Copyright help needed for refutation of "silver bullet" argument againt Atheistic morality

This is amusing. rpenner is one of the calmest, most rational and best-educated people on this whole forum. Picking him as a target for attack seems to say more about you than about him. And then something goes FUNG! and we get an off-topic rant about problems in the US today.

I, for one, am starting to draw some tentative conclusions about you…….

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If rpenner is rational and well-educated, he is free to demonstrate these qualities for himself. So far, all he's demonstrated is a tendency to use ad lapidem fallacies in his evasion of addressing anything I'm saying, and various other fallacies in his own failed attempt to refute Rashdall's argument, all of which shows abysmally low standards for both qualities. As long as he maintains his display of these low standards, I will treat him accordingly.

My point in the "off-topic rant" was to show how calmness is problematically overrated in an objective discussion, especially when it is considered a higher priority than objectivity, as it is here, apparently. I wouldn't be talking about these things if no one was using them as an excuse for their fallacies.

If rpenner feels the need, he can even be as rude or aggressive to me as he wants, and as long as he is honest, and he proves that his harsh demeanor is justified, I would respect him for that, more than I would ever respect him for proving nothing because he was too busy being "nice."

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

(Debate runs for about 2 hours of this 2h40m video)

Turek's argument, best seen in his closing, is that because Mother Teresa is judged more moral than Hitler requires that source of perfect morality exist. This he supports more with bible quotes and attempts to tie Hitler and Evolution together than reasoned argument. It's not clear that Shermer was aware of any connection to a Moral Argument traceable to Rashdall because Turek seemed much more rooted in Paley's "The Blind Watchmaker" in that he equated the known works of human authorship, like the rules of baseball, to an objective morality without marks of authorship. Where Paley and Turek assume authorship, and thus a God, this is not a reasoned position but an argument from ignorance. Both sides believed in an objective morality, imperfectly revealed. But Shermer's faith in progress in the long arc of history towards greater moral perfection seems baseless without a mechanism. Shermer's book, The Moral Arc, may or may not reveal hints of a mechanism and may be a good sequel to his earlier The Science of Good and Evil.

I disagree that Turek's argument, whether or not it relied on Rashdall, was any sort of ‘unstoppable "silver bullet"’. Shermer argued from presented evidence that tiny monkeys know when they are being rewarded unequally for identical behavior, and it was Turek who completely ignored the implication of that for his pre-prepared slides asserting morality requires a mind, not just the products of evolution.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Okay, that's a start. Your analysis makes sense, both in terms of where each side is coming from, and the validity of Rashdall's argument on a purely objective basis. I agree with what you're saying, here. With that in mind, however, I realize now that I should clarify my description of the resilience of Rashdall's Argument:

I acknowledge how invalid Rashdall's argument is. After all, I've been refuting the rationale in less formal variations of the argument for a long time. The only reason I've gone straight for Rashdall's argument only recently is because I was only recently made aware of Rashdall's own version, which serves as a "prototype" for the rest. How could I do that if I didn't recognize its flaws?

The problem was that no one else seemed to realize what I had realized. As mentioned in my OP, I'm leaning toward a hunch that it may have something to do with a collective misunderstanding of both "objectivity" and the usefulness of formal science due to a widespread case of implicit memory. Other than that, refuting Rashdall's argument is actually pretty easy. The fact that it remained undefeated for a century, and thus was allowed to completely stifle progress for so long, was just an unfortunate coincidence.

In fact, the "silver bullet" in the thread title was in quotes as a means of implying that it was only regarded as such, when it really wasn't.

Oh, and one more thing: Evolution isn't so much a source of any understanding of morality, thought it does give us an instinctive compulsion to try to be good anyway, since it helps us survive as a specie.

 

And of course, a silver bullet is a fictional means for killing a fictional entity. It may be entertaining but it has no basis in reality.

 

Define objectivity...although I disagree with atheism I also have never seen a thorough enough definition of objectivity...

 

I already gave a thorough, albeit informal, exploration of objectivity. As I had said earlier:

EDIT: An example would help, wouldn't it? An objective statement might be to refer to an object and say "This is an apple." The criteria would basically be the definition of what an apple is, and the statement's status as true or false would depend on the comparison of the object to the definition of what an apple is. If the object matches the definition of an apple, then the statement that the object is an apple would meet the criteria of being true.

Another statement, "Red is the best color," would not be objective. "Best" refers to a measurement of quality, and without a defined quality to measure, the criteria remains undefined.

