I prefer to simply face what seems to me to be pretty obvious: sometimes, life isn't fair - and that's life.

[carpedm9587]

I just asked for one for instance.

Ummm...I gave you one. Did you miss it?

You tend to paint with a broad brush, with no real justification.

In discussions as in art, Seer, sometimes a broad brush is the right tool, and sometimes we need that fine brush for the details. I'm sure I have used the wrong brush in the wrong place more than once. All I can say is, "I try not to."

And no I did not argue that because there is no naturalistic explanation for the laws of logic that God did it. I said that a rational immutable God accounts for the universal logical absolutes - which are not physical in nature, but conceptual.

Which you did by crafting a sound argument (presumably) that cannot be shown to be true but gets you exactly to the conclusion you want, using the very laws of logic you are attempting to show a foundation for. By any definition, Seer, that is a circular (and unsupported) argument.

And that atheism can not account for for universal conceptual truths. On any level. So it is much more that just saying that God did it.

Atheism cannot "account" for them, Seer, because to do so would involve getting into the same kind of circular argument you are currently putting forward. When there IS no argument, the wise man says, "there is no argument here." The laws of logic are self-evidently true. We cannot conceive of them being otherwise. They are part and parcel of how the universe works. I also cannot account for the laws of gravitation, strong and weak nuclear force, or electromagnetism, though I can observe them and recognize them and quantify them.

And you are indeed slipping into that gap with "god did it" using a highly flawed and circular argument. Sorry, Seer - but it just won't fly.

[Mountain Man]

The fact is, if atheism is true, then we remain sentient and we continue to have the ability to derive meaning.

We can also use our sentience to derive "meaning" out of a random pattern in a rock. So what? That doesn't make it true or rational.

Why is it a "fiction?"

Because it's something you make up and that has no grounding in reason. You think that public service gives your life "meaning". Someone else might think that cheating the elderly out of their retirement savings gives his life "meaning". For that matter, someone could think that undoing all of your work is the source of their "meaning". If atheism is true then one source of "meaning" is as good as any other. It literally doesn't matter. It's just something you arbitrarily latch on to in order to get through the day.

MM - you are arbitrarily declaring any meaning that the human mind derives as "meaningless."

I haven't declared anything. All I've done is point out the logical implications of your own worldview.

[seer]

Seer, that argument is perfectly sound. If you think otherwise, I suggest you research the concept of soundness in an argument. Or perhaps Max or Chrawnus can chime in. I suspect you will take their word where you will not take mine. Gentlemen - is this argument sound?

P1) I value life
P2) A thing that is valued should not be destroyed indiscriminately
C) I should not destroy life indiscriminately

Carp you already admitted that this was an inductive argument (which tend towards fallacies), not deductive. In other words you were countering my deductive argument with an inductive.

I am noting that no one can account for logical absolutes without engaging in a circular argument: You have to use the logical absolutes you are trying to account for to show they exist.

Well no, I don't start with logical absolutes - I start with God. I thought that was obvious...

Seer, the basic laws of logic are considered self-evidently true for no other reason than our minds cannot grasp them NOT being true. So we begin with these three basic principles and build from there to other conclusions. There is no circle here. At no point am I trying (as you are) to use the basic laws of reason to prove the source of the basic laws of reason.

The fact that you can not grasp how it could be otherwise is not deductive justification, it certainly is not justification for logical absolutes.

[carpedm9587]

LOL... I wonder if Carp is on meds...

I am, actually. Thanks for noting it and belittling it. Those of us who struggle applaud you.

Yep...

See my response to Adrift.

[carpedm9587]

We can also use our sentience to derive "meaning" out of a random pattern in a rock. So what? That doesn't make it true or rational.

Because you say so? I actually have a rock on my desk that I picked up on one of the last walks I took with my father. There is a candle on it. Each morning, as I start work, I light that candle and remember my dad. The rock is meaningful to me. It is a physical link to my dad. It brings him to my mind, and reminds me of some of the walks and talks we had. I presume the same rock has zero meaning to anyone else.

Who are you to arbitrarily decide "it's not real?" As long as I live, and as long as I have that rock, it will have that meaning for me. That meaning will be perfectly real - for me. And when I am gone - that meaning will end.

Because it's something you make up and that has no grounding in reason.

You paint a false dichotomy. Indeed, I should perhaps ignore everything you are writing, because the word you are using are meaningless. After all, their definition is "made up" and (according to you) not grounded in reason. MM - you contradict yourself simply by writing or speaking a language, whose words you accept as "meaningful."

