Theism, Agnosticism, & Atheism: Which Is Logically The Weakest?

[joe1776]

OK, I disagree with that statement. To be biased simply means having a different moral intuition.

That's not what it means to me. To me, a bias is a preconceived notion capable of sending judgment off its true course.

OK, then I don't understand how we got here. I thought the reason we went off on intuition is that it is what is required to know God exists. But I am claiming that intuition is a very, very poor way to get at truth.

For me, the question Does God exist? is a question of reason. I haven't encountered anyone claiming that intuition was their source of knowledge. Faith is the usual claim.

I really don't see the difference. The only difference I see is that you label something as bias if it is an intuition that disagrees with yours.

Is it difficult to understand that the mere fact that people behave badly isn't evidence that they were morally misguided by their intuitive conscience? Isn't that possible?

And what of those whose actual, internal intuition is that this was NOT justified?

I doubt such people exist but no I can't prove that to you.

You seem to be claiming two people cannot have differences of intuition. That, to me, seems to be obviously false. (not just intuitively false).

Well, logically it's not obviously false but proving it's true is difficult..

 

[Polymath257]

That's not what it means to me. To me, a bias is a preconceived notion capable of sending judgment off its true course.

And intuitions seem to qualify in that.

For me, the question Does God exist? is a question of reason. I haven't encountered anyone claiming that intuition was their source of knowledge. Faith is the usual claim.

How does faith differ from intuition? it is clear that the question of God's existence isn't one of reason: none of the standard 'proofs' of God using reason hold much water.

Is it difficult to understand that the mere fact that people behave badly isn't evidence that they were morally misguided by their intuitive conscience? Isn't that possible?

Isn't it more clear that people really do differ in their moral consciences? That is isn't simply 'preconcieved notions sending judgment off course', but actually fundamentally different intuitions about how the world 'should be'?

In your quote about studies of babies and their desire to punish bad behavior and reward good behavior, I am not too surprised. many of the higher primates have a similar response and I think it follows to some extent from being a social species (and thereby evolving to work with others constructively).

But *which* behaviors are good and which are bad is not nearly as set in stone as you seem to think. A baby that grows up in a different society will develop different intuitions of what is right and wrong. Are these 'biases'? Well, it depends on whether you share those intuitions or not. if you do, they won't be considered as biases. Otherwise, they will.

I doubt such people exist but no I can't prove that to you.

Have you ever been on a jury?

Well, logically it's not obviously false but proving it's true is difficult..

While to prove it false only requires finding people without a 'bias' in a particular case that also have different intuitions about that case. From studies of moral judgements (thought experiments involving trains and pushing people are common), it is clear that such differing intuitions are common.

 

[joe1776]

And intuitions seem to qualify in that.

As you define intuition, maybe. But not by mine.

How does faith differ from intuition?

Faith is a choice one makes. Intuition is a feeling of knowing the truth.

it is clear that the question of God's existence isn't one of reason: none of the standard 'proofs' of God using reason hold much water.

Questions of facts, whether they are true or false -- are questions of reason. Does God exist? is a question of reason because it questions a claimed fact.

Isn't it more clear that people really do differ in their moral consciences? That is isn't simply 'preconcieved notions sending judgment off course', but actually fundamentally different intuitions about how the world 'should be'?

We don't have moral intuitions about how the world should be. Those thoughts are the product of the reasoning function of our brains.

In your quote about studies of babies and their desire to punish bad behavior and reward good behavior, I am not too surprised. many of the higher primates have a similar response and I think it follows to some extent from being a social species (and thereby evolving to work with others constructively).

You seem to have missed the fact that, without ample life experience, these babies didn't reason their way to moral judgments. which denies the rationalist theory of moral judgment you proposed earlier.

But *which* behaviors are good and which are bad is not nearly as set in stone as you seem to think. A baby that grows up in a different society will develop different intuitions of what is right and wrong. Are these 'biases'? Well, it depends on whether you share those intuitions or not. if you do, they won't be considered as biases. Otherwise, they will.

Which seems more likely to you? (A)The experience of growing up in a society causes the child's hard-wired moral intuition to change or -- (B) the experience of growing up in a society causes the child to develop biases which might conflict with his hard-wired moral intuition?

