"Origin of the Species" is Theistic

[Polymath257]

No, correspondence: A belief is true if and only if it corresponds to a fact.
Coherence: A belief is true if and only if it is part of a coherent system of beliefs.
Pragmatism: Truth is the end of inquiry - or - Truth is satisfactory to believe.
Realism: The world exists objectively, independently of the ways we think about it or describe it. Our thoughts and claims are about that world.
Anti-realism: Truth is not, to this view, a fully objective matter, independent of us or our thoughts. Instead, truth is constrained by our abilities to verify, and is thus constrained by our epistemic situation. Truth is to a significant degree an epistemic matter, which is typical of many anti-realist positions.
Redundancy: "It is true, that is snowing" is the same as "it is snowing".

So, no, not all theories of are ontological/metaphysical as yours is.

You can also see that here:
philosophy | Definition, Systems, Fields, Schools, & Biographies

Notice the "or" and how the 2 part start for different considerations. "Reality as a whole" versus "human existence and experience".
Truth depends on where you start and what you take for granted.

:

Once again, I *didn't* claim they were the same philosophy. But *all* of them make a distinction between fact and fiction, with truth relating facts. ALL of them have truth being something other than simple, personal belief. None of them accept myths as true.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Once again, I *didn't* claim they were the same philosophy. But *all* of them make a distinction between fact and fiction, with truth relating facts. ALL of them have truth being something other than simple, personal belief. None of them accept myths as true.

No, coherence is popular among idealists. You know, those who believe in gods and not what. You really have to understand that not all humans are realists like you and believe in facts like you do.
Let me show you a variant:
Me: I am an epistemological solipsist.
Someone: So you believe that only you exist.
M: No, I believe I can only say something about reality based on that I have to be there to say something. Hence knowledge requires an "I" and there is no truly objective independent knowledge or truth.
S: But reality is independent of the mind.
M: Only in your belief system. To me words are in part ideas about how to sort my experiences. And I don't know what reality really is; i.e. e.g. the problem of Boltzmann Brains, brains in a vat, the Matrix or an evil, trickster god, which made reality just a moment ago. Of course I have belief about what reality really is, but that is just that - a belief. You know what reality is, yet it is a belief in the end. I admit, I only have beliefs about what reality really is. So truth is not the same to me as it is to you. Truth to me is how I make sense of my life. And I accept you do it differently and if you don't accept that I can do it differently, I accept that.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No, fiction is NOT truth. It is a story to convey a moral principle, perhaps. It is a story we tell ourselves. But it is NOT a truth.

If you don't see that moral principles are truths, then I don't know what to tell ya.

 

[Polymath257]

If you don't see that moral principles are truths, then I don't know what to tell ya.

Moral principles are opinions held by a wide number of people concerning how to act towards others.

Even if we regard moral principles are 'truths', myths are not, themselves, moral principles. They are *stories* relating such principles. So once again, myths are NOT truth.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I'm deliberately obfuscating? We are discussing myths that have meaning. You presented, as an example, a tale told to little children. Who is deliberately obfuscating?

You said that I claimed that the tale of the earth being held on the back of a turtle was the SUM TOTAL of Seminole mythology. That is a clear and deliberate misrepresentation. And now when it is pointed out, you deny it. This puts me in a position where I have to get tough with you. Until you acknowledge that I never stated that the myth was the sum total of Seminole mythology, our discourse on this particular topic is over.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Moral principles are opinions held by a wide number of people concerning how to act towards others.

Even if we regard moral principles are 'truths', myths are not, themselves, moral principles. They are *stories* relating such principles. So once again, myths are NOT truth.

A distinction without significance.

 

[Polymath257]

A distinction without significance.

I strongly disagree. A story relating a moral principle is a story: it is fiction. The moral principle could be a truth ( I don't think moral principles have a truth value), but the story itself is not true.

For example, Aesop has plenty of stories conveying moral principles. But I doubt that anyone would say that the stories themselves are true.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Moral principles are opinions held by a wide number of people concerning how to act towards others.

Even if we regard moral principles are 'truths', myths are not, themselves, moral principles. They are *stories* relating such principles. So once again, myths are NOT truth.

