Your most controversial opnions which majority dont support /belive/justify
- Thread starter Veljko
- Start date
He says things that he believes are novel. What he says is not novel. These points have been rebutted. He still makes these points because he's ignored the hundreds of years of prior debate. He is either intentionally ignoring the history of the subject, or he is unaware. I am giving him the benefit of the doubt by saying he's unaware.
if you know then why ask me if i've read the book? Seems kinda unproductove to me.
Philosophy is not exactly among my points of interest, so im not that familiar. I would guess sam harris' reasoning is somewhat going the utilitarianism route though, cause i think i have heard him talk about well-being in a video compilation before.
Philosophy is not exactly among my points of interest, so im not that familiar. I would guess sam harris' reasoning is somewhat going the utilitarianism route though, cause i think i have heard him talk about well-being in a video compilation before.
if you know then why ask me if i've read the book? Seems kinda unproductove to me.
Philosophy is not exactly among my points of interest, so im not that familiar. I would guess sam harris' reasoning is somewhat going the utilitarianism route though, cause i think i have heard him talk about well-being in a video compilation before.
Philosophy is not exactly among my points of interest, so im not that familiar. I would guess sam harris' reasoning is somewhat going the utilitarianism route though, cause i think i have heard him talk about well-being in a video compilation before.
So science is a descriptive. It describes things. It will tell us, within some method of measurement (whose increments we determine), how hot it is, or how much energy it takes to boil something. It describes things. We can describe a lot. We can describe, for example, why people may rape or murder. Why animals hunt. Why the planets orbit around the sun.
However, for hundreds of years now, there's been an issue known as the "is-ought gap" (is meaning "describing how the world is" and ought meaning "how things should be"). Basically, whether you can bridge something purely descriptive statement to generate a value judgment. For hundreds of years, there has been no convincing argument that you can, and no one has bridged this gap. Scientists have, for the most part, abandoned making moral statements derived from science because there's no logical step for this without making an ought statement.
Let's look at an argument:
People rape others. Being raped makes people feel bad. You shouldn't rape.
The conclusion doesn't logically follow. Why does it matter if people feel bad? You can't infer rape is bad because of that. You need to make a value statement: you shouldn't make people feel bad.
Sam Harris, in his book, needs to bridge the is-ought gap. He doesn't. He glosses over this dilemma. Because he can't make the argument. His book is worthless.
He's saying morality (which coincidentally aligns with Protestant Christian morality, so much for the New Athiest) is objective. Which is fine. That's an arguable position. He's not just saying that you can describe what human values are but that you can derive what ought to be simply by seeing how things are.
How can he do this? Well, he never really says. He just takes it for granted. When he gets stuck somewhere, he makes a claim and doesn't supprt his claims with arguments.
He is bridging the gap for granted. How does he bridge it? He doesn't say. He just does it.
By the way, I've found his quotation addressing the is-ought problem:
an artificial and needlessly confusing way to think about moral choice. In fact, it seems to be another dismal product of Abrahamic religion—which, strangely enough, now constrains the thinking of even atheists.
This tells you all you need to know about the book. It's a book that sounds reasonable, only if you don't read closely.
How can he do this? Well, he never really says. He just takes it for granted. When he gets stuck somewhere, he makes a claim and doesn't supprt his claims with arguments.
He is bridging the gap for granted. How does he bridge it? He doesn't say. He just does it.
Post automatically merged:
By the way, I've found his quotation addressing the is-ought problem:
an artificial and needlessly confusing way to think about moral choice. In fact, it seems to be another dismal product of Abrahamic religion—which, strangely enough, now constrains the thinking of even atheists.
This tells you all you need to know about the book. It's a book that sounds reasonable, only if you don't read closely.
Last edited:
Firstly, you're just like the other guy that seemed to think im trying to force the idea that god does indeed exist here
Ill clarify again
Im not talking "'How does god exist", or "Why does god exist", or "which god is the true one", etc
I'm talking about, WHAT IF god exist, and WHAT IF god does not exist
So again, i dont need to explain WHY god exist, nor do i need to explain WHICH god is the true one, because this is simply not the topic im talking about
Back to topic, as i said
IF we're going by the premise that God DOES indeed exist, then of course, there should be absolute truth
Simple, Get it?
Now, IF we're going by the premise that God DOES NOT exist, then, we ask, is there objectively good/bad ?