Have you ever been on a jury?

Yes.

While to prove it false only requires finding people without a 'bias' in a particular case that also have different intuitions about that case. From studies of moral judgements (thought experiments involving trains and pushing people are common), it is clear that such differing intuitions are common.

Moral dilemmas, like the Trolley Problem don't test moral intuition. They test the reasoning function of our brains in dealing with the moral dilemmas.

There are two options:

Option A immediately feels wrong because an innocent person will be harmed.

Option B also immediately feels wrong because more innocent people will be harmed.

Conscience can only signal that an act is wrong. It can't weigh the consequences and decide which of the two options will cause the least harm. This is a function of the reasoning mind.

When considering moral dilemmas two parts of the brain light up under fMRI..

The vast majority of moral judgments are made by conscience alone. Moral dilemmas are exceptions.

 

[Polymath257]

Which seems more likely to you? (A)The experience of growing up in a society causes the child's hard-wired moral intuition to change or -- (B) the experience of growing up in a society causes the child to develop biases which might conflict with his hard-wired moral intuition?

Knowing how the brain works and develops, I find A to be far more likely. But even more than that, I find it more likely that babies are born with a few moral intuitions hardwired and others are added over time through development. When the development and the initial status conflict, the initial status changes (slowly) do to external stimuli.

Again, I see few differences between biases and intuitions. And I'm not completely convinced that the 'hardwiring' would be the same among all individuals, probably being different based on how the neurons spread and are later culled.

 

[Polymath257]

Moral dilemmas, like the Trolley Problem don't test moral intuition. They test the reasoning function of our brains in dealing with the moral dilemmas.

There are two options:

Option A immediately feels wrong because an innocent person will be harmed.

Option B also immediately feels wrong because more innocent people will be harmed.

Conscience can only signal that an act is wrong. It can't weigh the consequences and decide which of the two options will cause the least harm. This is a function of the reasoning mind.

Which is why the reasoning mind is a necessary aspect of morality.

When considering moral dilemmas two parts of the brain light up under fMRI..

The vast majority of moral judgments are made by conscience alone. Moral dilemmas are exceptions.

And do the same locations light up to the same degree among all individuals?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It's important to acknowledge the difference between two things:

- hypothesis generation
- hypothesis testing

Intuition can be great for the first one, but it's absolutely useless for the second.

You are doing the same thing, trying to make intuition into some kind of analysis, in this instance scientific method. It's not. It's an unconscious process. It uses facts. But it connects the dots in ways that we don't understand.

 

[Tiberius]

A proposition is coherent if it is logically consistent and unambiguous. It does no harm if it's meaningful too.

The let me propose a God concept:

There is a being which exists separately to our universe, who created the universe. This being can interact with our universe and the parts of the universe (such as people).

It is analogous to a computer program who creates a program and is separate to the program, yet can interact with the parts of the program and make alterations.

Can I also assume that you accept gnostic as an opposite for agnostic, at least in this context? You didn't mention that part of my response.

 

[blü 2]

The let me propose a God concept:

There is a being which exists separately to our universe, who created the universe. This being can interact with our universe and the parts of the universe (such as people).

It is analogous to a computer program who creates a program and is separate to the program, yet can interact with the parts of the program and make alterations.

Can I also assume that you accept gnostic as an opposite for agnostic, at least in this context? You didn't mention that part of my response.

What objective test will tell us which of the candidates is this being?

 

[Tiberius]

What objective test will tell us which of the candidates is this being?

Why do you think it's one of the already-proposed candidates? Why do you think we need to add further claims? Let's start with these claims, and go from there.

 

[blü 2]

Why do you think it's one of the already-proposed candidates? Why do you think we need to add further claims? Let's start with these claims, and go from there.

No, we're postulating a real god, one with objective existence, one who'd still be there even if no brain contained the concept of [him].

We have a satisfactory description of the unicorn ─ if we found one, we could tell it was a unicorn.

We have no satisfactory description of God. We have no idea at all what real thing we're supposed to be looking for.