If we go by that "truth is what is independent of all human thought and feelings/emotions", then that itself is not true, because it is not independent of it. It is your opinion of what truth is and it is shared by some humans.
So is true, that I believe in human rights? Not according to you, it is an opinion. Is true, that I hold human rights as my opinion?
There are at least 3 kinds of truth.

• External to all humans, e.g. the force of gravity or how we use our bodies.
• Internal to some humans, abstract reasoning, e.g. logic and math and in general cognition or how we use parts of our brains.
• How a human makes sense of reality including her/his opinions, beliefs and so on or how we use the non-cognitive parts of our brains.
• And some combinations here of.

The limit of your truth is that it is your opinion of truth and it doesn't match, how truth works in practice.
Myths are true as the 3rd one.
Now science is in practice a combination of the first 2 ones, but you can't do the 3rd one, doing science in itself.
So if myths are the 3rd kind, is it wrong to use them? I asked a 3rd kind question and you can't answer with your truth, because your answer is an opinion. That is the limit of your truth. Your opinion of religion whatever it is, is not true according to your truth.

 

[ecco]

If you don't see that moral principles are truths, then I don't know what to tell ya.

Slavery is OK.
Raping women of a defeated army is OK.
Having 1/2 of yourself rape a young virgin in order to make another 1/3 of yourself is OK.

[sarcasm]Indeed the moral principles given by your god are truths.[/sarcasm]

 

[ecco]

You said that I claimed that the tale of the earth being held on the back of a turtle was the SUM TOTAL of Seminole mythology. That is a clear and deliberate misrepresentation.

Here is what you wrote...

I think that in, for example, the old traditional Seminole tribe that little children did indeed believe that a turtle carried the world on its back, but that adults understood that this was a different kind of reality,

The only example you gave for myths was a tale told to very young children of the Seminole tribe. That was your choice. Instead of posting any one of thousands of myths, you posted a children's story.

If you meant to say more, you should have said more. You didn't.

And now when it is pointed out, you deny it.

See above.

This puts me in a position where I have to get tough with you. Until you acknowledge that I never stated that the myth was the sum total of Seminole mythology, our discourse on this particular topic is over.

See above.

If you don't want to discuss it further, that's OK.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Slavery is OK.
Raping women of a defeated army is OK.
Having 1/2 of yourself rape a young virgin in order to make another 1/3 of yourself is OK.

[sarcasm]Indeed the moral principles given by your god are truths.[/sarcasm]

No, in practice we are on our own. Regardless if you use science, philosophy, religion or what ever. The price involved in that is a combination of cognitive relativism, moral relativism, moral anti-realism and subjectivism. Slavery is OK or bad are no different as similar, because they are both opinions. BTW that religion is wrong or OK are also opinions. And that opinions should be based on nature and not gods, is also an opinion not based on facts. How? Religion is natural and a fact.
Hey, that reminds me of something:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." - Protagoras.
You have your opinions and I have mine. The fun starts if we try to agree.

 

[Bear Wild]

There was a time in our evolution when we were still morally unconscious. By that I mean we may still have had rudimentary senses of justice and empathy, such as chimps have today. But that self reflection that comes where we know something is wrong because we can put ourselves in another's shoes, and the feelings of guilt that comes when we do it anyways was simply not evolved yet.

In this state we were as very, very young children, not really morally responsible for the things we did. Indeed, more akin to the other animals. Can we blame a cat for playing with its prey? It is functioning on its instincts alone. And so we were blissfully unaware, without the angst of conscience. We were still 100% part of nature. We were in harmony with ourselves, with nature, and with God.

.

You are clearly not keeping up on the research on cognitive evolution. The data coming out especially about chimpanzee sense of justice and empathy clearly shows a much more complex than what you seem to understand. The social structure in reference to empathy and justice within the social group is very complex and with the exception to language much closer to human behavior than ever expected. They have been shown an impressive perception of fairness in experiments where they prefer equal shares to members of a social group. There is so much new data blurring the lines of difference. Worse is your example of cats playing with its prey as functioning on instincts alone. Instincts are present in some of the behavior but cognitive learning is modifying behavior present. This is not just instinct there is clear complex cognitive processes present. It is time to update the representation of animal behavior and leave our human centric belief that we are the only conscious cognitive creatures on the planet.