You think that public service gives your life "meaning".

I think it is meaningful to me to engage in public service. It is a purpose I choose.

Someone else might think that cheating the elderly out of their retirement savings gives his life "meaning".

Yes - they might.

For that matter, someone could think that undoing all of your work is the source of their "meaning".

Yes - they could.

If atheism is true then one source of "meaning" is as good as any other.

Not to the one deriving meaning.

It literally doesn't matter.

It does to the one deriving meaning.

It's just something you arbitrarily latch on to in order to get through the day.

And the week, and the month, and the year, and the entirety of my life

I haven't declared anything. All I've done is point out the logical implications of your own worldview.

The implications of my worldview are that the meanings I choose are limited and personal. They will end when I end. And the problem with that is...?

[seer]

Which you did by crafting a sound argument (presumably) that cannot be shown to be true but gets you exactly to the conclusion you want, using the very laws of logic you are attempting to show a foundation for. By any definition, Seer, that is a circular (and unsupported) argument.

My argument is not circular Carp, the argument I presented was deductive. You made this argument Carp:

P1) I value life
P2) A thing that is valued should not be destroyed indiscriminately
C) I should not destroy life indiscriminately

You can not show that to be true but it gets you the conclusion that you desire. So if I'm circular so are you...

Atheism cannot "account" for them, Seer, because to do so would involve getting into the same kind of circular argument you are currently putting forward. When there IS no argument, the wise man says, "there is no argument here." The laws of logic are self-evidently true. We cannot conceive of them being otherwise. They are part and parcel of how the universe works. I also cannot account for the laws of gravitation, strong and weak nuclear force, or electromagnetism, though I can observe them and recognize them and quantify them.

That is false Carp, universal logical absolutes are NOT self-evidently true. You need another step to get there...

[seer]

I am, actually. Thanks for noting it and belittling it. Those of us who struggle applaud you.

Really? I didn't think you were - sorry...

[carpedm9587]

My argument is not circular Carp, the argument I presented was deductive.

You are attempting to establish the rational foundations for the laws of reason. You are using the laws of reason to make that argument. And you think this is not circular? Seer - perhaps you don't understand "circular" any more than you understand "sound."

You made this argument Carp:

You can not show that to be true but it gets you the conclusion that you desire. So are you being hypocritical again?

You just cannot help yourself with the hypocrisy thing, can you? Oh well...

Seer - you are completely missing the point of the argument. The argument was to put before you what YOU are doing. The argument I put forward is a perfectly sound argument. The argument you put forward is (presumably) a perfectly sound argument. The argument I put forward has premises that I cannot demonstrate to be true. The argument you put forward has premises you cannot show to be true. The argument I put forward cannot therefore be shown to be valid. The argument you put forward cannot be shown to be valid. See the parallelism?

Now I know my argument IS valid because the premises are subjective to me - but I cannot make that case to anyone else by the very nature of the topic. You, on the other hand, are attempting to make claims about objective reality - and you want your conclusion to be accepted about this objective reality - yet you can no more show your premises to be true than I can show mine. And you can't even show them to be true for yourself.

Not to mention the circularity of trying to use the laws of reason to establish the foundation for the laws of reason.

That is false Carp, universal logical absolutes are NOT self-evidently true. You need another step to get there...

OK - I'll bite. How do you get to the truth of the universal logical absolutes without accepting them as self-evident? My philosophy roots may be rusty - but I didn't think they were THAT rusty.

[carpedm9587]

Really? I didn't think you were - sorry...

Don't get too worried. I take allergy medicine. But I thought I'd point out how blindly belittling you (and so many others here) can sometimes be, and the potential for harm it can represent.

[Mountain Man]

Because you say so? I actually have a rock on my desk that I picked up on one of the last walks I took with my father. There is a candle on it. Each morning, as I start work, I light that candle and remember my did. The rock is meaningful to me. It is a physical link to my dad. It brings him to my mind, and reminds me of some of the walks and talks we had. I presume the same rock has zero meaning to anyone else.

Who are you to arbitrarily decide "it's not real?" As long as I live, and as long as I have that rock, it will have that meaning for me. That meaning will be perfectly real - for me. And when I am gone - that meaning will end.



You paint a false dichotomy. Indeed, I should perhaps ignore everything you are writing, because the word you are using are meaningless. After all, their definition is "made up" and (according to you) not grounded in reason. MM - you contradict yourself simply by writing or speaking a language, whose words you accept as "meaningful."