In parallel, we have a satisfactory concept of 'unicornness'. We know what real qualities distinguish a real unicorn.

We have no satisfactory concept of 'godness'. We don't know what real qualities a real god would have that a false claimant would not. (For example, we couldn't tell a real god from a superscientist.)

And that's a clear demonstration that there's no coherent concept of a real god.

(That God is imaginary, not real, is reflected elsewhere too. No church has a science of miracles, for instance; no one thinks there's really magic. No branch of the armed services is preparing to find way to deal with supernatural attack ─ no one thinks there's really such a thing. There was a military investigation of ESP back when it was thought the Russkis were working on such a thing, but chunky millions later even that turned out to be a dud.)

 

[Tiberius]

No, we're postulating a real god, one with objective existence, one who'd still be there even if no brain contained the concept of [him].

But the more specific you try to be, the more assumptions you have to make. And the more you assume, the more likely it is that you're going to introduce an inconsistency.

We have a satisfactory description of the unicorn ─ if we found one, we could tell it was a unicorn.

How? Horse with a horn?

What if it didn't run away from men? Often, unicorns were said to only tolerate women. And even the idea of it being a horse with a horn is not always there - sometimes it looks more like a goat.

We have no satisfactory description of God. We have no idea at all what real thing we're supposed to be looking for.

Yes we do. Your unicorn example shows that we are looking for something that fits certain criteria. For the unicorn, those criteria are:

• Looks like a white horse.
• Has single horn on its head.

And any thing that fits those criteria you will accept as a unicorn.

When it comes to a God concept, it's the same thing.

• Exists outside our universe.
• Created the universe.

If you want to add extra criteria, that's fine, but I'd like to know why you want to add each particular criterium.

In parallel, we have a satisfactory concept of 'unicornness'. We know what real qualities distinguish a real unicorn.

We have no satisfactory concept of 'godness'. We don't know what real qualities a real god would have that a false claimant would not. (For example, we couldn't tell a real god from a superscientist.)

Who's to say that God and Superscientist aren't one in the same? Perhaps God is a scientist in another universe who created this one. Who knows. I don't see why that can't be a valid god concept.

And that's a clear demonstration that there's no coherent concept of a real god.

I don't think you've satisfactorily demonstrated that such a concept is INcoherent.

(That God is imaginary, not real, is reflected elsewhere too. No church has a science of miracles, for instance; no one thinks there's really magic. No branch of the armed services is preparing to find way to deal with supernatural attack ─ no one thinks there's really such a thing. There was a military investigation of ESP back when it was thought the Russkis were working on such a thing, but chunky millions later even that turned out to be a dud.)

Agreed. Please remember, I'm not suggesting that God is real, I'm firmly in the atheist camp. My point is that a coherent God concept is possible, but I believe that any God concept must either be so vague as to be undetectable (such as my two points above), and that any more specific god concept will have testable aspects which we can test and determine to be incorrect.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your false analogy was so far off the mark it wasn't worthy of an explanation. It was just another of your attempts to ridicule the thoughts of your debate opponent.

I'm going to interpret this as you not being able to explain how it's a false analogy.

Whenever you are ready to have an actual conversation...

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But what we can 'learn' is entirely subject to the limitations of our physical and intellectual capacities, which are clearly not sufficient, as we are constantly discovering that what we thought we 'knew to be right' turned out to be wrong (until we learn otherwise, yet again).

Sure. But you know what you just acknowledged?
That there IS an objective reality that we can learn about - even if it is dificult sometimes to get it correct.

So that what you are calling "objective reality", and imagining that you can "know", is really just a subjective intellectual creation existing in your own mind.

No. When I speak about objective reality, I am speaking about reality as it actually exists - regardless of what we know or understand about it (or not), or even our ability to understand it (or not).

And no matter how you try to argue otherwise, you cannot escape this simple fact

Neither can you escape the fact that there IS an objective reality that exists outside of our human brains. A reality that will continue to exist long after humans are gone.

The very same fact that you are trying to condemn theists for ignoring.

Not at all. It seems you simply aren't understanding what I'm saying.

