I'm saying that perhaps it matters whether moral claims are mere opinion or whether they can actually be true or false, but I don't see offhand why it would matter whether we could call them "transcendent" or not.
I promise this isn't an ambush
- Thread starter SkullKrusher
- Start date
Good point.
It matters in that morals cannot be transcendent. Morals are transcended. Nothing can be transcendent.
No, my point was that the caring which went on in the universe did not constitute a pattern which pointed to the universe being governed by a supreme intelligence.
And you could point out that there are people in Russia who care deeply about peace and human rights, but that does not mean Russia is governed by someone who cares deeply about peace and human rights. I'm saying the same applies to the world as a whole: there are people who care about peace, and human rights, and their fellow man, but that does not mean the world is governed by someone who cares about those things.
Obviously "people can intelligently care about other people" does not come close to meaning the same thing as "there is a supreme intelligence guiding the world," so (equally obviously) my denying the latter does not close to implying that I deny the former.
Let's consider eyes. There are organisms which don't have eyes. There are other organisms which have a rudimentary kind of eye. There are other organisms which have a more sophisticated eye, of one specialized type. There are other organisms which have a sophisticated eye of a different specialized type. Humans have a sophisticated eye with a flawed construction (giving rise to the blind spot), which was apparently inherited from our ancestors, who inherited it from their ancestors, going back a half-billion or so years ago, in all of which time the flaw has not been mended.
Similarly, limbs. There are organisms without limbs. There are organisms with something between a fin and a limb. There are organisms with sophisticated ways of using limbs for running and climbing. There are organisms with vestigial limbs....
Is this a pattern pointing to a supreme intelligence? It seems to me rather a pattern pointing to the jury-rigging and compromises forced by path dependence in evolution. Now I know that there are many who believe that both these things are true: that we are the product of the jury-rigging and compromises of evolution, and that we are part of the plan created by a supreme intelligence. And I'm not saying it's irrational to believe both things are true; I'm just saying that the "plan" part is not something I perceive.
I'm not sure which pieces you're talking about here that "all fit together.. even though they're quite unrelated."
"YMMV" = "your mileage may vary," i.e. "perhaps you would see this as something more than just a bunch of different pressures knocking into each other, even though I don't."
Not that I'm aware of it.
But if there were such an explosion, why would that imply that the world was governed by a supreme intelligence? That's still the only point I'm making; that I don't see any sign, from the ways the world works, that we are under any such government.
You said many people care about me personally; I said yes, but very few in proportion to those who don't even know about me, and there will be even fewer in the future. You then asked how I knew that there would be even fewer in the future and I explained: because I will die, and the people who care about me personally now will die, and the rest of the human race will naturally not care about a dead person like myself. Not trying to say anything deep, here.
Again, I'm not disputing the fact that patterns exist; I'm disputing the conclusion that the patterns we observe point to the existence of a supreme intelligence who governs the world.
Here's what you posted: ""the world does not seem, to me at least, like the kind of world which is governed by a supreme intelligence."
Fair enough.
" It's not just the apparent lack of concern about us;"
This is where I jumped in and asked you about the fact that there are literally billions of people all over the world who care about other people. There are people who care about you and there are people who care about me. This is not an apparent lack of concern.
" I can't see any pattern to things which gives us any clear sign that Anybody particularly cares about anything in it, "
Here again, I addressed this as well, and you seem to see that there are repetitive patterns which show that there is some consideration or care. There are even patterns of care and concern from individuals, groups, etc. These are the points I'm actually refuting. I'm not really concerned about this notion of supreme governments. I don't have a dog in that fight to begin with. I'm just looking at the reasons you've presented.
Genes, i.e. genetic modifications, gene editing. They literally take genetic material from insects and splice them into vegetables. They take human genetic material and grow it in a petri dish and call it "meat"
If "transcendent morals" means "eternally true morals, valid at every time and place," then it seems true that in an evolutionary framework, transcendent morals can't be claimed. I guess my question is why it would be vital that they should be claimable.
Eightcrackers
Well-known member
This is a nitpick, but truth (whether moral or not) presupposes a mind to begin with. Truth is correspondence to reality, so you need a mind to do the corresponding. I would argue that facts can exist without a mind, though.
Yes, but morality is defined by, therefor anchored in, human experience. It doesn't seem to have any objective truth beyond our experience of it. We may extend our moral experience to other living things that cannot speak for themselves, or living things that we haven't even encountered, but that would be by our agreed convention based on our limited, but direct, objective and subjective moral experiences within our own group, not some knowledge of truth about what they feel or value.
That is to say there is no cosmic absolute transcendent moral values acting down upon us that we can ever know, but there are objective values anchored to our group that emerge from us and can transcend the individual towards the group.
Last edited:
Even if you are able to reframe #3 into something palatable, your underlying premise is logically fallacious in that it assumes the conclusion. In other words, only those who believe that those "three observations" reasonably lead to "an acknowledge of God" will be lead to an acknowledgement of God. It's a non-starter.As Eightctackers suggested, 'broken' carries much the same connotation as 'fallen' -- it implies a prior, perfect (or at least better) state. I think I may have to stick with 'fallen' and just note the obvious objections from the outset. ?