I think it is meaningful to me to engage in public service. It is a purpose I choose.



Yes - they might.



Yes - they could.



Not to the one deriving meaning.



It does to the one deriving meaning.



And the week, and the month, and the year, and the entirety of my life



The implications of my worldview are that the meanings I choose are limited and personal. They will end when I end. And the problem with that is...?

When your responses start getting this long and weedy and you break up even short paragraphs to answer a sentence at a time, that indicates to me that you realize you've lost the debate and are desperately grasping at straws.

[carpedm9587]

When your responses start getting this long and weedy and you break up even short paragraphs to answer a sentence at a time, that indicates to me that you realize you've lost the debate and are desperately grasping at straws.

I had to laugh a bit at this. This is the quintessential MM dismount when you have no place to go: find a reason why Michel's posting is not acceptable and disconnect. It's not all that intellectually honest, but at least you're consistent. Personally - I think this is the line that got you: "MM - you contradict yourself simply by writing or speaking a language, whose words you accept as 'meaningful.' "

Nice chat, MM. Catch you on the flip side.

[seer]

You are attempting to establish the rational foundations for the laws of reason. You are using the laws of reason to make that argument. And you think this is not circular? Seer - perhaps you don't understand "circular" any more than you understand "sound."

How do you decide that the laws of logic are self-evident without first using the laws of reason?

Seer - you are completely missing the point of the argument. The argument was to put before you what YOU are doing. The argument I put forward is a perfectly sound argument. The argument you put forward is (presumably) a perfectly sound argument. The argument I put forward has premises that I cannot demonstrate to be true. The argument you put forward has premises you cannot show to be true. The argument I put forward cannot therefore be shown to be valid. The argument you put forward cannot be shown to be valid. See the parallelism?

Now I know my argument IS valid because the premises are subjective to me - but I cannot make that case to anyone else by the very nature of the topic. You, on the other hand, are attempting to make claims about objective reality - and you want your conclusion to be accepted about this objective reality - yet you can no more show your premises to be true than I can show mine. And you can't even show them to be true for yourself.

No Carp, I'm not asking you to accept my argument as having an objective reality, of course you won't you are an atheist. All I'm pointing out is that the theist can account for universal logical absolutes, the atheist can't. And that there is no rational way for the atheist to get to universal logical absolutes.

Not to mention the circularity of trying to use the laws of reason to establish the foundation for the laws of reason.

That is a falsehood Carp, this is not a circular argument:

P1. God thinks and creates rationally, he embodies conceptual logical truths.
P2. God is omnipresent, inhabiting all points of the universe.
P3. God’s rational nature is immutable.
C4. Therefore conceptual logical absolutes exist universally.

OK - I'll bite. How do you get to the truth of the universal logical absolutes without accepting them as self-evident? My philosophy roots may be rusty - but I didn't think they were THAT rusty.

See above...

[Adrift]

I've never seen this list.

Probably because you haven't read Rosenberg. The point wasn't "let's compare lists." The point was that your claim that, "the atheist goes through each day aware that meaning is what we bring to life" (as though that claim were universal) is bunk. There are plenty of atheists who don't believe that life has meaning, either in the sense the Christians here use when they refer to "meaning" or in your much more limited sense of "I'll make my own meaning."

And now you get to one of the primary reasons I think people cling to the notion of a god: it just makes them feel better to think that the "bad guys" get it in the end. Otherwise, how unfair is that! I mean, really.

But the fact is, sometimes the bad guys get away with it. Sometimes there is no justice. Sometimes life is cruel. If inventing a god to avoid having to face that reality makes you feel better, by all means invent a god. Or adopt one humanity has already invented for you. I prefer to simply face what seems to me to be pretty obvious: sometimes, life isn't fair - and that's life.

Well, no. The primary reason people cling to the notion of God (certainly people here) is because overwhelming evidence points to God. But, you know, what's good for the goose is good for the gander,

And now you get to one of the primary reasons I think carpedm9587 clings to the notion of a meaning: it just makes him feel better about his own life. Otherwise, how unfair would that be! I mean, really.

But the fact is, in a Godless world, life has no meaning. In the here and now, sometimes there is no justice. Sometimes life is cruel. If inventing meaning to avoid having to face that reality makes him feel better, by all means invent a meaning. Just realize that (as Rosenberg puts it) you're merely holding onto a powerful illusion. I prefer to simply face what seems to me to be pretty obvious: sometimes, life isn't fair - but God is great, and the judge of all the earth will do right. For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.