I understand that you BELIEVE this, lots of people do. But you keep trying to ignore the fact that you have no possible way of knowing it to be so, because YOU are the subject that's rendering your experience of reality "subjective"

If all humans die, does the universe stop existing?

There is no possible way for you to know that what you imagine to be "objective reality" isn't just a collectively held delusion.

You are again crossing over into what we KNOW.
I'm not talking about what we KNOW. I'm talking about what necessarily IS - wheter we know about it or not.

Reality isn't determined by what our humans minds comprehend or can comprehend or know or can know.

Reality is what it is, no matter what we humans believe about it.
The very fact that we can have false beliefs about reality, implies that there IS an objective reality about which we can be wrong.

How does anything "make sense" to us? ... Through our imaginations; creating relationships, and causes and effects in what we experience. Creating "evidences" to maintain them; convincing each other to agree on their truthfulness, and so on. What is, is what is. What we make of it is up to us ... is subject to us. And is therefor subjective, not objective, as you keep wanting to believe, and to insist we all believe, with you.

The further we go into this conversation, the more it is clear that you seem incapable of differentiating between what objectively IS and what we subjectively believe about it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In a criminal case, What are the facts? is a question decided by reason. Was the act immoral? is a question of conscience, to be decided by the moral intuition of the jury.

A jury in a criminal case doesn't decide on morals. A jury decides on guilt, based on evidence.
An immoral douche who can't be shown to be guilty by the evidence presented, will be set free.

 

[blü 2]

But the more specific you try to be, the more assumptions you have to make.

And that's the point! There is NO spec for a real god.

And the more you assume, the more likely it is that you're going to introduce an inconsistency.

On the contrary, this god is real, so you wheel [him] into the lab, take your videos, X-rays, measurements, blood (ichor?) sample, do a DNA (or whatever) scan, and you'll then be heading for a meaningful definition of God ─ not some imaginary one.

Your unicorn example shows that we are looking for something that fits certain criteria. For the unicorn, those criteria are:

─ Looks like a white horse.
─ Has single horn on its head.​

And any thing that fits those criteria you will accept as a unicorn.

Pretty much.

When it comes to a God concept, it's the same thing.

─ Exists outside our universe.​

Nope. No such place in reality.

─ Created the universe.​

How do you plan to show it created the universe?

If you want to add extra criteria, that's fine, but I'd like to know why you want to add each particular criterium.

It's not my job to devise the definition. It's the job of the person who asserts the reality of God.

Who's to say that God and Superscientist aren't one in the same?

No believer of my acquaintance has ever suggested such an identity.

And the question brings into focus the need for a clear definition of 'godness'.

If superscientist=God, why would anyone want to worship a superscientist? If out of fear, 'grovel' would be a better word than 'worship', no? If not out of fear, then priority one is to get access to what [he] knows.

 

[PureX]

Sure. But you know what you just acknowledged?
That there IS an objective reality that we can learn about - even if it is difficult sometimes to get it correct.

No I did not. All I acknowledged is that we don't know even when we think we know, what is, is.

When I speak about objective reality, I am speaking about reality as it actually exists - regardless of what we know or understand about it (or not), or even our ability to understand it (or not).

You are speaking about a mystery that you believe exists apart from you, and regardless of you. Sounds a lot like "God", to me.

If all humans die, does the universe stop existing?

We can't know, because we are all dead. And it won't matter, because we are all dead.

You are again crossing over into what we KNOW.

Yes, as opposed to what we "believe we know". That's the point I'm trying to make, here. That believing that you know some objective reality exists apart from your belief in it does not mean that it does. Or even that you know it does. All it means is that you believe in what you think you know to be so. But so does everyone else. Including those theists you keep trying to disparage for believing in what they think they know just as you do.

I'm not talking about what we KNOW. I'm talking about what necessarily IS - wheter we know about it or not.

See the confusion? You are confusing and conflating what you think you know with "what necessarily is". Which is exactly what those theists that you disparage are doing.

Reality isn't determined by what our humans minds comprehend or can comprehend or know or can know.

"Reality" is the idea in our human mind, about the mystery of 'what is', is. There is no getting around that, sorry. You're trying to expand your definition to include what you believe exists beyond that, but what you believe is your own subjective choice, same as any theist, agnostic, flat-Earther, or whatever.