 

Even if it was undefeated for decades, I can't imagine that it enjoyed success, but rather was never brought into conflict with people with any desire to argue rationally and publicly against it. Do you have a source for the claim that it ‘remained undefeated for a century’? Because there are a whole lot of arguments for the existence of God and because the content of the argument is more important than the original author, doing research on any particular one of them can be tricky.

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm (More than a bit tongue-in-cheek.)
http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Top_ten_arguments_for_the_existence_of_God (See #8 and #1 which date back to at least the 11th and 19th centuries, respective)

 

So what if the operational criteria originates from a subjective framework will that not defeat the purpose? True objectivity should not consist of probable outcomes.

 

Who says it has to be subjective? I mean, sure, moral systems so far have failed to be objective, but that's why they're so ineffective. I'd argue that morality is more of a tool, and because we as humans have been treating it as subjective so far, we have designed this tool for ourselves without any real understanding of what the tool is used for, let alone how the tool should fulfill its purpose, and that's why it just doesn't work.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with your second sentence, though, so I'll wait for your clarification before addressing it.

 

What you are describing here is subjective objectivity, this is still not objectivity, someone on this site quoted something along the lines of saying " if a million people agreed on one stupid idea it's still a stupid idea" objectively speaking of course. Never allow your senses to decieve you although that may be the greatest challenge in existence as a temporal bieng...

 

Why are you assuming that I'm only talking about normative definitions?

Going with what I've been saying, the fact that we've been treating morality as subjective, and defining it with normative statements, is why our current moral systems don't make sense. I'm not going to pretend that being immoral is going to "offend" something inherent to the cosmos, or anything like that. However, being immoral will cause problems for us; without any objective understanding of what we're dealing with, however, any moral system that we design will, at best, be ineffective in dealing with or preventing such problems.

Normative statements can only describe what we think ought to be, and as such, they can't describe anything we can use to bring these things about.

(P.S. I'll have to excuse myself for a while; there are other obligations for me to tend to right now.)

 

When you are able to remove probability from the math, only then will you truly understand objectivity as well as morality.

 

No matter the construct you use it will always be tainted by the senses of humans or animals...

 

I'm still not sure what, exactly, you are referring to when you say "probability." I've been trying to figure out how to terminate do-while loops by user input in the "do" section in Java, and the best solution I can find ends up failing to satisfy the purpose of the overall program; needless to say, my head really hurts. As such, I'll let you give more clarification while I wait for the aspirin to kick in, and then maybe later I'll be able to research the terminology myself again.

That's not actually the case, here; after all, we're dealing with formal science, not natural science. The refutation I've already given goes into this further. Of course, it's being dismissed on the basis of an ad lapidem argument, which is why no one has read it...

(I'll continue typing from here, since the following still needs to be said, even though it's a tangent and it's not going to be considered wither way, so I'll keep it separated from the rest of this post.)

Spoiler

Considering the site I'm debating on, it's not surprising at all. I only came here to ask a question, and even then, I was hesitant to come here at all. If I wanted to debate, I would have gone to a website where people actually care about debating with honesty and objectivity. I already knew who I'd be dealing with here, based on prior experience. With the refreshingly enlightened reply from the staff member I've contacted, I've come to a horrifying realization. See, as an Atheist myself, I realize that Atheism is not a religion, nor is it supposed to be a religion, and all things considered, it shouldn't ever be made into a religion. And what have you, the Atheists here at Sciforums done? You've turned Atheism into a ****ing religion. You haven't just reinforced the stereotypes that the religious place on us; you have made those stereotypes into reality, by becoming them yourselves. Previously, I would refer to Sciforums as an example of internal disagreement to the point of dysfunction among Atheists, in order to counter theistic accusations that Atheism contains "unquestionable dogma." Now, I realize I can't even do that, because they're going to look at this website, and they are going to see a horde of ignorant, dogmatic narcissists, hiding spite behind patronization. Congratulations, Atheists of Sciforums! You have become your own enemy, and you're making the rest of us Atheists out there look horrible by association.