 

[Bear Wild]

So, to the best of your knowledge, the sum total of Seminole myth is a turtle carrying the world.
Seminole Legends (Folklore, Myths, and Traditional Indian Stories)
Trickster Rabbit (Chufe, Chufi, Cokfi, or Chokfee): Rabbit is the trickster figure of Seminole Indian legends.

Breathmaker: The great Creator god of the Seminole tribe.
Breathmaker is the Creator God of the Seminole tribe. He made the people out of clay and taught them the arts of civilization. He is associated with the Milky Way, which he created as his own home and which is considered to be the afterlife in traditional Seminole cosmology.

Little Giver: Corn spirit of the Seminoles.
Little Giver is a corn spirit from Miccosukee and Seminole mythology. Usually appearing as a dwarf, Little Giver appeared to the people to present them with the gift of corn, for which he was subsequently always honored.

Stikini: Dreadful owl-witches of Seminole legend.

Long-Ears: Wolf-like monster from Seminole folklore.
[paste:font size="5"]Seminole Creation Story:
Miccosukee and Seminole legends about the creation of the earth.

Origin of the Seminole clans:
Seminole legends about the creation of the animals.

Men Visit the Sky:
Seminole legend about men transformed into angels.

The Milky Way:
Hitchiti and Seminole stories about astronomy and weather.

The White Potato Clan:
Seminole legend about the Creator's gift to clanless children.

Myths and Tales of the Southeastern Indians:
Collection of traditional stories from the Seminole Creek and other Muskogean tribes.



They are both myths. The second is more powerful because it invokes a god.


If you would stop conflating myths with intentional fiction, you wouldn't have that problem. Give me one myth from religious scripture that is not meant to explain anything at all.


I did state that one of the reasons people created gods was to explain the then unknowable. Sorrow about death also plays a part.






When chimps dance around at the sight of a waterfall maybe they are just happy to have found drinking water. When chimps dance around at lightning, perhaps they are just frightened. On the other hand, I've never seen chimps dance at either. Have you? Or did you make that up?

The world on the back of a turtle is in many myths but I agree I have never seen in directly related with the Seminole nation. I do believe that myths are symbolic rather than factual. They define the relationship between the people of that belief and the world they live in rather than an actual account of the events of creation.
Chimps may not dance at the sight of a waterfall or approaching storm but there are many field observations of adult chimps participating in displays that would normally be seen in a social context but instead amazing grand displays have been observed when an adult chimpanzee is alone during these events first described by Jane Goodall then later by other field researchers. They may not be directed and a good harvest since chimpanzees do not cultivate but they raise interesting question on why they are performed with not other chimps to observe at places of dynamic events such as waterfalls and storms. There is no direct gain to explain these behaviors.

 

[ecco]

If you don't see that moral principles are truths, then I don't know what to tell ya.

No, in practice we are on our own.

Did you not notice the conflict between your two statements? Or was that just evasion?

You were asserting that moral principles are truths. Let's cut to the chase, show how and why moral principles are truths. Also show the basis for those true moral principles.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Did you not notice the conflict between your two statements? Or was that just evasion?

You were asserting that moral principles are truths. Let's cut to the chase, show how and why moral principles are truths. Also show the basis for those true moral principles.

Yes, any moral truth is true to the person, who holds. I know some people claim they can do it objectively, but that is in practice not the case within methodological naturalism. It is true to me, that I believe without any scientific evidence, that slavery is wrong. It is subjective, yet it is true. Not all truths are objective. Reality is in practice a combination of objective, inter-subjective and subjective. That is how reality is shared, but not the same.

 

[Audie]

Moral principles are opinions held by a wide number of people concerning how to act towards others.

Even if we regard moral principles are 'truths', myths are not, themselves, moral principles. They are *stories* relating such principles. So once again, myths are NOT truth.

God is love, morals are truth, freedom is slavery.

Why bother with words at all if they mean whatever
anyone wants them to mean, as in Humpty Dumpty.

 

[ecco]

If you don't see that moral principles are truths, then I don't know what to tell ya.

