That sounds like a debate, which is all that I ask for. If you think they are being sincere, why would you laugh instead of saying “show me that God said it”?
You don’t have to into the weeds if you can point out a previous debate on the matter, unless your religious opposite says they have more to add or the previous debate transcript is inaccessible. If they don’t have anything to add, then you can laugh, but I think it would be bad taste if they were sincere.
~Max
The difference between a conversation and morality is that we agree on the definition of a conversation. This record of an exchange of messages is agreed by all parties to exist and constitute a conversation. Likewise we agree that certain papers and coins constitute money, and exist; therefore money exists.
The analogies break down because people do not agree on whether a given act is moral, therefore you might say “morality can be found in this act” but another can say “no, it can’t”. You can look to your definition of morality but your opponent can cite a different definition. Indeed, one theory of universal morality is that that morality is like a post-hoc field-guide, first you classify the real, physical act by type then find the corresponding section, upon the proper page it will read “this act is moral if it meets the following criteria…”, and so as a matter of taxonomy any particular act can be given a moral classification.
The same break-down could be observed with money or conversation, too. Think of a tourist who holds up Pesos and is told “that’s not money here”, or the father who says “I’m going to have a talk with that child” before fashioning a whip from his belt, whose wife pleads “that’s not a talk at all!”.
That being said, I don’t think Pratchett was talking about morality (justice, mercy, duty) as the linguistic classification of physical reality as much as a physical or nonphysical property of physical acts. Assuming that definition, the Death character then is saying that the existence of such properties is a lie; there is no force which acts upon such properties and therefore no objective judgement of souls; no heaven or hell as commonly understood in the Christian tradition; no reason to be good when nobody is looking or nobody will know; no consolation as to the constant suffering in the real world; and for many people who have suffered much, no point in living.
Suffice to say, I don’t understand how Death’s dialogue represents anything except nihilism. The penultimate line, Susan’s last line, is the essence of absurdism. Death’s response affirms the Absurd, and his previous description of morality as a lie throws out the possibility for Susan to make a leap of faith (if she is a philosopher). Traditionally this leaves the options of nihilism or suicide. Philosophers tend to throw out suicide so…
Actually, it makes sense for a character named “Death” to accept the Absurd while rejecting religion and nihilism. That’s pretty smart from a literary perspective. Or maybe I haven’t got a clue.
~Max
But we never get to the issue, only to the justification for their position. I’m well aware they sincerely believe god said it. When they find they can’t support this position, then I can ask for secular arguments.
If they don’t have any, then I can laugh.
So, you’re saying faith healing is not bunk because it is meaningful to the suckers who believe in it?
Yes, I know, although I am unfamiliar with the man and his works, and have no idea whether he was a nihilist or what. I believe the first time I heard of him was in the Defense of Dualism thread a couple months ago.
I don’t understand what you are trying to say here. A given moral framework doesn’t factor into things unless people defer to that moral framework. What do you mean by “that which benefits the overall benefit/good/right/justice for all”? The moral framework defines what is a benefit/good/right/just. If you are saying people who choose moral acts tend to be moral according to the moral framework they are using, I will admit that tautology.
Well now I’m doubly confused. Here I thought something that is ultimately futile is always futile. This is the central dillema of absurdism. So from my perspective we can just do a little edit:
Futile when everything comes to an unavoidable end. […] Which, again, IS EXACTLY THE POINT.
I haven’t decided because I haven’t worked out my personal beliefs on epistemology. Being undecided is very close to epistemological nihilism, a form of skepticism, but it is not quite the same.
But as I said before, I don’t even assume the tenets of nihilism in public policy debate, just like I do not assume the tenets of solipsism. Those philosophies are just so far removed from public policy that I find myself unable to form a political opinion while espousing their views.
This is why I’m having trouble applying the Pratchett quote to the original topic.
~Max
You appear to be bending over backwards to accommodate all possible moral frameworks. In service of what? Don’t you discriminate at all?
No. The POINT is that morality exists DESPITE the seeming futility. And while we can make a pretty good guess that humanity’s expected survival is finite, it doesn’t mean that individual lives are futile. Humans, despite all their failings, tend to find meaning in life. And various forms of morality arise from that. Not all of which agree nor are all created equal. I think you have to admit that much.
Well, let’s see then: If religion is a lie, like everything else, at the end of the day you’ve got to believe something - a moral framework you can live with (and fight for), or what’s the point?