 

That's not actually the case, here; after all, we're dealing with formal science,

Explain...then I will respond

 

If you had actually read and considered my argument before judging its validity, you would already know what I'm talking about here; this goes for all of you. Since you asked, however, I will give you my answer, though what you or anyone else will do with this information remains dubious. Either way, I had recently given a basic overview of formal science to a friend of mine (further information in spoiler block at the bottom) during a discussion about whether or not science can verify or falsify any position regarding the events of the New Testament. I shall post it here:

When he asked for clarification on which formal sciences (he also asked about specific examples, because he actually was willing to research the topic) would show the falsehood of the New Testament, I responded with the following:

And, for everyone's consideration, the spoiler block below contains some info on the guy who I was speaking to:

Spoiler: This is someone who is better at honest and reasoned discussion than all of you

This guy is willing to listen to and consider what others say, and his responses are always honest. He will address what you are saying; if he needs more information, he will research the information himself, and even when he is done, he will ask you what you mean, to confirm his understanding; if he can't address what you are saying, he will acknowledge this, and he will be honest about it. He and I have our disagreements, but he welcomes all who would give an honest counter-argument to his arguments, as do I. I respect him, even with my own form of respect, and I can do so without needing any aggression or hostility, because even though he's on the wrong side, he does not warrant these reactions in and of himself. And, to show how low you all had to sink in order to be beneath this guy:

...

He is a Christian Apologist from Texas.

I repeat: You all have sunk so low that you have less of an ability to engage in an honest and reasoned discussion than a Christian Apologist from Texas.

 

What is your arguments using formal science? Give me the sizzlers I don't like long reading unless its my topic of choice.

 

I have already posted the argument, as well as clarifications of the argument itself within the document, and clarifications of what the argument does and does not address in the posts of this forum. There's nothing stopping you from reading it, or asking me questions, but you should know the following distinction:

-If you request that I clarify or elaborate on something that I have said, which you have read but want to understand better, then I will be more than willing to explain to you that which you want to know, to the best of my ability.

However...

-If you request that I give you "the sizzlers" of my argument or position because, by your own shameless admission, you need me to accommodate your laziness and your indifference to the topic being discussed, then I will be more than willing to inform you that you are free to leave this discussion, and then you can go run along to engage in whatever it is you find more entertaining than trying to solve the world's problems.

It's up to you.

 

You recognize that with the following you disqualify yourself completely as a reasonable participant of civilized discussion?

First of all: An attack against "you all". This does not prove that it is unbased, but makes it at least very probable. Not that there would be no objective reasons to attack the style of discussion of whole groups. The overall level of education seems to decrease, primitive ad hominem and ad Hitlerum attacks become more and more common, and are quite prominent here too. But these are things one can talk about in a completely neutral way, without attacking any particular persons. This is the polite way to argue about such things.

Thus, that you present some general problem as an attack on "you all" does not tell us anything about the problem itself, which could not have been said in a way which does not contain personal attacks. But, of course, it gives some additional information - and this is information about you. You, obviously, prefer to use personal attacks. Against all.

I'm not one who likes to give psychiatric diagnoses, but I think you should be aware that many other people do. Given such an aggressive behaviour in your argumentation, without any visible cause, which could explain it as an emotional overreaction, a lot of people will start to think about you in terms like "antisocial personality" or "sadism". I doubt this is something you would like to reach.

The next point is, I think, even worse. You have written a lot of good things about that person - in fact, nothing bad at all. The only "bad" thing is - what - that he is a "Christian Apologist from Texas". I have to admit that being a Christian Apologist from Texas is nothing one should use to convince me that he is a reasonable guy worth to start a discussion with him. I have, of course, my own prejudices, and they do not really favour nor Christians nor citizens of Texas. But I use these prejudices for what prejudices are useful - to have some initial expectations about culture, mindset and so on, which prevents me from making some errors, and a real christian apologist from Texas would have no problem with them, first because I use them only as a starting point, which can be easily modified, and second because I would never use such prejudices as arguments.

Here, instead, being a "Christian Apologist from Texas" alone is used as a characterization bad enough to suggest that we all will be full of shame recognizing that we sunk so low that we are, in some particular aspect, below a some particular "Christian Apologist from Texas". This makes sense only if being such a guy would be, in any way, really shameful, and that they all are so seriously distorted that "to engage in an honest and reasoned discussion" with them is close to impossible.

Given that being a Christian Apologist from Texas is nothing wrong in itself - being from Texas is nothing, christianity is a quite popular religion there, and defending the own religious belief a quite natural thing - one starts to think what this means. Now, this seems quite clear if one looks at the content of the thread - a moral argument proposed by some christian apologist. Thus, the christian apologist is simply one who objects, who is an opponent in the discussion with you. So, it looks like everybody who objects to you becomes, already because of this objection, a member of a group of people worth to be despised.

What you praise him for also raises a point:

His praised behaviour is obviously quite submissive. Do you behave accordingly, following the Golden Rule, and act in a similar way? I think, with my own form of respect suggests something different.

So, you create an image about yourself of a quite aggressive type, who treats his opponents - as a group - as despisable people, and even as an extremely submissive opponent one cannot expect a symmetrical polite response, but only some unspecified own form of respect. Is this really what you want?