Yes, any moral truth is true to the person, who holds. I know some people claim they can do it objectively, but that is in practice not the case within methodological naturalism. It is true to me, that I believe without any scientific evidence, that slavery is wrong. It is subjective, yet it is true. Not all truths are objective. Reality is in practice a combination of objective, inter-subjective and subjective. That is how reality is shared, but not the same.

You are really tap dancing away from your original assertion: "moral principles are truths". Now you are throwing in things like "methodological naturalism" and "subjective" "objective".

Perhaps you should have thought of these things before making your original assertion.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You are really tap dancing away from your original assertion: "moral principles are truths". Now you are throwing in things like "methodological naturalism" and "subjective" "objective".

Perhaps you should have thought of these things before making your original assertion.

Yes, moral truths are true, they are just true to the person, who hold them, hence subjective. All forms of truth are not just objective.
Someone: What is subjective, can't be true.
Me: What you just claimed, is only true to you and other, who hold that as true. Hence the claim is subjectively true in that, it is only true for some humans.
Read here:
Hume’s Moral Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

(1) Reason alone cannot be a motive to the will, but rather is the “slave of the passions” (see Section 3) (2) Moral distinctions are not derived from reason (see Section 4). (3) Moral distinctions are derived from the moral sentiments: feelings of approval (esteem, praise) and disapproval (blame) felt by spectators who contemplate a character trait or action (see Section 7). (4) While some virtues and vices are natural (see Section 13), others, including justice, are artificial (see Section 9).

Hume’s Moral Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Hume famously closes the section of the Treatise that argues against moral rationalism by observing that other systems of moral philosophy, proceeding in the ordinary way of reasoning, at some point make an unremarked transition from premises whose parts are linked only by “is” to conclusions whose parts are linked by “ought” (expressing a new relation) — a deduction that seems to Hume “altogether inconceivable” (T3.1.1.27). Attention to this transition would “subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceiv’d by reason”

Now what that means, is that evolution gives rise to morality and it is subjective. But feelings/emotions are true or if you like facts. They are just not objective.
What Hume did here: "Moral distinctions are derived from the moral sentiments: feelings of approval (esteem, praise) and disapproval (blame) felt by spectators who contemplate a character trait or action" - is science. It is based on observation in part. Some forms of behavior in a human gives rise to feelings/emotions in other humans.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, moral truths are true, they are just true to the person, who hold them, hence subjective. All forms of truth are not just objective.
Someone: What is subjective, can't be true.
Me: What you just claimed, is only true to you and other, who hold that as true. Hence the claim is subjectively true in that, it is only true for some humans.

Changing the definition to suit your position isn't very reasonable. The *definition* of truth is that it be objective and not subjective. That is the difference between truth and opinion (which is the subjective version).

It's sort of like saying that bachelors can be married because someone thinks a bachelor can be married. But it goes against the very definition of the concept.

Read here:
Hume’s Moral Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Hume’s Moral Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Now what that means, is that evolution gives rise to morality and it is subjective. But feelings/emotions are true or if you like facts. They are just not objective.
What Hume did here: "Moral distinctions are derived from the moral sentiments: feelings of approval (esteem, praise) and disapproval (blame) felt by spectators who contemplate a character trait or action" - is science. It is based on observation in part. Some forms of behavior in a human gives rise to feelings/emotions in other humans.

Exactly. Which is why morality is a matter of opinion and not of truth. So, yes, we can look (objectively) and determine that morality is subjective. Then we use the definitions to note that means it isn't a *truth*, but rather and *opinion*.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Changing the definition to suit your position isn't very reasonable. The *definition* of truth is that it be objective and not subjective. That is the difference between truth and opinion (which is the subjective version).

...

That is your opinion of truth. And it is a subjective truth. It is a fact, that you hold it. It is just not objective. It is not false, wrong or unreal or what ever. It is subjective and it is true, that you hold that opinion. In the past part of the definition of atheism was that atheism is amoral. The problem with definitions, is that anything goes. E.g. I could define reality to mean me. Now of course that is not the only definition and your theory of truth is not the only one. Here is another take on truth:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/

One way to look at truth is to note, that truth is what is real to a person, what matters and so on. That simply descries how humans use the word. It signifies something important to them.