The OP is primarily to gauge reactions to #3 -- not really ready to go further with it yet, but I've been mulling over an argument that stems from Romans 1:20 (men are without excuse). I'm hoping to approach the point from the perspective of nearly universal human experience rather than creation as a whole. Right now, I can only say I have an intuitive sense that the argument can be made; but, I haven't nailed it down. The basic idea is that these three observations of our own experience in the world ought to lead us to an acknowledgement of God -- not to a full-blown Christian theology, but at least to a basic theistic position.
I've still got a lot of work to do on the argument. I've been stewing on it for years & need to bite the bullet and get it worked out.
SkullKrusher
Member
TBH, it's a bit comical to suggest someone is question begging before they even articulate an argument ?
I'd love for you to show how any of the three statements is premised on the conclusion -- especially given that the whole point of the discussion at this point has been to fine tune #3 specifically to avoid doing so ?
Last edited:
Temujin
Well-known member
We are 130 posts in. One wonders when exactly you propose to articulate your argument. The phrase "Pee or get off the pot" springs to mind.
You stated the "basic idea" which is the "underlying premise". The underlying premise assumes the conclusion. When the underlying premise of an argument is logically fallacious, so too will be whatever argument you derive from it. Clearly you haven't thought this through.
SkullKrusher
Member
Well, I think you may have misinterpreted something I said, perhaps because I may have been unclear. But I'm not going to argue about it. I'm well aware of what question begging is, and how to avoid it.
SkullKrusher
Member
Can't really say. Very early on, I said I *think* there is an argument to be made. Maybe I'm wrong - in which case, the answer would be 'never' Maybe I'm right, but it will take me years to figure it out. Or maybe the solution will come to me tomorrow ?
I do know that I'm not on anyone's time clock, and no one's feet are nailed to the floor. I can't dictate a timeline for anyone's learning curve, and no one is going to dictate mine.
Eightcrackers
Well-known member
What is the (intended) conclusion of the argument?Can't really say. Very early on, I said I *think* there is an argument to be made. Maybe I'm wrong - in which case, the answer would be 'never' Maybe I'm right, but it will take me years to figure it out. Or maybe the solution will come to me tomorrow ?
I do know that I'm not on anyone's time clock, and no one's feet are nailed to the floor. I can't dictate a timeline for anyone's learning curve, and no one is going to dictate mine.
The god of the Bible?
Some interventionist creator god?
Some non-interventionist (deistic) god?
Temujin
Well-known member
That's fair enough. I tend to be impatient, but this is your party and you must progress, or not, as you see fit.Can't really say. Very early on, I said I *think* there is an argument to be made. Maybe I'm wrong - in which case, the answer would be 'never' Maybe I'm right, but it will take me years to figure it out. Or maybe the solution will come to me tomorrow ?
I do know that I'm not on anyone's time clock, and no one's feet are nailed to the floor. I can't dictate a timeline for anyone's learning curve, and no one is going to dictate mine.
SkullKrusher
Member
*If* my hunch is correct, these three traits of human experience *may* point in a generally theistic direction -- so, probably the second option you listed. That said, I don't find it particularly difficult to get from there to the God of the Bible -- but that's a separate matter.
At present, all I can say is that I think these three traits point in a particular direction toward a particular destination -- but I don't have a map & am not exactly sure how to get there yet.
I understand people's impatience but this kind of reminds me of my brother in calculus class. He often got low marks on his work because he couldn't show his work -- but he could often look at a problem and know the answer almost instantly. He could 'see' calculus better than most people. Now, maybe I'm a bit like him and can see things in a way most people do not; or, maybe I'm not like him at all. ?
Obviously you don't know how to "avoid" begging the question in your underlying premises.
I placed the following in bold in the post of yours that I quoted:
"Right now, I can only say I have an intuitive sense that the argument can be made; but, I haven't nailed it down. The basic idea is that these three observations of our own experience in the world ought to lead us to an acknowledgement of God -- not to a full-blown Christian theology, but at least to a basic theistic position."
What in the following indicates that I "misinterpreted something"?
"Even if you are able to reframe #3 into something palatable, your underlying premise is logically fallacious in that it assumes the conclusion. In other words, only those who believe that those "three observations" reasonably lead to "an acknowledge of God" will be lead to an acknowledgement of God. It's a non-starter."
Why don't you set your pride aside and admit that the reason that you've "been stewing on [your argument] for years" and haven't been able to "get it worked out" is because the underlying premise is hopelessly flawed?
SkullKrusher
Member
Thanks
SkullKrusher
Member
Maybe the fact that I haven't even said I'm certain there *is* an argument to be made? If I'm not even sure the argument can be made, then I certainly haven't made that argument. If I haven't made the argument, it is impossible to have begged the question. In fact, the three traits I brought up in the OP have never even been describded by me as being the premise. Certainly they would inform a premise, but I haven't even formulated one yet. If I haven't formulated a premise, then you certainly don't know what the premise is while asserting that I have begged the question.
Just stop.