Beyond god and atheism: Why I am a 'possibilian' • Hacker News Board

Re: Beyond god and atheism: Why I am a 'possibilian'

#21

Post by CamperBob » Tue, Sep 28, 2010, 8:55 AM UTC

joshuacc wrote: post #20

pjscott wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you name some inconvenient evidence that people on the atheist side tend to ignore? I'm not claiming that there isn't such evidence, but often when people criticize "people on both sides", they're committing an equivocation fallacy because it sounds wise. I'm curious to see if you did, too.

The argument from morality is the first that comes to mind. Few atheists are willing to really embrace the moral nihilism that a materialist philosophy seems to require.

Few atheists are willing to really embrace the moral nihilism that a materialist philosophy seems to require.

My dog does OK with a philosophy of pure materialism, I figure I can, too.

Re: Beyond god and atheism: Why I am a 'possibilian'

#22

Post by CamperBob » Tue, Sep 28, 2010, 8:56 AM UTC

mike-cardwell wrote: post #12

lulin wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think agnosticism can really be called reasonable anymore. We now know so much about the universe that believing in any specific deity, or even just a general sense of the supernatural, seems akin to believing into Russel's teapot. Being atheist and being open minded are not mutually exclusive.

I don't quite get agnosticism. It's perfectly reasonable for me to say "Superman doesn't exist" so why isn't it reasonable for me to say "God doesn't exist" ? They're equally sensible statements...

It's actually more sensible for you to say "God doesn't exist," because at least it's possible to get two people to agree on exactly who or what Superman is.

Re: Beyond god and atheism: Why I am a 'possibilian'

#23

Post by joshuacc » Tue, Sep 28, 2010, 1:48 PM UTC

CamperBob wrote: post #21

joshuacc wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument from morality is the first that comes to mind. Few atheists are willing to really embrace the moral nihilism that a materialist philosophy seems to require.

Few atheists are willing to really embrace the moral nihilism that a materialist philosophy seems to require. My dog does OK with a philosophy of pure materialism, I figure I can, too.

Unless your dog is uniquely talented, it is incapable of holding any philosophy, materialist or not.

Re: Beyond god and atheism: Why I am a 'possibilian'

#24

Post by CamperBob » Tue, Sep 28, 2010, 10:43 PM UTC

joshuacc wrote: post #23

CamperBob wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Few atheists are willing to really embrace the moral nihilism that a materialist philosophy seems to require. My dog does OK with a philosophy of pure materialism, I figure I can, too.

Unless your dog is uniquely talented, it is incapable of holding any philosophy, materialist or not.

And yet he doesn't kill and eat my family the moment I turn my back. He doesn't need philosophy as a source of morality, and he doesn't need faith... he only needs socialization.

Re: Beyond god and atheism: Why I am a 'possibilian'

#25

Post by joshuacc » Wed, Sep 29, 2010, 12:56 PM UTC

CamperBob wrote: post #24

joshuacc wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless your dog is uniquely talented, it is incapable of holding any philosophy, materialist or not.

And yet he doesn't kill and eat my family the moment I turn my back. He doesn't need philosophy as a source of morality, and he doesn't need faith... he only needs socialization.

I think you're confusing moral nihilism (the philosophical proposition) and moral/immoral behavior. The two are not directly correlated.

Re: Beyond god and atheism: Why I am a 'possibilian'

#26

Post by CamperBob » Fri, Oct 01, 2010, 6:14 AM UTC

joshuacc wrote: post #25

CamperBob wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And yet he doesn't kill and eat my family the moment I turn my back. He doesn't need philosophy as a source of morality, and he doesn't need faith... he only needs socialization.

I think you're confusing moral nihilism (the philosophical proposition) and moral/immoral behavior. The two are not directly correlated.

Perhaps; can you elaborate on the difference? What exactly would be the property of a social animal -- dogs, humans, whatever -- that allows it to restrain its own baser instincts? In humans the term morality is often used to describe this property, but I'll admit I don't know how correct that is.

Re: Beyond god and atheism: Why I am a 'possibilian'

#27

Post by joshuacc » Fri, Oct 01, 2010, 3:42 PM UTC

CamperBob wrote: post #26

joshuacc wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're confusing moral nihilism (the philosophical proposition) and moral/immoral behavior. The two are not directly correlated.

Perhaps; can you elaborate on the difference? What exactly would be the property of a social animal -- dogs, humans, whatever -- that allows it to restrain its own baser instincts? In humans the term morality is often used to describe this property, but I'll admit I don't know how correct that is.

Well, to cite Wikipedia, "Moral nihilism is the meta-ethical view that nothing is moral or immoral."

The primary opposing viewpoint is moral realism, which holds that statements like "Intentionally killing an innocent person is immoral" are both meaningful and capable of being evaluated as a truth claim.

In general, I believe the ability of a social animal to restrain "baser" instincts would be referred to as social cooperation. For humans, a moral realist would say that while morality is closely related, it also can't be reduced to merely social cooperation.

Re: Beyond god and atheism: Why I am a 'possibilian'

#28

Post by CamperBob » Tue, Oct 05, 2010, 6:16 AM UTC

joshuacc wrote: post #27

CamperBob wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps; can you elaborate on the difference? What exactly would be the property of a social animal -- dogs, humans, whatever -- that allows it to restrain its own baser instincts? In humans the term morality is often used to describe this property, but I'll admit I don't know how correct that is.

Well, to cite Wikipedia, "Moral nihilism is the meta-ethical view that nothing is moral or immoral." The primary opposing viewpoint is moral realism, which holds that statements like "Intentionally killing an innocent person is immoral" are both meaningful and capable of being evaluated as a truth claim. In general, I believe the ability of a social animal to restrain "baser" instincts would be referred to as social…

For humans, a moral realist would say that while morality is closely related, it also can't be reduced to merely social cooperation.

Sure, I'd buy that. But I will also stand by my assertion that what you're calling "social cooperation" is sufficient for a workable morality to emerge. At no point is there a necessity for religion.