I think no, the reason is, already explained it, or you have opinions that can rebute that morality can be objective even if there is no god?
Ill clarify again
Im not talking "'How does god exist", or "Why does god exist", or "which god is the true one", etc
I'm talking about, WHAT IF god exist, and WHAT IF god does not exist
So again, i dont need to explain WHY god exist, nor do i need to explain WHICH god is the true one, because this is simply not the topic im talking about
Back to topic, as i said
IF we're going by the premise that God DOES indeed exist, then of course, there should be absolute truth
Simple, Get it?
Now, IF we're going by the premise that God DOES NOT exist, then, we ask, is there objectively good/bad ?
I think no, the reason is, already explained it, or you have opinions that can rebute that morality can be objective even if there is no god?
Thats not simple at all and is highly dependant on what kind of god/gods you are talking about. People have extreme varying definitions/ideas about god/gods.
But ok so you cant prove the points i asked for and you dont care to prove. Im sticking with god/gods likely not existing and absolute morality not being a thing then.
But ok so you cant prove the points i asked for and you dont care to prove. Im sticking with god/gods likely not existing and absolute morality not being a thing then.
People have extreme varying definitions of gods, true, but as far as i can tell, they all share one similarity
They create the universe
They create the law of nature
So of course, they too create what is called as the absolute truths
What points?
These?
1) there is obejctive good/bad, period
2) there is a god/ or gods
3) the objective good comes from the aforementioned god/gods
1) Already explained
2) Already said, this is not the topic im talking about
3) read above
And again, youre avoiding the topic
"Im sticking with god/gods likely not existing and absolute morality not being a thing then"
Thats literally not the topic lol
Were talking "'WHAT IF" god exists, without feeling the need to prove whether god exist or not, dont know whats so hard to comprehend
They create the universe
They create the law of nature
So of course, they too create what is called as the absolute truths
What points?
These?
1) there is obejctive good/bad, period
2) there is a god/ or gods
3) the objective good comes from the aforementioned god/gods
1) Already explained
2) Already said, this is not the topic im talking about
3) read above
And again, youre avoiding the topic
"Im sticking with god/gods likely not existing and absolute morality not being a thing then"
Thats literally not the topic lol
Were talking "'WHAT IF" god exists, without feeling the need to prove whether god exist or not, dont know whats so hard to comprehend
A god in the deism kind of sense just kickstarts all of existence. Such a god wouldnt necessarily result in absolute morality.
A god in a spiritual sense defined as the collective consciousness of all that is would also not necessarily result in absolute morality.
Polytheistic ideas like in greek mythology for example dont even have infallible gods and the ones creating everything that is were not all that relevant later on.
Then with some religions you get the idea of everything that ever happens being predetermined, also making absolute morality kind of redundant.
You already explained how absolute morality is a thing?
I didnt avoid it all, i just gave this topic some nuance, adressing how not every version or idea of god/gods would necessarily result in absolute morality.
A god in a spiritual sense defined as the collective consciousness of all that is would also not necessarily result in absolute morality.
Polytheistic ideas like in greek mythology for example dont even have infallible gods and the ones creating everything that is were not all that relevant later on.
Then with some religions you get the idea of everything that ever happens being predetermined, also making absolute morality kind of redundant.
Post automatically merged:
You already explained how absolute morality is a thing?
I didnt avoid it all, i just gave this topic some nuance, adressing how not every version or idea of god/gods would necessarily result in absolute morality.
Fair point
Then, we can change the question from
Can morality be objective IF god does not exist
To
Can morality be objective IF god is not involved (So in this case, not only is the god needed to create the universe and the law of nature, the god is also needed to create the absolute truths)
And my reasonings is still the same
Then, we can change the question from
Can morality be objective IF god does not exist
To
Can morality be objective IF god is not involved (So in this case, not only is the god needed to create the universe and the law of nature, the god is also needed to create the absolute truths)
And my reasonings is still the same
Universe is created by the law of nature(physics), law of nature is created by who?
Anyway, this is not the topic tho, so i should change the question to
Can morality be objective IF god is not involved (So in this case, not only does the god must exist, the god is also needed to create the absolute truths)
And again, my reasonings barely change
Anyway, this is not the topic tho, so i should change the question to
Can morality be objective IF god is not involved (So in this case, not only does the god must exist, the god is also needed to create the absolute truths)
And again, my reasonings barely change