Max, I occasionally find myself in a discussion with somebody in which I explain my position seven ways from Sunday, every possible way I can think of, including in fashions that not only I but also other people in the discussion find perfectly clear; but the person I’m discussing it with can’t make any sense out of it. If other people think I’m making sense, then it’s not just a problem with my explanations. The likeliest conclusion I can come to (aside from the possiblity that the person’s not arguing in good faith or not reading/listening to my explanations in the first place) is that our heads work so differently that we’re never going to make sense to each other.
I suspect that this is what’s going on here. In which case there’s not much sense in my trying, over and over again, to explain myself to somebody who’s in some ways living in a different universe.
(You seem, by the way, to be living in a universe in which politicians who tell lies don’t get elected. On that particular issue, I wish I were too.)
It’s the, ‘all moral frameworks are equal if you just bore down deep enough to their axiomatic roots’, that makes me want to bang my head on the desk.
That’s what I was trying to bring Pratchett to bear against. But I feel like I’m trying to use a Torx drive on a Phillips screw, or the other way around.
Conceded, although I never meant to give the impression that there are not other opportunities and venues for religious discussions outside the halls of Congress.
~Max
Perhaps you are wrong. Does there exist evidence as to whether an act is moral in the eyes of society? Is not the evidence simply whether your neighbors on balance say the act is moral?
~Max
I am well satisfied if you go to that length in debate, although I recommend caution when challenging religious axioms with secular arguments, and I do not agree about the laughing as a matter of taste. If you wish to go on discussing our differences in these matters I would be glad to continue, otherwise I am willing to set aside our differences as you would debate religious arguments down to the axioms at least.
~Max
You misunderstand, I am saying faith healing is not bunk from the perspective of the suckers who believe in it.
~Max
I bend over backwards to accommodate all possible moral frameworks in service of my own ignorance as to what is actually moral and what is actually immoral. I have ideas as to what is moral and what is immoral, but ultimately I don’t know if my beliefs are true, and this is a consequence of my own inadequate personal epistemology.
That doesn’t mean my reaction to a tragic event is “so it goes” or “maybe he did the right thing”. Usually unless I try very hard to think like a philosopher I will take as an axiom some basic principles of religion, and let habit walk right over the cognitive dissonance. I try not to do that when discussing philosophy.
Just remember that you’re standing on a planet that’s evolving and revolving at nine hundred miles an hour…
Just admitting that there is no inherent moral framework is to embrace the absurd. To also reject religion and the supernatural is to accept nihilism. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter whether you make lemonade.
Really, I do understand what you are saying. You think life is inherently meaningless and people themselves add meaning. I think that’s a form of nihilism too, specifically existential nihilism.
~Max
I’m sorry to hear that, and it is probably me who doesn’t understand something.
I was probably discussing what ought to be.
~Max
Oh, now I see what you meant to add by bringing in Pratchett.
I must only point out that many religious people disagree with the Death character when he says there is no natural order of things; they might say that justice, mercy, and duty are real although immaterial. If faced with irrefutable evidence that religion is a lie, I have no doubt that many people would indeed choose death over nihilism, even existential nihilism. I would venture to say many intentional suicides can be attributed to this exact reason. Have you read The Sound and the Fury by William Faulkner? Though fictitious, I identify Quentin as someone of this character.
~Max
So is astrology. So is anti-vaxx. So is the Flat Earth. Should all of these things be given equal footing with verified science in the public debate?
I’m definitely willing to do that, for efficiency if nothing else. If religious people have n positions, all based on religious axioms, then the best way to refute their justification is to refute the religious axioms.
I was under the impression that you thought debating axioms was improper in some way. If I was mistaken about this, then we’re good.
Not quite, I think the “footing” should be proportional to the number of people who espouse those views. So let’s pretend half of the country is anti-vaccination while the other half is pro-vaccination. Then the totality of public debate on that matter should be split evenly between both sides.
Presumably the pro-vaccination arguments are more persuasive and over time more people will support vaccination than oppose it, and that trend will continue until anti-vaccination is a fringe position (as it is currently I believe, on a national level). In public debate anti-vaccination might not have any followers in the legislature, and thus public debate on anti-vaccination measures is limited to fringe groups. Then the law should support stronger vaccination policy.
Now pretend the opposite happens. If anti-vaccination arguments prove to be more persuasive and support for vaccines becomes a fringe position, less people will argue in support of vaccines, and the law should support weaker vaccination policy.
~Max