Reality is what it is, no matter what we humans believe about it.

Yup, and there ain't no way out of that omnimystery.

The very fact that we can have false beliefs about reality, implies that there IS an objective reality about which we can be wrong.

Not if they are only false relative to other false beliefs. Which certainly seems to be the case, by our experience.

The further we go into this conversation, the more it is clear that you seem incapable of differentiating between what objectively IS and what we subjectively believe about it.

I haven't drunk the "to believe is to know" cool-aid. That's true. I am a theist by faith, and by choice, not by anything I think I can know.

 

[joe1776]

Knowing how the brain works and develops, I find A to be far more likely. But even more than that, I find it more likely that babies are born with a few moral intuitions hardwired and others are added over time through development. When the development and the initial status conflict, the initial status changes (slowly) do to external stimuli.

Again, I see few differences between biases and intuitions. And I'm not completely convinced that the 'hardwiring' would be the same among all individuals, probably being different based on how the neurons spread and are later culled.

The way moral intuition operates is dirt simple. It uses the brain's pain function to signal us when an act is wrong. We feel it immediately. For example, a soldier fighting in a just cause gets an order to kill innocent civilians. His conscience immediately signals him with a feeling of wrongness. If he ignores the moral guidance and follows orders, he will be nagged by his conscience for the rest of his life (guilt) whenever he remembers his immoral act.

Immoral acts must intentionally cause harm to innocent people.There's some learning involved. For example, the ways that people might be insulted will vary from culture to culture. They have to be learned to avoid accidentally insulting others. However, intentional insults are immoral in all cultures when they harm innocent people.

Moral acts are either right or wrong, fair or unfair. So, if we don't feel the pain-wrongness signal, we can assume the act is not immoral or unfair.

 

[joe1776]

Which is why the reasoning mind is a necessary aspect of morality.

Only when we are faced with the rare moral dilemma.

And do the same locations light up to the same degree among all individuals?

Since it's not likely that researchers put many people under fMRI to find out, I don't know.

However, I think it's fair to assume that human brains operate fundamentally the same. Logically, weighing the consequences of a moral dilemma to learn which option does the least harm is a more complex problem than answering the question: Does this act cause harm to an innocent person -- a question which can be answered yes or no.

 

[Augustus]

You are expressing the rationalist explanation on moral judgments but, over the last 20-30 years, the research is favoring the intuitionist explanation.

From the New York Times: "According to Yale psychologist Paul Bloom, humans are born with a hard-wired morality. A deep sense of good and evil is bred in the bone. His research shows that babies and toddlers can judge the goodness and badness of others' actions; they want to reward the good and punish the bad; they act to help those in distress; they feel guilt, shame, pride, and righteous anger."

The research on the intuitionist position generally acknowledges that intuition only operates within a specific cultural framework (as human history seems to provide vast quantities of evidence to support). Your idea that there is a universal moral intuition that is the same in everybody is not supported.

Even if there were a common 'morality' in babies, this does not mean that it must survive until adulthood; animal babies do not behave like the adults of their species. It is unlikely to ever be possible to isolate intuition from culture in the mind of any adult.

On the other hand, cultures develop and evolve from all kinds of influences, many of which are random, and are beyond the control of any person or group. To a limited degree they involve the consequences of conscious reasoning, but the idea that they are formed from pure, purpose-driven reason is as implausible as them being pure universal intuition.

 

[Polymath257]

The let me propose a God concept:

There is a being which exists separately to our universe, who created the universe. This being can interact with our universe and the parts of the universe (such as people).

It is analogous to a computer program who creates a program and is separate to the program, yet can interact with the parts of the program and make alterations.

Can I also assume that you accept gnostic as an opposite for agnostic, at least in this context? You didn't mention that part of my response.

OK, I propose a race of high-dimensional beings that have the technology to create universes. As a high school project, one of these being produces a four dimensional universe.. The 'thumb prints' of this student are the interactions with the universe at various places and times (four dimensional=space and time).

Then, after getting a 'C' on the project, our universe is stored in the attic and forgotten about.

Would this high school being be God?